A Scientific Bombshell Dropped This Week

[kpete]

Thu Feb 24, 2011 at 09:43 PM EST
A Scientific Bombshell Dropped This Week

by Jill Richardson for Sustainable Food and Agriculture


Dear Secretary Vilsack:

A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen that appears to significantly impact the health of plants, animals, and probably human beings. Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup. This organism appears NEW to science!

This is highly sensitive information that could result in a collapse of US soy and corn export markets and significant disruption of domestic food and feed supplies. On the other hand, this new organism may already be responsible for significant harm (see below). My colleagues and I are therefore moving our investigation forward with speed and discretion, and seek assistance from the USDA and other entities to identify the pathogen’s source, prevalence, implications, and remedies.

We are informing the USDA of our findings at this early stage, specifically due to your pending decision regarding approval of RR alfalfa. Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen, then such approval could be a calamity. Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

For the past 40 years, I have been a scientist in the professional and military agencies that evaluate and prepare for natural and manmade biological threats, including germ warfare and disease outbreaks. Based on this experience, I believe the threat we are facing from this pathogen is unique and of a high risk status. In layman’s terms, it should be treated as an emergency.

................

Sincerely,

COL (Ret.) Don M. Huber
Emeritus Professor, Purdue University
APS Coordinator, USDA National Plant Disease Recovery System (NPDRS)


the rest:
http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/24/949492/-A-Scientific-Bombshell-Dropped-This-Week

[Angry Dragon]

1. I guess that is what one gets when Monsanto was allowed to file

false data.

things will get better

[truedelphi]

181. Ihope you are right, However, seed and pollen know no legislation.

Right now, about seventy percent of all corn in the USA is GM corn. The pollen is already out there. No legislation can put the genie of GM pollen back in the bottle.

Wheat, it is more like eighty percent.

Rice is about 65 percent.

Even buying organic doesn't help, because with the exception of short grain rice, all the grains listed above are contaminated with GM.

[midnight]

206. So former Monsanto attorney now works for combined FDA and HOMELAND SECURITY..

They are probably expecting this info.....

[Habibi]

2. Holy fuck.

[Dappleganger]

52. That's exactly what I said.

HOLY FUCK, indeed!

[dixiegrrrrl]

3. bombshell indeed.

It ain't wise to fool with Mother Nature.
The arrogance of such behavior has always astounded me.

[Maru Kitteh]

21. You mean like the polio vaccine? I for one appreciate not having faced smallpox - but I do agree

more judicious use of many innovations is not only prudent, but critical.

[dixiegrrrrl]

47. To answer your question (unless it was rhetorical): no.

[cleanhippie]

74. Like the polio vaccine? Huh?

What are you talking about?

[boppers]

126. Vaccinations interfere with mother nature.

Rather than just dying early, often, and easy, humans have found all kinds of medical remedies to subvert "nature", in some cases, even *intentionally* making an entire natural species *extinct* for our own benefit.

[deaniac21]

155. Stem cell research comes to mind.

[boppers]

161. I was thinking of the dime sized shoulder scar most people over 35 have.

We effectively wiped the whole species of Variola from the planet... it's only left in two places in the entire world, and even there, it's caged and highly guarded.

[May Hamm]

187. Thanks. I didn't need to see that

I didn't want the reminder. But I needed the reminder.

Now I'll spend some time recalling the lessons of history when the Spanish spread this terrible disease all across the land to rid it of those pesky indians. Sick. Why don't we despise Spain instead of hating the French?

[FogerRox]

164. Monsanto doesnt sell GE Wheat, how can there be a study on a product that doesnt exist?

http://cookingupastory.com/purported-letter-from-dr-don-huber-to-secretary-vilsack-possibly-a-fraud

[kpete]

191. FogerRox

keep us posted if you hear more.
the truth is all
peace, kp

[FogerRox]

261. Statement on Perdue Website seems to indicate they are washing their hands of Dr Huber.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/

http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

[Agony]

243. Roundup Ready® wheat does exist. Monsanto temporarily dropped efforts

to introduce it into the US in 2004. Saying that they might try for it again in 4-8 years.

http://www.foodsafety.ksu.edu/articles/533/ge_wheat_factsheet.pdf

There are a lot of questions about this "story" but there is no question that Roundup Ready® wheat does exist, that is my only point.

Cheerio!
Agony

[TroubleMan]

4. I said it before, and I'll say it again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=287885&mesg_id=289504

If humanity dies out, I bet Monsanto will be one of the primary causes.

[whatchamacallit]

5. Maybe the president will appoint Drs. Frankenstein, Mengele, and Moreau to a council

to deal with it.

[TroglodyteScholar]

6. You win the thread. n/t

[Hawkowl]

29. I think he wins the whole presidential term

An apt summation indeed.

[truebrit71]

102. Yup, I agree...

...much though it sickens me..

[IthinkThereforeIAM]

166. I'll kick to that...

... Howard Cosell would be impressed with how succinct that statement is.

[villager]

8. In the spirit of bipartisanship, no doubt?

n/t

[progressoid]

13. Or the gov't will find a solution and give the patent to Monsanto.

[russspeakeasy]

104. but only for a healthy re-election campaign donation.

[truedelphi]

189. A bit cynical are we?

Well, welcome to my club!

Founded over a decade ago by one George Carlin, and now headed by comedian Lewis Black.

Black once said "So the Republicans get voted in, and they are shocked that it happened, and they don't know what to do, so they all take one huge step forward and take a
big crap.

"Then the American people don't like what has happened, so they vote the Republicans out, and the Democrats in, and the Dems don't have a plan either, so they spend the next four years just moving the shit around."

[cui bono]

203. Speaking of George Carlin... I was googling "Obama Monsanto" and had imdb in my search window...

accidentally and so it searched imdb and found this in the entries:

8. The Real George Carlin (1973) (TV)

aka "Monsanto Night Presents The Real George Carlin" - USA (long title)

aka "Monsanto Night Presents The Real George Carlin" - USA (long title)


http://www.imdb.com/find?q=monsanto&sourceid=mozilla-search

At least they didn't genetically modify him!

[truedelphi]

207. That is an interesting find -

I went to that URL and found a bit below below the Monsanto and Carlin line, this one:

1. Lawrence Ferlinghetti (Self, The Last Waltz (1978))
birth name "Lawrence Monsanto Ferlinghetti"


Wonder if Ferlinghetti is related to the poison food giant?

[Hubert Flottz]

48. Only if they are all former high ranking republican hacks.

Or corporate lobbyists.

[Jakes Progress]

49. Nah. He'll just hire a Monsanto VP to handle it.

[Raster]

92. Call it the Monsanto council.

[yowzayowzayowza]

152. Good gawd.

Logout.

[mdmc]

162. r

[SammyWinstonJack]

200. ...

:evilgrin:

[earth mom]

268. Given the assholes on the catfood commission, no doubt Obama will do something just like that.

:puke:

[AsahinaKimi]

7. As long as its not this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grey_goo

[glinda]

15. Well it is this.....

http://www.naturalnews.com/031069_GMOs_Morgellons.html

[glinda]

16. And maybe hey should look for this in mass die offs and Moose declines.

[boppers]

22. LOL, Morgellons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgellons

"Current scientific consensus holds that Morgellons is not a new disorder and is instead a new and misleading name for a well known condition. Most doctors,<2> including dermatologists<3> and psychiatrists,<4> regard Morgellons as a manifestation of known medical conditions, including delusional parasitosis.<5><6><7>"

[BanzaiBonnie]

43. YEah, I'm sure that's why Kaiser hospitals are involved

in studies of a regional outbreak in California. Because "it's just a hallucination."

