Hacker News Reader

Comment by DiabloD3 | Hacker News Reader

Relevantish studies: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22331240 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28185844 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1532045614...

And the worst one of all: https://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/2016/Glyphosate_V_glycin...

So yeah, not only does it cause cancer, it causes a wide range of diseases: literally any one that can be caused by protein misassembly in ways that the body can't easily clear the protein (or if it does, the glyphosate can end up being reused instead of flushed out of your body) can be linked to this.

So, in around 5 years, if they come out with a study that Autism is caused by, or greatly enhanced by, glyphosate exposure in utero or during nursing (glyphosate concentrations are extremely high in breast milk in mothers exposed to the chemical), I will not be surprised whatsoever.

View on HN

Paper 1: 'no cytotoxic effects at concentrations at or below 100 μM' -- A non trivial amount.

(Sorry don't have the full text for the others)

And your 'worst one of all' is a joke of a paper. Its a review and begs the question that glycophosphate is substituting an amino acid.

Its presupposition that ” Glyphosate is a glycine molecule with a methyl-phosphonyl group bound to the nitrogen atom. As an analogue of glycine, it can be expected to displace glycine at random points in the protein synthesis process, with unknown consequences.

Demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the specificity of the ribosomes and enzymes/proteins in general.

Of course they have no actual evidence - say isolating glycophosphate substituted proteins? Fairly easy to do as normal proteins do not contain phosphorous, or it could be via C13 labeling of the what would be the glycine residue.

To say nothing that its quoting studies dosing the equivalent (10mg+/kg) of having a person do literal shots of herbicide.

Everything (except e-caprolactam, go figure) causes cancer, and most everything will kill you if you have enough of it. Hell the IARC has glycophosphate in the same category as red meat and drinking beverages warmer than 65C. They've also classified cell phones as 'possibly carcinogenic to humans'. http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf

It is really worth emphasizing just how bad the last paper ("the worst of all") is. It does not contain a single piece of actual data, there are no experiments there, only wild hypotheses.

There isn't a single piece of evidence in that paper, the authors simply assume that glyphosate can subvert one of the most important mechanisms in the cell and change any protein that contains glycine.

What kills this hypothesis entirely is that glyphosate is a glycine with a modification on the amino group. That is the part of the amino acid that is used to make the connection to the previous one in a protein. This kind of modification makes it impossible for it to be incorporated into a protein by a peptide bond.

The journal also does not seem trustworthy, it doesn't seem to be indexed in Pubmed, which is a very, very bad sign. Why would a scientist publish in a journal that none of their colleagues could easily find? In this area of science, every journal worth reading (and some more) are indexed in Pubmed. It also seems to only publish ~3 papers per issue.

The paper I linked to seems to be the 5th in a series of papers. The second one in this series I found on PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/

You seem confident that you know more than the authors of the papers referenced. Since you're obviously passionate about this topic, what are your qualifications and where do you do research? Have you studied this subject specifically and can you share any of your own research?

If you use Seneff's paper as proof of glyphosate's harmful effects, it probably means you have no idea how to distinguish good science from junk science.

I've yet to see anyone publish a paper refuting their work, or even something as minor as a blog entry from a trustworthy science blog.

Where was this in the comments from yesterday about the California glyphosate listing? Would have liked to have seen these articles there. Going to have to read them a bit more and then get back to you.

Yeah, sorry about that, it could have been useful there.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com