Toxic Hidden Agendas
Gaslighting Legitimate Health Concerns
UPDATED: April 11, 2026
Welcome to the Healthy Living Is Good Medicine Newsletter, presenting timely, science-based, original articles covering a wide range of preventive medicine and public health topics, along with critical commentaries on the politics and economics of the American healthcare system.
If you find this article a TL;DR challenge for your attention span, please skip to the Summary at the article’s end.
Discerning the Truth
Getting to the truth has always been challenging, and it has never been more difficult than now. AI-generated deep-fakes and disinformation campaigns waged by bot farms generating fake personas on social media platforms currently abound. As a result of modern cyber-technology, most online information is either false or misleading. In an algorithm-dominated information sphere, the truth has been buried under an avalanche of attention grabbing, emotion provoking, click-bait falsehoods.
The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is far more complicated than are falsehoods. Truth is much more nuanced, and is a lot more difficult to arrive at. It takes a great deal of time, effort and money for qualified individuals to do the necessary research, fact-check their sources, critically evaluate the data, and then painstakingly weigh the possible conclusions. In contrast, lies are simple and easy. They require very little effort and expense to generate and disseminate.
The truth can be uncomfortable, unsettling, unpleasant, inconvenient, and even painful. People seem to prefer lies that have an emotional appeal, especially when they are flattering, or fit in with their preconceived notions. Hence, the "information bubble" and "echo chamber" effects. The problem is, when good people are given bad information, they make bad decisions.
Most individuals who spread lies do it for political or financial reasons. I want to be upfront about my motivations for publishing the information you'll find in my posts. I am pro-democracy, pro-health, and pro-science. I want our government’s institutions and the politicians who represent us to be held accountable if they undermine people’s health, education, and welfare.
As for any financial motives behind my online presence, I do mention my books from time to time. Publishing articles helps to keep me engaged and mentally stimulated, and it is nice to think that I’m leaving my thoughts for posterity. Other than that, I have nothing else to gain.
I will admit to publishing articles that are far from my field of expertise. I do so as a health educator and science communicator, but readers are advised to retain their skepticism and not take what I say as the last word on the subject. Science advances through legitimate criticisms and respectful debate, and I welcome both from my subscribers.
Who Can We Trust?
Government agencies don’t always get it right, nor do ivory tower scientists and the peer-reviewed journals in which they publish. The FDA and USDA are influenced by the food, drug, and agriculture industries, and don’t always heed their own scientists and outside advisors. Big money has a trickle-down effect, from the politicians that corporations lobby and influence with their campaign contributions, to the government agencies that politicians pressure to favor corporate profits.
It is important to maintain a healthy (ie. non-cynical) skepticism, and still maintain an open-mindedness that enables a broader perspective on the issues. As a rule-of-thumb, especially for practicing physicians, when in doubt it is usually better to err on the side of caution, and “first, do no harm.” Here are some ways to spot online falsehoods and figure out who to skeptically trust:
Gaslighting
What if your job involved getting people to act against their own interests? You might need to persuade people to vote for political candidates who could make their lives worse, or get people to purchase things that might be bad for their health.
There is a psychologically manipulative tactic known as “gaslighting” that can be deliberately employed to undermine people's trust in their own thought processes and impair their ability to discern fact from fiction. Gaslighting makes it easier for people to be fooled by falsehoods. It enables politicians and salespersons to promote nefarious hidden agendas, and helps scammers take advantage of those who are most vulnerable.
Medical gaslighting occurs when health professionals appear to invalidate or ignore a patient's concerns. If you have felt that your healthcare provider didn't take you seriously, there are several remedies to address this problem. It might be because a doctor has poor communication skills, or is pressed for time, or doesn't know enough about your medical condition. However, if they truly aren’t interested in what’s bothering you, find another provider ASAP.
I have recently taken issue with a Substack “Influencer” who is promoting genetically engineered food crops (aka GMOs), and supports the concomitant use of agricultural herbicides and pesticides. When I presented evidence-based counterpoints to her claims, she rudely responded, and then blocked me, which precipitated this exposé of her tactics and agendas.
A Gaslighting Playbook
Here is the gaslighting playbook that Substack’s most notorious chemophile is using to make people doubt their legitimate concerns about the potential health consequences of chemical residues in the foods that they consume:
• Claim that she works in “life sciences” while concealing her actual employer. Might it be a company that participates in the development of herbicide-resistant, genetically engineered plants? That would result in a conflict of interest that has not been disclosed.
• Create an online presence that appears to independently support logic, health, and science literacy, perhaps as a “Trojan horse” for the real agenda.
• Conceal the sources that are financing her online activities and public appearances, since following the money could unmask hidden agendas.
• Defend the use of agricultural chemicals on GMO food crops simply because they increase the abundance of affordable food, while at the same time dismissing any health concerns that might result.
• Insist that “the science” is on her side, and against those who doubt your claims about the safety of agricultural chemicals.
• Pretend that she supports evidence-based science communication, while dismissing any contradictory evidence as “junk science” or “pseudo-science.”
• Presents herself as a not-to-be-doubted scientific authority, and imply that she is saving people from rampant online and media falsehoods.
• Falsely claim that the majority of the world's scientists agree with her.
• Publish some legitimate articles to serve as a “Trojan Horse” for her misleading ones.
• Attack critics by falsely accusing them of doing what she is actually doing.
• Disparage those who take issue with her claims as being deficient in their basic scientific knowledge, without providing any specifics.
• Demeaning people who are legitimately uncomfortable about agricultural chemicals in their foods, and accusing them of having an irrational fear known as "chemophobia," a mental disorder.
• Insist that “chemophobia” is a rampant “public health crisis.”
• Attack online critics by branding them as “trolls.”
• Accuse professionals who disagree with her of “selectively rejecting science” while doing exactly that herself.
• Attack independent, consumer-safety non-profits, claiming that they are corrupt, anti-science organizations.
• Disparage organic farming as being a money-making health scam.
• Cite the aphorism that “the dose makes the poison” while ignoring the cumulative effects of certain toxins, individual differences in people's metabolism and sensitivity, and the fact that ingesting poisonous substances in any amount is generally not beneficial for one's health.
• Write articles praising the widely used herbicide, glyphosate (Roundup™).
• Claim that agricultural herbicide use is good for the environment.
• Silence critics by deleting their comments and blocking them on her social media accounts.
The list could go on, but you get the point. Science makes progress through open discourse and respectful disagreements. When someone claiming to be a scientists shuts down dialogue, one might infer that they have disingenuous motives that extend far beyond promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking.
It's Not Crazy to Be Concerned
The most egregious example of toxic gaslighting is the pejorative labeling of people with a psychiatric diagnosis of “chemophobia,” when they express a legitimate and completely rational concern. I want to support all of those people that she has maligned and harmed with her stereotypical labeling. Please know that you are definitely not crazy for scrutinizing the nutritional qualities of your food, and for feeling uneasy about any biological or chemical contaminants that your food might contain.
Let’s not insist upon perfection when it comes to human endeavors. When it comes to being perfectly rational like Science Officer Spock, let's face it: We all have our blind spots. Because we are human, and therefore susceptible to the sway of emotions and glitches in our information processing abilities, there is no way that we can be totally unbiased. However, we can learn to recognize the presence of biases in ourselves and others, and take steps to reduce their influence on our own thinking. Here's a wonderful guide:
When we don’t have the luxury of randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials to support our concerns about potential health risks, it still makes sense that consuming any amount of herbicides or pesticides cannot be considered good for us. We know that there are chemical residues in our food, so why not minimize our exposures to them as much as possible? You can trust your own good sense, and endeavor to make the best, well-informed decisions that you can.
Who Benefits?
This is always a good question to ask about the information you get, in order to help determine its likely validity. That’s why investigative journalists follow the money to its sources. Large-scale commercial farming has a significant impact upon the American economy. Agriculture, food, and related industries contributed roughly $1.53 trillion to the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2023, a 5.6-percent share. Agricultural chemical production contributed $50.8 billion to the U.S. GDP in 2021.
The main reason for genetically engineering plants is so they can withstand the application of herbicides in order to increase crop productivity and corporate profitability. It is not the GMO itself that's a concern, but rather its accompanying chemical residues. A likely consequence of the use of multiple herbicides on GMO food crops is that the residues in food products will further increase cumulative health risks due to repeated human exposures. Currently, there are 11 approved GMO crops produced in the U.S.
In 2024, after a four-year legal battle, Monsanto (acquired by Bayer in 2018) dropped its lawsuit challenging Mexico's GMO corn ban, which was aimed at preventing glyphosate from human consumption. It is interesting to see how many lawsuits have involved Monsanto as a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals such as Roundup™, Alachlor™, and Dicamba™. For an in-depth and balanced expert analysis of glyphosate by Dr. Mathison, see:
Some of the nuances:
And Dr. Mathison’s response:
Keep in mind that all the while, the science is being hijacked for purposes of lucrative litigation, and many of the authors of studies condemning glyphosate are highly paid expert witnesses with conflicts of interest.
