“However, I admit a certain sympathy for farmers…”

« I admit, however, a certain sympathy for the farmers… »

Jose David

I had the curiosity to release the last Nexus from the second shelf at my newsstand. As you can see, I was interested in seeing the entire cover.

The bimonthly, Nexus ? « Real exception in the press not because it’s ad-free:

« NEXUS magazine is a 112-page bimonthly (without !) committed to news that resonates with the world’s major challenges and humanity’s major questions. Located in the blind spots of traditional media, our subjects explore angles that are sometimes taboo, often incomplete or even misunderstood. »

In fact, there are two articles in this issue: Glyphosate, an orchestrated global poisoning » by Mr. Luc-Thierry Rossi and « Gluten intolerance: is glyphosate to blame? » by Mrs. Sandra Franrenet.

It browses the best delusional and conspiratorial sources. French, whom we will not mention, or Americans like Anthony Samsel, Stephanie Seneff and Nancy Swanson.

Among them, another wonder » published in June 2017 by The Conversation« Health and environmental impacts of glyphosate, what the science says by Mr. Noureddine Benkeblia, Professor of Crop Science, Department of Life Sciences, University of the West Indies, Mona Campus.

When you read that ” [l]The toxic effects on fauna prove to be more important than on plants », you have no trouble understanding the extent of the damage.

The article was heavily commented on – read: cut to pieces. The author, however, had the audacity to write in response to criticism:

« This article is neither a research article nor a commentary, but a summary article which precisely highlights the controversy on glyphosates. The answer to your question is in the very title of this article. »

In the comments, there was one that caught my attention. I the ‘ borrow to its author.

Once once more this article which claims to speak in the name of ” la science » makes the classic error (but unforgivable for those who write an article on these subjects) of continually confusing DANGER with RISK. And I once once more draw the attention of the drafting committee to this point. Glyphosate, like any active substance, is ACTIVE and has effects that no one denies on soils, plants (that’s why we use it), animals and people. It is almost certain that if you drink a bowl of it every morning, it will harm your health. It is therefore a dangerous product (like almost all artificial or natural active substances such as nicotine, alcohol and essential oils for example). YES glyphosate is most likely “ potentially carcinogenic »as solar radiation is “ certainly “carcinogenic, as tigers are” certainly “dangerous for man, as you are” potentially” an assassin if you have a knife in your kitchen. But should we ban glyphosate, make full bodysuits with dark glasses compulsory to avoid any exposure to the sun and euthanize all the tigers and the author of this article (who, I remind you, is ” potentially criminal )? The REAL question that REAL scientists must answer is: what is the risk involved in each type of use of glyphosate and what is the risk-benefit ratio of this use?

YOU’RE RIGHT, studies on risk (not on danger!), so ” much more in-depth studies aimed at obtaining reliable data on the direct and indirect effects of these products on living organisms, the environment and humans are desirable, but under their conditions of use (not if you drink a bowl of them at breakfast). Are they urgent? Given the time since which we massive use of glyphosate in agriculture » (initially with much larger doses), and during which no significant health effects have been reported, the risk, if any, is ” certainly very weak and the risk-benefit ratio (the only relevant question for legislating on the product) is probably very positive, but let’s study to have a certain answer!

The parallel you draw with DDT at the end of the article is very relevant, very significant and very interesting. And you should seriously study it.

Indeed, DDT, which you cite and which earned the Nobel Prize in MEDICINE! to its discoverer as an insecticide in 1949, was ” recognized as dangerous “. But by whom? By ill-informed politicians (or who did not want to displease their voters), by the media always fond of catastrophism and therefore in structural conflict of interest with scientific truth if it is reassuring and who have misinterpreted (deliberately?) scientific data (like today for glyphosate), which led to great pressure on health agencies. But not by scientists! Who still explain today that DDT is only very slightly toxic for humans at high doses, and harmless at the useful doses used (because it continues to be used as a spray inside houses in certain malarial countries with more than 90% efficiency). It was banned by the same politicians in the 1970s (in 1972 for the majority of countries “ riches in which malaria had been eradicated (thanks to DDT) and which therefore no longer needed it) and banned in 2001 not by theOMSbut speak United Nations Environment Program despite the protest on 1^is December 2000 by 406 scientists from 63 countries, including three Nobel Prize winners (it’s rare enough to be cited) and which I advise everyone to read (http://malaria.org). This appeal has fortunately been (somewhat) heard and the ban includes an exemption clause for countries that wish to do so. If the massive spreading of DDT (of the type ” Death on the heels “) has demonstrated negative effects on the environment (but once more, the question is the risk-benefit ratio and if to eradicate malaria in an area and avoid millions of deaths there is an environmental degradation which will take regarding ten years to recover almost completely, should we do it or let it die?). The reasoned use (apart from mass spreading) of DDT, on the other hand, does not present any proven serious danger either for humans or for the environment (and therefore no risk) but is on the other hand very effective in combating diseases which have vector insects (malaria, chikungunya, etc.). The prohibition of DDT was made on the dangers of the massive spreading (moreover very overestimated). But the real question is once once more: what is the RISK induced by the reasoned use of DDT and what is the risk-benefit ratio of this use? Explicitly, the question is: should we allow the death of almost 3 million people (including many children) per year in the world from diseases such as malaria or chikungunya, by our refusal to use DDT, the only action proven harmful is to reduce the thickness of the eggshells of certain raptors??? For now, given your approach and your reasoning, your answer is yes.

Disclosure of interests: I do not work for, advise on, own shares in, or receive funds from any organization that might benefit from this comment. But I also have no sympathy or any particular philosophical or political connection for any of the actors mentioned and in particular no sympathy for Monsanto. However, I confess a certain sympathy for the farmers who are doing their best throughout the world to feed humanity (who are the great forgotten ones in the article and some of whom will be driven to suicide by the ban on glyphosate), as well as than for the millions of people who indirectly risk starving to death for the same reason. I remind you that unlike journalists who systematically have an interest in favoring a presentation ” scandalous information rather than objective information, and to politicians who systematically have an interest in saying what their constituents want to hear rather than the scientific truth, the real scientists (whose vocation is to discover the truth) have no in general no conflict of interest with scientific truth and that the presumption of guilt underpinned by their obligation of declaration of interests namely ” if he has a vague financial interest in the case HE IS PROBABLY LYING!!! » deeply insults all true scientists who, FOR THE GOOD OF HUMANITY, work with industry to bring the potential benefits of science to the people.

After written

If you feel like spending €8.90 to find out more of the rantings of Nexushere is a demonstration of the great plot hatched a good decade, if not two, before the start of the second stage:

« It should also be remembered that glyphosate and its variations were developed with the aim of establishing a grip and developing a monopoly on genetically modified plants (GMPs), supposed to control both the trade, demography, the health of the populations by creating a real dependence, of the peasants as of the consumers. »

Source: Hervé Kempf, possibly William Engdahl.