MIT Researcher connects autism to glyphosate from Roundup

Posted by freedomforall 11 years, 7 months ago to Science
8 comments | Share | Flag

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto.
MIT page showing Dr. Seneff's credentials and extensive links to presentations and papers:
http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/

All Comments

  • Posted by $ root1657 11 years, 7 months ago
    Could it be that they aren't testing for the active ingredient in those herbicides because maybe they test for some other ingredient in it that is easier and cheaper to test for, which will still give them a valid result, without the extra expense?
    I know when we are out hunting, we often look for the footprints, not the bike marks.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ root1657 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    100% of the people who display signs of Autism are in fact producers of CO2, expelling measurable amounts with each breath. :)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 7 months ago in reply to this comment.
    When there are two things under study, and both are increasing over time, some observers are tempted to say that one controls the other. This control may be true, or not.

    When something appears to be increasing over time it may simply be that more effort is being put into identifying it, rather than it actually becoming more prevalent. This is often true of medical conditions where there are more medical practitioners, more diagnostic tests, and more people (as a proportion of the population) getting health care.
    When a growing condition is identified, whether it is truly growing in extent or is a statistical artifact as described, it is tempting to ascribe it to something else that is growing.

    The condition described as autism has been blamed on a number of things recently, Autism is not a disease that can be ascribed specific symptoms. It is hard to pin down, define, so the number of people having it depends on the definitions, questionnaires, and tests used. I expect to see autism being blamed on CO2 shortly.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 11 years, 7 months ago
    The technical term is 'reporting bias".
    The MIT Researcher is reported as a computer scientist who should be aware of systemic errors in statistics.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo