Only cuz I've been bouncing around on the net studying my sister's diagnosis and this has been a strongly debated topic ...

 ...  worth the read beyond what I post below.

Agricultural pesticide use and risk of t(14;18)-defined subtypes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma

excerpts of the conclusions ...

 Our findings support the hypothesis that pesticides might contribute to the development of NHL through pathways involving the t(14;18). A higher prevalence of the t(14;18) has been reported among individuals occupationally exposed to pesticides.25,26,28,29,31 Although most pesticides are thought to be nongenotoxic,32 some pesticides have been shown to cause cytogenetic damage in laboratory assays, animal studies, or in humans.33-37 Alternatively, pesticides may cause a second or later hit in lymphoid cells with the t(14;18), which ultimately leads to the occurrence of NHL. The t(14;18) joins the BCL2 gene on chromosome 18 to the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene on chromosome 14, resulting in an inhibition of programmed cell death through overexpression of the BCL2 gene.14,38

...

 In summary, the present study found that exposures to insecticides, herbicides, and fumigants were significantly associated with a higher risk of t(14;18)-positive NHL but not t(14;18)-negative NHL. These findings support our hypothesis that the cause of t(14;18)-positive NHL differs from that of t(14;18)-negative NHL, and defining subsets of NHL according to t(14;18) status appears to be a useful approach in epidemiologic studies. Future studies should apply this approach in evaluating other risk factors for NHL.

 DaveInVA wrote: 
Thanks for reminding me to call and see if my NHL is the same as their's.  Keep forgetting to do this.

Cancer-stricken farmers sue Monsanto over Roundup

This FDA Test Could Devastate Monsanto Inc.

Um...maybe we can pause for a moment discussing your medical condition (which you are insinuating may have been caused by a herbicide made by—among many others—Monsanto) to sort that out.

The anti-GMO movement is a many-headed monster. You aren't the only person I'm talking to here. There are people who argue that all GMO technology is inherently bad, or risky, or has faulty feng shui, or something. You may not be arguing this at the moment but the anti-GMO movement is basically a conspiracy theory, and whenever one point gets refuted conspiracy theorists tend to just change the subject and rock on. I find it helpful in these arguments to try to cover as many red herrings as possible up front.

Pointing out medical advances made with GMO technology at the very least shows that there is a baby in what you allege to be bathwater. That a blanket condemnation of GMOs includes life-saving medical technology; technology that may one day develop treatments for currently incurable conditions. Like the leukemia mentioned in the article I posted. And maybe someday NHL.


Check the dates on the two publications. Yours cites data from 2004; mine from 2012. What looked like a steady increase in 2004 turned out to be a trend that had flattened out in 1994 as more data came in.



You can see the data set here.


You don't settle scientific questions in courtrooms, especially American civil courts—their record is terrible. The actual truth of the accusation (e.g., glyphosate—specifically glyphosate made by Monsanto—caused my MCL) is irrelevant. All that matters (assuming the case actually goes to trial, which normally isn't the goal in a suit like this; the goal is to make defending against the suit so expensive and intrusive that it's cheaper to just pay the ransom) is convincing a jury that you deserve a jackpot taken out of someone else's coffers. A jury informed by bogus expert witnesses, instructed by scientifically ignorant judges, and motivated by prejudice whipped up by just the kind of fearmongering pseudoscience represented by the contents of this thread.

Assuming they go forward with this they will probably sue anyone and everyone involved in production or distribution. The wider they cast their net the more vulnerable defendants they'll be able to extort into settling. Monsanto has the resources to fight a suit like that but a distributor of ag chemicals might not. The more that settle early the guiltier they can make the rest look, and the more pressure on them to settle.

You'd be part of something like that: weaponized ignorance, superstition, and greed.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
A)  I had deleted that sentence within 10 minutes of posting.  I guess that you hit reply, captured it and went with it.  Ok, fair enough.  Separate posts or not, they are linked just by being here.  Why else would you post an obviously medical event in a thread that is dealing primarily with GMO food when there are so many more appropriate places to put it.

B)   The incidence rate has increased for many NHL's over the decades.  My flavor has an annual rate of increase of nearly 6% per year and even though your link cites an overall 5 year survival rate of 70%, my flavor is 20%.  It is still incurable.  This coming April will mark 7 years since my stem cell transplant.  My, how time flies.  I am in double sudden death overtime.

Incidence and Mortality Rates in MCL

To investigate the association between incidence and mortality, we compared the age-adjusted incidence rate with the mortality rate (Fig. 6). The annual percent change in the incidence of MCL and annual percentage of mortality of MCL were 5.87% and 8.27%, respectively. Unfortunately, the mortality rate of MCL in the SEER data also increased with time and was in parallel (correlation coefficient of 0.89). This illustrates the finding that despite the availability of many therapies, outcomes had not yet substantially improved, indicating that MCL remains incurable.
 

incidence and epidemiology

Mantle cell lymphoma (MCL) is a less frequent subtype of lymphoid malignancies and represents 6%–9% of malignant lymphoma in Western Europe. The annual incidence of this disease has increased during recent decades to 1–2/100 000 recently. MCL is more common in males than in women with a 3 : 1 ratio.

Would I be participating in a junk science nuisance suit ?   Don't know until you try.  Hell, I might just be one of those 1 in 100,00 or 1,000,000 people that were shown to be at risk from Round Up in its development stages.  I could be a calculated risk.  I think that I should find out.  You may believe that the science is settled, but you don't have what I have.  

C)  Thanks.  But I am not looking for any bogeymen to blame.  I've told the story here ad naseum.  I got sick and was told that I have 5 months to live on my 58th BDay.  I got weirded out, but I never got mad or angry.  It was just, it sucks to be me, but I've had a pretty neat life and if that's it, well alrighty.  When my wife asked our doc what he would do if his wife got the same diagnosis, he said he would throw everything plus the kitchen sink at it and that is what we did.  One of, if not the nastiest and most toxic chemotherapies, ever prescribed.  I had nothing better to do with death as the alternative so I did what was offered and showed up and took it.

I accepted that there was no known cause and that was never any thought on my part once it was made clear.  It was irrelevant to living at that point.  I really never even looked into it in depth much until just the past couple of years.  It was the wife who knew how bad things were.  That knowledge was not needed by me to get better.  In fact just now in searching for things to rebut with, it is the very first time I have seen the word incurable in print regarding my stuff.  It was kinda inferred along the way, but never just laid out as it is in the two different articles from reputable sources that I have linked.  

But here we are.  Answers are starting to happen now, without looking for them.  They are presenting themselves.  The cost of my treatment for an incurable cancer is now north of $2.5 million.  That's a lot of jack for one lowly Joe Fabeets with little potential remaining in life.  I think that I owe it to myself and all the people who helped me make it this far to not leave stones unturned.  I will not assume that junk science is junk science and walk away from some answers.  I will participate.  There are over 30 flavors of NHL.  My specific NHL is one of only two cancers listed by their proper, non generic name in the Social Security Disability Bluebook.

So the next time I see the ad on TV, I'll write the number down, give them a call and ask what flavor(s) of NHL they are looking for and see how I fit in.  The ads are not all that new, so that should reveal how low on my list of things to do it is.  But inspired by our conversation, I'll call and find out sooner rather than later.  All's I'm doing is sitting around waiting and killing time and waiting, so I think I can work it into the schedule.  Furthermore, I also realize that if I'm one of the lucky ones (gee thanks) I won't live long enough to benefit from any payout and if I'm not what they are looking for, well its just another day at the ranch and nothing ventured, nothing gained, yet there could be loss of an opportunity.  We'll see.

kurtster wrote:
Yes, that's why they're separate posts.


You realize, of course, that the rate of non-Hodgkins lymphoma has been steady for the last 20 years, while glyphosate production has gone up ten fold?  That by participating you would be joining a junk-science nuisance suit to shake down people who had nothing to do with making you sick? That whatever you stand to gain from this will pale to insignificance compared to what the lawyers running this scam will make? That Monsanto's last patent on glyphosate expired in 2000, and that if Monsanto stopped making glyphosate tomorrow the Chinese manufacturers (there are over 50 of them) would pick up the slack before the last jug of Roundup cleared the shelves?

OK then.


And I wish you well with your treatment and outcome. Blame it on anybody you like, just understand that whatever comfort you draw from that comes at a price to the rest of the world—a world made possible by science, but which is abandoning that science for the cold comfort of superstition and bogeymen to blame.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
That's really great and things are really rolling right along with the blood cancers, but ...

Fallacious ?  Putting something into a dying individual versus putting something into the food chain for everyone to eat is not the same thing.  I don't care about the morality.  Its the safety that I am concerned about.

There are legal solicitations about for those who have Non Hodgkin's Lymphoma (me, and one of the rarest) and may have been exposed to Round Up (possibly me, living adjacent to farms for many years) to sue Monsanto .  Maybe you've seen them on TV ?  I guess that I might belong to a legal class with standing against Monsanto.  That makes my skepticism bona fide, eh ?

It would really, really piss me off to find a direct link to my cancer and Monsanto.  There is presently no known cause for my cancer.

I am seriously considering making a phone call to see if there is something real there.  I could use a pot-o-money right about now ... but I wouldn't be holding my breath waiting for a payout either.

Speaking of the blood cancers ...

May I take the time to speak about the LLS ... The Leukemia Lymphoma Society.

A most worthy organization that is working on the cures and also truly helping patients.  I have benefited from their grants as a patient which truly made a difference in keeping the balls in the air long enough to get er done.  A truly worthy cause that will put your time or donations to excellent use.  The things that work on blood cancers usually end up working well on other cancers.  We are the test pilots for other cancer patients.

GMO Alarmist Nassim Taleb Backs Out of Debate. I Refute Him Anyway.

Fallacious arguments against developing and growing modern biotech crops is cause for great moral concern.

Ronald Bailey | February 19, 2016

Gather the pitchforks and torches—evil doctors invade little girl's body with GMOs!

World first use of gene-edited immune cells to treat ‘incurable’ leukaemia

 ScottFromWyoming wrote: 
Basically, the worry is about deceased aboriginal or Torres Strait people. As I understand it, images of them when they were alive or even mentioning their name are off limits during the mourning period. But the mourning period is variable. And I think things can be relaxed somewhat for things like important state funerals. The notices try to hit a balance of pragmatism and respect. And in the end, I think it is the act of showing respect that is perhaps as important as the actual cultural rules.

 haresfur wrote: 
So: Not actually photos of persons in the state of deceasement, but photos of people enjoying life but who, since the time of the photo, have passed on? Makes it hard to broadcast any movie or TV show without running that disclaimer. The new Hunger Games movie (just out this past week or two) includes some scenes with Philip Seymour Hoffman. Or do they not care about that? Would it only be news programs or locally-produced entertainment that might feature Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander actors?

How Monsanto Destroyed Rural Argentina

 oldviolin wrote: 
WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are warned that the following program may contain images and voices of deceased persons.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
At least we don't have to worry about the negatives any more...unless we just want to bend space or something. Then it could get weird...

 oldviolin wrote:

 Lazy8 wrote: 
So let me get this straight. Cameras can steal your soul, and the eyes are the window to your soul; and the camera functions as an eye with a window-like lens that you look through with your eye. There you have it. A phase locked loop. Dang. Ion eyed...

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I do live in Amish country ...  

 Lazy8 wrote: 
I knew it.

 kurtster wrote:
In order:

Facebook is a social networking site. About 20% of the world's population uses it. It's a vitally important place for activists to make their cases.

I put it here as background so people can assess the credibility of anti-GMO activists.

Perhaps the real problem is that people fall for conspiracy theories, on Facebook or anywhere else. Of course you have no scientific evidence for your claims, that's for people who lack imagination!

I rest my case.

The FDA regulates microwave ovens because of superstition surrounding them. The only concern they found to regulate is microwave leakage, which really should have fallen under the FCC's jurisdiction. . These regulations have not changed since 1993. Microwave ovens use non-ionizing radiation. I'm sorry you don't know what that means, but those of us who do find the concerns about it as ridiculous as fears that cameras steal your soul.