Monsanto and Autism - Half of all kids by 2025?

[Hoosier8]

Stephanie Seneff, a Senior Research Scientist at MIT, has released some intriguing research about the potential negative effects of Glyphosate (Roundup Weed-Killer). You can view her slide-show presentation here.

And you can find a more in-depth research paper here.

Her quote that seems to really garner the headlines:

“At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic,” Seneff said Thursday.

The evidence is not yet conclusive, in my opinion. But it is certainly troubling. I first researched this subject in a prior thread with research that indicated that environmental exposure to pesticides such as roundup was correlated with a 60% increase in the incidence of autism and other developmental disorders.

This graph shows a very strong correlation between glyphosate and autism diagnoses:

Note: Roundup-ready crops were introduced in 1996, causing a massive increase in the use of Roundup.

In her slideshow there are more graphs showing similar correlations to dementia, anxiety disorders, thyroid cancer, and even vaccine reactions. In addition, she presents her theories that explain the mechanisms of this damage caused by the poison in the human body, poking numerous holes in Monsanto's claims that it is non-toxic to humans.

Additionally, glyphosate levels are steadily rising in every food source, especially those fed to infants. A study found that American breast-milk had glyphosate levels 760-1600 times higher than what the European Drinking Water Directives allow. The large quantities of GMO corn and soy found in infant formulas ensures that bottle-fed babies receive huge doses of the pesticide as well.

The correlations are hard to ignore, but a causal link has not yet been completely established. I hope that more research in the future will shed some light on this, but Monsanto's influence on our government and the FDA makes it unlikely.

Note that the FDA and USDA do not currently test glyphosate levels in our food.

Stephanie Seneff does not do any actual science on this herself, this is all whatifs if you read closely. Her major was in Electrical Engineering. Her BS in Biophysics was in 68 and she just got back into this as an activist.

She can show no proof. Correlation does not imply causation.

Oh, no! GMOs are going to make everyone autistic!

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[cobber]

Is that popcorn glyphosate-free? Got GMOs?

 

[cobber]

At least one of Seneff's co-authored articles was published by Hindawi Publishing, a commercial journal publisher with over 400 titles. I am impressed that a computer scientist is also an expert on the effect of aluminum in food and vaccines, as well as the glyphosate biz.

Might be worth following up on the credibility of the journals and co-authors.

 

[steveh_131]

Stephanie Seneff does not do any actual science on this herself, this is all whatifs if you read closely. Her major was in Electrical Engineering. Her BS in Biophysics was in 68 and she just got back into this as an activist.

She can show no proof. Correlation does not imply causation.

Oh, no! GMOs are going to make everyone autistic!

Heh. Someone didn't read the thread!

 

[MisterChester]

Really interesting stuff. I know correlation does not imply causation, I think it's hard to deny that they are linked at some level. We need to stop putting crap into our food that could potentially be harming us. I want to enjoy a baconater without worrying about making my kid autistic!

 

[steveh_131]

Stephanie Seneff is exquisitely qualified to crunch numbers related to biological indicators. It has been her specialty for 30 years.

"For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions."

Her other research paper made a case for the actual biological mechanisms by which Roundup could cause this damage. I'll agree that she is relatively new to this particular field (7 years), but every fact that she used to build this case is independently verifiable. Of course, nobody here read it.

Also, let's keep in mind that MIT continues to fund her research, which tells me that people closely involved in her work must believe she is qualified.

Of course, the most interesting statistical evidence, that nobody read, was presented here. These were the authors, with appropriate credentials:

Janie F. Shelton,1 Estella M. Geraghty,2 Daniel J. Tancredi,3,4 Lora D. Delwiche,1 Rebecca J.
Schmidt,1 Beate Ritz,5 Robin L. Hansen,3,6 and Irva Hertz-Picciotto 1,6
1 Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA;
2 Division of General Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis,
Sacramento, California, USA; 3 Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of
California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA; 4 Center for Healthcare Policy and Research,
School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA; 5
Departments of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Sciences and Neurology, Fielding School
of Public Health and School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California, USA; 6 UC Davis Medical Investigations of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND)
Institute, Sacramento, California, USA

 

[Hoosier8]

Stephanie Seneff is exquisitely qualified to crunch numbers related to biological indicators. It has been her specialty for 30 years.

"For over three decades, her research interests have always been at the intersection of biology and computation: developing a computational model for the human auditory system, understanding human language so as to develop algorithms and systems for human computer interactions, as well as applying natural language processing (NLP) techniques to gene predictions."

Her other research paper made a case for the actual biological mechanisms by which Roundup could cause this damage. I'll agree that she is relatively new to this particular field (7 years), but every fact that she used to build this case is independently verifiable. Of course, nobody here read it.

Also, let's keep in mind that MIT continues to fund her research, which tells me that people closely involved in her work must believe she is qualified.

