Glyphosate, Epigenetics and Transgenerational Inheritance of Disease

Assessment of Glyphosate Induced Epigenetic Transgenerational Inheritance of Pathologies and Sperm Epimutations: Generational Toxicology, 2019

Listen to Dr. Eric Nilsson, Research Assistant Professor in the School of Biological Sciences at Washington State University, presenting a recent study investigating exposure to the herbicide glyphosate in rats. The study found that the exposed rats’ subsequent grand-offspring and un-exposed great grand-offspring had higher rates of disease. Reference.


Ancestral environmental exposures to a variety of factors and toxicants have been shown to promote the epigenetic transgenerational inheritance of adult onset disease. One of the most widely used agricultural pesticides worldwide is the herbicide glyphosate (N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine), commonly known as Roundup. There are an increasing number of conflicting reports regarding the direct exposure toxicity (risk) of glyphosate, but no rigorous investigations on the generational actions. The current study using a transient exposure of gestating F0 generation female rats found negligible impacts of glyphosate on the directly exposed F0 generation, or F1 generation offspring pathology. In contrast, dramatic increases in pathologies in the F2 generation grand-offspring, and F3 transgenerational great-grand-offspring were observed. The transgenerational pathologies observed include prostate disease, obesity, kidney disease, ovarian disease, and parturition (birth) abnormalities. Epigenetic analysis of the F1, F2 and F3 generation sperm identified differential DNA methylation regions (DMRs). A number of DMR associated genes were identified and previously shown to be involved in pathologies. Therefore, we propose glyphosate can induce the transgenerational inheritance of disease and germline (e.g. sperm) epimutations. Observations suggest the generational toxicology of glyphosate needs to be considered in the disease etiology of future generations.

Comprendre la perturbation endocrinienne

“Émission du Labo”, enregistrée en public au Lieu Unique, Nantes, le 14 mai 2019

Les sources d’exposition sont nombreuses et difficiles à maîtriser, tout comme leurs conséquences biologiques.

Historiquement, les perturbateurs endocriniens ont commencé à attirer l’attention des chercheur·euses dès les années 1950. Mais c’est l’affaire du distilbène qui, dans les années 1970, a fait exploser le sujet sur la scène scientifique et médiatique, alors même que le terme de “perturbateur endocrinien” n’était pas encore utilisé.

Aujourd’hui, c’est un enjeu majeur de santé publique, pour nous qui sommes vivants, mais aussi pour les générations futures, celles qui n’ont pas encore vu le jour. Référence.

Le Distilbène DES, en savoir plus

Chemicals, pesticides, microplastics added to supermarket food

The Honest Supermarket – What’s Really in Our Food ?

Can we trust our supermarkets to tell us the truth about what we are buying and how it was produced ?

For every pound we spend on food shopping, 77p goes to the supermarkets, giving them a huge influence over what we eat. Do their profits come first ?

In an experiment to discover the hidden truths about our everyday foods, Horizon has built the first ever truly ‘honest supermarket’. Drawing on the latest scientific research and leading experts from across the UK, the team have built a supermarket where the products are labelled with the real story of how they are produced and their effect on us and the environment. We invite the British public to come in and discover the truth about their favourite foods. And in our on-site lab, new scientific discoveries reveal the food facts the supermarkets aren’t telling you.

Presented by Dr Hannah Fry and dietician Priya Tew, The Honest Supermarket takes a cold hard look at what’s really going on with the food we eat. From new research that reveals you’re likely to be ingesting plastic particles along with your bottled water to the lab tests that uncover the disturbing truth about just how old your ‘fresh’ supermarket fish really is…

You’ll never look at the food on your supermarket shelves in the same way again says BBC2 Horizon, Jul 2019.

Maternal exposure to workplace solvents may increase the risk for ASD in children

The CHARGE study : an assessment of parental occupational exposures and autism spectrum disorder

Children whose mothers are exposed to solvents at work are at higher risk of autism, shows new research.

The study found that women who are exposed to workplace solvents are 1.5 times more likely to have a child on the autistic spectrum, newnationnews reports. Image credit @ATEN_Int.

2019 Study Abstract

The aim of this study is to determine if parental occupational exposure to 16 agents is associated with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

Demographic, health and parental occupational data were collected as part of the CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and Environment (CHARGE) study. The workplace exposure assessment was conducted by two experienced industrial hygienists for the parents of 537 children with ASD and 414 typically developing (TD) children. For each job, frequency and intensity of 16 agents were assessed and both binary and semi-quantitative cumulative exposure variables were derived. Logistic regression models were used to calculate adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) to assess associations between parental occupational exposures 3 months pre-pregnancy until birth.

The OR of ASD in the children of mothers exposed to any solvents was 1.5 times higher than the mothers of TD children (95% CI=1.01–2.23). Cumulative exposure indicated that the OR associated with a moderate level of solvent exposure in mothers was 1.85 (95% CI=1.09, 3.15) for children with ASD compared with TD children. No other exposures were associated with ASD in mothers, fathers or the parents combined.

Maternal occupational exposure to solvents may increase the risk for ASD. These results are consistent with a growing body of evidence indicating that environmental and occupational exposures may be associated with ASD. Future research should consider specific types of solvents, larger samples and/or different study designs to evaluate other exposures for potential associations with ASD.

Sex, Lies and Pharmaceuticals

The merging of marketing and medical science : female sexual dysfunction

As the search for the so-called ‘Pink Viagra’ continues, controversy surrounds the nature of the medical ‘condition’ such a pill would treat.

  • Do women with a low libido really have a disease called ‘hypoactive-sexual desire disorder’?
  • Does it really affect one-in-ten women as drug companies claim?

There’s already a marketed treatment for HSDD in the form of a pill called Addyi, a drug whose 2015 FDA approval came with intense debate over whether sexual desire was indeed a medical issue. Addyi has since become a commercial nonentity, in large part because women are restricted from drinking alcohol before taking it. The controversy around the drug’s approval faded along with its meager sales.

But bremelanotide, which promises a similar effect with fewer side effects, has rekindled the conversation around whether sexual desire can be a matter of pharmaceutical science.

Continue reading on stat news.

In an article in the BMJ almost 10 years ago I described the making of female sexual dysfunction as the freshest, clearest example of the “corporate sponsored creation of a disease.”1 Looking back over the past decade, it has become clear that drug companies have not simply sponsored the science of this new condition; on occasions they have helped to construct it. Corporate employees have worked with paid key opinion leaders to help develop the disease entity; they have run prevalence surveys to portray it as widespread; and they helped create the measurement and diagnostic instruments to persuade women that their sexual difficulties deserve a medical label and treatment. Drug marketing is merging with medical science in a fascinating and frightening way, raising questions about whether a new approach to defining diseases is warranted.

Continue reading on the BMJ.

Condition branding is a marketing technique in which companies develop conditions concurrently with developing drugs; examples include gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, premenstrual dysphoric disorder, social anxiety disorder, erectile dysfunction and hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Although it is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to market drugs prior to regulatory approval, there are no restrictions on marketing diseases, and industry seeks to establish a disease state in the minds of clinicians years before an expected drug launch. Continuing medical education (CME) courses are an important part of promotion prior to drug approval and have become a key marketing tool for increasing clinician receptivity to new products. We systematically identified 14 free, internet-based, industry-funded, accredited CME modules on hypoactive sexual desire disorder in women which came out before a new drug, flibanserin, was being considered for regulatory approval in the USA. Common themes in these modules included the following: Hypoactive sexual desire disorder is common, underdiagnosed and can have a profound effect on quality of life. Women may not be aware that they are sick or distressed. Simple questionnaires can assist clinicians in diagnosing the disorder. It is problematic that there are medicines available to treat sexual problems for men but not women. In fact, there is no scientifically established norm for sexual activity, feelings or desire, and there is no evidence that hypoactive sexual desire disorder is a medical condition. Hypoactive sexual desire disorder is a typical example of a condition that was sponsored by industry to prepare the market for a specific treatment.

Continue reading on the BMJ.

Distilbene : pas encore de provision d’indemnisation pour préjudice professionnel

JT 19/20 Pays de la Loire, 28 mai 2019

Mi-avril 2019, la famille Le Cossec a entamé un troisième procès contre le laboratoire UCB Pharma ; ils veulent être reconnus comme “parents-victimes”. Fin mai 2019, le Tribunal de Grande Instance de Nanterre a refusé, de leur accorder une provision d’indemnisation pour préjudice professionnel.

28/5: Décision sanction pour la reconnaissance de notre préjudice de parents victimes du Distilbène

La juge de la mise en état du TGI de Nanterre a refusé de nous accorder une provision d’indemnisation pour préjudice professionnel. Elle indique que les questions soulevées dans cette procédure sont “un débat de fond qui devra être tranché par le tribunal et qu’il n’appartient pas au juge de la mise en état d’apprécier”.

Attendre, toujours attendre.
Nous sommes abattus face à cette décision qui après 12 ans de combat va nous contraindre à nouveau à souffrir.

20 ans qu’on se bat pour que Julien vive correctement. On s’est construits tout seuls, on n’a pas attendu le laboratoire UCB Pharma. C’est une évidence qu’il faut continuer de travailler même lorsqu’un tel bouleversement arrive dans notre vie.

On a essayé de rester debout. On nous reproche aujourd’hui d’avoir gagné nos vies au detriement de notre couple, de notre vie de famille.
On ne s’est jamais plaints, on s’est toujours battus, c’est aujourd’hui pour nous une prime de sanction.
Nous avons gardé la tête haute jusqu’en 2019 pour préserver notre couple et nos enfants mais cette décision nous effondre plus que tout notre combat au seul motif d’avoir des revenus corrects!
C’est à se demander s’il ne faut pas mieux sombrer dans la dépression pour pouvoir être reconnus comme victimes.

Mais nous ne lâcherons pas, nous irons jusqu’au bout avec les médias dont on a besoin dans ce combat tellement injuste et inéquitable de David contre Goliath.
Nous ferons appel pour que justice soit faite lors d’une nouvelle audience fixée le 15 octobre 2019.
Il est scandaleux que le laboratoire pharmaceutique UCB Pharma n’assume pas ses erreurs passées et toutes leurs conséquences. UCB cherche encore à nous asphixier avec ce sordide jeu de la montre.

On vous remercie Tous de nous avoir soutenus dans ce combat, on va encore avoir plus besoin de vous pour porter notre voix et en finir au plus vite avec UCB Pharma.


Sylvie et Loic
Référence. Vidéo originale. Reportage Allodocteurs.

Distilbène : un couple veut être reconnu comme “parents victimes”

Le Distilbène DES, en savoir plus

60 MiNueTs Toxic

UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, 2017

Video published on 18 Apr 2019 by the UCSF Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment.

The University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment (PRHE)’s mission is to create a healthier environment for human reproduction and development through advancing scientific inquiry, clinical care and health policies that prevent exposures to harmful chemicals in our environment.

More Information

Adult and Prenatal Chemical Exposures

Breast Cancer Prevention Partners, with Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., Mar 2019

  • How am I exposed to chemicals?
  • What are prenatal exposures?
  • How can I reduce my own personal exposures?
  • What more can I do to help make a change?

Featuring BCPP Science Advisory Panel member Tracey Woodruff, Ph.D., Director of the Program on Reproductive Health and the Environment, University of California, San Francisco, Professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at UCSF

Substances toxiques : la mainmise des entreprises sur la réglementation

Peut-on dire que les firmes ont le permis de nous empoisonner ?

Le sociologue Henri Boullier, auteur de “Toxiques légaux” était l’invité de “L’entretien de l’intelligence économique” sur France 24.

Les gouvernements ont beau multiplier les réglementations, ils ne parviennent pas à interdire les produits toxiques pour la santé et pour l’environnement, et semblent incapables de résister aux pressions du marché.

Vidéo publiée le 27 mars 2019.

Vaccin Gardasil : vers un nouveau scandale sanitaire ?

Drs Nicole & Gérard Delépine, Culture Populaire, 1/2

Vidéo publiée le 28 février 2019. (Suite de 1/2).

Gérard Délépine chirurgien, oncologue et statisticien et Nicole Délépine, pédiatre, oncologue, se battent depuis plus de 40 ans pour améliorer la prise en charge des malades atteints de cancer et informer la population sur l’état actuel de la science en se basant sur les faits avérés, les registres nationaux des cancers et publications internationales.

Le Gardasil, vaccin contre le papillomavirus, a pour objectif officiel de diminuer la fréquence des cancers du col utérin dans les populations vaccinées. Pourtant ce cancer est rare (moins de 3000 par an en France, pour 1000 décès) et prévenu à plus de 80 % par le dépistage.

Quand aucune urgence de santé publique n’existe, pourquoi les agences du médicament accordent-elles des autorisations à toute allure, comme s’il s’agissait de maladies gravissimes ? Pourquoi le Gardasil a-t-il été traité comme un produit d’urgence vitale et bénéficié d’une publicité et d’un soutien massif des sociétés savantes, des experts et des gouvernants ? Pourquoi chaque jour apporte un nouvel article publicitaire trompeur dans les grands médias ? Pourquoi des députés déposent-ils un amendement pour rendre ce vaccin obligatoire ? Pourquoi tant d’émissions répandent-elles la peur chez les familles des jeunes femmes, et bientôt des garçons ?

Autant de questions auxquelles tente de répondre cet ouvrage, en faisant le bilan à 12 ans de la commercialisation sur les résultats avérés, et mettant en lumière la réalité des résultats des vaccinations larges et les confrontant aux espoirs des inconditionnels du vaccin, bercés d’illusions par les modélisations et simulations sur des hypothèses qui s’avèrent fausses. Ces résultats confirment la découverte de Lars Anderson sur la population suédoise : contrairement aux espoirs et simulations statistiques, le nombre de cancers du col utérin a augmenté chez les populations vaccinées.

Ainsi, en l’absence de prise de conscience rapide et mondiale, le Gardasil pourrait bien être le prochain scandale sanitaire, bien plus grave par son ampleur que ceux du Distilbène, du Vioxx, de la Dépakine ou encore du Médiator.