The U.S. is the world's largest user of pesticides, according to the the United Nations' Food and Agricultural Organization's 2020 report. The U.S. also allows the production and export of domestically banned pesticides for use in other countries, where they have been linked to significant adverse health effects and environmental damage. Which begs the question, “Is the world being poisoned for profit?”
What are the Known Risks?
This is a difficult question to answer, because the subject is quite nuanced, and even the nuances are nuanced. There are three competing interests here; individual, societal, and the potential financial gains from litigation against agrochemical manufacturers. There’s no doubt that the widespread use of chemicals in modern agriculture make it possible to feed the multitudes, but what are the accompanying health harms; potential, real, and imaginary? As a physician, my commitment must always be to what is least harmful.
A 2024 epidemiological study has established an environmental link between 22 agrochemicals (including herbicides, fungicides, insecticides, and a soil fumigant) and a consistent association with increased rates of prostate cancer in specific geographical populations. Three of the chemicals in the study have previously been linked to prostate cancer, including 2,4D, one of the most frequently used pesticides. Three herbicides and one pesticide were additionally linked to prostate cancer deaths. Keep in mind, however, that epidemiologic evidence of associations is not causal proof.
What is missing from the study are investigations that take place at an individual level. To understand how this study was done and what led to its conclusions, I encourage you to read Dr. Wilson’s blog post and watch his video:
Despite a claimed low human toxicity of glyphosate (Roundup™, etc.), an herbicide widely used on conventionally grown GMO food crops, there are indications that it may be a cause of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in agricultural workers, underscored in a 2026 report. A 2023 review goes into greater detail.
In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency on Research for Cancer determined that glyphosate, an herbicide is a probable human carcinogen. How this determination is interpreted remains controversial, since it was a hazard analysis, rather than a risk analysis. However, a new study has implicated exposure to glyphosate as a cause of neuroinflammation. Admittedly, the science of glyphosate toxicology is significantly more complex than can be presented here, and any oversimplification is prone to introducing errors.
Regulatory agencies in the U.S., Canada, and Europe have concluded that glyphosate, when applied to food crops in accordance with their specific conditions for approval, does not present a cancer risk for humans, but how would we know if it had been applied in compliance with regulations? The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an agency of the European Union (EU) that provides scientific advice on food safety. The EFSA's advice helps protect consumers from food-related risks.
According to the EFSA, their risk assessment and peer review of glyphosate studies is the most comprehensive and transparent evaluation of a pesticide that they have ever carried out. They did not identify critical areas of concern regarding impacts upon the health of humans, animals, and the environment.
The EFSA’s 2022 hazard assessment concluded that glyphosate did not meet the scientific criteria to be classified as a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic substance. They did, however, identify a high, long-term risk to mammals in 12 out of 23 proposed uses of glyphosate. They could not finalize their consumer dietary risk assessments for some produce crops because of incomplete data. The EFSA expects risk management measures and further data collection to address those issues.
It’s worth taking some time to understand the differences between hazard-based and risk-based food safety assessments. Also keep in mind that some regulatory agencies in the United States are notorious for favoring commercial interests over potential human health and environmental risks. Even if it was true that herbicides and pesticides, when “applied as directed” are safe, there is no oversight to ensure that they are actually being applied to food crops in accordance with regulations.
America's approach to food safety differs fundamentally from that of other nations. U.S. government agencies typically take a “risk-based” approach to policy-making, by identifying substances with potential health risks and assessing the probability of exposure doing harm. In sharp contrast, European Union nations employ a “hazard-based,” precautionary approach. If a study shows a substance can be toxic, even to lab animals, the aim is to eliminate the potential for harm entirely, regardless of level of exposure. That may be due to European not-for profit healthcare systems saving money by emphasizing prevention.
I take the position that despite its role in increasing agricultural productivity, there is no way that ingesting glyphosate can be good for people. There is some shaky evidence linking it to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma under some circumstances, according to a 2021 review. However, from an epidemiological perspective, this is unlikely to apply to the general population, because the incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma has actually declined since 2000, even though consumption of GMO crops treated with glyphosate has increased.
A 2023 study found that childhood exposure to glyphosate may increase the risk of metabolic disease in young adulthood. In 2024, the American Academy of Pediatrics published an article in which they expressed concerns about measurable amounts of glyphosate detected in some GMO foods, and the potential health risks for infants and children. Since then, the article has been sharply criticized for its bias and fear-mongering.
A number of regulatory agencies say that glyphosate is unlikely to pose carcinogenic risks at relevant human exposure levels. A comprehensive evaluation, the 2023 EFSA/ECHA renewal assessment, concluded that glyphosate does not meet the criteria for a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic classification under CLP Regulation. Health Canada’s PMRA, Australia’s APVMA, and the FAO/WHO JMPR have independently reached the same conclusions. The California NSRL determination, and the JMPR Acceptable Daily Intake, clarify that cancer warnings are unnecessary. This is a pretty unanimous consensus.
According to a 2024 review, the growing number of published studies about health concerns related to agrochemical exposure suggests that the daily intake of contaminated food and water may pose a public health concern. A 2021 review noted that several studies found that glyphosate and its metabolites can accumulate in soils and contaminate aquatic ecosystems.
Another 2024 review highlighted some of the potential consequences that pesticides can have for the composition and function of the gut microbiome. The article focused upon the possible implications of intestinal dysbiosis for human health.
The CDC's 2024 National Exposure Report states that separate research studies are needed to assess the health risks and determine whether blood and urine levels of environmental chemicals are associated with diseases and other adverse effects. Currently, it appears that more importance has been given to the large number of null or inconsistent findings, and to regulatory “weight‑of‑evidence” evaluations.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims that glyphosate is “not likely to cause cancer in humans.” However, there is concern about the other ingredients in Roundup, as they might be more toxic than glyphosate. Because they are not considered “active ingredients” in Roundup, they are mostly ignored when it comes to regulatory health risk assessments.
The Case for Organic Grains
Unless grains grown in the United States and Canada are labeled “organic” it is is likely that they have been sprayed with glyphosate. This is a long-standing practice that’s not intended to kill weeds, but rather to force the plants to quickly and evenly dry out at a predictable time for harvesting and processing. The practice, known as “pre-harvest desiccation,” is not employed with most grains grown in Europe.
What North American agricultural regulators have failed to take into account is how residual amounts of glyphosate on food crops and processed grains such as cereal, bread, and pasta might affect the gut microbiome. While human studies are limited, research suggests that glyphosate is more toxic to beneficial gut bacteria species such as Lactobacillus and Bifidobacteria, and less toxic to pathogenic species such as Clostridium and Salmonella, which can result in dysbiosis, an unhealthy imbalance of the intestinal flora.
Dysbiosis is associated with increased gut wall permeability, allowing compounds from incompletely digested food, along with bacterial fermentation byproducts, to leak into the bloodstream where they can produce inflammation and immune reactions. Troubling symptoms after eating grains have often been attributed to gluten, but studies show that this is not necessarily the causative agent.
While the “leaky gut” mechanism has been demonstrated in animal studies, there have not yet been human trials studying the link between glyphosate residues and illnesses such as non-celiac gluten sensitivity. However, this phenomenon may explain how eating imported Italian pasta made with durum wheat is less likely to produce intestinal disturbances for those in the U.S. who are wheat intolerant.
It’s Not Necessarily About the Dose
Some agrochemical apologists cite the “dose makes the poison” aphorism to discount people’s concerns about the health effects of potentially toxic substances. While the dose principle of toxicology is generally true, it is an oversimplification, and there are some significant exceptions. It might be more accurate to say that the cumulative dose is what makes the poison. For an insightful exploration of toxicology principles as they apply to the glyphosate controversy, see Dr. Mathison’s article:
Certainly, the concentration of a substance and the duration of one's exposure to it are important in determining its impact upon the human body. This is also true for things that are not considered toxic, such as quickly drinking too much pure water, or breathing pure oxygen at a higher pressure, both of which can cause serious harm.
Here are some exceptions to claims that the dose makes the poison:
1) People can vary greatly in their ability to eliminate or detoxify some poisons, such as alcohol. The saying that one person's food is another person's poison addresses the well known differences in individual susceptibility. Severe allergic reactions can be fatal.
2) Some harmful chemicals aren't eliminated or detoxified, and therefore accumulate in the body in increasing amounts with repeated exposure. This is the case with PFAS "forever chemicals" and heavy metals.
3) Some substances that aren't harmful at low doses become more toxic when accompanied by other substances that can potentiate their effects. Adverse synergistic effects may occur when some agricultural chemicals deemed “safe when applied as directed” are combined with other commonly used chemicals. Such chemicals have not been adequately tested in combinations
4) There are some substances that are dangerous even in tiny doses, such as cyanide, ricin, and plutonium, to name but a few. That’s why people need to exercise great caution when harvesting wild mushrooms.
