Glyphosate: an effective ecological herbicide, not carcinogenic, not endocrine disrupting

[Christophe]

De Gaulle said intelligence is knowing when to stop ...

In this case, stop answering him ... since he probably won't stop!

[izentrop]

This time I didn't check the sources well, sorry.
However, let's not generalize and wait until the end of the story.

[Obamot]

It's not him, it's his sources! Mwouahahahahah ...

Hilarious isn't it?

He dared ... the bastard, to take us for corns at this point, that's monumental, isn't it?

Putaing he dares everything!

However, let's not generalize and wait until the end of the story.

Shame does not know

[Bardal]

Hmm ... hmm ...

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds; I don't see any trace of carbon in the glyphosate ...

"An organophosphorus compound is a type of organic compound having at least one phosphorus atom bonded directly to a carbon." (wiki)

Nerve does not replace skill, fortunately ...

[ABC2019]

Hmm ... hmm ...

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds; I don't see any trace of carbon in the glyphosate ...

"An organophosphorus compound is a type of organic compound having at least one phosphorus atom bonded directly to a carbon." (wiki)

Nerve does not replace skill, fortunately ...

uh ...

"Glyphosate (N- (phosphonomethyl) glycine, C3H8NO5P)"
it is a derivative of glycine, an amino acid, so it is indeed an organic product, and phosphorus is indeed linked to a carbon, so it is indeed an organophosphorus (in the molecular representations in organic chemistry we omit often to put a C where there is a carbon but this is implicitly the case at any intersection of two bonds)

[Remundo]

Hmm ... hmm ...

Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon compounds; I don't see any trace of carbon in the glyphosate ...

"An organophosphorus compound is a type of organic compound having at least one phosphorus atom bonded directly to a carbon." (wiki)

Nerve does not replace skill, fortunately ...

ah and what do you think is on the angles of the carbon skeleton of this skeletal formula of glyphosate?


At least Izentrop is making amends, and ABC2019 has got it right.

And with a crude formula that begins with C3, you have to have very poor eyesight not to sense the presence of carbon ...

But there is always an arrogant who imagines himself competent to push the limits of stupidity ... and of nerve!

[Obamot]

... This did not prevent ABC2019 (in my list of ignored) - against a background of fallacies about science, to have classified Izentrop in its list (of self-proclaimed experts), little return in back

I don't know if the study is good or not [...]
I just wanted to know which speakers in your opinion best respected the scientific approach [...]
I don't know how many times on explained [...]

What? It is “who” this “on"Are you many?

anyone who understood the problem: izentrop, sicetaitsimple, pedrodelavega, me ... we can see very well who understood the problem and who either did not understand it, or understood it but continues to make his calculations as if it did not exist: you, Guygadebois , Adrien, etc ... (I only mentioned the most active but everyone will know with whom he agrees)

Always fun to reread ABC2019 which classified Izentrop in its (pseudo) group which “best respected the scientific approach”While in terms of their“ scientific background ”they tell us anything ...!

The blunders of this group of trolls “ON”Never tire of it! There I believe that izentrop was let go!

[ABC2019]

Always fun to reread ABC2019 which classified Izentrop in its (pseudo) group which “best respected the scientific approach”While in terms of their“ scientific background ”they tell us anything ...!

The blunders of this group of trolls “ON”Never tire of it! There I believe that izentrop was let go!

I asked you if you thought it was those who supported Raoult on this forum who best respected the scientific approach, so exactly the opposite of what you are saying. What you refused to answer, so you are obviously not that convinced ... Apart from that the error on organophosphates was not made by izentrop but by bardal. But hey, trying to respect the scientific process does not mean not making mistakes, it is only religious believers who think they are always right. It just means to agree on correct methodologies. So I ask the question again; Do you think that these are the ones you classify as "trolls" who do not respect the scientific process, while those who oppose it respect it? Yes or no ? are you going to slip away again to avoid answering it?

[ABC2019]

My apologies, indeed izentrop was also wrong before on organophosphates, but as I said we have the right to be wrong, if we recognize it ...

[Remundo]

Apart from that the error on organophosphates was not made by izentrop but by bardal.

Yes, it is Izentrop the author of a masterful blunder peremptory.

And Bardal came to the rescue made news of it by not seeing any carbon in glyphosate.

As for you, you come to put your sophistic thought here to save the furniture by adding a blunder, which this time is not scientific.

Phew! Econologie is proud to have great rigorous scientists like the three of you. You raise the level, that's for sure.

But hey, trying to respect the scientific approach does not mean not making mistakes

The scientific approach in medicine is not just about doing double-blind randomization on 5000 patients and sending everything that does not fall into the trash.