Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eng050599 t1_ixxq4mj wrote

Reply to comment by fasthpst in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997

So does Seneff, and she has yet to actually test any of her hypotheses experimentally.

Not joking about that in the slightest.

Since her first paper in Entropy, all of her publications have involved data-mining other studies, using the bits she likes to develop hypothetical mechanisms on how glyphosate is responsible for every ill mankind suffers from...and that's it.

She stops at the very first stage of the scientific method, developing a testable hypothesis.

There's a reason why she's considered to be unhinged even by the Seralini crew.

2

beebeereebozo t1_ixy3xs5 wrote

Not to let the opportunity for even more quackery go to waste, she attempts to connect COVID19 and glyphosate. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephanie-seneff-strikes-out-again-glyphosate-and-covid-19

1

eng050599 t1_ixy5xdm wrote

I keep up to date on her idiocy simply because I've become the chair's go to person when a "concerned citizen" contacts my department regarding almost anything related to the dimwitted duo.

Now, I will admit that it was hilarious to see her get debunked by the likes of Antoniou and Mesnage in the case of her glyphosate substitutes for glycine hypothesis, she's simply gone off the rails too far in my opinion.

As I wrote to fasthpst, the simple fact that she hasn't bothered to experimentally validate any of her molecular spitballing should be a good sign that her research is useless, but it persists.

2

beebeereebozo t1_ixzqwht wrote

Must be exhausting at times, and frustrating to have to counter such ignorance. It would be one thing if it was just a matter of presenting the facts, but the anti-gly crowd knows all they have to do is plant a seed of doubt or fear, and it will grow on its own regardless of the facts.

1

eng050599 t1_iy0svdv wrote

The thing to realize ius that, for a depressing percent of the general public, they aren't actually looking for information when they contact someone like me, they're looking for validation of their beliefs.

When that doesn't happen, it can get spiraled up into a Machiavellian conspiracy and that all scientists who disagree with them are paid shills.

That's usually the point where I just shrug and move on.

This is also why I provide quite a bit of detail in my replies to threads like this.

In many cases, I know that nothing I write will change a zealots mind, but my answers aren't for them. They're for someone who comes across this down the road who has an actual interest in learning.

For them, the information is available for them to do so.

2