Sarath Gunatilake & Channa Jayasumana
https://kfolta.blogspot.com/2019/02/what-am-i-missing.html?m=1
no lnx pix of him smile in lab w/ baby plants
Monday, February 4, 2019
What Am I Missing?
I humbly ask this question. What am I missing?
Tonight I read the press release for the AAAS about the 2019 Scientific Freedom and Responsibility Award, going to two Sri Lankan physicians / researchers that apparently confirmed a deadly causal connection between a kidney disease (Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Origin; CKDu) and the herbicide glyphosate. Congrats, congrats!
Wow, I must have missed this. Certainly a concrete link would be big news, and if AAAS is awarding someone for this research it must have been a prominent publication. But I scan the literature almost daily and never saw this.
The names of the awardees seemed strangely familiar. Then it hit me... this was the 2014 paper where they looked at hard water consumption in Sri Lanka and then suggested a tie between CKDu, heavy metals and glyphosate. The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a decent hypothesis that could be tested.
At the time the anti-ag-chemistry world lit up in celebration. Finally they had the smoking gun. I remember this vividly-- only there was no smoke, there was no gun. It was a hypothesis to test. These folks don't actually read the papers.
This paper, presenting a hypothesis only, was sufficient to spark a ban of glyphosate in 2015, a move that drew criticism because the ban occurred in the absence of data. Later, reputable scientists would add that the ban threatened food security as farmers were stripped of a helpful agricultural tool, based on a hunch.
The Sri Lankan National Academy of Science made clear statements on the associations, stating that the "research is not conclusive" and "We are not aware of any scientific evidence form studies in Sri Lanka or abroad showing that CKDu is caused by glyphosate."
The same organization also notes no association between CKDu and cancer, which we'd expect if the herbicide was causing both diseases as some claim.
[pix]
Lethal herbicides? I'm not aware of evidence that supports this conclusion. What's up AAAS?
The researchers are obviously passionate about identifying the source of the problem in this region. An examination of their later work shows a dedicated inquiry into heavy metals and pesticides that occur in drinking water in agricultural areas, and their association with CKDu. They also look at the flip side and how access to clean water improves health outcomes. That alone is deserving of some recognition. I also think they would agree with me that the AAAS website was not accurately representing their conclusions.
Many researchers, including these authors, have examined the connections to heavy metals, particularly arsenic and cadmium (including this work that shows cadmium dose-response), which are present in high levels in CKDu endemic areas, and arise from application of fertilizers and pesticides.
Their follow up paper added a correlation to the hypothesis by actually examining heavy metals and glyphosate in the urine of a relatively small number of subjects (10 ill, 10 asymptomatic, 10 from another area). Their conclusion was, "Although we could not localize a single nephrotoxin as the culprit for SAN (Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy), multiple heavy metals and glyphosate may play a role in pathogenesis."
A case-control study (self-reported health factors) by the same authors in a CKDu-endemic hospital also found statistical associations with application of several different herbicides and insecticides. There also was association with exposure to a variety of heavy metals in drinking water, especially from abandoned wells. The authors note that the majority of those answering questions were farmers who don't use personal protective equipment when spraying pesticides. I'm not surprised that they'd have higher levels in their urine. Again, the authors were correct in noting the limitations of the study.
Across all work, these authors rely on statistical associations between agricultural inputs, heavy metals, and CKDu, and a hypothetical "Compound X" that could bind heavy metals and transport them to the kidneys. They suggested that glyphosate would fit the bill and build survey data that support that association. Cool. Again, a great hypothesis to test, but we have to be careful with interpretations.
The caption says "deadly herbicide called glyphosate" -- again, what am I missing here?
This where AAAS oversteps the data, referring to the herbicide as lethal and deadly. C'mon AAAS. If this was Natural News, Green Med Info, The Food Babe, or any other kooky khemistree website then I might understand. They've been searching to vilify ag chemistries for decades.
But this is AAAS. I'm a member.I'm always in awe at the awardees for their much deserved recognition.
These authors see a problem in these agricultural regions and are searching for a cause. Certainly publishing such a hypothesis could bring lots of criticism to the researchers, as well as derision from farmers that rely on agricultural chemistry. However, I'm not sure how this situation jumps from a statistical association to hard conclusions that rewrite agricultural policy and toxicology-- especially when so many heavy metals levels are also high and associate with the disease (in the same authors' findings).
How does the Sri Lanka situation fit into the wider picture? We have to remember that Sri Lanka is not the only place that uses glyphosate and there is no reputable mention of CKDu in other populations studied. There also is the incongruence between this report and other reports on the herbicide's potential as a physiologically relevant heavy metal shuttle at levels found in drinking water. Other analyses of CKDu do not support their hypothesis.
CKDu sufferers are not reported to also be stricken with Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, which a jury of my peers says should be the case.
Despite all of the questions and shortcomings, we really need to object to the AAAS conclusions of "lethal" and "deadly".
Or they must have some information I don't have.
Or does the emperor wear no clothes?
The bottom line is that the associations are not clear, the experiments to demonstrate strong links are difficult to do, and the multi-factorial nature and genetic/environmental overlays will make such conclusions difficult to discern. That has been the conclusion of others as well.
This will be a very interesting discussion. I'm glad to stand corrected here. But I'm afraid that our most esteemed scientific organization just elevated a testable hypothesis to "fact" and I'll spend a lot of time over the next year explaining that the data are just not there (at least at this point) to support that conclusion.
at February 04, 2019
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest
Newer PostOlder PostHome
Hey Goofballs, Science is Not a Popularity Contest
Allegations of Threats
Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense. I won't even touch on it. Nobody ha...
no lnx
"It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness" -
Sunday, May 23, 2021
Allegations of Threats
Over the last week the trolls are back, and polluting social media with more anti-Folta nonsense.
I won't even touch on it. Nobody has looked at it, nobody really cares. It gets few likes, retweets, etc., and those that do show some love to the filth are in the defamation network. It's dead.
But sadly I need to always play defense. Now that these allegations are forever placed in findable space, I must reluctantly respond. I teach students, I work with kids, I lead community initiatives, and when someone claims that I'm issuing "threats" I unfortunately have to provide my perspective.
First, Carey Gillam. She tweeted this, this week:
Carey is one of very few people on my "do not Heimlich" list. She is one person that I believe is truly evil, and takes pleasure in harming others. When I begged her to leave my family out of some online slander, she doubled down and went after someone very close to me. I appealed to her as a mother and a human being to please just stop-- but she dialed it up. She is a monster.
Over the last decade she has trashed my work, made false claims about me and my motivations, and has been generally horrible. She is paid by USRTK, the organization sponsored by industry to endlessly harass me, so she gets a paycheck to post defamation like the above. That's her job.
If she had "bizarre and oddly threatening emails" from me she would have posted them, or paraded them around the internet.
And if I would have made threats, they would have been very much deserved.
Threat Capacity
I'm not one to make threats. I'm a diplomat. We work things out. However, I am one to describe the constellation of outcomes if a given path is taken. Big difference. By talking about "here's what happens if..." is an important point for me to present to others.
I make no threats, and nothing I say could ever be remotely construed as a personal threat-- like physical harm or unfair retribution. I don't have that gear. Frankly, I wish the trolls would leave me alone, and I ignore them for the most part.
Where It Started
This week a story emerged online about how Karl Haro Von Mogel claimed that I threatened him in a 39-page psycho complaint to my University's Dean for Teaching.
Think about this. If someone were to threaten you in a non-work related context, legitimately, would you run crying to their employer?
Karl does this because he knows that there are no legitimate threats from an ethical or legal perspective, and people that know me, and know him, understand that I don't operate that way. They see what he has done to cause me personal and professional harm, along with stark personal betrayal, and understand that I probably am justified in feeling a little prickly towards him. I just ignored him until his wild complaint package surfaced.
But universities are extremely risk averse and must take all claims very seriously. That means universities can be exploited to do your dirty work, and trash the reputation of your target academic from within their institution.
At the same time my University Administration knows me better than anyone, and also knows the praise I receive for good work in teaching, service, research and outreach. They know a troll when they smell one.
The other major problem here is that the alleged threats were not communicated through a university email account or in my role as a professor at the university. I was a private citizen protecting my privacy and reputation, and discussions with Karl were personal and through non-work channels. Now von Mogel took it upon himself to drag in my employer and make his claims public, making my personal, private emails public without my knowledge or permission, or the courtesy a carbon copy. Shame.
He produced an email from me that contained this excerpt, interpreting it as a threat:
At the time, my personal property and files were being distributed to the internet, including the ever-hostile GM Watch for malicious and incorrect re-interpretation. I wanted to know how that material was getting out of my home and file cabinet, and I suspected he may be part of that pipeline. I already knew that he broke my confidentiality on some highly-sensitive work I was doing with a law firm and was meddling in my divorce by providing false statements to my ex-wife's attorney.
I simply told him, we can discuss this privately, or make it public, you pick. That's not a threat. This is me kindly offering to work it out together privately, rather than having it blow up publicly and have to explain it, like is happening here. I don't want to wreck the guy's future like he wants to wreck mine.
Keep in mind that this was several years ago. I just learned of this complaint last week (5/2021) when it went public, and if it didn't go internet-wide I would never have said anything publicly. They guy has enough problems and could still sort it out and be a good contributor.
But to accuse me of threats is something I must directly address.
He continues:
If it is false, then we can talk about it and sort it out. It was his refusal to discuss this important issue, and my need to get to the bottom of it that prompted my response. It was not "social blackmail", as proven by the fact that he did not discuss it with me and I kept quiet-- I never made it public until now, when his complaint became public.
The next "double down" on "threats" was:
[x]
This was after Karl reported me to a professional conference for violating the Code of Conduct, simply because I requested a meeting with him on how we were going to complete a project that was crowdfunded with >$13,000 of public money, where he dropped the ball and my name was attached to it. I had every right to be angry, and I wasn't. I just wanted to formulate a plan out of the mess, together.
My reputation was on the line and I wanted a resolution. I either wanted a plan forward or was going to disconnect from the work very publicly in an act of self-preservation.
Luckily he kicked me off of the project, along with lots of other people that did the analysis on my end, and did so very publicly, so I didn't have to do anything.
Is it a Threat?
The point is simple. These are not threats-- these are IF/THEN statements where I spelled out our options to completing a project or resolving a difference. I always was gracious in offering to do things the easy way first, and avoiding escalation that does nobody any good.
That statement is shown to be true with time, as I did not receive a satisfactory solution that I asked for, and still never took the situation public. I didn't want to affect his career and possibilities like he wanted to do to me. I just let it disappear.
Until now. If the 39-page complaint didn't surface, then I would not have to state my explanation of the situation. He knows about FOIA and public records requests, he used that system anonymously to gather confidential documents of mine and distribute them. He absolutely knew that he was planting a seed that would be discovered later and play a critical role in his malicious targeting.
Again
If you have questions, ask me. The situation is super unfortunate and my guess is that the other parties involved wish they had a do-over. It makes them look amazingly sad and petty. Rather than accepting an invitation in a private email (these were from my personal account, not subject to FOIA, and had nothing to do with university business) to resolve a difference with me personally, they run to conferences and my university administration and claim "threats".
And now this long-forgotten annoyance has become very public, not by me, I'm busy working and teaching science.
And I want to keep doing that. These kinds of accusations do nothing to help me teach others as they are designed to harm my reputation.
Which means I now need to work even harder at producing good media and better outreach. Good. I needed a little fire to refocus my efforts in positive ways.
I hope he finds his.
Dissecting the Dr. Dan Stock Video
One of the saddest parts of the pandemic is the number of trained physicians that have divorced themselves from their training and exploit t...
Global News, Rachel Parent, and a Deliberate Hit Piece
I remember going back to Chicago to visit my father just before Christmas in 2015. The previous months had been brutal, and I was finally ...
https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18757-aaas-reassessing-award-to-public-interest-scientists
press release announcing award to Sri Lankan researchers is suppressed
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) says it's "reassessing" its previous decision to give the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to two Sri Lankan scientists who uncovered an association between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease in farmers in areas with hard water.
In a series of peer-reviewed papers, Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana presented their hypothesis that glyphosate, marketed mostly by Monsanto as Roundup, was transporting arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, causing chronic kidney disease.
Just a few days ago, on 4 February, the AAAS announced it was giving the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana, whom it characterised as "Two public health researchers who battled powerful corporate interests to uncover the deadly effects of industrial herbicides, solving a medical mystery and protecting the health of farming communities across the world".
The AAAS press release continued, "Drs. Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Ultimately, their advocacy led to the culprit, a herbicide called glyphosate, being banned in several affected countries."
In a strange reversal, by 6 February, the AAAS had removed its press release from the Internet – but not before GMWatch republished it. You can read it here.
In response to a Twitter storm from defenders and foes of glyphosate, the AAAS tweeted, "We are taking steps to reassess the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility, after concerns were voiced by scientists and members. This award will not be presented next week as originally planned while we further evaluate the award selection."
Who exactly were the people who voiced these "concerns"? We know who one of them was: Kevin Folta, the University of Florida promoter of GMOs and pesticides, and a member of the AAAS. On 5 FebruaryFolta wrote a blog post which was republished on the website of the Genetic Literacy Project, under the heading, AAAS fumble? Prestigious scientists’ organization endorses ‘data-less’ study suggesting links between glyphosate and kidney disease in Sri Lanka.
Citing the Sri Lankan authors' first paper, Folta wrote, "The paper presented a hypothesis. There were no data. There were no experiments. It was a semi-well-crafted hypothesis that could be tested."
However, Folta's claim that there are "no data" in the paper is false.There are plenty of data in this and the authors' follow-up papers – from epidemiological and case-control studies, as well as geographical surveys – that support the idea that glyphosate herbicides should be withdrawn from use as a precautionary measure until they can be proven safe.
Are these data conclusive? No. They point to an association. It's true that the link between glyphosate exposure and chronic kidney disease will always remain a "hypothesis" until it is proven in controlled long-term animal feeding studies. Such studies would count as the "experiments" that Folta complains haven't been done. The truth is that they are unlikely to be done, due to the massive expense and the unwillingness of industry and governments to fund studies that could show that they were responsible for exposing people to poisons over many years.
Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, asFolta admits, have in no way overstated their case. They are conservative and careful in forming their conclusions.
:{
The AAAS's press release likely overstated things in calling glyphosate herbicides "deadly" and "lethal", as such words tend to imply acute toxicants that kill with immediate effect. It would be more accurate to call them slow poisons, though there is little doubt that the end result of exposures can be "deadly".}:
But a less than ideal choice of words on the part of the author of a press release is an argument for modifying the press release, not reconsidering an award given to honest public interest researchers, particularly ones who have already been the victims of industry-linked intimidation.
And in the case of this particular award, the conclusiveness of the researchers' findings on glyphosate is irrelevant. As Prof Jack Heinemann of the University of Canterbury, New Zealand, said on Twitter, "Whether or not the link between glyphosate (or formulation) and kidney disease is right misses the point. A scientific freedom award is given for persecution. If you only give it for proven science, it would be delayed decades and it would only benefit those who persecute."
Folta's record
Now let's look at the record of their accuser. Kevin Folta took a $25,000 grant from Monsanto to promote GMOs and took steps to avoid disclosing it to the public, while all the time falsely telling the public that he had "nothing to do with Monsanto".
Folta has allowedan agrochemical industry PR firm to ghostwrite for him, but then denied it.The PR firm ghostwrote answers to questions on GMOs, which were then published on the industry's public relations website, GMO Answers, under Folta's name.
He had to stand down as Chair of his university department after his then wife accused him of violent abuse. She also accused him of taking money forconsulting for Bayer.He was deserted by several of his former close associates after that turned out to be true. He has also publicly defended drunk driving and published advice on how to get away with it.
Finally, although Folta has no known medical or toxicology background, he regularly pontificates on food and chemical safety as if he were an expert, often inaccurately. And in his defence of Monsanto's glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup, Folta has not only made a series of false claims,but irresponsibly, has even drunk it publicly, supposedly to demonstrate its "harmlessness”.
The AAAS's record
Let's hope the AAAS stands up to the likes of Folta – and stands by its decision to honour the Sri Lankan scientists, who have endured too much victimisation already for their brave work.
The AAAS has a mixed record when it comes to public interest issues. In 2013 the AAAS's board of directors issued a statement opposing the labelling of GM foods in the US. The statement argued that such labelling “can only serve to mislead and falsely alarm consumers”. The AAAS was at the time chaired by Nina Fedoroff, who has close ties to the GMO industry.
But in an incident that showed that the AAAS is not monolithic but contains scientists who do not toe the GMO lobby's line, a group of scientists and physicians that included many long-standing AAAS members condemned the AAAS board of directors’ statement as “an Orwellian argument that violates the right of consumers to make informed decisions”. They pointed to evidence showing that Roundup, the herbicide used on most GM crops, could pose risks that consumers might reasonably want to avoid.
Sadly, the AAAS board seems more likely than its membership to have the power to decide on the fate of the award that was to be given to the Sri Lankan scientists. Whatever they decide, the row kicked up by the antics of the likes of Folta has served to bring the risks of glyphosate herbicides to the notice of a wider public.
If the AAAS does decide to withdraw its award to the Sri Lankan scientists, that will send a clear message to the public about the suppression of science. Ironically, of course, it was the now-suppressed AAAS press release which noted that jeopardizing the profits of the glyphosate industry has come with serious “consequences” for Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana.
gmwatch
award goes ahead despite industry backlash
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has stood firm against industry pressure and confirmed that it is giving the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility to two Sri Lankan scientists, Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, who hypothesized a connection between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease.
The AAAS had first announced its intention to give the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana at the beginning of this year. But its announcement unleashed a furious backlash from defenders of glyphosate. These included the GMO and pesticide promoter Kevin Folta, who falsely claimed that "there were no data" presented in the scientists' published papers.
In response, the AAAS announced in February that it would review its decision on the award. As a result of that review, it has upheld the award as fully merited while acknowledging there were problems with how the AAAS announced the award: "The AAAS communication announcing the 2019 award earlier this year included misleading statements about a causal connection between glyphosate and chronic kidney disease. An association has been suggested by the researchers, but a causal connection is not conclusive to date."
It is much to AAAS's credit that it has decided to uphold its initial decision to honour Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana, although it is a shame that it took it nine months to conduct its review.
As GMWatch said at the time the review was announced, the problem was not with the research itself: "Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana… have in no way overstated their case. They are conservative and careful in forming their conclusions. The AAAS's press release likely overstated things... But a less than ideal choice of words on the part of the author of a press release is an argument for modifying the press release, not reconsidering an award given to honest public interest researchers, particularly ones who have already been the victims of industry-linked intimidation."
Gunatilake and Jayasumana investigated a kidney disease epidemic that has claimed tens of thousands of lives in their home country of Sri Lanka and around the world. Their research pointed to an association between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease in farmers in areas with hard water. And in a series of peer-reviewed papers, they presented their hypothesis that glyphosate was transporting arsenic, cadmium and other heavy metals to the kidneys of those drinking contaminated water, causing chronic kidney disease. As a result of their work, Sri Lanka has introduced a partial ban on glyphosate herbicides on a precautionary basis. But the researchers themselves have been subjected to a campaign of vilification and even suffered death threats.
Commenting on AAAS's decision, the veteran science journalist Michael Balter said that he was very glad to see the award to Drs Gunatilake and Jayasumana going ahead: "Their hypothesis is reasonable and their research is suggestive of such a link. It certainly indicates that further study is necessary rather than industry-sponsored dismissal and obfuscation."
'Science prevails' as suspension of award for herbicide ...https://news.mongabay.com › 2019/11 › science-prevai...
Nov 16, 2019 — Channa Jayasumana and Sarath Gunatilake were to have been conferred the 2019 Award for Scientific Freedom and Responsibility from the ...
Researchers who uncovered glyphosate herbicide link with ...https://www.gmwatch.org › news › 18748-researchers-...
Feb 4, 2019 — Drs Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while carrying out their investigations.
AAAS gives scientific freedom award to scientists ... - GM Watchhttps://gmwatch.org › news › latest-news › 19204-aaas-...
Nov 5, 2019 — ... Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana, who hypothesized a connection between glyphosate herbicide exposure and chronic kidney disease.
If You Are A Biologist, You Should Stop Giving Money To ...https://www.science20.com › hank_campbell › if_you_...
Nov 4, 2019 — Drs. Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana faced death threats and claims of research misconduct while working to determine the cause of a ...
Simultaneous exposure to multiple heavy metals and ... - USRTKhttps://usrtk.org › wp-content › uploads › 2019/02DOC
It is with great pleasure that I nominate Professor Sarath Gunatilake M.D, ... Dr. Gunatilake recruited as his co-researcher, Dr. Channa Jayasumana -a young ...
AAAS upholds science award to glyphosate researchers ...https://non-gmoreport.com › aaas-upholds-science-awar...
Nov 26, 2019 — Sarath Gunatilake and Channa Jayasumana discovered a possible link between glyphosate exposure and chronic kidney disease.
Sarath Gunatilake California State University, Long Beachhttps://www.researchgate.net › profile › Sarath-Gunatilake
Channa Jayasumana · Sarath Gunatilake · Sisira H Siribaddana. Sri Lankan Agricultural Nephropathy (SAN), a new form of chronic kidney disease among paddy ...
AAAS on Twitter: "This year's recipients of the AAAS Award for ...https://twitter.com › aaas › status
This year's recipients of the AAAS Award for Scientific Freedom & Responsibility: Drs. Sarath Gunatilake & Channa Jayasumana who battled corporate interests ...
Channa Jayasumana - Wikipediahttps://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Channa_Jayasumana
Channa Jayasumana is a Sri Lankan politician, a member of the Parliament of Sri Lanka. ... Together with his doctoral advisor, Sarath Gunatilake, Prof