[boppers]

119. Kaiser does mental health issues, too.

It also cuts into Kaiser's bottom line when sick people keep making claims about "disease" to the wrong specialists, thus, wasting resources on the wrong diagnosis.

[jberryhill]

140. Actually, the point of the study is to determine if it is a mental syndrome

A study to determine if there is any "there" there, is not a sign that anyone believes there is.

[CoffeeCat]

60. For the love of....

I was with you until I read the conclusion "delusional parasitosis". Jesus. Anyone who has read anything
about Morgellons, understands that what is happening to these people is real. We don't understand what it
is yet, but these people are not "delusional".

Prominent researchers are working on this issue. This is an unsolved puzzle, but one thing is for sure--these
people are not crazy, as some WANT us to believe.

And when certain forces use public relations to demonize a group of people and destroy their credibility--that sends
up a red flag for me that something major is happening to these people, but those forces want the information squashed.

I'm open to the notion that Morgellons is not new, or that it is due to a number of causes. But dismissing the
condition because all of these people are batshit crazy is not credible.

[boppers]

112. "certain forces"

k, then.

[BobbyBoring]

116. You and me both

call me paranoid, but i do believe there are measures under way to reduce the population by any means possible. Face it. We have WAY too many people on this planet.
I think GMOs are part of the plot.

I also think all the Corexit used in the Gulf disaster was intended to do more than soak up oil.

Our government has proven time and again that they have no regard for us.

[jberryhill]

142. Well that's been a wildly unsuccessful program so far

How long has this "population reduction" project been in action?

[BobbyBoring]

167. I'll agree with that!

It hasn't been successful to date but think about it.

[jberryhill]

169. Okay.... thinking....

Ummm... when did this program get started?

Do you think they might speed things up a bit?

[yellowcanine]

122. "delusional parasitosis" - actually this IS a term used by Morgellon researchers.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/morgellons-disease/sn00043

Morgellon's disease is not a medical diagnosis, it is a term for a suite of symptoms. It only stands to reason that some patients are delusional - this can be true for medically recognized diseases as well. And I have had people bring me bags of "bugs" that were supposedly biting them and causing skin rashes. Under the microscope I could see that the "bugs" were dried skin flakes, fabric fibers etc. Yes, some of these patients are suffering from delusions. That doesn't mean there isn't a physical cause for their symptoms but when a person says "there are bugs biting me" and all they can produce is bits of dried skin and fabric fibers they are deluded at least at some level. Saying it is not so doesn't make it not true. And saying something is a delusion isn't the same as saying the person is "batshit crazy".

[Capitalocracy]

145. What are you, a dermatologist?

Just based on people bringing you the bags of bugs, I'm curious.

Have you seen the movie Bug?

[Warren DeMontague]

178. That movie is fuuuuuucked up.

And I'll watch just about anything with Ashley Judd in it.

But still.

[Warren DeMontague]

177. No, but saying something is a delusion means it's not actually, physically there.

It's in the "patient's" head.

[jberryhill]

170. Have there been any veterinary studies of Morgellon's?

Or do only people get it?

[Capitalocracy]

97. Did you see the link they posted?

Chemtrails and trade winds and barium and cancer bugs crawling under your skin!

I think there's a legitimate case to be made that GM crops need to be studied, but man, stuff like this does NOT help that cause.

[arbusto_baboso]

113. Ah, chemtrails. Okay, that puts credibility under suspicion right away...

[Capitalocracy]

120. Sorry, just to clarify...

I wasn't referring to the link from the OP, but the link in this reply. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=503686&mesg_id=504276

Edit to add: But the letter from the OP isn't much better. There is no such thing as an electron microscopic microfungus. There isn't even such a thing as a microfungus you need an electron microscope to see (they're much larger than viruses and bacteria... yeast is an example of a microfungus)

[MNBrewer]

136. your edit is absolutely correct

and, Huber is a crackpot.

[Capitalocracy]

147. thanks, I see from other posts in the thread that you know what you're talking about

my statement came from 5 minutes of Googling

[boppers]

114. Chemtrails = facepalm

Yes, GM crops need to be studied, as do all crops...

... but once fringe paranoia theories creep into the field (so to speak), responsible study becomes that much harder.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. Expert scientists are doing serious academic research into these areas as we speak.

[Capitalocracy]

183. Hilarious.

And an awesome movie, to boot.

[jberryhill]

168. Maybe Morgellon's has mutated and is now spreading to plants

Have there been any animal studies of Morgellon's?

[Occulus]

87. Natrual News?

:rofl:

[krispos42]

20. We're safe, for now.

[boppers]

24. I loves me some xkcd.

Hadn't seen this one, thanks for posting it!

[siligut]

98. Just how much does a spot on the ISS cost?

We still have a few years to save up.

[markbark]

35. There's a self limiting factor here

http://xkcd.com/865/

[cliffordu]

9. Ma Nature needs to cull the viruses on occasion

Apparently we have crapped the nest one to many times.

Bummer.

[alfredo]

10. It doesn't matter.

[Overseas]

11. K&R! //nt

[Tumbulu]

12. Wasn't this predicted hmm at least 25 years ago?

Oh but no one would run a single test!!!!!!! And somehow, by not testing anything, the gmo crops became "safe".

The rest of the prediction was that the gmo's would make what the Soviet Union did to their agricultural system seem pretty benign.

Greed, that thing that supposedly will make capitalism work out for all of us....yeah, right....

[bvar22]

91. Thats the same method used....

...to determine the Gulf of Mexico "safe" after the BP catastrophe...
Governmental Declaration.

[boppers]

128. Billions of dollars have been spent on testing.

So far, nothing has come of it, other than claims that "more testing" is needed, along with the interesting discovery that horizontal gene transfer is a natural process, and occurred long before humans even existed.

[Tumbulu]

210. Hmm where have all these tests been published?

Can you site some peer reviewed studies?

Where have billions been spent exactly?

[boppers]

216. Some starting points:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Glyphosate
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Roundup
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BT+corn

Google Scholar is a pretty nifty tool for finding published works.

[Tumbulu]

227. Thanks for the links

But I see no toxicity studies.

[boppers]

230. It's simple to modify a search by adding a word:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=roundup+toxicity
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=BT+corn+toxicity

...and so on.

[Rabblevox]

14. and we have fucking Vilsack to deal with this. I'm starting to get...

angry. People don't like me when I'm angry. :evilfrown:

[Orrex]

17. I don't know. Sounds kind of fishy.

The language of the letter is too vague IMO, and it comes across as one of those "gotcha" pieces describing some vile substance where the punchline turns out to be something innocuous like dihydrogen monoxide.

Has Huber himself issued a direct statement on this, or do we only have this letter attributed to him?


Not saying it's false, but based on this letter it's not very convincing, either.

Here's a good point from the KOS article:

I do not think anyone should take it as more than it is: evidence of an alarming preliminary finding that merits more research. Nothing more.

and another:

I'll be interested to hear what (Huber) has to say once he speaks out about this. And I'll keep an eye out for the finished study, once it's published.

That's the bottom line, as far as I can tell: we need to see a finished study, rather than a scare-the-pants-off-of-them proposal.

[boppers]

25. "dihydrogen monoxide"

Dude, you do know that's been found in every cancer sample ever looked at, and appears to be a dominant chemical in the US water supply?

It's like it's been spread *everywhere*.

;)

[Ikonoklast]

115. After they found that stuff in my favorite bourbon

I had to switch to rye.

Can you imagine the horror?

[boppers]

124. In the words of Brando:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWLBljvEG-M

[FBaggins]

42. More than "a scare-the-pants-off-of-them proposal."

It's a scare-the-pants-off-of-them proposal that asks for a great deal of money to research the problem.

