Glyphosate herbicides are looking more and more suspicious

[Forebearance]

Dr. Mercola just posted this article on his website. It seems to me like herbicides made with glyphosate are very suscipious as potential suspects in contributing to the rise in ME/CFS and Autism.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...0523Z1_UCM_B&et_cid=DM214409&et_rid=313252181

 

[h3ro]

Think I'll wait until this is reported by someone more reputable.

 

[Remy]

I agree. Dr Zach Bush is very credible to me, with his triple board certification and obvious love of learning. Also, I live in farm country and can see the soil devastation from monoculture farming with my own eyes.

http://www.corebrainjournal.com/2017/12/175-restore-earth-gut-brain-connections-bush/

I also find Dr Huber from Purdue University a very credible source.

https://blog.bulletproof.com/don-huber-318/

 

[Not dead yet!]

I think in general it's not a good thing that controversial topics get siloed into "pro" arguments go on these websites.... "con" arguments go on these websites. It's too easy then for each silo to criticize the other for not being "reputable." It's a kind of ad hominem attack carried out against websites who talk about things we disagree with. Reading an opposing viewpoint has not yet changed anyone's mind. If you don't' believe me, email someone who holds a strong opinion some opposing literature and see if they switch.

Also the pro/con silo theory means that there's a false inflation of sites that are deemed neutral and always true such as Pubmed. Pubmed can only be effectively read by very few people compared to Mercola's website. But I have yet to see the Mercola site misrepresent an article found in Pubmed, when they mention it. And Pubmed has a lot of yet-undiscovered bogus articles in it with falsified data. So are we going to claim it's "not reputable"? No, we're going to use our critical thinking, like we always have to no matter what we're reading.

At its root, the reason so many alternatives are springing up everywhere is that, modern medicine has kicked too many promising theories to the curb, before they were fully considered, and then they act like it's heresy or stupidity to even discuss it. But when I say "they" what I'm thinking is, it's usually the people who also believe that all chemicals are alike and post stuff on "medium.com" and other places, to try and prove it. They also overuse the phrases "evidence based" and "there is no evidence that..." to try and discredit opposing viewpoints. When that's not enough, they try and force the retraction of evidence.

We really should come up with a behavior pattern for this, kind of like,we have a behavior definition of what a cult is. It took me over a decade to notice just this much, and reading articles on spotting bias really helped. But this is kind of specific to online medical topics.

 

[maggie]

I think in general it's not a good thing that controversial topics get siloed into "pro" arguments go on these websites.... "con" arguments go on these websites. It's too easy then for each silo to criticize the other for not being "reputable." It's a kind of ad hominem attack carried out against websites who talk about things we disagree with. Reading an opposing viewpoint has not yet changed anyone's mind. If you don't' believe me, email someone who holds a strong opinion some opposing literature and see if they switch.

Also the pro/con silo theory means that there's a false inflation of sites that are deemed neutral and always true such as Pubmed. Pubmed can only be effectively read by very few people compared to Mercola's website. But I have yet to see the Mercola site misrepresent an article found in Pubmed, when they mention it. And Pubmed has a lot of yet-undiscovered bogus articles in it with falsified data. So are we going to claim it's "not reputable"? No, we're going to use our critical thinking, like we always have to no matter what we're reading.

At its root, the reason so many alternatives are springing up everywhere is that, modern medicine has kicked too many promising theories to the curb, before they were fully considered, and then they act like it's heresy or stupidity to even discuss it. But when I say "they" what I'm thinking is, it's usually the people who also believe that all chemicals are alike and post stuff on "medium.com" and other pla ces, to try and prove it. They also overuse the phrases "evidence based" and "there is no evidence that..." to try and discredit opposing viewpoints. When that's not enough, they try and force the retraction of evidence.

We really should come up with a behavior pattern for this, kind of like,we have a behavior definition of what a cult is. It took me over a decade to notice just this much, and reading articles on spotting bias really helped. But this is kind of specific to online medical topics.

 

[maggie]

Yes! I agree. It has taken me 10+ years to wade through research on both fibromyalgia and chronic vestibular dysfunction(s) to actually compare and become able to discern wheat from chaff and to recognize ways in which "theories" can be massaged and partially and therefore misleadingly managed to create/promote ? a new drug/therapy. Exhausting work but what else can we do? Keep questioning.

 

[Apo Sci]

The research I've seen says high glyphosate GMO meat and grains causes:

1. Fatty liver disease
2. Impaired gut bacteria (depression, vitamin K2)
3. Higher inflammation (ie. covid morbidity & mortality)

I avoid and minimize them. Glycine supplement before eating them also help protect from absorbing glyphosate.