Wild Water Botanicals

12/23/2025

A major toxicology journal has retracted a w**d killer study backed by Monsanto, citing ‘serious ethical concerns’. The highly cited paper was used as evidence that the widely used herbicide glyphosate (Roundup) is safe.

In 2017, a lawsuit uncovered internal emails from Monsanto that suggested its employees helped ghostwrite an influential paper that claimed to find no evidence glyphosate caused cancer. Now, the scientific journal that published the 2000 paper has announced it has been retracted.

The paper was withdrawn because of “serious ethical concerns” and questions about the validity of the research findings, toxicologist Martin van den Berg, co-editor-in-chief of Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, wrote in a scathing retraction notice released on 28th November. “This article has been widely regarded as a hallmark paper in the discourse surrounding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate and Roundup,” wrote van den Berg, who works at Utrecht University. “However, the lack of clarity regarding which parts of the article were authored by Monsanto employees creates uncertainty about the integrity of the conclusions drawn.”

The decision, which came more than 8 years after the initial revelations, can be traced to the work of two scientists who this year filed a retraction request with the journal after documenting the staying power of the disputed paper. “My worry is that people will keep citing it,” says Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University who sought the retraction along with her then postdoctoral researcher, Alexander Kaurov.

In July, the duo published an analysis showing that the now-retracted paper was in the top 0.1% of studies cited in glyphosate-related academic research. They found that citation rates barely budged after the revelations of Monsanto’s hidden involvement, and the paper continued to be used in policy documents. With the retraction, Oreskes hopes “the word will get out” that the study shouldn’t be used as a trusted source of information.

Questions about the paper emerged during a lawsuit against Monsanto, filed by people who claimed their non-Hodgkins lymphoma stemmed from glyphosate exposure. It brought to light internal company documents showing company officials debating how to respond to a 2015 finding by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen. One tactic they considered was to help academic researchers publish papers that supported the company’s claims that the chemical was not a risk to people. A way to do that, a company executive wrote in an email, would be to approach scientists who would “have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just sign their names so to speak.” The email notes that “this is how we handled” the now-retracted paper.

Gary Williams, the paper’s lead author and a former New York Medical College pathologist who retired in 2018, did not respond to a request for comment. The retraction notice states that Williams also did not respond to the journal’s concerns about the paper. The two other authors, Robert Kroes and Ian Munro, are no longer alive.

In addition to the apparent involvement of Monsanto, the retraction announcement notes that the authors only reviewed unpublished studies produced by the company, and neglected to include a number of outside studies that were also not published in peer-reviewed journals. That could have skewed the study’s conclusions, van den Berg wrote.

The paper’s retraction could remove one hurdle for plaintiffs suing Monsanto, says Robin Greenwald, an attorney at the New York City–based law firm Weitz & Luxenberg who is overseeing glyphosate cases for hundreds of individuals. Monsanto “can’t rely on it anymore,” she says.

There may be more retractions coming. Kaurov, who is now studying for a PhD in science in society at New Zealand’s Victoria University of Wellington, says he and Oreskes recently submitted a retraction request to Critical Reviews in Toxicology for a 2013 paper published under the names of two other authors that does not fully disclose the role Monsanto played in the paper. “It’s not the end of the story,” he says.

For more information see: https://bit.ly/4pGMUY6
and
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901125001765

11/03/2025

Contemporary reviews and consensus statements now frame oral health as integral to overall health across the lifespan, with credible links to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, adverse pregnancy outcomes, pneumonia, rheumatoid arthritis, chronic kidney disease, dementia, and even some cancers, especially colon. While the evidence comes from observational studies (association not causation), the associations are generally strong and causality signals are strengthening through Mendelian randomisation, intervention trials and mechanistic data, but do vary by condition. Guideline/consensus bodies now explicitly recommend medical-dental co-management for cardiometabolic risk.

Oral dysbiosis/infection from bacteria appears to be the causal link, driving low-grade systemic inflammation and endotoxaemia, recurrent bacteraemia, immune priming, molecular mimicry and microbiome translocation (oral–gut axis).

In this context, the finding that a Chinese licorice root (Glycyrrhiza uralensis) mouthwash slashed plaque and gum-inflammation scores by around 40–50 % in just five days has implications well beyond just oral health. The herb wiped out several major periodontal pathogens, including Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticol, and substantially outperformed the speed of improvement seen in green-tea or conventional mouthwash trials. These results spotlight licorice as a fast-acting, natural antimicrobial for gum and oral health.

This was a randomised, double blind, controlled study conducted on 60 patients who visited a dental clinic in South Korea. For the periodontal clinical parameters, the O'Leary index, plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and periodontal-disease-related bacteria in subgingival plaques were examined (at baseline and after 5 days of treatment).

The O’Leary index decreased by 40.43%, the PI decreased by 51.29% and GI decreased by 44%, In terms of bacterial outcomes, the licorice gargle produced antibacterial effects on both Gram-positive and Gram-negative pathogens involved in periodontal disease.

Active treatment was 15 mL of the licorice solution applied once a day as both a gargle and mouthwash for 30 seconds for 5 days. This was prepared as follows: dried Glycyrrhiza uralensis root was extracted (70 % ethanol), filtered, concentrated and freeze-dried into a powder. This concentrated extract was then dissolved in distilled water to make a 0.5 % w/v mouthwash (the test solution). No eating, drinking, or other oral hygiene procedures were allowed for 30 minutes after use to maximise mucosal contact and antimicrobial exposure.

Given the phytochemical similarities, it is highly likely that European licorice (Glycyrrhiza glabra) will have the same benefit. I recommend a 1 in 10 dilution of a high glycyrrhizin licorice 1:1 extract. This should be considerably stronger than the test mouthwash/gargle used in the trial.

For more information see: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40413479/

10/13/2025

💕

08/21/2025

A new and rather alarming study has found that many drug medications targeting various systems in the human body might also change our microbiome so that pathogens can colonise the gut more easily and cause infections. The study, directed by Professor Lisa Maier of the Interfaculty Institute of Microbiology and Infection Medicine Tübingen (IMIT) and the Cluster of Excellence ‘Controlling Microbes to Fight Infections’ (CMFI) at the University of Tübingen, has been published in the elite journal Nature.

The researchers studied 53 common non-antibiotics, including allergy remedies, antidepressants and hormone drugs. Their effects were tested in the laboratory in synthetic and real human gut microbial communities. About one-third of these medications promoted the growth of Salmonella, bacteria that can cause severe diarrhoea. Lisa Maier, senior author of the study, says, “The scale of it was utterly unexpected. Many of these non-antibiotics inhibit useful gut bacteria, while pathogenic microbes such as Salmonella are impervious. This gives rise to an imbalance in the microbiome, which gives an advantage to the pathogens.”

The researchers observed a similar effect in mice, where certain medications led to greater growth of Salmonella. The consequence was severe disease progression of salmonellosis, marked by rapid onset and severe inflammation. This involved many layers of molecular and ecological interactions, such as reduced total biomass of the gut microbiota, harmed biodiversity or the specific elimination of microbes that normally compete for nutrients with the pathogens.

“Our results show that when taking medications we need to observe not only the desired therapeutic effect but also the influence on the microbiome,” says lead author Anne Grießhammer.

The researchers recommend that the effect of new medications on the microbiome should be systematically included in research during development – especially for drug classes such as antihistamines, antipsychotics or selective oestrogen-receptor modulators. These findings call for pharmaceutical research to be rethought: in the future, medications should be assessed not only pharmacologically, but also microbiologically. “If you disrupt the microbiome, you open the door to pathogens – it is an integral component of our health and must be considered as such in medicine,” stresses Maier.

However, it is important to emphasise that this research is preliminary and needs to be confirmed, and its impact in humans has still not been clearly established. These findings contrast with the growing insight from herbal research indicating that many phytochemicals in medicinal plants have the opposite effect, acting as prebiotics and thereby enhancing the growth of beneficial bacteria.

For more information see: http://bit.ly/3VcNRK0

08/20/2025

Right now, the Liberal government is proposing changes to Canada’s Plant Breeders’ Rights Regulations. These changes would tip the balance of power even further toward giant multinational corporations like Bayer and Syngenta—at the expense of family farmers across our country.

Here’s what’s at stake:
• Big companies can already patent the seeds they develop, forcing farmers into an endless cycle of buying new seed every year instead of saving and replanting from their own crop.
• Some seeds even come with so-called “terminator” genetic modification—engineered so that they won’t grow a second generation if replanted.
• While breeders and innovators deserve fair compensation for developing drought, flood, and pest-resistant crops, the farmers who put in the work to grow and harvest the food Canadians eat shouldn’t be starved out by big corporations choking off their seed supply.

This is also about timing. The government has scheduled the public consultation to end on October 18th—right in the middle of harvest season. Farmers are working around the clock in the fields, not sitting at a desk drafting submissions. Once again, Ottawa is holding consultations in a way that shuts out the very people most affected.
Canada’s farmers help feed our country and contribute billions of dollars to our GDP through exports. They deserve respect, a real voice in shaping the rules, and protection from corporate overreach.

That’s why I’m calling for parliamentary hearings so MPs can properly scrutinize these changes and ensure food security stays in Canadian hands—not in the hands of a few multinationals.

08/03/2025

Nature is so cool

Nature’s Early Warning System: Trees Can Sense Volcanoes!

In an incredible fusion of biology and space tech, scientists have discovered that trees growing near volcanoes may serve as silent messengers of impending eruptions. As magma releases extra carbon dioxide underground, trees absorb it — ramping up photosynthesis and subtly shifting the way their leaves reflect light.

These changes aren’t visible to us, but satellites like NASA’s Landsat 8 and ESA’s Sentinel-2 can spot them from orbit. Recent research in Chile and Costa Rica shows that even before an eruption, forests start to “signal” distress.

With millions living near volcanoes — many without on-site monitoring — this breakthrough could give us earlier, life-saving alerts. It’s not perfect (bare volcanic zones don’t help), but combining tree data with satellite eyes offers a powerful new way to track volcanic unrest… from space.

AI Image Credit: Hashem Al Ghaili / Science Nature Page