I'm particularly skeptical of one that claims to be working "with discretion" that is nevertheless blasted around the Internet.

[Orrex]

54. I have to say that one particular turn of phrase really clangs my BS detector:

It is urgent to examine whether the side-effects of glyphosate use may have facilitated the growth of this pathogen,

Simply put, the phrase "it is urgent to examine" doesn't ring true for me. It seems much more likely that a native speaker of English would write "it is urgent that we examine" or "we must examine" or something like that.

Additionally, and from a rhetorical standpoint, Huber wouldn't be investigating whether "glyphosate use may have facilitated" the pathogen's development. That would be like saying "we need to investigate whether we need to investigate." Also, it's clear from the article that Huber already does feel that glyphosate "may have facilitated" development of the pathogen; he should therefore be stressing the urgency to investigate the impact of that facilitation.

Instead, he's basically asking to be funded for something that he's already concluded. Certainly "one of the nation's senior scientists" (whatever the hell that means) should have a better grasp of how to draft a proposal, especially after working 50 years in the field.


The more I examine this, the more skeptical I become of its legitimacy.

[Vinnie From Indy]

71. I noticed the same thing - The language used in the OP is highly suspicious

This is the line that set off my BS detector:
"the discovery of an electron microscopic pathogen"

I doubt very much that a professor working for 40 years in this field would ever use such clumsy language.

[Tafiti]

100. Speaking of clumsy language, ...

...though perhaps clumsy is the wrong word, but this jumped out at me: "This organism appears NEW to science!"

I don't know, all caps and an exclamation point? It seems a little unserious in a letter to the Sec'y of Agriculture, particularly when the subject matter of the letter is quite serious indeed. It seems like something Bill Nye would write in a scientific article written for middle schoolers. Even if the author wanted to impart the gravity of that specific sentence, there are other, better ways of doing so than using all caps and exclamation points.

Then again, the DKos entry said: "First of all, my close friend Judith McGeary, the person who first posted the letter online, personally confirmed with Dr. Huber that he did write the letter and send (sic) it to Tom Vilsack. So that much is not a hoax."

:shrug:

I'll be curious to see how this plays out over the next several days, and if we'll hear from Mr. Huber directly.

[jberryhill]

117. Dr. Huber may have a case of the syndrome known as "emeritus"

[yellowcanine]

127. Well that is not fair. Not fair at all. Why impugn all emeritus professors when we don't

even know whether the person or the rank is real in this case?

Emeritus is an academic rank based on merit. That's all it is. It should neither be used as proof of omnipotence nor castigated as some kind of "syndrome"

[jberryhill]

139. Oh, relax

It's not an "academic rank". It's the academic way of saying "retired" from a full professorship. He quit doing research in 2006.

If you can't handle that it ends in "-itus" as do many illnesses, and that other people like wordplay, then change your meds.

When one of my favorite professors retired, I sent him a get well card saying I heard he had come down with a case of emeritus.

He had the intelligence to find it funny.

[Orrex]

176. I'm afraid that the term "emeritus" always makes me think of The Beastmaster

Dar, as we all remember, was one of the Emurites.

[FogerRox]

209. It means retired, in good standing

The term is used when a person of importance in a given profession retires and/or hands over the position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emeritus

[FogerRox]

253. there is no independent conformation that DR Huber wrote this letter

If Dr Huber is of sound mind I doubt he wrote the letter, if Dr Huber isnt of sound mind,and did write this letter, this letter has no credibility.

[MNBrewer]

135. Huber has an ax to grind with glyphosphate

[jberryhill]

144. Seen this one

March 1 - just before spring planting last year.

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/us-soil-scientist-warns-glyphosate-yield-reduction-2872

It wasn’t as much of a surprise to Allan Spicer, a marketing representative with Can Grow Crop Solutions Inc. His company has been working for three years with Huber “on this whole thing,” he says.

...

Horst Bohner, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs soybean specialist, notes that other North American researchers have not been able to reproduce Huber’s study results.

------

Wait, wait, don't tell me. Huber's been a consultant since retiring from research in 2006?

[MNBrewer]

148. He should publish in THIS Journal, then

<http://www.jir.com/>

[On the Road]

223. I Know, It Reads Like Hype

rather than a serious report.

[dgibby]

18. Republicans defunding the USDA in

5----

4----

3-----

2----


1-----



:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

[opihimoimoi]

19. 69 hits...... T/Y :o)

[boppers]

23. "electron microscopic pathogen"?

Wow, I wonder how many science-free people will fall for this.

Here's a hint: "electron microscopic pathogen" is a bullshit string of words. It has no real meaning.

I'm guessing this is actually an anti-science, anti-education, hit routine, to make environmentalists look like over-reactionary morons.... like a http://dhmo.org on steroids.

[retread]

32. I read that as either a pathogen infecting electron microscopes or a pathogen caused by

electron microscopes. In other words, bullshit.

[rbixby]

62. That's what I was thinking too

an electron microscope is just a thing to look at really teeny stuff, I don't think I've ever seen a reference to something's size being referred to as 'electron microscopic'. It fairly reeks of bullshit to me too. As much as I'd like to see Monsanto go down, I don't think this is the thing that's going to do it.

[FredStembottom]

85. Thanks, boppers.

This "press release" is clearly a new form of radio-telescopic bacteria.


:eyes:

[Capitalocracy]

93. More like a highly-infectious intertubesal retrovirus.

Very dangerous.

[FredStembottom]

237. Run away!

n/t

[DeSwiss]

26. K&R

- And so it begins......

[Posteritatis]

27. I'm sad that I'm only the second person to ask what the hell an "electron microscope pathogen" is.

Seriously, only one other person's calling bullshit on that term?

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[spooked911]

31. I am a microbiologist

and that is not a standard term. I'm not clear what exactly he is referring to though I understand the words.

[originalpckelly]

34. If they've seen it with an electron microscope...show us the picture.

First of all it's called a scanning electron microscope.

BUT, that means they've already isolated it.

So either they don't know shit, and they haven't found it, and the term is bullshit...
Or they have determined what it is that they're looking at and they know it, and have photographic proof of it.

It really shows nothing about it's size. Scanning electron microscopes have a fairly large window of magnification.

And you can't just send something into the vacuum of an scanning electron microscope without preparing the sample usually, you might be not be able to "see" it.

I know with neurons that it has to be coated before it can go in, partly because you can't see it, partly because it's destroyed uncoated in the vacuum.

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Unless it's called a transmission electron microscope

http://www.itg.uiuc.edu/ms/equipment/microscopes/tem/

[trud]

84. yeah what the heck is an electron microscopic pathogen? n/t

Scientist here too.

[FogerRox]

221. A micro fungus is larger than either a virus or bacteria

Electron microscopes are capable of viewing on the atomic level, but for something like yeast, which is a micro fungus, no? we only need to see on the cellular level. Unless you need to see the molecules of the the mitochondria. LOl.

[DCBob]

37. All viruses are smaller than "microscopic" and require an electron microscope to be seen.

This article sounds hyped and probably bogus.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. It's not a virus; they think it is a fungus

or something like a fungus. So saying that it requires an electron microscope to detect it (and 'electron microscopic' is a fairly common adjectival phrase, although usually followed by 'study', 'analyses', 'observations' and so on, rather than 'pathogen') is quite reasonable.

[MNBrewer]

70. Actually not a fungus. they think it LOOKS like a mycovirus in the TEM

Mycoviruses are viruses that infect fungi. These are probably not mycoviruses however, they just happen to appear similar to them under the electron microscope.

Viruses of fungi are not well studied in comparison to those of plants, animals or bacteria. Additional information regarding mycoviruses can be found at
<http://www.answers.com/topic/fungal-virus>

[MNBrewer]

73. For those interested, a review article about fungal viruses

Including TEM pictures

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC413840/pdf/bactrev00044-0035.pdf>

[muriel_volestrangler]

95. No, they do not think it's any sort of virus

From the open letter to Vilsack, at the link in the OP:

This previously unknown organism is only visible under an electron microscope (36,000X), with an approximate size range equal to a medium size virus. It is able to reproduce and appears to be a micro-fungal-like organism. If so, it would be the first such micro-fungus ever identified.

[MNBrewer]

134. That's idiotic! I call BULLSHIT on this.

Fungi (ALL FUNGI) are able to be visualized using light microscopy.

Fungi are eukaroytic. There are no eukaroytes that are that tiny. Hell, there aren't even any PROKARYOTES that are that tiny.

What evidence does he give that this is not some kind of virus, instead indicating that it's a "micro-fungus"?

NONE whatsoever.

This letter is:

1. a fake
2. real, and misquoted
3. real, and Huber is a crackpot

btw, I have a Ph.D. in mycology from the University of California, Berkeley, and did my M.S. in Plant Pathology doing transmission electron microscopy. I have some credentials. I'll put them up against Huber's any day.

[spooked911]

143. I second you

"micro-fungus" sounds like total bull

[jberryhill]

172. Wow... I only know one mycology joke

There are old mycologists, and there are bold mycologists, but there are no old, bold mycologists.

(I picked that up from a survival guide on things to eat in the wild a long time ago, on the subject of wild mushrooms.)

You must be a fun guy!

[FogerRox]

198. Yeast is a micro fungus?

and GE Round up ready Wheat isnt even sold yet, Monsanto is still working on it.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/04/us-monsanto-wheat-gmo-idUSTRE6A34K220101104

The Letter claims they studied GE Round up ready Wheat silage, it was misspelled (wheatlege) another red flag, which are the stalks fed to cows. Additionally round chemically binds to soil particles, and thusly cannot transfer from the soil to a plant. We can pretty much assume the letter is a fake, I have emailed DR Huber to verify.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jeff47]

75. No, that's not how such items are described by actual scientists

That's how you describe it if your goal is to make a big splash in the popular press.

[Marr]

40. Yeah-- that made me pause, too.

The phrase doesn't make sense.

[FBaggins]

44. It simultaneously makes it sound more scientific to the layman...

... and increases the "scare factor". People are understandably scared of dangerous things that they can't sense. It mitt be statistically more dangerous to have a ms-sized windmill in your backyard than a nuclear reactor... but the fear that the second could be killing you without you even knowing it changes everything. He's playing onthat fear.

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. "electron microscopic", not "electron microscope"

That should help you understand.

[Posteritatis]

153. So it's a slightly less bullshit term. (nt)

[Orrex]

55. That's one of the things that made me suspicious

The tone of this "proposal" simply doesn't feel right to me. I didn't take particular issue with that phrase, though it did indeed sound kind of goofy. However, taken as a whole, the "proposal" seems more than likely to be a hoax.


Of course, if it's successfully debunked, I wonder if the debunking will enjoy the same viral status that the "proposal" itself has attained...

[MedicalAdmin]

64. I tend not to call bullshit until I understand what I'm talking about.

My ego isn't so big that I assume that anything I haven't heard about is BS. I'm not saying that is what you are doing and I agree that the term is, well, not one that I know and seems a little, well, strange. I want to know more and I'll reserve my opinion until I get a greater understanding.

It never fails to amaze me how often I hear knee jerk presumtive opinions based on zero information. Again, I'm not saying that is what you are doing...

[Vilis Veritas]

67. "electron MICROSCOPIC pathogen" still raises the bull meter and

Not that it does anything for me, personally, bullshit, is still bullshit even if you quote me as having typed 'bullcrap'...just wanted to make sure everyone understood the correct quote.

It is still not a common term.

[Kablooie]

105. I was about to ask the same thing. Because of this it smacks of being a fake scare tactic.

It doesn't sound like a professionally written letter.

[SpiralHawk]

28. the k

and the r

[RoccoR5955]

33. Corporations are killing us with their profits,

and their frankenfoods.

[Badfish]

36. unrec

[SpiralHawk]

39. Fer sure, your unrec KICK will definitely help to, um, hide this from others...

...Umm hmmm...Fab strategery...

[Roland99]

58. got a rec from me!

I'm not surprised at this news, though.

corporations will be the death of us all one day.

[xchrom]

38. Electron microscope pathogen? That doesn't make any sense. Nt

[Orrex]

56. Then I'm not letting my electron microscope hang out with your electron microscope

I don't want my poor little microscope to catch a pathogen from yours, you filthy brute!

[xchrom]

63. why you, i oughta

:rofl:

[Capitalocracy]

121. That's OK, just as long as I don't have to vaccinate my electron microscope.

I wouldn't want it to get electron microscopic autism.

[Keith Bee]

41. K&R

Monsanto? Naw: Monsatan.

[CLANG]

45. When will we ever learn - when will we eeeeever learn?

[vicarofrevelwood]

50. The Left never hated American Corperations,

They just wanted to stop them from doing something Very STUUUUUUUUUPID like R/R crops. How many people will starve on account of stupidity like this?

[happyslug]

59. Other papers of Dr Huber on the Net

An undated (but cites a 2010 Study) on Roundup:
http://www.calciumproducts.com/dealer_resources/Huber.pdf

Round up and Manganese Deficiency:
http://www.agweb.com/assets/import/files/58P20-22.pdf

A copy of the complete letter to the Secretary of Agriculture:
http://ourecovillage.org/tag/col-ret-dr-don-m-huber/

Huber and others have reported findings of spontaneous Abortions caused by Roundup
http://republicbroadcasting.org/?p=13739

[M_A]

61. personally seen this

I have raised show dogs for almost 17 years in the "corn-belt". In the last two and a half years there have been significant reproductive problems seen not only with my own limited (1-2 litter per year) breeding program but also with many of my show dog breeder peers. We have eliminated all corn and soy products from our dog's diets (and it's in loads of foods/treats) but for those of us who live surrounded by the fields it is impossible to know if our beloved dogs are being exposed. We don't even know if the damage is permanent until more research is done. Very scary when you consider not just companion animals but also food production and human health implications.

As an aside, there has also been a significant and mysterious decrease in the deer population in my area too. Not death of adult animals but fewer fawns and yearlings.

[jeff47]

76. Um....if eliminating exposure didn't fix it

How do you know exposure is causing it?

Presumably those not surrounded by the fields who eliminated exposure to corn and soy products could give you some results to confirm the corn and soy are the source of the problem.

[M_A]

246. more research needed

It is unknown if the damage is permanent. There is enough evidence with just the losses in livestock to get the attention of some of the scientific community that there is a problem.

[AlbertCat]

78. OMG!!!!

there have been significant reproductive problems seen not only with my own limited (1-2 litter per year) breeding program but also with many of my show dog breeder peers.


And as we know, show dogs are as natural as they come! There are never any complications from breeding the same genes over and over and over and over.....


And of course your anecdotal evidence is conclusive.

[M_A]

245. You obviously

know nothing about what MANY of us in the dog world go through to insure genetic health and stability. Your snide comment betrays your ignorance of the science of genetics.

[SpiralHawk]

81. Disturbing in the max

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tumbulu]

222. Thanks for sharing your personal observations

They are valuable as science is based on observing and then analyzing cause and effect. Dismissing observation as anecdotal is insulting.

I hope that the change in diet helps.

