Scientific paper stating airborne barium releases 'responsible' for human illness

[deejay]

Not only 'responsible', but gives the chemical analysis of exactly HOW it is responsible:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082100

[...]

Sounds like inside information to me. Open for discussion.

 

[MikeC]

It's not new - see this thread - https://www.metabunk.org/posts/12209

It's not a "scientific paper" - it is not peer reviewed, and the fact that it is in PubMed means nothing - they get ALL articles published, whether accurate or not.

Mark Purdey was a British organic farmer and anti-BSE campaigner who believed that the disease was due to environmental factors rather than being an infectious disease. As his wiki page points out, he was wrong. But he was also quite dogged and quite well self-educated, and some of his papers were published in peer-reviewed journals.

But that doesn't stop him being wrong.

If you'd searched for "Purdey" on here you might have found this.

 

[Landru]

Not only 'responsible', but gives the chemical analysis of exactly HOW it is responsible:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15082100

[...]

I googled the following phrase, "Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves." What I got back was a collection of chemtrail conspiracy sites. What I didn't see is any evidence that this spraying takes place. Do you have any?

 

[Pete Tar]

[...]


Read this thread for some overview -
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/210-How-did-barium-get-into-chemtrails.

The high levels of Ba stemmed from local quarrying for Ba ores and/or use of Ba in paper/foundry/welding/textile/oil and gas well related industries, as well as from the use of Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges, etc.

Content from external source

Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used.


edit...

The basics of barium toxicity....

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=326&tid=57#bookmark04

How can barium affect my health?

The health effects of the different barium compounds depend on how well the compound dissolves in water or in the stomach contents. Barium compounds that do not dissolve well, such as barium sulfate, are not generally harmful.

Barium has been found to potentially cause gastrointestinal disturbances and muscular weakness when people are exposed to it at levels above the EPA drinking water standards for relatively short periods of time. Some people who eat or drink amounts of barium above background levels found in food and water for a short period may experience vomiting, abdominal cramps, diarrhea, difficulties in breathing, increased or decreased blood pressure, numbness around the face, and muscle weakness. Eating or drinking very large amounts of barium compounds that easily dissolve can cause changes in heart rhythm or paralysis and possibly death. Animals that drank barium over long periods had damage to the kidneys, decreases in body weight, and some died.

Content from external source

 

[deejay]

Quote from the article:

"...chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis; such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile. The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

So nobody has anything to add to the bio-chemical mechanism of barium toxicity as described, I suppose...? That's some team ya'll have here.

Pere Tar:
"Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used."

Please cite your source.

 

[deejay]

oops, there goes another science factoid from the libraries of NIH...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15236778

 

[deejay]

Hmmm... and here's a link to the 'engagement of prions' in the formation of TSE (spongiform disease) - seems as if Purdy's perched right on the bleeding edge of all this. Coincidence?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15908137

 

[TWCobra]

How is it being sprayed Deejay? If it is in the fuel I foresee some engineering/ground crew health problems.

http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/msds/46-barium

Content from external source

 

[deejay]

If you're claiming it's being sprayed, then burden of proof is upon you.

What the paper says its that it's IN THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT.

Now, years before any of this was published at NIH, 'chemtrails' observers were reporting soil/water/filter tests having found elevated levels of:
Barium
Aluminum
Strontium
odd (engineered) micro Fibers, containing biological cells/dye markers/microscopic markings

So TW, if you have any idea where those things the CT researchers discovered were happening worldwide MIGHT have been coming from, please share with the rest of us because we'd like to know, too.

All I'm saying is that there are documented human health hazards associated with the abundance of those materials being found in the local atmosphere, some of which are very specifically addressed in the abstracts posted. Very serious health effects indeed.

 

[MikeC]

Quote from the article:

"...chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis; such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile. The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

So nobody has anything to add to the bio-chemical mechanism of barium toxicity as described, I suppose...? That's some team ya'll have here.

Since you are apparently so much better informed than us perhaps you can put it in simple terms?

Because I can't find anything in any reputable publication about Baas a contributor to MS other than Rense, etc., all of whom come back to thuis guy, and we know that he's not a credible source.

Pere Tar:
"Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used."

Please cite your source.

Uses of Barium

The largest end use of barium metal is as a "getter" to remove the last traces of gases from vacuum and television picture tubes. It is also used to improve performance of lead alloy grids of acid batteries; as a component of grey and ductile irons; in the manufacture of steel, copper and other metals; as a loader for paper, soap, rubber and linoleum.
Barium peroxide is used as a bleach, in dyes, fireworks and tracer-bullets, in igniter and welding materials, and in manufacture of hydrogen peroxide and oxygen. The permanganate is used as a dry cell depolarizer and in disinfectants.
Barium nitrate is used in fireworks, ceramic glazes, electronics, tracer bullets, detonators, and neon sign lights. Barium cyanide is used in electroplating and metallurgy. Barium chlorate is used in fireworks, explosives, matches, and as a mordant in dyeing.
Barium carbonate is used as follows: 45 percent as ingredient in glass, 25 percent in brick and clay products, 7 percent as a raw material for barium ferrites, 4 percent in photographic paper coatings, 19 percent other.
Barium hydroxide is used in lubricating oils and greases and as a component of detergents in motor oils. It is also used in plastics stabilizers, papermaking additives, sealing compounds, vulcanization accelerators, pigment dispersants and self-extinguishing polyurethane foams and to protect limestone objects from deterioration.
Barium chloride is used in pigments, glass, dyeing, leather tanning, chlorine and sodium hydroxide manufacture and in water softening. Barium-based dyes are widely used in inks, paints, cosmetics and drugs.

Content from external source

One notable omission from that list is vehicle brake pads

 

[Pete Tar]

...

So nobody has anything to add to the bio-chemical mechanism of barium toxicity as described, I suppose...? That's some team ya'll have here.

Pere Tar:
"Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used."

Please cite your source.

Look at the barium toxicity faq for some insight, I do not know if the initial claim has been validated by others though and would be surprised if it had been.

Note the barium toxicity faq quoted above says that the more stable barium is less toxic than the easily dissolved. What type of barium was the military allegedly using? I imagine for the experiment that was conducted they used a more stable kind. There is no evidence however that they routinely use it, other than reports originating from chemtrail claimants, sourced in the above metabunk thread you have been advised to read, which was my source for what you quoted above.

 

[MikeC]

oops, there goes another science factoid from the libraries of NIH...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15236778

Same guy, trying to support the same discredited theory - it doesn't matter how many papers of his you post - numbers do not make him any less wrong.

 

[MikeC]

If you're claiming it's being sprayed, then burden of proof is upon you.

What the paper says its that it's IN THE IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT.

Now, years before any of this was published at NIH, 'chemtrails' observers were reporting soil/water/filter tests having found elevated levels of:
Barium
Aluminum
Strontium

none of which have actually managed to be supported by verifiable evidence, and those that get published are (so far at least AFAIK) always found to be not high at all.

odd (engineered) micro Fibers, containing biological cells/dye markers/microscopic markings

again - never managed to be supported by any actual verifiable evidence.

All I'm saying is that there are documented human health hazards associated with those materials, some of which are very specifically addressed in the abstracts posted.

There are health hazards associated with almost everything if you consume too much of it. The links Purdey thought he found were not/have not been supported by further research AFAIK - all we ever get is people like you trumpeting his papers because you think you have discovered something new.

 

[deejay]

Mike: Okay, I'll try to break it down for everyone in simple terms... and thank you for asking!

"... chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis;"

In short, Barium salts as found 'loose' in the local atmosphere and absorbed by flora/ingested by fauna are in fact major endocrine disruptors. As such, one can expect very serious health consequences to follow prolonged or acute ingestion. As well, normal levels of various biological growth factor hormones may be severely affected, creating a situation where it is more difficult for the affected individual to recover from the initial assault of the disruptor, due to impaired cell/tissue repair.

"... such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. "

One such 'side effect' of Barium intoxication/poisoning is increased blood clotting, potentially leading to death-by-thrombosis in extreme instances - though in sub-lethal doses, massive amounts of free radical pollutants and byproducts are released into the organism's bloodstream, which is CONCURRENTLY suffering from endocrine disruption due to the exposure, meaning the immune system is ALREADY severely compromised at the time of insult.

"Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile."

Affected individuals will suffer from major energy disruptions as well, since the "sodium-potassium pump" is a principal means of cellular regulation in terms of energy and exchange.

"The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

After massive exposure or ingestion (sub-lethal, as below LD50 levels), it is simply a matter of time and genetics before debilitating physical disease develops in affected individuals.

They will thus suffer from any number of degenerative diseases, quite frankly as a direct result of environmentally induced Barium poisoning.

 

[deejay]

and btw, RENSE site literally grabs stuff from everywhere on the web... that in itself neither qualifies nor disqualifies anyone.

Mike - uh, YES. The fibers made their way into a film that's been making the rounds on the web for the past few months. After years of various tests and analysis, someone finally put them under a sufficiently strong electron microscope and obtained photos of the markings - very clear micro-signatures 'engraved' in contents within the fibers themselves, contents of which appeared to be very clear instances of embedded nano-technology.

Just reporting, I have seen it with my own eyes... but please do your OWN research, and don't take my word for it. You have the search terms.

 

[David Fraser]

Quote from the article:

"...chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis; such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile. The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

So nobody has anything to add to the bio-chemical mechanism of barium toxicity as described, I suppose...? That's some team ya'll have here.

Pere Tar:
"Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used."

Please cite your source.

Can you explain that in terms a layman can understand, especially on how the action will cause MS

 

[MikeC]

Mike - uh, YES. The fibers made their way into a film that's been making the rounds on the web for the past few months. After years of various tests and analysis, someone finally put them under a sufficiently strong electron microscope and obtained photos of the markings - very clear micro-signatures 'engraved' in contents within the fibers themselves, contents of which appeared to be very clear instances of embedded nano-technology.

Just reporting, I have seen it with my own eyes... but please do your OWN research, and don't take my word for it. You have the search terms.

why don't you provide your source, as you have asked others to do??

 

[MikeC]

Mike: Okay, I'll try to break it down for everyone in simple terms... and thank you for asking!

"... chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis;"

In short, Barium salts as found 'loose' in the local atmosphere and absorbed by flora/ingested by fauna are in fact major endocrine disruptors. As such, one can expect very serious health consequences to follow prolonged or acute ingestion. As well, normal levels of various biological growth factor hormones may be severely affected, creating a situation where it is more difficult for the affected individual to recover from the initial assault of the disruptor, due to impaired cell/tissue repair.

So - too much barium can be bad for you - I think that is not in question.

however you have not addressed the link to MS at all.

"... such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. "

One such 'side effect' of Barium intoxication/poisoning is increased blood clotting, potentially leading to death-by-thrombosis in extreme instances - though in sub-lethal doses, massive amounts of free radical pollutants and byproducts are released into the organism's bloodstream, which is CONCURRENTLY suffering from endocrine disruption due to the exposure, meaning the immune system is ALREADY severely compromised at the time of insult.

How do you get that from the quoted text?

"Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile."

Affected individuals will suffer from major energy disruptions as well, since the "sodium-potassium pump" is a principal means of cellular regulation in terms of energy and exchange.

I don't see any literature anywhere that describes the K/Na pump as "a principal means of cellular regulation in terms of energy and exchange" - where did you get that from?

this article seems to suggest that the K/Na pump is mainly of use to the sending of nerve signals - any energy link is due to it using a lot of energy, not being any sort of primary regulator of it.

What's more the link between MS and the K/Na pump seems to be that MS causes the pump to have to work harder - see this abstract - which means that disrupting the pump is not a factor in MS at all - and hence the supposition here is false -

White-matter astrocytes in MS show a reduced metabolism of adenosine triphosphate-generating phosphocreatine, which may impair the astrocytic sodium potassium pump and lead to a reduced sodium-dependent glutamate uptake.

Content from external source

So it seems that you do not understand eth K/Na pump, and Purdey didn't understand it's link to MS, which is that MS causes problems for the pump, not vice versa.

"The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

After massive exposure or ingestion (sub-lethal, as below LD50 levels), it is simply a matter of time and genetics before debilitating physical disease develops in affected individuals.

They will thus suffer from any number of degenerative diseases, quite frankly as a direct result of environmentally induced Barium poisoning.

Again you seem to be making up your own story - the quoted text does not mention "massive exposure or ingestion" at all - it calls the ecosystem "contaminated", and it "suggests" that there is a link between this and the ill health. It does NOT say that "it is simply a matter of time and genetics" before a debilitating disease strikes - it says genetics will determine WHICH disease strikes and nowhere actually says debilitating, nor that there are "any number" of such diseases.

Perhaps you could try to accurately transcribe these rather than making stories up about what they mean?

Do you know what "sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems" are??

and of course in the end Purdey is still just wrong!!

 

[deejay]

Apparently I'm the only person whose heard of posting actual links...

Anyway, here's one video (not the precise one I was speaking of, don't have that link but will probably find it) that illustrates biologicals and nanotech embedded in the micro-fibrils:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmxrA_yDazY

Perhaps not the best example, and most of these videos suffer from the fact that the individuals who produce them have absolutely ZERO public relations skills whatsoever, so their titles are often alarmist and misleading. That said, this is a POOR example of a much better video which exists, which clearly shows sub-microscopic writing on embedded nanotechnology in micro-fibrils attributed to - let's call it geo-engineering.

Mike: You ASKED me to explain it in simple terms, which I've done. THEN, not understanding what you've just read, you critique my explanation - on what grounds?

If you're going to do that, then you will need to be more specific. Please find a medical textbook and look up the terminology, as originally described in the Abstract, for yourself. Then look up the terms and conditions AS I'VE DESCRIBED THEM, in simpler English. As a partial list, here are some hints:
- endocrine disruptors
- MS
- pathogenesis
- platelets
- oxidative stress
- sodium-potassium ion pump and metabolism
- neurodegenerative
- clotting
- LD50
- growth factor
- sulfate chain in human biology

[...]

 

[MikeC]

Your "simple" explanations bore no resemblance to the quoted text - I said so in my post

If you don't understand my response then that makes it look like you don't actually understand what you posted!!

I have posted multiple links debunking your errors - apparently you don't recognize what they are - a link in this forum can be "embedded" and shows up as blue text - eg this text is a link to the BBC news page - click on it to go there.

but of course it is all academic (sic) anyway - Purdey's theories are discredited - including this paper. It is not "scientific", there were no "scientists" involved in writing it, and there is nothing you can do to make it otherwise unless you are going to do a proper controlled study of the claims.

 

[Cairenn]

If you make a claim, then you need to be able to show evidence for it.

What you have 'seen' is not evidence to me and what I have 'seen' shouldn't be evidence to you.

 

[deejay]

no one here has even begun to approach Purdey's level of detail - certainly not me, with my "layman's terms" reading.

So for starters:
Almost anything which disrupts the sulfation cycle in human biology can be said to be an 'endocrine disruptor'... [...]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2174413/

 

[deejay]

Hint: [...], just skip directly to the "Conclusions" heading in the first section of the article.

Since I happen to be educated in biology and Earth sciences (as well as design and engineering), this article isn't at all where I acquired my information prior to writing - off the top of my head in fact - though the article cited is definitely there for anyone to read, conclusion in plain English.

Reason for this being is that the sulfation pathways/reactions in human biology are legion - multitudes and multitudes of chemical precursors and reactions, each successive level being dependent upon previous processes and sulfation processes/products within the 'normal', healthy biological body...

therefore, while it has long been known that 'endocrine disruption' has hugely detrimental effects on the human body, endocrine disruptors themselves are considered to be a major field of toxicological medical research, one of which science is beginning to comprehend in its overall importance for human health and biological regulation.

"He that has ears," as they say.

 

[JRBids]

Quote from the article:

"...chronic contamination of the biosystem with the reactive types of Ba salts can initiate the pathogenesis of MS; due to the conjugation of Ba with free sulphate, which subsequently deprives the endogenous sulphated proteoglycan molecules (heparan sulfates) of their sulphate co partner, thereby disrupting synthesis of S-proteoglycans and their crucial role in the fibroblast growth factor (FGF) signalling which induces oligodendrocyte progenitors to maintain the growth and structural integrity of the myelin sheath. Loss of S-proteoglycan activity explains other key facets of MS pathogenesis; such as the aggregation of platelets and the proliferation of superoxide generated oxidative stress. Ba intoxications disturb the sodium-potassium ion pump--another key feature of the MS profile. The co-clustering of various neurodegenerative diseases in these Ba-contaminated ecosystems suggests that the pathogenesis of all of these diseases could pivot upon a common disruption of the sulphated proteoglycan-growth factor mediated signalling systems. Individual genetics dictates which specific disease emerges at the end of the day."

So nobody has anything to add to the bio-chemical mechanism of barium toxicity as described, I suppose...? That's some team ya'll have here.

Pere Tar:
"Barium is a highly common material from multiple sources, barium salts were used in one experiment to do with radar, it is not routinely used."

Please cite your source.

Can you cite your source where it came from "chemplanes"?

 

[deejay]

FYI, the common garden chemical "Roundup" has been determined to be one of the single-most biologically disruptive chemicals in the entire environment. Perhaps ever.

 

[deejay]

Your talking about chemplanes - I'm talking about biological loading due to human-induced sourcing.

Big difference.

 

[MikeC]

Hint: If the above abstract is beyond one's reading or comprehension, just skip directly to the "Conclusions" heading in the first section of the article.

I understood it fine thanks.

Since I happen to be educated in biology and Earth sciences (as well as design and engineering), this article isn't at all where I acquired my information prior to writing - off the top of my head in fact - though the article cited is definitely there for anyone to read, conclusion in plain English.

"He that has ears," as they say.

then how come you did not recognize that he paper was written by a single person (as opposed to "I suppose the scientists who penned this article..."), was not peer reviewed, has not been supported by any other studies, the citations for the barium being sprayed in eth 1st place are flakey at best (see the link in my 1st post in reply - the 2nd in this thread for discussion of them), his supposed link to MS seems to be in completely the wrong direction, and your poor paraphrasing of large sections of the abstract to the point of changing their meaning??

You claim that the author(s) "....are scientists, after all,......" - no he is not. And ".... they know other scientists...." - I think everyone one in the world knows other scientists. And ".... many of whom also work for the military" - such as?

this was all, of course, an appeal to authority - the fact that someone is (or is not) a scientist does not make something false that is true, nor true that is false.

Puudey's claims have been debunked in this forum, you have been provided with a link to that debunking that you apparently did not follow - despite accusing everyone else of not providing links!!

 

[MikeC]

FYI, the common garden chemical "Roundup" has been determined to be one of the single-most biologically disruptive chemicals in the entire environment. Perhaps ever.

Source?

 

[MikeC]

Your talking about chemplanes - I'm talking about biological loading due to human-induced sourcing.

Big difference.

Indeed ther is - and yet you introduced "airborne" and "chemtrails" to this thread in your original post:

Since according to many of those (certified geniuses?) who call themselves 'debunkers' at this page there is no such thing as 'airborne barium releases' (Geo Engineering, Military SigOps, aka 'chemtrails'), then I suppose the scientists who penned this article are completely in error

Content from external source

and the abstract you referenced also mentions "atmospheric aerosol spray" of barium alongside other sources:

The high levels of Ba stemmed from local quarrying for Ba ores and/or use of Ba in paper/foundry/welding/textile/oil and gas well related industries, as well as from the use of Ba as an atmospheric aerosol spray for enhancing/refracting the signalling of radio/radar waves along military jet flight paths, missile test ranges, etc.

Content from external source

so it seems quite reasonable to conclude that in fact you DID introduce "chemplanes" to the thread - although in other words and the term is a crude paraphrase

 

[Pete Tar]

There are two parts to the claim - that there are deliberate airborne releases of barium taking place, and that a link between barium and MS is proven by this paper.

The initial link between barium and radar is provided by Jay's research...

July 6, 2000
Posted by Clifford Carnicom "on behalf of Griff" were this photo and text entitled "Enemy Radar View".
http://chemtrails.yuku.com/topic/985/ENEMY-RADAR-VIEW

Rather than being the work of either A.C. Griffith or Carnicom, both the image and the text was taken from this 1996 "Popular Mechanics" article.
http://books.google.co.vi/books?id=Q...iew%22&f=false


In order to alter the original so that it served his purpose, Griffith has added the final sentence:" The Variable Terrain Radio Parabolic Equation (VTRPE) model has been tested and perfected after aerosol barium titanate salt mixture was released from military aircraft, forming chemical trails in the atmosphere across America. This was ONE experiment / project conducted with barium salt mixture in the atmosphere."

At the same time, realizing that if people knew VTRPE was simply an equation used to approximate real-life situations of radar propagation, Griffith removed the phrase "A complex mathematical model that currently can run only on a supercomputer" from his version of the article. Griffith lifted a "Popular Mechanics" article, including an image, without attribution, and altered it, adding and deleting text. His goal was to impress readers with what he hoped they would accept as his "research". Within several days, I was able to uncover and expose the hoax for all to see.

Content from external source

from the thread you've been urged to read but appear to have not.

It appears I was mistaken in thinking that barium was released as a VTRPE radar experiment, as this is basically a computer modelling program.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991nosc.reptS....R

The VTRPE computer program is a range-dependent, tropospheric microwave propagation model that is based upon the split-step Fourier parabolic wave equation algorithm. The nominal applicable frequency range of the model is VHF to K-band. The VTRPE program is able to make predictions for microwave propagation over both land and water. The VTRPE code is a full-wave propagation model that solves the electromagnetic wave equations for the complex electric and magnetic radiation fields. The model accounts for the effects of nonuniform atmospheric refractivity fields, variable surface terrain, and varying surface dielectric properties on microwave propagation.

Content from external source

That barium is a health hazard in sufficient quantities and in the right form is not in debate, its link to MS has only been made by Purdey.

Nonetheless, Purdey's views have not been accepted by mainstream scientists. The Phillips Inquiry concluded that "[t]he theory that BSE is caused by the application to cattle of organophosphorus pesticides is not viable, although there is a possibility that these can increase the susceptibility of cattle to BSE."[7]​ His papers, published primarily in the journal Medical Hypotheses, are exclusively theoretical and contain no original biochemical research.

Content from external source

 

[deejay]

Mike: In modern biology, no scientist works alone, but certainly not in biology... he simply has attained 'authorship' of the article. Ask him, and he'll tell you who he's participating with - other scientists, other organizations, etc. - the idea for the paper was his, and thus he's clearly described the neurological and bio-chemical pathways for Barium disruption... HOWEVER, he did not 'invent' the same, nor does he claim to, since HIS work is (obvisouly?) also based upon many decades of OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK.

