Topic suggested by Long & Short Reviews:
Sometimes I wish more people talked openly about our glyphosate reactions. Most people do have a consistent pattern of reactions to this ubiquitous chemical, though many people don't recognize it. Most people don't think of themselves as chemical-sensitive. With glyphosate, especially, people's reactions can include almost anything. Glyphosate affects humans most directly by killing friendly bacteria in our digestive systems. Nobody feels that happening, directly. What we feel may be noticeable minutes or hours later and usually involves a physical weak point. Our weak points may have causes and triggers that have nothing to do with glyphosate, yet exposure to glyphosate triggers reactions that may be more serious than our reactions to the original causes or triggers.
People often say, "I used 'Roundup' for years and I never noticed a reaction." They might feel offended if they were told that others noticed their reactions, though that may be the case. Glyphosate reactions can include mental confusion, learning disabilities, and mood swings. They can also include tiresome little physical reactions that people think they're concealing from others, like stomach gas, an unsteady walk or a stiffness that makes us "look old," blurred vision, or shaky hands.
People who are being paid by chemical companies often say, "The (corporate-sponsored) 'science' says glyphosate has very low toxicity..." That's based on animal studies that selected for the species least likely to show reactions, and when you look at the actual studies, anyway, the studies show that most animals DID show reactions, but each animal's reaction was different so each reaction could be described as statistically insignificant. Thousands of animals suffered and died to get those cherry-picked results showing that at least the animals didn't all develop the same kind of cancer. I've debated on this topic, before the corporations prevailed on Twitter to block the topic from view, and "won"--once even in a language I don't actually speak. Corporations have spent a lot of time choosing statistics that seem to support the conclusions they want, but however well the numbers may seem to add up, those statistics do not accurately reflect reality. The facts are pretty clear to an open mind, and they just don't support the conclusions the corporations want them to support.
My clinching argument is: "If (name of corporation) really believes glyphosate is safe, they can always test a half-dozen samples from any patient who has an internal bleeding disorder and see whether the level of glyphosate in each sample correlates with the level of bleeding." I say that because my observation of my celiac disease certainly does show a correlation--deadly precise. I believe that, if there are patients whose internal bleeding varies and is not correlated with glyphosate exposure, it would be worthwhile to find out what is going on inside them, so the corporations really ought to fund those tests. They can afford it; glyphosate has been incredibly profitable. But for some strange reason no chemical company has ever funded any such studies. They prefer to cling to their studies of mice and dogs.
It should be noted, though, that there is a well documented pattern in which some fertile females, of many species including humans, don't react to various toxins because their bodies store toxins in placentas of what then come out as defective, often stillborn offspring. There is also one in which people who don't show immediate reactions to various toxins tend to be the ones who, perhaps because they're more likely to expose themselves to greater levels of those toxins, develop cancer later on. Some people really don't show immediate glyphosate reactions. I don't think those people can be considered lucky.
And it's hard to tell when we've been exposed to glyphosate. Food manufacturers refuse to test for it (tests are expensive) or warn us about it on labels; many foods, including "natural, healthy" favorites like celery, strawberries, and spinach, are still likely to contain enough glyphosate to make people sick. Very few restrictions have been placed on people's spraying glyphosate into air and water. "Roundup" sold for "lawn care" has a trademark scent that breaks down quickly in the air and, if it's noticed, is easily mistaken for cut grass and/or pool chlorine. (This scent is produced by a chemical that's been shown to be toxic all by itself.) Glyphosate sold for public or agricultural use has no odor or taste. Home gardeners very often sell or share food they believe they have "organically grown," but the food products have absorbed enough glyphosate from routine spraying of nearby road verges that they still make people sick. Tracing the source of glyphosate exposure can make people feel that the situation is hopeless.
Finally, as the Vicious Pesticide Cycle completes its round, farmers are observing that spraying glyphosate actually breeds more kudzu, jimsonweed, and Spanish Needles. Corporations have had to Do Something. What Bayer ("Weasels of the world, unite") has done is to bring out New Roundup for "lawn care," which is supposed to be a weaker solution of glyphosate, and New Roundup for farm use, which is a fearful concoction of glyphosate plus four more "active" poisons, some new and some known carcinogens. Exposure to New Roundup (for farm use) is generally agreed to be an unpleasant experience for anybody. I described my first reaction as "measles and mononucleosis and food poisoning, all at once." That's a description most people who are old enough to remember measles seem to relate to. People who didn't notice reactions to plain glyphosate notice reactions to New Roundup.
Nobody wants to talk about their glyphosate reactions. When they're not little things we want to believe nobody's ever noticed that we have, they're disgusting, like the celiac and pseudo-celiac reactions that have been more frequently reported every year since glyphosate's been on the market. If polite people have to mention celiac reactions, all they're ever going to say toward defining their terms is "Look it up." They're certainly not a topic people would want to bring up on a date, or in a job interview, or in a sales presentation, or at church, or on any social occasion. If we call friends and say "Do you have five minutes to talk about recurring, disgusting symptoms?" most people will probably say "Isn't there anything else at all you'd rather talk about?"
That's what the corporations are banking on, as they continue frantically marketing glyphosate while paying off the cancer victims. Bayer is actually pushing "Roundup" in order to have enough money to pay the cancer victims! And these corporations have leaned heavily on news media and social media companies to suppress this whole topic. And they have smeared, harassed, even physically attacked people who persist in talking about it.
So, are we going to let the corporations get away with that? If you don't want to let the corporations keep selling poisons while knowing they cause chronic disease symptoms and contribute to cancer, then you need to have those unpleasant conversations. They're disgusting...and they're embarrassing...and they just might save the life of someone close to you. We have to keep talking to each other, and putting pressure on health care providers and on elected officials, to get glyphosate and similar poisons banned.
Regular readers know that celebrities have talked and are talking about these topics--although what they've said is being suppressed. The Glyphosate Awareness movement has room for everybody--entertainers like Neil Young, politicians like Robert Kennedy, activists like Ralph Nader, as well as universities like Purdue and, not to suggest that they have any business dictating policy to any government, the World Health Organization. (If the Devil had a body, that body would probably have glyphosate reactions and we'd have room for it in Glyphosate Awareness...WHO is the next thing.)
Glyphosate Awareness is a grassroots movement, NOT an organization that raises funds/ I don't want your money and I'll denounce anyone who does (though writers have a right to ask people to pay for books, and politicians have a right to ask people to donate to campaign funds--those are separate things from Glyphosate Awareness). We want your activity. We have documents; you can find them online (a good curated collection of documents in one place is at MomsAcrossAmerica.org) or order printed copies, at cost, from this web site. We ask you to share the information in these documents in ways that seem right to you.
In fact, because people in Glyphosate Awareness have been smeared, harassed, and attacked, I recommend that students and parents maintain a low profile when sharing this information. If I live another fifty years, I'll still have a long list of things to do, and if I die tomorrow, I'll still have had a longer and better life than most humans ever had. I can take the heat. Robert Kennedy can. Vandana Shiva can. If you're over age 50, you can too. If you still have, or still think you might have, children at home, we want you to share information and sign petitions, but you need to raise those children first.
No comments:
Post a Comment