Hermann Dr. Rochholz - Germany's Freefall

The line of argument against glyphosate was duly explained. It starts with “...it kills every plant that hasn’t been genetically engineered to resist it...”, which is incorrect. Anyone who sprays a cactus can test this. Exactly these people are accusing the German authorities of “failing to maintain a critical distance to the manufacturers”. Glyphosate is a herbicide, not a pesticide.

»Scientists regard the negative influence on the fertility of people who come into active or passive contact with the glyphosate-containing pesticide “Roundup” as conceivable.«

Which remedy do you mean: Roundup or glyphosate? American Roundup contains relatively toxic tallow amine, the European variety does not. Everything is used interchangeably.

At the same time, glyphosate “mutates” into a contact poison. What’s more: What kind of “scientist” does Bund. e.V. mean? Even a social scientist may think something like this is possible.

»Even the smallest amounts of a harmful substance can cause great damage; especially substances that have an influence on the endocrine system«

Correct: The endocrine system is at risk. This is especially true for children because they’re particularly at risk for everything.

1 Why doesn’t the federal government take action against soy products containing hormones? Causalities can be proven here: Zoos had problems with their offspring until they stopped using soy.

2 The sentence is kept general and the statement is correct. Since glyphosate was previously reported on, the reader is supposed to conclude that glyphosate is an endocrine poison, but this isn’t the case. Manipulations like this are analyzed later in the book (see “ Manipulation Instruments of a Democracy” et seq.).

Correct: As with conspiracy theories (see “ Conspiracy Theories and Their Parallels”), a large part of these arguments are fear-mongering in order to stop the proper function of the brain.

In a similar vein, the Environmental Institute Munich e.V. writes (14/05/2019) on a social networking site:

»Glyphosate: Next defeat for Bayer-Monsanto

Bayer-Monsanto must pay more than $2 billion in damages to a married couple suffering from cancer who had used the glyphosate-containing agricultural poison Roundup for decades. This is already the third judgment in which a US court established a direct connection between the use of Roundup and cancer of the plaintiffs.

Another 13,400 or so similar lawsuits are still pending in the USA. In Germany, meanwhile, glyphosate is still allowed to continue to be used in agriculture and private gardens.«

Again, “glyphosate” and “Roundup” are used synonymous. Whether an American judgment is comparable to a European judgment cannot be determined a priori because the legal systems are different.

On the subject “(Anti-) Glyphosate Lobby”, see also “Lobby vs. Lobby”

DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) is an insect poison that was banned around 1950. The (correct) justification for the ban is that it accumulates in the tissues of humans and animals at the end of the food chain because of its chemical stability and good fat solubility. This was used by nurses (Red cross on the cap) around 1945 to spray children gram-wise with a pump (Wikipedia). Of course they exhibited symptoms of poisoning as well. If it had been highly poisonous, then those children who would have reacted particularly sensitively to poisons would have died.

DDT was used to make the Upper Rhine Trench mosquito-free. It was banned afterwards. The reprehensible thing is the way things are handled with self-evidence, thus bypassing reality: People in Africa suffer and die from malaria and other insect transmitted diseases. The evil of contracting malaria is much worse than any accumulation of the poison in their fatty tissue. This is similar to Germany 200 years ago when the intestine was cleaned of bugs using heavy metals: Heavy metals were a lesser evil.

The vegetables in France are chlorinated. In Germany, the Greens would immediately start climbing the barricades (“chlorine chicken”). Yet there’s no risk involved, especially since you already have hydrochloric acid in your stomach. You otherwise risk EHEC, for example. It can rear its ugly head again because countries are globally oriented and vegetables from abroad are allowed to be fertilized using fecal matter. Although it’s prohibited, it can’t be ruled out. The “chlorine chicken” was used to take a stand against TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

Humans can tolerate a lot of toxins since they used to sit in caves in prehistoric times and grill their food over a fire. Acrylamide was produced as a result. Charred food was certainly not thrown away. Those who couldn’t tolerate it can’t survive, are “de-Mendelized”. Say no more when it comes to the European Union’s new acrylamide law. So much for that law. Of course, one or two people out of one billion people won’t tolerate it, but that’s true for every substance (if you ignore the vital substances like water and table salt). It’s likely that someone can’t tolerate it: Where there are effects, there are side effects. The two can’t even be distinctly separated. Yet it seems to be life-prolonging for the rest. Any publications on it are ignored.

“Gene food” is a popular catchword these days as well. One of the first things that humans did was to cultivate things. Cultivation has three goals:

to reproduce the foodstuffs,

to increase their yield and

to reduce the stomach poisons contained therein.

For thousands of years, the only approach used was “trial and error”. Mutations were sought and cultivated further. Contemporary Chinese planted their rice seeds next to the “hot core” of nuclear power plants in order to produce these mutations faster. They, too, failed in this attempt to create new rice varieties, which required too much water. This attempt was then canceled.

BeriBeri

When I was young, people were harangued by “BeriBeri”. Sick Chinese children who had allegedly contracted a vitamin deficiency disease were shown eating peeled rice. That’s why we were always told to eat “whole grains”. The explanation for the origin of the disease was incorrect: the rice that had triggered the disease was infected by fungi. It was thus a storage-related problem. Quality assurance was improved and the problem went away. This false report, too, was never corrected.

Intervention is selective. The fact that the risk would be higher than with conventional cultivation. Why’s that? Nonsense, too, can result from random experimentation. 14What the Americans are doing with their genetically modified corn is unacceptable in part because it provokes resistance to glyphosate. Anything that is overdone is no good. However, this does not speak against genetic manipulation per se. Genetic manipulation (CRISPR) allows to react much more quickly to changing conditions, for example when fungi or pests begin to multiply in an explosive manner.

Everything you do involves risk.

But the risk of not doing something is

never considered. That’s absurd.

What’s more, neither modern laundry detergents nor dish washing detergents are conceivable without genetic manipulation. Phosphates have largely been banned for environmental reasons. This is technical progress, especially since washing at lower and lower temperatures is desired for energy related and environmental reasons.

Dish washing detergent

The dish washing detergents used to wash dishes at low temperatures (it can be assumed that the same applies to laundry detergents) are not completely safe. These low temperatures can cause black molds, which are hazardous to health.