Any one have Round-up shares?

[Woodman]

Oh no, not the baby deer?

I thought Bamboo was Yogi Bears little friend?

[nzspokes]

I thought Bamboo was Yogi Bears little friend?

If he is for hire Im interested. As long as he can eat a lot of Bamboo.

[TheDemonLord]

Activist pseudo science.

Resistance is always something to be monitored but if you had a problem the last thing you'd do is pour more of the same thing on. There's literally hundreds of herbicides to choose from.

And a hundred times more toxic than not toxic is what precisely?

One of these tests focused on the spreader/penetrant in Roundup which was a detergent/soap derived from an organic base... naturally if you bathe foetal cells in a solution of this it's going to disrupt the fats in the cell walls... maybe you should stop covering yourself in bubbles every evening? Or in Katman's case cut down on the pumice and goose fat.

I wouldn't be so quick to call it pseudo science - I did a bit more digging:

The lead author is working at Kings College in London (not renowned for Pseudo science) - his profile is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Mesnage - 30 publications and over 400 Citations, most in the last 2 years.

Interestingly enough, the main paper I cited HAS been retracted (wasn't listed on the original article, nor in any of the articles that cited it, so I missed it) however the Retraction statement is interesting, particularly this excerpt:

Ultimately, the results presented (while not incorrect) are inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication for Food and Chemical Toxicology.

Full retraction statement is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691512005637 which can be summarised by saying that the sample size of rats tested was not large enough to be able to determine between the naturally occurring rates of disease compared to the rates found in the study.

[carbonhed]

I wouldn't be so quick to call it pseudo science - I did a bit more digging:

The lead author is working at Kings College in London (not renowned for Pseudo science) - his profile is here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robin_Mesnage - 30 publications and over 400 Citations, most in the last 2 years.

Interestingly enough, the main paper I cited HAS been retracted (wasn't listed on the original article, nor in any of the articles that cited it, so I missed it) however the Retraction statement is interesting, particularly this excerpt:



Full retraction statement is here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...78691512005637 which can be summarised by saying that the sample size of rats tested was not large enough to be able to determine between the naturally occurring rates of disease compared to the rates found in the study.

Reading further into your links I'd say "activist pseudo science" is bang on the money. It's the same crew associated with Seralini and it's just garbage research. Check out some of the letters WRT the retraction for a more detailed description of it's limitations.

Love to know who is funding the "research".

[tri boy]

Forget glyo for having any effects on people.
Try a good dose of Ripcord for a mind numbing thrill.
Just blasted a big ol wasp nest with it.
Neurol toxin is the shizz.

Fucked them all up in about 30secs.

[F5 Dave]

Has anyone seen some boobs? Like in real life?

[puddytat]

Reading further into your links I'd say "activist pseudo science" is bang on the money. It's the same crew associated with Seralini and it's just garbage research. Check out some of the letters WRT the retraction for a more detailed description of it's limitations.

Love to know who is funding the "research".

Seralini gets some of his funding from crowd sourcing......where do you get yours?

Just watched an ADR documentary from Germany about Glyphosphate which also pointed out that its not only that in Roundup, but it is a cocktail of other deadlier chemicals as well...but it was on RT so no doubt its a load of socialist greenie new age activist pseudo science propaganda.

[eldog]

Has anyone seen some boobs? Like in real life?

Breast cancer sucks

[F5 Dave]

Jeez you're a downer tonight.

[eldog]

Had a crap day at work, worked all day today till 6.30 to help customer out.
now having to work tomorrow for what I planned today.

now I miss out on the Coro loop and yes it been a while since I have seen boobS

[TheDemonLord]

Had a crap day at work, worked all day today till 6.30 to help customer out.
now having to work tomorrow for what I planned today.

now I miss out on the Coro loop and yes it been a while since I have seen boobS

http://images.lmgtfy.com/?q=naked+boobs

You are welcome

[TheDemonLord]

Reading further into your links I'd say "activist pseudo science" is bang on the money. It's the same crew associated with Seralini and it's just garbage research. Check out some of the letters WRT the retraction for a more detailed description of it's limitations.

Love to know who is funding the "research".

I disagree with the title of Activist Pseudo Science:

1: Research was done at a reputable institution
2: The research was published in a peer review paper
3: Upon further critique, the research team complied and submitted all their Raw data for analysis
4: The review indicated that although the results were inconclusive due to insufficient sample sizes, the data was not incorrect.

These are not the halmarks of Pseudo Science - which include Lack of openess, unwillingness to submit to scrutiny/peer review etc.

You might call this sloppy science or poor science, but IMO it doesn't meet the requirements of being labelled Pseudo science.

I'll even concede that looking at the other papers published by some of the scientists that either they have an acute interest in Roundup or they have an Axe to grind

[carbonhed]

I disagree with the title of Activist Pseudo Science:

1: Research was done at a reputable institution
2: The research was published in a peer review paper
3: Upon further critique, the research team complied and submitted all their Raw data for analysis
4: The review indicated that although the results were inconclusive due to insufficient sample sizes, the data was not incorrect.

These are not the halmarks of Pseudo Science - which include Lack of openess, unwillingness to submit to scrutiny/peer review etc.

You might call this sloppy science or poor science, but IMO it doesn't meet the requirements of being labelled Pseudo science.

I'll even concede that looking at the other papers published by some of the scientists that either they have an acute interest in Roundup or they have an Axe to grind

All right... sheesh. It's sloppy, poor and they've got an axe to grind... you win!

[TheDemonLord]

All right... sheesh. It's sloppy, poor and they've got an axe to grind... you win!

I see the words 'might' and 'either' escape your notice.....

[carbonhed]

I see the words 'might' and 'either' escape your notice.....

"Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of The Lancet, has written bleakly: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”

Have you not heard these rumblings?

We shouldn't be giving these scumbags the benefit of "might" or "either". They should be ridiculed.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinio...cle4705093.ece