Welcome to DU.

[M_A]

247. Thanks

I'm a long time lurker but some issues bring me out of my den.

I am working with several veterinary specialists to try to track this problem down. For the last year we suspected an environmental influence when all other possibilities showed nothing conclusive. As more information comes out about what corporate influenced farming is doing to the food supply as well as ground-water and soil contamination perhaps there will be more demand for stronger regulation.

[blackspade]

65. Holy Shit!

Color me not surprised.
Hopefully, this will destroy Monsanto at some point.

[Poll_Blind]

66. K&R!

PB

[slackmaster]

68. This could be worse than Y2K

:grouphug:

[AlbertCat]

69. Hmmmmm....

it is widespread,

suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup

moving our investigation forward... to identify the pathogen’s source,

our findings at this early stage,

IF either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen




OMG! It's definately Franken-feed!!!! That's what we KNOW!!!! Period. Game over! It's conclusive!


NOT!

:eyes:

Based on the current evidence, the only reasonable action at this time would be to delay deregulation at least until sufficient data has exonerated the RR system, if it does.

AHHHH.... sense!

[Taverner]

72. We'll see, but if anything this is exactly why ex-Monsanto employees shouldn't be Sec of Ag

[snooper2]

77. Google search "electron microscopic pathogen" DU's only third

Come on, lets get to the top with this term :rofl:

DU can't be beat by Huffington Post and piecesofkarp.blogspot.com :)



Congratulations Don Huber on stringing together three words that have never been used together before...Bravo!!!

:hi:

[Capitalocracy]

83. lmao

so THAT's how you get on the front page of Google!

[Duer 157099]

79. Sometimes scientists use really clumsy language when they think

they are communicating with non-scientists.

[Richard D]

80. It just keeps getting worse.

[struggle4progress]

82. Sorry, no credibility without references to peer-reviewed scientific literature

[Uncle Joe]

86. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, kpete.

[felix_numinous]

88. The species die-off

needs to be addressed, and all the suspected causes have to be investigated for the sake of future generations. Not doing so is enabling the sociopathic practices of mega corporations to further plunder the planet. They have shown what they are capable of, and need to be dealt with harshly--eventually the American people will have to go up against them too.

[Capitalocracy]

90. Maybe we should worry about poisoning or heating our oceans

to the point of destroying the foundations of the ecosystem and rendering the Earth uninhabitable, rather than worrying about imaginary electron microscopic microfungi.

[felix_numinous]

96. Exactly-

and pseudoscience articles that are easily discredited interfere with real progress to investigate crucial threats to our health. Scientists have so many obstacles in presenting their data, and obtaining grants because of the political climate we live in.

[Capitalocracy]

89. Microfungus!!!??!"?!?1! Scary! But you don't need an electron microscopic

to see those...

[hugo_from_TN]

94. Big unrec

[MooseGoose]

99. Possible Fraud, (IMHO Probable) ....

Though it usually takes a few days for these things to shake out, so I'm open yet.

Another blog is doubting the credibility after publishing the original article: "Scientist Letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack Possibly a Fraud" http://cookingupastory.com/purported-letter-from-dr-don-huber-to-secretary-vilsack-possibly-a-fraud

I live in academia and read published papers all the time. The letter in the OP doesn't have the same tone as a widely published author of journal and conference papers.

It has all the earmarks of a fraud:
The anonymous source of the information: "A team of senior plant and animal scientists have recently brought to my attention .... " Look through the Purdue centers on Ag research on their web site. Surely he would have mentioned which team and which research center brought this to his attention. Also, he wouldn't take such a drastic step unless the results were well founded via peer review. Where are the earlier journal and conference publications of these findings?

Techno-jargon: "electron microscopic pathogen " Though, this is nothing compared to the real jargon used in his papers.

Appeal to authority, or "This is no joke." -- That would be Dr. huber himself, of course.

Frantic dire warnings: "This organism appears NEW to science!" The exclamation point is pretty bad, but all caps? Really? Most scientists writing is fairly dry and intentionally passive voice. This is how he writes to his peers: "Micronutrients are regulators, inhibitors and activators of physiological processes, and plants provide a primary dietary source of these elements for animals and people. ... The sporadic nature of distinct visual symptoms, except under severe deficiency conditions, has resulted in a reluctance of many producers to remediate micronutrient deficiency. ... " found in "AG CHEMICAL AND CROP NUTRIENT INTERACTIONS – CURRENT UPDATE" ( http://www.calciumproducts.com/dealer_resources/Huber.pdf )

Take action now message: In a net hoax, the action is always "Forward this to everyone you know." Here it's "Stop the alfalfa now before it's too late."

Forwarding by a group having ulterior purpose: As the OP notes, this appeared on the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance website, dated Jan 16, 2011. ( http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages ). This appears to be the earliest version. According to their front page, they are an advocacy group - "The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) is leading the fight to save family farms and individuals from expensive and unnecessary government regulation. Help us protect our food supply and our liberties!" and coincidentally have been fighting against the exact same thing the alleged letter argues against: genetically engineered alfalfa. Again from their front page "The fight against genetically engineered alfalfa is NOT over! Please keep up the calls to the White House. "

It appears that Dr. Huber does have concerns about genetically engineered crops, specifically RoundupReady soybeans, but the discovery of a new pathogen and that this letter is genuine are, imho, fradulent claims.

[Capitalocracy]

106. But they write the same way that bank manager from Nigeria wrote to me

You mean I'm not going to get $15,000,000?

[harun]

108. I agree, the writing style is just not academic.

[yellowcanine]

131. I agree. In addition to the red flags you point out there is this:

Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup.

First, this doesn't read at all like a scientific conclusion based on a review of data.
Second, real scientists show a heck of a lot more caution in attributing causation - particularly for preliminary data - than this writer does. Why is it "more likely the presence of Roundup" for example?
Basically if one doesn't at least have a credible hypothesis for a mechanism one is not going to claim causation. Lot of other unanswered questions also - did they compare RR varieties to the same varieties which were not RR? Did they compare RR varieties with and without the use of Roundup?
I would also expect to see the generic chemical name of "glyphosate" used rather than the trade name of "Roundup". These are small details but revealing for anyone who is even a tad familiar with scientific discourse and I do understand that this is supposedly a summary of scientific research written for lay public consumption. But something as explosive as this should have still undergone some scientific review. Nearly all major research institutions require their scientists to submit material for public consumption to some level of peer review - particularly unpublished results.

Purdue University is known for being particularly vigilant about making sure that information going out with their name on it undergo peer review.

[FogerRox]

211. ONE) Exactly 450 cows out 1000, not 449 cows

had miscarriages that ate Round up ready wheat silage. Which is not available yet, dont know how they got itm but they did,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/04/us-monsanto-wheat-gmo-idUSTRE6A34K220101104

TWO) exactly zero cows had miscarriages on the non GE Wheat silage.

THREE) The letter misspells Wheatlege, its wheatlage or Wheat silage.

FOUR) If this were true, its worth a Nobel Prize, not a posting on The Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance (FARFA) blog.

FIVE) Round up chemically binds up in soil. For decades.

[Moostache]

101. Tsk..Tsk...you have ALL missed the MOST important point....

What is Monsanto's share price today and will that affect my expected campaign donations from them for 2012?

I am only 1/10000th kidding.

Our politicians are scientifically illiterate morons. They would not know the difference between a virus, a retrovirus and a mycovirus if they were given the answers to write on their fucking hands.

Science in the USA has been beaten down for 40 years with the likes of the smoking-is-just-fine movement (corporate funded and completely cynical) and global-man-made-climate-change-is-a-hoax supporters (corporate funded and completely cynical) and the intelligent-design-casts-dispersions-on-evolution idiocy (religious zealot funded and completely delusional).