5) Industrial chemical safety tests are conducted on laboratory animals, and the results are extrapolated to humans. The validity of those extrapolations has not been tested, because people generally object to being used as lab rats.
Let the Buyer Beware
There is nothing wrong with people rationally erring on the side of caution when “safe” levels of pesticide and herbicide residues in food hasn't been determined to a high degree of probability. However, it is possible to take caution too far, which can result in unintended consequence, as explained in this excellent counterpoint:
The main thing is to not let yourself be gaslighted. Be wary of those who do not clearly have your best interests at heart, and especially individuals who are intent on protecting and increasing corporate profits, even if it comes at the expense of people’s health and welfare.
As a physician, I have been guided by the principle of not causing harm. You might say that has been my “hidden agenda” in writing this article. As always, I remain committed to promoting and protecting people's health, something that I consider far more important than increasing corporate wealth and supporting America’s oligarchy. Power rightfully belongs to the people!
Summary
This article argues that “gaslighting” is increasingly used to dismiss legitimate health concerns about pesticides and herbicides, especially when it comes to genetically engineered (GMO) crops. It urges readers to rely upon their skeptical, evidence‑seeking instincts, and ignore influencers with hidden financial or political agendas. It offers a precautionary perspective in the face of scientific uncertainties and some supportive studies, but it is not a neutral analysis of the full glyphosate/pesticide evidence base and the surrounding controversies.
Truth is complex and slow, while misinformation is simple, emotional, and cheap to produce; this makes people vulnerable to manipulation in an online environment dominated by algorithms and bots.
“Medical gaslighting” happens when clinicians minimize or invalidate symptoms; sometimes this is due to time pressure or lack of knowledge, but if a provider truly shows no interest, the article advises changing doctors quickly.
The article describes a “gaslighting playbook” used by a pro‑GMO influencer: hiding funders and employers, overstating scientific consensus, dismissing opposing studies as “junk science,” pathologizing concern as “chemophobia,” and blocking critics.
The article emphasizes that the main concern is not genetic engineering itself but the chemical residues from herbicides and pesticides used on GMO crops.
The U.S. is described as the world’s largest pesticide user; the article notes that the U.S. also permits production and export of some pesticides banned domestically, which have been tied to health and environmental harms abroad.
A recent epidemiologic study is cited linking 22 agrochemicals with increased prostate cancer rates in certain regions, with several specific herbicides associated with prostate cancer incidence and mortality.
The WHO’s cancer agency (IARC) classified glyphosate as a “probable human carcinogen” in 2015, while U.S., Canadian, and EU regulators have concluded that glyphosate, when used according to approved conditions, does not pose a cancer risk to humans, exemplifying the distinction between hazard and risk.
The European Food Safety Authority’s latest assessment did not find glyphosate met criteria for being carcinogenic, mutagenic, or reprotoxic, though it did flag high long‑term risks to mammals in many proposed uses and noted gaps in dietary risk data.
The article contrasts a U.S. “risk‑based” model (allowing substances if estimated real‑world risk is low) with an EU “hazard‑based” precautionary model (restricting substances once they are shown capable of causing harm, even at higher doses in animals).
The article critiques the slogan “the dose makes the poison,” arguing that cumulative dose, individual susceptibility, bioaccumulation (such as PFAS and heavy metals), chemical mixtures, and highly toxic substances at tiny doses all complicate this picture.
Several recent reviews are said to suggest that everyday intake of glyphosate‑contaminated food and water may be a public‑health concern, with potential links to cancers, metabolic disease, environmental contamination, and gut microbiome disruption, though many questions remain unresolved.
The U.S. CDC’s National Exposure Report is quoted as saying that separate studies are still needed to determine whether measured blood and urine levels of environmental chemicals are associated with disease.
The article suggests that it is reasonable, not “chemophobic” or irrational, to try to minimize dietary exposure to herbicides and pesticides, even while acknowledging that current evidence is incomplete and sometimes conflicting.
People are encouraged to maintain a healthy skepticism, ask “who benefits?” of any health or food‑safety claim, avoid being silenced by gaslighting tactics, and err on the side of reducing potential harms whenever possible.
This Post may be updated at any time. Please check back here again to find the latest information on this subject.
Find more articles about Healthy Living in my Post Archive.
Please share my Website Link with others via your social media accounts.
You can help your friends and followers become healthier by suggesting that they subscribe to this Newsletter. You may receive access to premium features as a thank-you for making referrals:
If you find this Newsletter to be of value and want to lend your support, please consider making a donation that will help it reach many more people: