Seneff declares glyphosphate is the cause of celiac epidemic

Feel free to discuss any topic of general interest, so long as nothing you post here is likely to be interpreted as insulting, and/or inflammatory, nor clearly designed to provoke any individual or group. Please be considerate of others feelings, and they will be considerate of yours.

Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh

Post Reply
User avatar
Zizzle
King Penguin
King Penguin
Posts: 3492
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:47 am

Seneff declares glyphosphate is the cause of celiac epidemic

Post by Zizzle »

This research is huge, if it's good. Glyphosphate is the chemical in Roundup, the herbicide used primarily on GMO crops, but apparently also on wheat, sugar cane, and other crops. Homeowners still use it for garden weeds too.

These researchers better watch their backs...

http://nhrighttoknowgmo.org/BreakingNew ... Seneff.pdf
ABSTRACT
Celiac disease, and, more generally, gluten intolerance, is a growing problem worldwide, but especially in North America and Europe, where an estimated 5% of the population now suffers from it. Symptoms include nausea, diarrhea, skin rashes, macrocytic anemia and depression. It is a multifactorial disease associated with numerous nutritional deficiencies as well as reproductive issues and increased risk to thyroid disease, kidney failure and cancer. Here, we propose that glyphosate, the active ingredient in the herbicide, Roundup®, is the most important causal factor in this epidemic. Fish exposed to glyphosate develop digestive problems that are reminiscent of celiac disease. Celiac disease is associated with imbalances in gut bacteria that can be fully explained by the known effects of glyphosate on gut bacteria. Characteristics of celiac disease point to impairment in many cytochrome P450 enzymes, which are involved with detoxifying environmental toxins, activating vitamin D3, catabolizing vitamin A, and maintaining bile acid production and sulfate supplies to the gut. Glyphosate is known to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzymes. Deficiencies in iron, cobalt, molybdenum, copper and other rare metals associated with celiac disease can be attributed to glyphosate’s strong ability to chelate these elements. Deficiencies in tryptophan, tyrosine, methionine and selenomethionine associated with celiac disease match glyphosate’s known depletion of these amino acids. Celiac disease patients have an increased risk to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which has also been implicated in glyphosate exposure. Reproductive issues associated with celiac disease, such as infertility, miscarriages, and birth defects, can also be explained by glyphosate. Glyphosate residues in wheat and other crops are likely increasing recently due to the growing practice of crop desiccation just prior to the harvest. We argue that the practice of “ripening” sugar cane with glyphosate may explain the recent surge in kidney failure among agricultural workers in Central America. We conclude with a plea to governments to reconsider policies regarding the safety of glyphosate residues in foods.
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
gluten
Rockhopper Penguin
Rockhopper Penguin
Posts: 512
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 7:15 pm

Post by gluten »

Hi Zizzle, Great post. The only question is " how long has been glyposphate been used ". Jon
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35072
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Hi Zizzle,

As you know, I have been a fan of Stephanie Seneff's research for some time. That's an interesting article, but there are at least a couple of things about it that bother me. First off (as noted in your quote), she specifically singles out wheat (it's the only grain specifically named in the abstract), and as any farmer can tell you, while Monsanto has been conducting experimental trials with roundup-resistant wheat, no commercial seed is available, so the use of roundup on wheat is a very limited market — compared with corn, for example, it's only a tiny percentage of the market for Roundup. Roundup very effectively and efficiently kills wheat, at any stage of growth, so no farmer in his right mind would put Roundup on wheat unless he intended to do just that — kill it. Roundup-ready corn, by comparison, has been commonly available in the food supply for many years. So why in the world would she ignore corn to specifically focus on wheat instead? She apparently must feel that the evidence in wheat is more convincing (for her agenda), so she picked wheat, even though it's a very poor source of representative data. To say that this apparently intentional circumvention of unbiased science practices shakes my faith in her credibility, is putting it mildly. Maybe that is the reason behind the second issue I have with the paper — it was published by a relatively obscure Polish organization, rather than by a prestigious medical journal. Huh!

Of course it's certainly possible that just as you imply, no conventional publisher would touch it for fear of incurring the wrath of Monsanto, but it's more likely that they wouldn't touch it because of the questionable science. :shrug:

Her charts seem impressive, but the problem is that they are not representative of real world events. Sure application to wheat (as a harvest aid) increased significantly during the past 10 years, but that's because prior to that, it was virtually non-existent. She plots pounds of application by year, to get a nice, neat looking curve. Why didn't she use something actually meaningful, such as acres treated per year? Probably because that absolute number is quite small, and on a percentage of overall grain production basis, even more insignificant, and because of that, it's pretty much irrelevant to the subject at hand.

To plot the number of deaths associated with digestive issues against glyphosate usage is not only irrelevant, but clearly a pathetic effort to sensationalize the issue by citing irrelevant data to promote her agenda. That's sad science. Well, actually, it's not science — it's strictly politics, and it has no place in science. Why didn't she plot those deaths against the use of soy over the past few decades, or against the additives and preservatives used in processed foods, or the increase in the use of PPIs, statins, antibiotiocs, anti-depressants, etc., all of which correlate just as well with the trend noted in her graph, and all of which cause digestive issues? The answer is because those correlations obviously didn't help to promote her agenda.

The group that has been subjected to more glyphosate exposure than any other people in the world, is farmers, and they have been almost-continually exposed to it for decades now. So if her theory is correct, then farmers should be the center of the celiac universe by now. But are they? Not that I'm aware. I'm the only one I know of, personally. I'm sure that there are others besides me scattered all over the countryside (with the same diagnostic rate as the general public), but I know a lot of farmers, and if any in my circle of acquaintances are celiacs, they have done a good job of keeping it a secret.

That said, it's certainly not impossible that she might be onto something, but she has a weird way of trying to prove it, doesn't she. :lol:

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35072
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

Jon,

As you may know, I'm a farmer, and I started using glyphosate when it first became available, back in the 1970s. It has been used in commercial agricultural production for over 40 years now.

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
User avatar
Zizzle
King Penguin
King Penguin
Posts: 3492
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 9:47 am

Post by Zizzle »

Well, Seneff's first paper on this topic got a lot of criticism for being pseudoscience:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/colli ... wTiLGJdX11

Here's the paper:
http://www.gmoevidence.com/wp-content/u ... f-13-1.pdf
Review
Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases
Her open-access publisher is also suspect, as are most of them:
http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/05/16/more- ... sher-mdpi/
1987 Mononucleosis (EBV)
2004 Hypomyopathic Dermatomyositis
2009 Lymphocytic Colitis
2010 GF/DF/SF Diet
2014 Low Dose Naltrexone
User avatar
tex
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 35072
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 9:00 am
Location: Central Texas

Post by tex »

I recall reading that earlier article. Otherwise, it's interesting speculation. :lol:

Thanks.

Tex
:cowboy:

It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Post Reply

Return to “Main Message Board”