There once was a time that Americans saw a Soviet satellite was in orbit and shat themselves in fear of being left behind scientifically. When the "enemy" was a technologically advanced society, we were terrified that they would get more science and use it against us to their benefit. IN OTHER WORDS, WE PROJECTED OUR OWN BEHAVIORS ONTO THEM AND RECOILED IN HORROR AT THE THOUGHT...

Now our "greatest threat" is considered to be religious zealots hiding in fucking caves and deserts. Instead of looking to advance our science and understanding to illuminate a path to a better future, we are being conditioned to turn AWAY from science and having science perverted and used as a weapon against us. We fear the tribe in the next cave over and as a result WE ARE ONCE AGAIN PROJECTING OUR OWN BEHAVIORS AND RESPONSES ONTO THE "ENEMY"...only instead of a scientifically literate technologically advanced "enemy", we seem all too content to allow money to buy off legitimate science and we wallow in bronze-age mythology and religious demagoguery.

The tombstone of civilization is already cast. We're just waiting for the roaches to evolve digits to build its monument....

[boppers]

129. The roaches called....

Turns out that building monuments has nothing to do with long term survival.

[Evoman]

103. Also, is he saying that the virus integrated DNA downstream of the RR gene?

"Naturally, if either the RR gene or Roundup itself is a promoter or co-factor of this pathogen"

I'm trying to understand this sentence myself. How could an organism evolve to use the RR gene as a promoter, let alone as a co-factor?

I'm not saying this is bullshit, but the way it's written certainly doesn't make sense.

On edit: is what he is saying speculation, because he sure should know quite a bit about this "new organism" if he has images on it AND he knows how it infects things.

[yellowcanine]

137. It is even worse than that. Huber is saying that the chemical Roundup is the probable cause.

Based on a review of the data, it is widespread, very serious, and is in much higher concentrations in Roundup Ready (RR) soybeans and corn—suggesting a link with the RR gene or more likely the presence of Roundup.

So Roundup is somehow creating or selecting for this "virus". That makes no sense at all.
No serious scientist would make such a statement without putting forth a credible hypothesis for a mechanism to get this result.

[MNBrewer]

138. This is crackpot B.S.

Time for Dr. (Col.) Huber to check into the memory care facility.

[jberryhill]

146. I don't pretend to know the merits of this claim, but

...have you ever noticed that no breathless scientific discovery is complete without a retired military officer?

In the "free energy" field, it's always a naval officer.

[MNBrewer]

150. I would have appreciated a listing of the members of

of the "team of senior plant and animal scientists" who brought this entirely new form of life to his attention! That might have been useful in assessing the validity of the claim.

I think Huber is out of his depth (mind?) in this.

[AlbertCat]

158. I would have appreciated a listing of the members of the "team of senior plant and animal scientists

I caught that. I just love the ol' "a group of scientists" meme.

"team of senior plant and animal scientists".... do they mean a team of BOTANISTS & ZOOLOGISTS? (who only study old plants and animals?)

:eyes:


a"team of senior plant and animal scientists" walk into a bar and one says to the other...."

:eyes:

[FogerRox]

262. Perdue seems to be washing their hands of Dr Huber, recent statement

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/

http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

[Posteritatis]

156. That's interesting and I hadn't noticed it before

The higher number of people in that branch working with reactors in the first place, I suppose? On the other hand, I would have thought the exposure would clue in enough of them to make them less likely to wind up there.

(Though on the gripping hand, I'd guess a lot of them just happened to work on the same ship as a reactor, rather than on the reactor itself.)

[jberryhill]

141. He's been saying that for years

But a Canadian study was unable to reproduce his claims.

http://www.betterfarming.com/online-news/us-soil-scientist-warns-glyphosate-yield-reduction-2872

Horst Bohner, Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs soybean specialist, notes that other North American researchers have not been able to reproduce Huber’s study results.

[harun]

107. GMO's for profit, not for health, who could have predicted anything could

go wrong?

[Marnie]

109. We keep inventing highly reactive organic molecules and releasing

them into the environment with absolutely no knowledge of how they interact in the organic environment.

[JJW]

111. Frankenfood

Vote with your dollars, boycott all Monsanto products.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

118. I won't lie and say I understand what they're talking about

It exceeds my level of scientific understanding by miles. However, if there's a grain of fact in it it deserves further study.

[boppers]

123. They aren't just asking for "further study".

They're asking for legislation, based on speculation.

By all means, study always needs to continue, but this is akin to banning french fries for causing cancer (due to acrylamide), along with, well, banning any other foods that contain starches which are cooked (for the same reason).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acrylamide

[Lone_Star_Dem]

133. Yeah, I got that

I can't support it out of hand without some validation of their claim. Thus, I feel it needs more study.

My stating the fact that what they're claiming flies so far over my head I don't even feel the draft from it, was just an admission of my ignorance here.

[lovuian]

125. Everybody has been telling them that GMO is TOXIC

and now our food industry will be wiped out do to Monsanto's crap

yes they won't be able to sell it ANYWhere in the world except to our people

who they poison

[mojowork_n]

130. So, ...no mo' veggie burgers, no mo' tofu, no mo' what else? n/t

[1776Forever]

132. I did some research on this about a year ago and found out that Monsanto threatens farmers if they

even say they are going to stop using their products. It is in the contract they sign. I then spoke with a local hair dresser about 3 months ago whose husband is a farmer and she told me he used to sell Monsanto RoundUp etc. but he had to stop because he was having neurological problems. Sound familiar? In fact when she told me that before I even knew he was a Monsanto salesman I asked her if he farmed and then she told me about his problems. She said no Dr. has been able to tell him what caused his problems and they continue to get worse!

[Capitalocracy]

149. Monsanto products being poisonous/hazardous is possible.

This kind of intimidation as a result, also more than likely. But they do not cause electron microscopic microfungus.

[SkyDaddy7]

151. Letter has been confirmed by Reuters

Check out this link.
http://cookingupastory.com/purported-letter-from-dr-don-huber-to-secretary-vilsack-possibly-a-fraud

[G_j]

154. thanks but

where is the Reuters link?

[muriel_volestrangler]

180. There's a link to it at the top of that post, as an update

USDA officials declined to comment about the letter's contents.

"We're reviewing it, and will respond directly to Dr. Huber, rather than responding through the media," said USDA spokesman Andre Bell.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-monsanto-roundup-idUSTRE71N4XN20110224

[FogerRox]

266. Excellent, thank you, Is Perdue washing their hands of Huber?

ttp://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/

[Electric Monk]

160. cooking up a story dot com? EVERYBODY PANIC, THIS IS HUGH

nt

[SkyDaddy7]

171. I am in no way saying panic...

I was very skeptical of the letter at first...I even asked a scientist that I follow on You Tube what he thought about the letter & he even said it looked fishy...So did Cookingupastory.com until the letter was confirmed.

Having said that...We should be concerned with GM crops & the possible harms.

[FogerRox]

163. There is no GE Wheat,

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/04/us-monsanto-wheat-gmo-idUSTRE6A34K220101104

[SkyDaddy7]

173. Not sure what your point is?

[FogerRox]

215. The Study say they fed cows Wheat silage

But Monsanto hasnt released their GE modified round up ready Wheat. If you use round up on regular wheat, the wheat dies. SO just where did they get enough of this so called wheat to feed 1000 cows?

How can you feed cows something that cannot be bought yet?

Why did exactly 450 cows out of 1000 have miscarriages? Not 449 or 452?

Why did exactly zero cows, who fed regular wheat silage have miscarriages? Zero out of 1000.

[SkyDaddy7]

248. Where are you getting this info?

I have not been able to track that down anywhere...The article I posted confirming the letter said nothing about Wheat...And the article you posted said nothing about the info in your post.

Have a link?

I understand the concern over GM Crops but I am not one that just adheres to any negative news without evidence to support it...Why believe something that might not be true, correct?

[muriel_volestrangler]

249. It's from the original letter - 'wheatlage'

"450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege", which must be a typo for wheatlage.

[undeterred]

157. Lets not forget that MONSANTO is a PERSON.

A very important person... the Supreme Court says so.

[Corruption Winz]

159. This sounds like..

the opening dialogue from a character in one of those horrible Syfy Channel movies. The only problem is that we are the supporting cast. And we all know who dies off first.

[FogerRox]

165. Stop the presses, Monsanto doesnt sell Round up Ready GE Wheat

cant do a study on GE Wheat if Mansanto hasnt sold it yet.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/04/us-monsanto-wheat-gmo-idUSTRE6A34K220101104

http://cookingupastory.com/purported-letter-from-dr-don-huber-to-secretary-vilsack-possibly-a-fraud

[jberryhill]

188. Then there's the proof - it all died!

Aha! So, smarty pants, where did all the Monsanto GE wheat go? Hmmm?

[boppers]

199. Uhm, the letter to Vilsack wasnt about wheat.

It was about recently approving RR alfalfa, and talks about research on RR corn and RR soy.

[FogerRox]

217. Read again

For example, 450 of 1,000 pregnant heifers fed wheatlege experienced spontaneous abortions. Over the same period, another 1,000 heifers from the same herd that were raised on hay had no abortions. High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate.

http://farmandranchfreedom.org/gmo-miscarriages

Glyphosate will kill the wheat unless its GE modified, and Monsanto is not going to give a known anti monsanto PHD GE round up ready wheatlage to feed cows in a test.

[boppers]

224. Ok, I think I get it now.

I'm not defending the logic, just trying to explain the chain of thought (as I understand it):
1. Roundup crops (corn, soy) get sprayed.

(This seems a given)

2. This creates or stimulates (or whatever) a new fungal-virus-thingie that they have figured out how to detect.

"Pathogen Location and Concentration

It is found in high concentrations in Roundup Ready soybean meal and corn, distillers meal, fermentation feed products, pig stomach contents, and pig and cattle placentas."

3. The fungal-virus-thingie spreads to the wheat crops, which they also detect somehow (see #2), and assume roundup is involved.

"High concentrations of the pathogen were confirmed on the wheatlege, which likely had been under weed management using glyphosate." (The latter cluase seems suspect, for reasons you mention... the "likely" is not likely).

4. Cows eat that wheat, and they get sick, again, the fungal-virus-thingie is detected. (See #2).

So, the chain is Roundup->Pathogen->Other crops->Animals.

[FogerRox]

258. #3, round up use previous to Wheat being planted

will cause the pathogen to develop in the wheat. The Letter seems to be saying that Round up in the soil, 1-3 yrs later, can cause the pathogen to be found in Wheatlage.

Here is an example of DR Hubers writing, well done, well sourced. ANd if you have a little science background easy to follow.

http://u-trough.com/docs/Articles/Fluid%20Fert%20%202-10.pdf warning PDF....

Additionally if we take the letter at face value, DR Huber should be up for a Nobel Prize, instead this shows up on a farm blog.

What we do know is that Round up interferes with micro nutrient uptake in plants. The pdf above is about that subject. This causes stress in the plants, and they are more susceptible to Fusarium and other pathogens. And the same can be true for animals and humans, if you dont eat right, this can depress your immune system, and it might be easier for you to catch the flu.... for example.

[FogerRox]

263. Perdue statement on website

They seem to be washing their hands of Dr Huber

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/

http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

[boppers]

219. Ah, just saw #215

Your point is clearer now.

[Warren DeMontague]

175. This "new microfungus pathogen" crap has my bullshit detector going off full tilt.

Maybe it's legit, but it sounds like more star folks indigo moon landing hoax crap, to me.

[truedelphi]

179. A hearty K & R for this OP and for

The Overthrow of poision Food Giant, Monsanto

[HCE SuiGeneris]

182. Gah

:scared:

[marmar]

184. Monsanto will be the death of us.

nt

[boppers]

234. If so, they're doing a lousy job of it.

Life expectancy *and* total population keeps rising.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Capitalocracy]

193. I'm no friend of Monsanto

and I certainly don't think we should be using any chemicals or genetically modified food without extensive independent testing and a robust regulatory agency.

But THIS particular letter is clearly ridiculous.

[skepticscott]

204. What professionals?

Huber didn't do this research (so HIS qualifications are meaningless) and he refuses to name the people who did or where they are working. Why is that, I wonder? Any "qualified" scientist would know that information is vital to the credibility of such a claim.

[MNBrewer]

213. I'll put my credentials up against his on this topic any day

His claim is B.S. This is no new "microfungus".

[boppers]

233. LOL, an appeal to authority?

Logic fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[bvar22]

186. White House contaminated with Monsanto toxins!

Google "Vilsack ties to Monsanto"


The DLC New Team

(Screen Capped from the DLC Website)

http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=254886&kaid=86&subid=85

[DCBob]

190. If Roundup is banned due to this "issue" then farmers will be forced to use a replacement chemical..

which in all likelihood will have higher toxicity and higher risk of damaging the environment. Roundup is one of the safest, least toxic agrochemicals on the market.

[Turborama]

201. Yeah, because chemicals are the only solution...

     

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agroecology">__________________________Agroecology__________________________

......................................................................

[boppers]

225. All Agroecology uses tons of chemicals.

All of it.

No exceptions.

None.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_substance

Water is one of the most frequently used chemicals in agriculture, for example.

[Turborama]

229. Nice try at giving a patronizing chemistry lesson, but a total context FAIL

I was was replying to someone who was discussing - and even mentioned the word - "agrochemicals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrochemical

I was using the word "chemicals" in that CONTEXT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics

[boppers]

231. You said: "Yeah, because chemicals are the only solution..."

You did not say:

"Yeah, because agrochemicals are the only solution..."

There was a specific context, which you expanded to a larger context.

[Turborama]

239. To someone who had just said "least toxic agrochemicals on the market"

After having previously said "If Roundup is banned due to this "issue" then farmers will be forced to use a replacement chemical.."

So I was actually using it well within the conversational context and there was no "expansion" from me, thanks.

Actually, the "expansion" came from you - into the dictionary definition of chemicals - and has contributed nothing to the conversation apart from a pathetic attempt at nitpicking.

[boppers]

242. My nits are filled with pathos.

They're quite depressive.

[boppers]

244. Oh, and point made.

I tend to be pedantic about sloppy use of words like "chemicals", but you merely followed the leader.

[FogerRox]

252. My personal opinion... looking only at resistance - Round up will continue to be

overused, Round up resistance will increase to the point where its useless.

[Tumbulu]

212. where are all the tests showing

that it is safe as a residue?

[FogerRox]

220. Round up binds to soil particles

and stays there for yrs. Weeds like Pig weed and Johnson grass have become resistant. But this so called letter is bogus. Too many mistakes in the letter, no PHD wrote that. no way, I have 2 yrs of plant pathology in the Rutgers Golf Turf program. The letter is fake., read the other comments, both here and at D kos.

[Tumbulu]

226. I am asking where the studies are showing how residues

of glyphosate in plant tissue are metabolized.

When glyphosate was registered as an herbicide this information was not required for registration.

Can you cite some studies showing how it's residues are metabolized by ruminants and non ruminants?