Of course, the most interesting statistical evidence, that nobody read, was presented here. These were the authors, with appropriate credentials:

Janie F. Shelton,1 Estella M. Geraghty,2 Daniel J. Tancredi,3,4 Lora D. Delwiche,1 Rebecca J.
Schmidt,1 Beate Ritz,5 Robin L. Hansen,3,6 and Irva Hertz-Picciotto 1,6
1 Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, Davis, California, USA;
2 Division of General Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis,
Sacramento, California, USA; 3 Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, University of
California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA; 4 Center for Healthcare Policy and Research,
School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, California, USA; 5
Departments of Epidemiology, Environmental Health Sciences and Neurology, Fielding School
of Public Health and School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles,
California, USA; 6 UC Davis Medical Investigations of Neurodevelopmental Disorders (MIND)
Institute, Sacramento, California, USA

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. What she has to do is prove her claims. I can crunch numbers and show that the reduction in solar cycles corresponds directly to the increase in Autism.

 

[steveh_131]

Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. What she has to do is prove her claims. I can crunch numbers and show that the reduction in solar cycles corresponds directly to the increase in Autism.

Are you serious with this? I'm not "appealing to authority". She wrote an entire paper full of facts to back up her argument.

I presented that argument with very little regard to her credentials. The only logical fallacy taking place is to assume that her evidence is wrong because she only has 7 years experience in the field.

 

[Hoosier8]

Are you serious with this? I'm not "appealing to authority". She wrote an entire paper full of facts to back up her argument.

I presented that argument with very little regard to her credentials. The only logical fallacy taking place is to assume that her evidence is wrong because she only has 7 years experience in the field.

I didn't say any evidence is wrong, there is no evidence other than correlation but what she has done is make a lot of whatifs based on other people's research and with no science of her own to back up her claims other than crunching numbers. She needs to prove her hypothesis but right now it is only that, an hypothesis. It is not fact nor is it fiction, it is something that would have to be falsified by other scientists (what science is all about) and if it cannot be falsified it could move on to being more seriously considered.

What experiment has she provided to prove her hypothesis?

 

[steveh_131]

I didn't say any evidence is wrong, there is no evidence other than correlation but what she has done is make a lot of whatifs based on other people's research and with no science of her own to back up her claims other than crunching numbers. She needs to prove her hypothesis but right now it is only that, an hypothesis. It is not fact nor is it fiction, it is something that would have to be falsified by other scientists (what science is all about) and if it cannot be falsified it could move on to being more seriously considered.

What experiment has she provided to prove her hypothesis?

Are you suggesting that statistical analysis is not a valid scientific methodology?

You would require that she feed Roundup to children and pregnant mothers and watch for brain damage?

These methods are used successfully in all sorts of research.

In the case of the other study from UC Davis, the experiment was the farmers spraying Roundup and the residents living near it.

If you reject all statistical analysis as scientific research then we don't have much to discuss. Might as well move on.

 

[Hoosier8]

Are you suggesting that statistical analysis is not a valid scientific methodology?

You would require that she feed Roundup to children and pregnant mothers and watch for brain damage?

These methods are used successfully in all sorts of research.

In the case of the other study from UC Davis, the experiment was the farmers spraying Roundup and the residents living near it.

If you reject all statistical analysis as scientific research then we don't have much to discuss. Might as well move on.

Like I said, I can show you where the reduction in solar cycles can directly correspond to Autism. There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Sorry but hers is less a study and more an essay full of 'We surmise', 'this could be a factor' and then there is 'We develop a novel hypothesis'. That is all it is, a novel hypothesis but it is not fact nor has she proposed any experiment to prove the 'novel hypothesis'. To me it is more an exercise in mental masturbation that has made the rounds in the green and liberal publications where the big bad Monsanto is usually demonized without any proof.

 

[rambone]

You would require that she feed Roundup to children and pregnant mothers and watch for brain damage?

Yes. Remove all outside variables and show us a study performed on a colony of humans in a laboratory. Until then, we'll be waiting, and eating Roundup.

 

[steveh_131]

Like I said, I can show you where the reduction in solar cycles can directly correspond to Autism. There are three kinds of lies, Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics.

Sorry but hers is less a study and more an essay full of 'We surmise', 'this could be a factor' and then there is 'We develop a novel hypothesis'. That is all it is, a novel hypothesis but it is not fact nor has she proposed any experiment to prove the 'novel hypothesis'. To me it is more an exercise in mental masturbation that has made the rounds in the green and liberal publications where the big bad Monsanto is usually demonized without any proof.

Much of hers explained the theory. The study from UC Davis provided the more interesting correlation. The two come together to form some interesting evidence, that is why I posted them both.

If you disagree with her theory, let's discuss why.

If you disagree with he statistics showing increased autism incidences based on proximity to Roundup, then let's discuss the uncontrolled variables.

Your uninformed conjecture is getting us nowhere.

Yes. Remove all outside variables and show us a study performed on a colony of humans in a laboratory. Until then, we'll be waiting, and eating Roundup.

How very "skeptical" of you.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

Are you suggesting that statistical analysis is not a valid scientific methodology?

You would require that she feed Roundup to children and pregnant mothers and watch for brain damage?

These methods are used successfully in all sorts of research.

In the case of the other study from UC Davis, the experiment was the farmers spraying Roundup and the residents living near it.

If you reject all statistical analysis as scientific research then we don't have much to discuss. Might as well move on.

the one issue i have with this study is the catchment area used for the study was "a 2-hr drive from the Sacramento area" which includes silicon valley. that area is known for its higher than normal autism rates, which has been researched extensively and attributed to genetics (see link). while the role of pesticides in autism may very well warrant further research, i feel the geographic area chosen for research does have other variables that need to be considered.
http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2012_BC 2012_SciAm.pdf

on a side note about correlations, i recall from an undergraduate beginning psych class text that in a study of motorcycle riders, the strongest predictor of a rider having had an accident was the number of tattoos he or she had. just mentioned to reiterate your point about correlation =/= causation.

 

[steveh_131]

the one issue i have with this study is the catchment area used for the study was "a 2-hr drive from the Sacramento area" which includes silicon valley. that area is known for its higher than normal autism rates, which has been researched extensively and attributed to genetics (see link). while the role of pesticides in autism may very well warrant further research, i feel the geographic area chosen for research does have other variables that need to be considered.
http://docs.autismresearchcentre.com/papers/2012_BC 2012_SciAm.pdf

on a side note about correlations, i recall from an undergraduate beginning psych class text that in a study of motorcycle riders, the strongest predictor of a rider having had an accident was the number of tattoos he or she had. just mentioned to reiterate your point about correlation =/= causation.

A good point. Perhaps the population there already had a higher incidence. Let's assume that it does:

How does that explain the variation, within that same population, that occurs in direct proportion to the proximity to agricultural sources of Roundup?

 

[Hammer]

No one understands Autism or why it hits kids. But to speculate (that's what this nut job is doing) is asinine and nothing more than a witch hunt for a business with big pockets. Her similarities in charts is way over rated, same can be said with the correlation with autism rates and mandatory vaccinations.



Check that chart with the one posted in the original post and tell me they are not similar.

A with hunt has been on for years against Monsanto and "Round Up". But no mention of "Rodeo" or "Accord" product names by Dow Agro. Wonder why that is?

I agree that more studies need to be done with what is causing the increased rates of all childhood diseases, but we should take a look first at who is funding the "Research and studies" and their political agenda.

 

[hoosierdaddy1976]

A good point. Perhaps the population there already had a higher incidence. Let's assume that it does:

How does that explain the variation, within that same population, that occurs in direct proportion to the proximity to agricultural sources of Roundup?

pure speculation on my part, but i would assume that in such a population dense area, those with the financial means (which in this geographic area tend to be genetically predisposed to autism) are more likely to move out of the city and are closer to farmland and potential exposure to pesticides. of course this can't be proven with the information at hand, but it seems plausible to me.

 

[steveh_131]

A with hunt has been on for years against Monsanto and "Round Up". But no mention of "Rodeo" or "Accord" product names by Dow Agro. Wonder why that is?

I agree that more studies need to be done with what is causing the increased rates of all childhood diseases, but we should take a look first at who is funding the "Research and studies" and their political agenda.

Actually, the UC Davis study included a wide variety of pesticides. You won't find the words "Monsanto" or "Roundup" anywhere in it. Monsantos Roundup happens to be the lost well know and widely used Glyphosate, which is why they've been discussed in this thread. You'd have know this if you had actually read anything that you're currently commenting on.

pure speculation on my part, but i would assume that in such a population dense area, those with the financial means (which in this geographic area tend to be genetically predisposed to autism) are more likely to move out of the city and are closer to farmland and potential exposure to pesticides. of course this can't be proven with the information at hand, but it seems plausible to me.

I can't remember if the study controlled for financial information, but that is a valid point. I'll double check it and see.

Do you have a source that finances have some correlation? I've never seen that statistic. Or that families closer to agricultural sites are wealthier? You'd really need to demonstrate both to make this point.

Everybody should take note: this is how you point out a possible uncontrolled variable in research. He just made the very first argument that actually made sense.

 

[cobber]

Actually, the UC Davis study included a wide variety of pesticides. You won't find the words "Monsanto" or "Roundup" anywhere in it. Monsantos Roundup happens to be the lost well know and widely used Glyphosate, which is why they've been discussed in this thread. You'd have know this if you had actually read anything that you're currently commenting on.



I can't remember if the study controlled for financial information, but that is a valid point. I'll double check it and see.

Do you have a source that finances have some correlation? I've never seen that statistic. Or that families closer to agricultural sites are wealthier? You'd really need to demonstrate both to make this point.

Everybody should take note: this is how you point out a possible uncontrolled variable in research. He just made the very first argument that actually made sense.

Lots of the responses to this thread made sense, but you just did not want to acknowledge that.