Otherwise, i would not have been able to (accurately and correctly) describe that he was more commonly speaking about endocrine disruptors - someone else 'beat him to the punchbowl' on that one, which is how I knew about it.

Roundup: [...] It's been all over the environmental headlines this year... just don't look for it in papers that accept ads from Monsanto, because you won't find the information there, they won't print it for fear of losing ad revenues.

MS - it's known that sulfation cycle problems are a major signifier of MS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owoOpCOOh3s

also, if you want a 'definitive' source:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276009002185

So if you pop for the $39 and read the e-book, you'll discover that there is great interest in how endocrine disruptors affect the myelin sheathing of the body, which in turn is a major factor in Multiple Sclerosis.

[...]

 

[Cairenn]

The good, the bad and the ugly about Roundup. Doesn't seem to match your comment.

Toxicity

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in herbicide formulations containing it. However, in addition to glyphosate salts, commercial formulations of glyphosate contain additives such as surfactants which vary in nature and concentration. Laboratory toxicology studies have suggested that other ingredients in combination with glyphosate may have greater toxicity than glyphosate alone.[47] Toxicologists have studied glyphosate alone, additives alone, and formulations.
Glyphosate toxicity

Glyphosate has a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Toxicity Class of III (on a I to IV scale, where IV is least dangerous) for oral and inhalation exposure.[48] Nonetheless, as with other herbicides, the EPA requires that products containing glyphosate carry a label that warns against oral intake, mandates the use of protective clothing, and instructs users not to re-enter treated fields for at least 4 hours.[48][49] Glyphosate does not bioaccumulate and breaks down rapidly in the environment.[50]
Human

The EPA considers glyphosate to be noncarcinogenic and relatively low in toxicity.[48] The EPA considered a "worst case" dietary risk model of an individual eating a lifetime of food derived entirely from glyphosate-sprayed fields with residues at their maximum levels. This model indicated that no adverse health effects would be expected under such conditions.[48]
Effects on fish and amphibians

Glyphosate is generally less persistent in water than in soil, with 12 to 60 day persistence observed in Canadian pond water, yet because glyphosate binds to soil, persistence of over a year has been observed in the sediments of ponds in Michigan and Oregon.[48] In streams, maximum glyphosate concentrations were measured immediately post-treatment and dissipated rapidly.[48] Glyphosate is "practically nontoxic to slightly toxic" for amphibians and fish.[51]
Soil degradation, and effects on micro-organism and worms
Degradation pathway of glyphosate in the ground[51]

When glyphosate comes into contact with the soil, it can be rapidly bound to soil particles and be inactivated.[48][52] Unbound glyphosate can be degraded by bacteria.[53]

In soils, half-lives vary from as little as three days at a site in Texas to 141 days at a site in Iowa.[52] In addition, the glyphosate metabolite aminomethylphosphonic acid has been found in Swedish forest soils up to two years after a glyphosate application.[54] Glyphosate adsorption to soil varies depending on the kind of soil.[55]

It has been suggested that glyphosate can harm the bacterial ecology of soil and cause micronutrient deficiencies in plants,[56] including nitrogen-fixing bacteria.[57] A 2012 study found that while Roundup had toxic effects at low levels on three food microorganisms (e.g. Lactobacillus delbrueckii), "glyphosate at these levels has no significant effect".[58]

...
Human

Data from the California Environmental Protection Agency's Pesticide Illness Surveillance Program, which also tracks other agricultural chemicals, shows that glyphosate-related incidents are some of the most common.[60][61] However, incident counts alone do not take into account the number of people exposed and the severity of symptoms associated with each incident.[61] For example, if hospitalization were used as a measure of the severity of incidents, then glyphosate would be considered relatively safe; over a 13-year period in California, none of the 515 reported hospitalizations were attributed to glyphosate.[61]

Deliberate ingestion of Roundup in quantities ranging from 85 to 200 ml has resulted in death within hours of ingestion, although it has also been ingested in quantities as large as 500 ml with only mild or moderate symptoms.[62] There is a reasonable correlation between the amount of Roundup ingested and the likelihood of serious systemic sequelae or death. Ingestion of >85 ml of the concentrated formulation is likely to cause significant toxicity in adults. Corrosive effects – mouth, throat and epigastric pain and dysphagia – are common. Renal and hepatic impairment are also frequent and usually reflect reduced organ perfusion. Respiratory distress, impaired consciousness, pulmonary edema, infiltration on chest x-ray, shock, arrythmias, renal failure requiring haemodialysis, metabolic acidosis, and hyperkalaemia may occur in severe cases. Bradycardia and ventricular arrhythmias often present prior to death.

Dermal exposure to ready-to-use glyphosate formulations can cause irritation, and photo-contact dermatitis has been occasionally reported. These effects are probably due to the preservative Proxel (benzisothiazolin-3-one). Inhalation is a minor route of exposure, but spray mist may cause oral or nasal discomfort, an unpleasant taste in the mouth, or tingling and irritation in the throat. Eye exposure may lead to mild conjunctivitis. Superficial corneal injury is possible if irrigation is delayed or inadequate.[47]
In vitro studies on human cells

A 2000 review concluded that "under present and expected conditions of new use, there is no potential for Roundup herbicide to pose a health risk to humans".[63] A 2002 review by the European Union reached the same conclusion.[64]

Glyphosate causes oxidative damage to human skin cells. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E were found by one study to provide some protection against such damage, leading the authors to recommend that these chemicals be added to glyphosate formulations.[65] Severe skin burns are very rare.[47]
Endocrine disruption

A study published in 2000 found that Roundup interfered with an enzyme involved in testosterone production in mouse cell culture.[66] A study by the Seralini lab published in 2005 found that glyphosate interferes with aromatase, an estrogen biosynthesis enzyme, in cultures of human placental cells and that the Roundup formulation of glyphosate had stronger such activity.[67] A follow up study by the Seralini lab, published in 2009, showed similar results in human liver cells.[68] A study on rats published in 2010 found that administering Roundup Transorb orally to prepubescent rats at a dose of 0.25 mL/100 g of body weight, once a day for 30 days, reduced testosterone production and affected testicle morphology, but did not affect levels of estradiol and corticosterone.[69]

Monsanto has responded, saying that (a) Roundup formulations do contain surfactants (detergents) to help the active ingredient penetrate the waxy cuticle of the plant. (b) The surfactants are indeed more toxic than the glyphosate. (c) "If you put a detergent of any sort on cells in a petri dish, the cells get sick (and will die if you get the concentration high enough or recover if you remove the detergent soon enough)"; (d) the cell types chosen in these studies and the parameters measured were selected more to score political points than to help fully describe the risks of glyphosate and surfactants; (e) the experiments are artificial and not helpful – no one is supposed to drink Roundup, and it is not ever put on naked cells (we all have skin and workers are meant to wear protective clothes).[70]

In 2007, the EPA selected glyphosate for further screening through its Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Selection for this program is based on a compound's prevalence of use and does not imply particular suspicion of endocrine activity.[71]
Genetic damage

A 2009 study on mice found that a single intraperitoneal injection of Roundup in concentration of 25 mg/kg caused chromosomal aberrations and induction of the micronuclei.[72]
Other mammals

A review of the ecotoxicological data on Roundup shows there are at least 58 studies of the effects of Roundup itself on a range of organisms.[51] This review concluded that "for terrestrial uses of Roundup minimal acute and chronic risk was predicted for potentially exposed non-target organisms".

In a 2001, three groups of pregnant rats were fed, respectively, a regular diet with clean water, a regular diet with 0.2 ml glyphosate/ml drinking water; and a regular diet with 0.4 ml glyphosate/ml drinking water. Glyphosate induces a variety of functional abnormalities in fetuses and pregnant rats.[73] Also in recent mammalian research, glyphosate has been found to interfere with an enzyme involved testosterone production in mouse cell culture.[66]

Glyphosate is low in toxicity to rats when ingested by rats. The acute oral LD50 in rats is greater than 4320 mg/kg. Rats and mice were fed a diet containing 0, 3125, 6250, 12,500, 25,000, or 50,000 ppm of 99% pure glyphosate for 13 weeks. The two highest dose groups of male rats had a significant reduction in sperm concentrations, although concentrations were still within the historical range for that rat strain. The highest dose group of female rats had a slightly longer estrus cycle than the control group. The Reference Dose for glyphosate set by the EPA is 1.75 mg/kg/day and the maximum contaminant level set by the EPA is 0.7 mg/L[21][74]

The EPA,[75] the EC Health and Consumer Protection Directorate, and the UN World Health Organization have all concluded pure glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Opponents of glyphosate claim Roundup has been found to cause genetic damage, citing Peluso et al.[76] The authors concluded the damage was "not related to the active ingredient, but to another component of the herbicide mixture".

Mammal research indicates oral intake of 1% glyphosate induces changes in liver enzyme activities in pregnant rats and their fetuses.[77]

Laboratory studies have shown teratogenic effects of Roundup in animals.[78][79] These reports have proposed that the teratogenic effects are caused by impaired retinoic acid signaling.[80] News reports have supposed that regulators have been aware of these studies since 1980.[81]
Effects on fish and amphibians

A study of various formulations of glyphosate found that "risk assessments based on estimated and measured concentrations of glyphosate that would result from its use for the control of undesirable plants in wetlands and over-water situations showed that the risk to aquatic organisms is negligible or small at application rates less than 4 kg/ha and only slightly greater at application rates of 8 kg/ha.".[82]

Glyphosate formulations are much more toxic for amphibians and fish than glyphosate alone.[51][83][84] "Aquaculture, freshwater and marine fisheries supply about 10% of world human calorie intake."[85] A study published in 2010 proposed commercial glyphosate can cause neural defects and craniofacial malformations in African clawed frogs (Xenopus laevis). The experiments used frog embryos that were incubated with 1:5000 dilutions of a commercial glyphosate solution. The frog embryos suffered diminution of body size, alterations of brain morphology, reduction of the eyes, alterations of the branchial arches and otic placodes, alterations of the neural plate, and other abnormalities of the nervous system. The authors suggested glyphosate itself was responsible for the observed results because injection of pure glyphosate produced similar results in a chicken model.[80]

Because of this known toxicity, only some formulations of glyphosate are registered for use in aquatic applications.[86][87] Monsanto and other companies produce glyphosate products with alternative surfactants that are specifically formulated for aquatic use, for example "Biactive" and "AquaMaster".[88] The glyphosate formulations registered for aquatic use have been found to have negligible adverse effects on sensitive amphibians.[89]
Soil degradation and effects on micro-organism and worms

A laboratory study published in 1992 indicated that glyphosate formulations could harm earthworms[90] and beneficial insects.[91] However, the reported effect of glyphosate on earthworms has been criticized.[51] The results conflict with results from field studies where no effects were noted for the number of nematodes, mites, or springtails after treatment with Roundup at 2 kilograms active ingredient per hectare.[92]

A 2009 study using a RoundUp formulation has concluded that absorption into plants delays subsequent soil-degradation, and can increase glyphosate persistence in soil from two to six times.[93]
Effect on plant health

A study published in 2005 found a correlation between an increase in the infection rate of wheat by fusarium head blight and the application of glyphosate, but the authors wrote: "because of the nature of this study, we could not determine if the association between previous GF (glyphosate formulation) use and FHB development was a cause-effect relationship".[94] Other studies have found causal relationships between glyphosate and decreased disease resistance.[95]

Content from external source

 

[Cairenn]

deejay it seems to me that you have violated the politeness policy multiple times. There is a reason I didn't want to be a mod.

 

[Cairenn]

Roundup is NOT a "organophosphorus pesticide', it is a WEED killer that has been used since the 70s around the world.

 

[Dan Wilson]

In short, Barium salts as found 'loose' in the local atmosphere and absorbed by flora/ingested by fauna are in fact major endocrine disruptors. As such, one can expect very serious health consequences to follow prolonged or acute ingestion. As well, normal levels of various biological growth factor hormones may be severely affected, creating a situation where it is more difficult for the affected individual to recover from the initial assault of the disruptor, due to impaired cell/tissue repair.

One such 'side effect' of Barium intoxication/poisoning is increased blood clotting, potentially leading to death-by-thrombosis in extreme instances - though in sub-lethal doses, massive amounts of free radical pollutants and byproducts are released into the organism's bloodstream, which is CONCURRENTLY suffering from endocrine disruption due to the exposure, meaning the immune system is ALREADY severely compromised at the time of insult.

What actual evidence is there for the proposed mechanism once inside the body? The references in Purdey's paper offer experiments, case, and epidemiological studies yet I can't yet find anything within them that supports this idea that barium is a major contributor to MS. There is no mention of MS or neurological disorders resulting from barium exposure in the wide variety of cases described. It's one thing to write out a biochemical process on paper and say it looks good, but it means nothing if it can't be demonstrated.

http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad33.htm#11.1
http://www.espimetals.com/index.php/msds/46-barium

Affected individuals will suffer from major energy disruptions as well, since the "sodium-potassium pump" is a principal means of cellular regulation in terms of energy and exchange.

The Na+/K+ pump is impaired by the presence of barium, which is why the muscles and nerves are the first things to be effected. People exposed to high levels of barium often experience hypokalaemia. Barium, however, does not accumulate in the body, so any damage would be expected to be temporary and reversible with potassium supplements. Indeed, no permanent adverse neurological effects have been demonstrated in human exposure to barium.

http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0010.htm

The health effects associated with occupational exposure to barium during arc welding with barium-containing stick electrodes and flux-cored wires were investigated by Zschiesche et al. (1992). A group of 18 healthy welders not using barium-containing consumables in the past 10 days were divided into three groups: group A (n = 8, mean age of 30.4 years) performed arc welding with barium-containing stick electrodes, group B (n = 5, mean age of 43.6 years) performed arc welding with barium-containing self-shielded flux-cored wires, and group C (n = 5, mean age of 32.0 years) performed arc welding with barium-containing self-shielded flux- cored wires using welding guns with built-in ventilation systems. All welders performed welding with barium-free consumables on Thursday and Friday of the first week of the study. Barium-containing consumables were used during week 2 of the study and on Monday of week 3. The subjects welded for an average of 4 h per day. The average barium concentrations in the breathing zones were 4.4 (range of 0.1-22.7), 2.0 (0.3-6.0), and 0.3 (0.1-1.5) mg/m3​ for groups A, B, and C, respectively. No exposure-related subjective symptoms of health or neurological signs were found. No significant differences between pre and postshift EKG, pulse rate, whole blood pH, base excess and standard bicarbonate, and plasma concentrations of sodium, magnesium, and total and ionized calcium were observed. During week 2, decreases in plasma potassium concentrations were observed in groups A and C; the levels returned to the normal range under continuation of barium exposure and were not statistically different from levels during week 1 (no barium exposure). This drop in serum potassium levels was not observed in group B, which had a barium exposure level similar to group A.

Constant exposure could be a concern, but we are not being exposed to such high levels on a daily basis.

https://www.metabunk.org/threads/247-What-are-the-normal-levels-of-Barium-in-Soil-and-Water

Again, I would emphasize the need for evidence that the proposed mechanism of pathogenesis is actually real. The only source I have found claiming such a thing is Purdey's paper, which neither contains nor sites evidence of the spoken of biochemical pathway. Here is another fairly extensive review on the neurotoxicity of environmental chemicals. The main neurotoxic chemicals, their effects, and mechanisms are described. Barium is not mentioned, and the authors recognize that the link between environmental chemical exposure and progressive neurodegenerative disorders is limited. This means that more research is needed, but the point is that we do not have the grounds to say that barium is a main contributor to these kinds of things.

http://www.national-toxic-encephalopathy-foundation.org/chemneuro.pdf

Without experiments to back it up, it's all fluff. If there is any evidence to support his ideas, please post it.

 

[deejay]

There's this wonderful thing called search engines on the web. If you'll simply type in "glyphosate disruption" as your search keywords, literally about 214,000 results will be found.

Here's one example, found near the top of the list (which means they're probably using a third party to 'bump them up' in searches):
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2013/05/14/glyphosate.aspx

Here's the Wiki article on it - clearly noting endocrine disruption:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate

Under the heading "Scientific Fraud", quoting direct from the wiki article:

"On two occasions, the United States EPA has caught scientists deliberately falsifying test results at research laboratories hired by Monsanto to study glyphosate.[120]​ The first incident involved Industrial Biotest Laboratories (IBT). The United States Justice Department closed the laboratory in 1978, and its leadership was found guilty in 1983 of charges of falsifying statements, falsifying scientific data submitted to the government, and mail fraud.[121]​ In 1991, Don Craven, the owner of Craven Laboratories and three employees were indicted on 20 felony counts. Craven, along with fourteen employees were found guilty of similar crimes.[122]"​

So go ahead - use an endocrine disruptor on your lawn and vegetables if you'd like - the science is there. I won't be joining you in that.

 

[deejay]

reason Barium is mentioned is because it has been turning up in local study after local study - anomalously. But also clearly, it has turned up in the local environments SPECIFICALLY WITHIN the "anomalous disease areas" cited by Purdy - in those exact regions, and not in surrounding (epidemiologically unaffected) adjacent regions, which clearly points to potential for causality - something which no one here seems to be able to comprehend, or at least are pretending not to understand.

Which is fine - because if it were actually understood, then there might be criminality involved. Much as could easily happen with Monsanto, and their coordinated, worldwide effort at distribution of widely known endocrine disruptors.

Here's a link to a French study which found cancer links relative to use of GMO corn feed:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...n-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention_

and here's the (very predictable) counter-argument, sponsored by that 'voice of reason' and known 'paragon of scientific virtue' (eg: national PR agency), Voice of America:
http://www.voanews.com/content/french-experts-question-of-gmo-cancer-study/1531542.html

and here's the counter-argument:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

NOW - knowing all this, one could consciously CHOOSE to consume GMO corn and GMO corn products for themselves, and thus to take the risk associated with it.

Likewise, one might assume that commercial interests have a "horse in the race", and thus might be fast to quash any information that did not support their PR materials.

Take your pick - we're not talking about spring water here. Basically, we're talking about:
- endocrine disruption on a mass scale
- with knowledge at ANY level of science or management, this constitutes Crimes Against Humanity

So the 'link' between glysophate (Roundup™), GMO corn and anomalous Barium counts?

Hint:
It's Directed Human Activity. Coordinated, directed human activity (at the governmental/corporate level) placing massive amounts of endocrine disruptors into the biological sphere, to be ingested by wildlife and human beings alike, en masse.

Which is exactly what is happening.

 

[TWCobra]

If you're claiming it's being sprayed, then burden of proof is upon you.

Deejay, YOU entitled this thread ".....airborne barium releases...". Also, I am not claiming it is being sprayed, I am illustrating some fairly profound obstacles to the practice of "airborne barium releases", or in other words... spraying.

Please tell us how it is done with consideration to the fact that it is a pyrophoric and is toxic when burnt?

 

[MikeC]

Mike: In modern biology, no scientist works alone, but certainly not in biology... he simply has attained 'authorship' of the article. Ask him...

He's dead.

you really don't know much about the subject at hand, do you!!

, and he'll tell you who he's participating with - other scientists, other organizations, etc. - the idea for the paper was his, and thus he's clearly described the neurological and bio-chemical pathways for Barium disruption... HOWEVER, he did not 'invent' the same, nor does he claim to, since HIS work is (obvisouly?) also based upon many decades of OTHER PEOPLE'S WORK.

He referenced many people's work - that does not make them co-authors.

His web page is still up - http://www.markpurdey.com/mark_purdey.htm - there is no mention of collaboration on any of his papers in there.

Roundup: I'm to assume you read? It's been all over the environmental headlines this year... just don't look for it in papers that accept ads from Monsanto, because you won't find the information there, they won't print it for fear of losing ad revenues.

there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of papers out there about glysophate - you made a specific claim and it is up to you to support it.

Yet again you refuse to do back up your claim - I see a pattern here.

MS - it's known that sulfation cycle problems are a major signifier of MS.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owoOpCOOh3s

also, if you want a 'definitive' source:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1043276009002185

From there:

The ability of environmental factors to promote a phenotype or disease state not only in the individual exposed but also in subsequent progeny for successive generations is termed transgenerational inheritance. The majority of environmental factors such as nutrition or toxicants such as endocrine disruptors do not promote genetic mutations or alterations in DNA sequence. However, these factors do have the capacity to alter the epigenome. Epimutations in the germline that become permanently programmed can allow transmission of epigenetic transgenerational phenotypes. This review provides an overview of the epigenetics and biology of how environmental factors can promote transgenerational phenotypes and disease.

Content from external source

I'm not seeing anything about MS in there, nor anything obvious about the sulphation cycle

So if you pop for the $39 and read the e-book, you'll discover that there is great interest in how endocrine disruptors affect the myelin sheathing of the body, which in turn is a major factor in Multiple Sclerosis.

No need to pay - it is free at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2848884/ - there is no mention of myelin sheathing in that article, unless it goes by some other name?

multiple sclerosis is mentioned once in the text as an example of a disease, and in 2 references.

so I did not discover how "endocrine disruptors affect the myelin sheathing of the body" at all, nor did I discover that this is a "major factor in Multiple Sclerosis".

There will be a quiz.

Let's start it now - your starter for 10: explain the link then between Multiple Sclerosis + myelin sheathing + endocrine disruptors, and why or how it validates Purdey's debunked theories.

Let's see if you are cleverer than google, which can't seem to find much definitive on those 3 terms linked together at all.

 

[MikeC]

Here's a link to a French study which found cancer links relative to use of GMO corn feed:
http://www.policymic.com/articles/1...n-causes-cancer-america-should-pay-attention_

and here's the (very predictable) counter-argument, sponsored by that 'voice of reason' and known 'paragon of scientific virtue' (eg: national PR agency), Voice of America:
http://www.voanews.com/content/french-experts-question-of-gmo-cancer-study/1531542.html

and here's the counter-argument:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/28/study-gm-maize-cancer

NOW - knowing all this, one could consciously CHOOSE to consume GMO corn and GMO corn products for themselves, and thus to take the risk associated with it.

The study was roundly condemned for GROSS methodological errors - there are multiple citations of them in this article - along with links to Searlini's and his co-authors' defence - which amounted to not much more than condemning people who criticized him as "apologists" but they still refused to release the raw data.

your comment about the "very predictable" counter argument makes it look as if you did not bother examining it - it looks like you are condemning it on some basis other than its content - what is that?

There are hundreds and hundreds of studies that show now problem with GMO corn that have no methodological errors. Studies that show there is a problem are few, and all have errors.

Why is that?