[boppers]

232. Another starting point:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=roundup+metabolize

Seriously, you should totally check out scholar if you want answers to such questions.... (you asked about two sources, I gave you one as a sample, the second should be easy enough to figure out).

[Tumbulu]

238. I see no studies showing glyphosate being safe or benign.

And all the studies that discuss these toxicities are recent- many years after the round-up ready crops began to be grown commercially- the mid 90's in the US.

So, again, where are the studies proving that it is safe to spray round-up on crops that will be eaten?

These studies should have been done before allowing the gmo's were released.

[boppers]

241. No such thing as any chemical being "safe" or "benign".

H2O in solid form can be lethal. The dihydrogen monoxide experiment highlighted such ignorance.

As far as internet indexes being recent, yes, that's a problem, that's slowly being worked on. Papers from the 70's and 80's are slowly being added, but that was very much a pre-internet age, and a lot of that work is on paper.

As far as this request:

"So, again, where are the studies proving that it is safe to spray round-up on crops that will be eaten?"

LOL.... I am interested in how you would conduct such a study in a legal, and ethical, manner, if you think such crops are dangerous. Which groups are you personally willing to poison? Or would you randomly poison, to avoid bias?

In case you weren't yanking my chain, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

There's a good debate going there.

Of course, if you want to avoid genetic variants that did not exist 1,000 years ago, you could try burying yourself in a hole in the ground, if you can find any ground identical to that which existed 1,000 years ago. Alternately, you could get educated on genes jumping species, and the basic mechanics of evolution.

[SpiralHawk]

254. Whoppers makes the FAMOUSLY FAILED equivalency argument

Bwaaa ha ha ha ha. Inevitably, somebody had to float that P.O.C. Shows what a Genetically Mutant Corporate diet can do to your bran.
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[Tumbulu]

269. These sorts of studies are normal and mandatory for EPA

registration. There are so may companies that do this testing, that I bet there is an even a DU'er that works for one of them. The issue is that glyphosate was registered before it was being used on crops that would later be consumed by livestock and humans.

The fact that genes can jump species is no reason to accept crops based on genetic engineering without testing.

Testing for safety is in everyone's best interest. And is simply one of the cornerstones of scientific advancement.Not testing smacks of business people pushing scientists to produce profits over safety.

[FogerRox]

251. Round up is absorbed foliarly. AS far as studies are concerned

Plenty of fish out on the internet,

[boppers]

228. 2 years of plant pathology for ... Golf Turf?

Does that mean what I think it means, 2 years on the plant pathology of a limited number of grasses (etc.) found on golf courses?

That's some highly targeted education!

Not mocking you, far from it.

My older brother is picking up his Phd. in... uhm... anthropological cartography, where his studies pertain to how cultural influences affect the way people make.... maps. Turns out that the practical applications involve disputes between indigenous people and colonists who want to make legal boundaries for mining, fishing (etc.) using very different rules.

[FogerRox]

250. Rutgers has what is probably the best Golf Turf program in the US.

Soil science, Entomology, Biology, Pathology, the core of the program. Well yes, a not so limited number of grasses: Bentgrass, Rye, Blue, & Fescue. Though that covers athletic fields, Golf Courses, & Lawns. Then there are ornamental grasses like Zebra grass.

[DCBob]

264. Here's one reference..

http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/dienochlor-glyphosate/glyphosate-ext.html

[DeadEyeDyck]

192. REc

[defendandprotect]

194. War by Monsanto - Food by Monsanto -- How stupid are we?

[CRH]

195. How can you quantify or qualify the odds of a solution to, ...

a mutation, that is a product of our own human arrogance that allows us to tinker with an infinite number of scientific possibilities with a minute amount of absolute knowledge. Arrogance and insanity are closely linked, only divided by supposed intelligence.

[enki23]

196. I just about died back when I contracted tobacco mosaic virus

And don't even ask about that freaking case of tomato blight that put me in the hospital for a week, or my lifelong battle trying to find a homeopathic cure for soybean cyst nematode.

Did you know, by the way, that phytophthera causes liver cancer?

Oh, and Oscillococcinum is the one true cause of all disease anyway, as everyone who takes the new cold "medicine" is implicitly accepting. And good for them. Except for that disease caused by liver flukes, GMOs, saturated fat, cholesterol in egg yolks, cooked food, eating meat, AZT and cell phones. And everything mentioned above. Particularly the tomato blight. Nasty stuff.

[boppers]

235. *snerf*

Nicely done.

[FailureToCommunicate]

197. "...collapse of US soy and corn export markets" Therefore "Nothing to worry about, move along"

[skepticscott]

202. There is no such thing as

an "electron microscopic pathogen". The use of that phrase tells me that the person writing this has no data and no idea what they're talking about.

Also the vague and non-specific reference to a "A team of senior plant and animal scientists" is very suspicious. Senior where? What are their names? What initiated this "research" and who funded it? An honest and responsible scientist would not hide this information, and no reputable scientific publication would accept information with such vague attribution.

[FogerRox]

256. Correct, its shows an amateurish level level of writing skills

SOmeone who is not used to writing technical papers of the sort authored by an actual PHd.

[Leonardo Da Biker]

205. Complete impostor.

If you are going to fake something at least correctly list your spurious credentials.

[Zoroastor]

208. "SHOULD be treated as an emergency..."

...but who wants to take bets that it will be?

[FogerRox]

218. Its fake.

[unkachuck]

214. K&R....yikes!....n/t

[KansasVoter]

236. No proof this is true! Calm the fuck down! People are so gullible!

[FogerRox]

255. Absolutely correct, furthermore there is no confirmation

that DR Huber actually wrote the letter.

[KansasVoter]

257. People love these stories on the DU. React immediately!

[muriel_volestrangler]

259. Reuters confirmed the USDA will reply to Huber

so they seem convinced by the authenticity.

[FogerRox]

260. Citation please

A call to the USDA Office of the Executive Secretariat (OES) was unable to locate any letter of correspondence, or email, from Dr. Don M. Huber to Secretary Vilsack since December of 2010. Within this time frame, the Secretary of Agriculture did not receive correspondence from Dr. Huber.
http://cookingupastory.com/purported-letter-from-dr-don-huber-to-secretary-vilsack-possibly-a-fraud


http://www.btny.purdue.edu/weedscience/2011/GlyphosatesImpact11.pdf

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/02/purdue-scientists-refute-anti-gmo-claims/

[muriel_volestrangler]

265. reply #180

If you had opened the first link you just provided, you would have seen the link there too, at the top of it:

Update: 2-25-2011 According to Reuters, Dr. Don Huber’s letter to Secretary Vilsack confirmed by R. Andre Bell, USDA spokesperson, and is currently under review. Office of the Executive Secretariat, M. Young, apologizes for providing incomplete, and thus inaccurate information to this reporter when initially contacted yesterday about the existence of such a letter.

You'll notice that reply #151 link to that too, saying "Letter has been confirmed by Reuters - Check out this link." You replied to that, but apparently didn't bother reading the post you replied to, or the link it gave. Or you just forgot.

[skepticscott]

267. At this point, their reply should be

that until and unless he provides actual names of people doing the research, and their affiliations, funding sources and hard data, that his letter can't be taken at all seriously. It might also be nice if they asked him to explain why he is writing all this in a letter to the USDA, instead of letting the scientists who did the actual research publish their results in a peer-reviewed journal, unless this is just a BS scare tactic, designed to spread false information and avoid the usual channels of scientific scrutiny.

[upi402]

240. So what poor nation gets bombed for their non-Monsanto seeds? n/t

[grahamhgreen]

270. Yiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiikes!