Snopes does a pretty good dissection of this including appropriately putting the research study in proper light:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wheat-toxic/

As if the getholistichealth.com domain wasn’t enough of a BS smell...

I like hacker news because it always provides different opinion and new aspect of any problem.

Thank you.

> I like hacker news because it always provides different opinion and new aspect of any problem.

Learning to google and doing a cursory check of news using snopes would do the same.

Something I have noticed is that people do not seem to do either of those things. I have personally observed that people (with degrees, no less) would rather make an assumption about a topic in the presumed absence of information, rather than actually check that such informatio is available. In one case I was able to show that with a very, very simple google search consisting of two words the information was clearly available within 10 seconds. I do not think this is due to laziness or apathy, as they fail to do this even in cases where they are expending energy on arguing something.

How can you trust snoops their way worse. Is a comet made of ice? check mark false orange bad that is basically what every one of these say.

Link to the paper mentioned at the beginning of this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3945755/#idm140...

Said paper is from 2013, 6 year without being confirmed or with being repressed?

It's been cited 155 times.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=61493914670281996... https://scholar.google.com/scholar?um=1&ie=UTF-8&lr&cites=61...

Probably just gone unnoticed, ignored or suppressed by mainstream media.

Edit: am I being downvoted by the same people who think voter suppression isn't a thing or pointing out China's mass incarceration of Uyghurs is propaganda? What in the fuck, Hacker News. I expected more from you people.

Its been cited 155 times. Which directly contradicts the pointless, obviously false claim that its been 'suppressed'. Combined with the paranoia about downvote reasons, and I suspect a troll.

The suppression is real, but not in a comic book conspiracy theory sense. Monsanto has been doing disinformation around glyphosate for a very long time, and stirring up controversy and character assassinations around these (admittedly speculative and unconventional) scientists and others. That's all that's needed for more orthodox members of the scientific community to start using words like "quack" and "pseudoscience".

- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/02/monsan...

- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-28/modern...

this paper has so many "maybe" in its conclusion, trying to tie every possible human disease with glyphosate, it is hard to take it seriously. Almost surprised they did not try to link climate change with Glyphosate usage.

On a related note, having a ton of links to other studies proves nothing at all so if this is what you rely on to make a point this is very weak.

This paper has been written by the same guys who wrote that glyphosate causes autism :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephanie_Seneff

All their work have been heavily criticized by academics and therefore shouldn't find their way to mainstream media.

These are the people who make people distrust science! "In 2011, Seneff began publishing articles on topics related to biology and medicine, an area in which she has no relevant qualifications or expertise, in low-impact, open access journals, such as Interdisciplinary Toxicology and eight papers in the journal Entropy between 2011 and 2015.[2][8]"

She's a COMPUTER SCIENCE researcher for Pete's sake!

This does not explain why celiac would run in families or why it would only affect some family members. My grandfather, both my brothers and I, and my son have it. But many many other family members are perfectly fine. Presumably being exposed to similar amounts of glyphosate.

Tolerance may vary between individuals. Similar to high-carb diets. Some people can tolerate it well, while others will develop diabetes. Some of the difference can be explained by genetics, but it's still early days.

Among family members you have way less genetic variation than between regular random people.

Probably some degree of genetic predisposition. Just because glyphosate may trigger gluten intolerance in some people doesn't mean it'll have that exact same effect in everybody else, even within the same family.

It can easily mean that, like gluten allergy, the Glyphosate allergy also has a genetic component. One that is more widespread perhaps.

For the same reason your similar genetic makeup did not make you all look identical.

Certain genes leave you more "prone to" certain conditions.

My brother is autistic and I'm not.

We are identical twins.

So it’s a hypothesis based on animal studies:

>”The symptoms of so-called “gluten intolerance” and celiac disease are shockingly similar to the symptoms in lab animals exposed to glyphosate...”

Not a study on humans confirming their hypothesis. So it’s definitely interesting but hardly conclusive.

Interesting news. This is another reason the 'you are only gluten intolerant if a doctor has diagnosed you with Celiac...!' argument is not sound. If cutting out something from someone's diet is beneficial to them, the causation might not be all in their head--it just might not be settled science yet. Especially since the gut is turning out to be very important in autoimmune issues.

The study picks either incidence or death rates, presumably whichever fits the overlaid glyphosate usage line better.

Indeed the lines often fit well, but wouldn't you expect the death rate to lag behind the usage? Will glyphosate give you instant cancer that immediately kills you? Yeah, probably not.

Curiously, glyphosate usage rate significantly trails the death rate from Parkinson's, a slowly progressing disease. We must therefore conclude that Parkinson's causes glyphosate usage, not the other way around.

Interdisciplinary Toxicology - The Journal of Institute of Experimental Pharmacology of Slovak Academy of Sciences - https://content.sciendo.com/configurable/contentpage/journal...

Listed in https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

I am skeptical of these findings. It matches the "gluten-free" fad and demonization of glyphosate too well.

First, websites with "holistic" in their name are usually not the most trustworthy. The conclusion "...We need to go glyphosate-free, not gluten-free. And that means going organic..." seems overly broad.

The paper, coming from a peer-reviewed journal, is a bit more trustworthy but it is also a small journal, with a rather low impact score.

Do anyone know better?

The journal (Interdisciplinary Toxicology) is on both lists of predatory publishers I just checked. So it's about at trustworthy as a blog post.

It has been proven that gluten intolerance/sensitivity does not exist (while celiac disease is very real), so this article seems suspicious from the very first line. There are various studies about that, and even researchers that found some evidence about it, show that there is no such thing in more recent studies (10.1053/j.gastro.2013.04.051).

So many feel better by cutting wheat. What’s not known is why. It’s likely not related to gluten but more likely something associated like yeast or simply keeping a better diet overall when avoiding gluten. I never heard the pesticide link before, and it seems it should be pretty easy to rule out since the increase should be smaller whereever glyphosate is banned?

Wheat makes my belly look like a beach ball in under 30 minutes. Dunno if it's an insensitivity or intolerance, but that's how it is.

According to some research, it may be caused by FODMAPs, which are present in wheat. Evidence is still rather weak though.

You're going to call a study with 37 participants proof?

No, there are various studies, but I picket that one just because is from the very same researchers that got different results previously.