22 July, 2024

Blog

Glyphosate Cannot Be A Cause Of CKDu: Not On This Evidence!

By Nimal Chandrasena* and Sunil Wimalawansa**

An article highlighting a recent paper titled, “Glyphosate & hard water: Is it a deadly CKDu combination for farmers?” by Ulrich et al.[published in Environmental Science & Technology Letters in Sept 2023] [1] was published in Sunday Times on 23 November.

It is surprising to see many shortcomings and misinformation in the original Ulrich et al. article and the uncritical tenor of the newspaper article. To prevent people from being misled, it is necessary to refute false claims in both.

The study above provided no scientific data to substantiate that glyphosate is involved in, or can be implicated as a causative agent in, Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown aetiology (CKDu). The authors of this article neither provided supportive scientific evidence nor did they discuss the major pitfalls of the paper under limitations.

Examples of shortcomings include (1) non-systematic sample selection and faulty handling procedures, (2) falsely assuming that all villagers in NCP‒CKDu affected regions had similar poor water quality, (3) mistaken comparison of water from the southern region, (4) likely errors in detecting glyphosate at the ultra-low levels, which has no relevance to human health, reported without proper analytical quality assurance, (5), failure to provide evidence that glyphosate detected was not an artifact, and (6) failure to have quality assurance and quality control procedures in the field and during measurements essential to establish authenticity and to convince the scientific community of the validity of findings.

The data presented are grossly inadequate and unconvincing. The authors failed to take adequate scientific steps to prove they were detecting glyphosate. A rigorous scientific study with a better study design and methodology would have recognized that the samples obtained were highly heterogeneous (in terms of matrices that would interfere with analyses) as the water samples were from a diverse geographical area.

Glyphosate use was banned in Sri Lanka in 2014. Water samples were collected in October/November 2021 from wells in the so-called ‘CKD affected’ areas and controls from the ‘unaffected area’ from the southern region. It is a well-established scientific fact that sometime after application, glyphosate does not exist in its original form in water or soil.

The herbicide glyphosate is rapidly chelated—firmly bound to cations (such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions) in hard water present in the NCP and becomes insoluble. Similarly, glyphosate quickly binds to similar ions in the soil, which makes it unavailable. Besides, glyphosate breaks down through microbial actions, making the molecule unavailable. Therefore, glyphosate is unlikely to remain intact without change and in measurable amount.

Standard glyphosate analysis always detects some amounts of the main breakdown product (i.e., AMPA). However, in the method used in the study, the so-called ‘ultra-sensitive’ analysis failed to detect and/or report AMPA and even to discuss AMPA non-detection. This makes the analytical results dubious.

In a field sampling exercise of this nature and sensitive laboratory analysis in the USA, the extent of matrix interferences varies considerably from source to source, depending on the nature and diversity of the sampled matrix.

Despite the magnitude and repercussions of the claim, the authors failed to state what steps were taken to ensure that the analytical results were reliable. Unfortunately, the article fails in this regard. It is a fatal scientific error not to provide QA evidence and steps, such as an inter-lab comparison, which would have ensured that the analyst was not detecting false positives and artifacts.

Ours and other field research in Sri Lanka showed that the prevalence of CKD is a heterogeneous and localized water quality issue. Along with others, we have witnessed multiple times that in some villages where over 20% of adults are affected with CKDu, in adjacent villages or the other side of the same village, the prevalence of CKDu is less than 2%. The authors have failed to consider these basic facts in their study— another major flaw in the sampling design.

It is a false assumption to state that a large geographical area, like a province in Sri Lanka, is CKD-affected. The disease is prevalent not in regions but in scattered villages within some affected provinces. Consequently, using the terminology of ‘CKD-affected’ region versus ‘non-affected’ (e.g., Southern region) in water sample collection is a mistake many local scientists are making. No effort has been made to do unbiased ‘random’ sampling, potentially because of a ‘pre-formed’ bias against glyphosate.

The authors seem over-enthusiastic about proving what they believe rather than making conclusions based on data or testing a hypothesis; they failed to follow standard frameworks of good science. In addition to failing to discuss the study’s limitations, the article has many improperly cited references purporting to support the findings.

Just because about half the well-water samples tested in ‘CKDu areas’ had very low detectable but clinically insignificant amounts of glyphosate in water does not support glyphosate as a causative agent (or even associated) of CKDu. The author failed to cite several pertinent scientific publications by other groups, making the paper less credible [2, 3]. These recent articles have convincingly proven that glyphosate and AMPA levels in urine/blood, detected in people even potentially exposed to glyphosate, are almost always well below the EPA-stipulated safe levels implicated in its chronic toxicity.

The authors also failed to answer critical questions—Did the detected glyphosate exist in a free, unchanged form, without chelation? Should the samples be subject to other analytical techniques to detect glyphosate chelation? If chelation had occurred over time, a critical question is – was glyphosate bio-available to affect people via drinking water?

The authors also failed to report whether the study found clinically relevant concentrations (in humans) before making a direct claim implicating glyphosate. The negative effects of glyphosate authors reported in laboratory Zebra fish (using/simulating glyphosate levels in well-water) is over ten-thousand-fold higher exposure-equivalent in humans.

The median concentration (unstated) of glyphosate reported in this study is approximately one µg/L (or 1 ppb). This level is significantly lower than the US EPA and WHO stipulated safety standards and upper limits for glyphosate in drinking water of 500-600 micrograms/L (or parts per billion, ppb) [4]. Therefore, using an astronomical dose exposure of glyphosate is supra-pharmacological, unscientific, unrealistic, and misleading.

Based on this data, it is implausible that a person’s daily water intake would reach glyphosate levels that would harm their health. The authors have not attempted to use the globally accepted standard drinking water quality risk assessment approach (which is based on a person’s daily intake of water by a person). Instead, the study used an inappropriate correlation analysis to link glyphosate with CKDu, resulting in false conclusions.

The article suggests that “multiple” factors (i.e., water hardness, moderately alkaline water, elevated F and Vanadium, etc.) might contribute to this complex problem. However, the authors jumped the gun, perhaps due to bias, with a distorted title, implicating ‘glyphosate,’ thus feeding the misinformation narrative. We have reported that CKDu/CKD-CTN is caused by consuming naturally contaminated groundwater, consisting of hard water having a high calcium-to-magnesium ratio (alkaline), with fluoride in the presence of several other factors, including chronic dehydration.

The correlations and statistical analysis used in the study also show thirteen other elements (out of 27 measured) at elevated levels in well-water in CKD-affected areas. Nevertheless, the study ignored these. Based on wrongful methodologies, it is likely that such elements might also have been ‘wrongfully’ implicated, along with glyphosate as ‘causing’ CKD. In our view, the authors drew a long bow by using faulty correlations to unjustly extrapolate results to implicate glyphosate as a cause of CKD. Such a conclusion is scientifically not valid.

As reviewers and editors of other scientific journals, we have reviewed innumerable articles. Surprisingly, the referees of this paper failed to detect the major scientific misconceptions mentioned above. We doubt whether glyphosate was actually detected at all in the wells in Sri Lanka. Even if it was, the levels represented were clinically wholly insignificant.

Notwithstanding the technological errors associated with this study, it simply does not correlate the detected low glyphosate levels to clinically relevant and meaningful concentrations that could cause CKDu even with prolonged exposure. This article does not provide evidence of a cause-and-effect that can be associated with glyphosate or any other component measured by the authors.

We believe there is much more convincing evidence of combining multiple factors, such as water hardness‒elevated Ca2+, elevated fluoride levels, alkalinity, and other factors linked with CKDu than glyphosate levels or any heavy metal in stagnant well-water. Other factors, such as insufficient daily water intake by the affected people causing chronic dehydration likely to also be implicated in causing CKDu [5-7].

As made in this study, the harm from uncritical and biased conclusions is that glyphosate is unfairly accused of causing CKDu without scientific evidence. This study has so many flaws; thus, it should not be publicized in newspapers or social media to mislead the public. As discussed in global literature, this is not the first time spurious conclusions have been made against glyphosate as a cause of CKD [8].

We believe that vested interests (politicians and other unscrupulous elements) will likely explore such misinformation, causing further injustice to the affected communities and diverting funds away from providing clean water.

Citations

1. Ulrich, J.C., et al., Glyphosate and Ffuoride in high-hardness drinking water Are positively associated with chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) in Sri Lanka. Environ Sci Technol Lett, 2023. 10: p. 916-923.

2. Soukup, S.T., et al., Glyphosate and AMPA levels in human urine samples and their correlation with food consumption: results of the cross-sectional KarMeN study in Germany. Arch Toxicol, 2020. 94(5): p. 1575-1584.

3. Lemke, N., et al., Glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA) in urine of children and adolescents in Germany – Human biomonitoring results of the German Environmental Survey 2014-2017 (GerES V). Environ Int, 2021. 156: p. 106769.

4. USA-EPA, USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; 2008; Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL3);. 2008, USEPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; http://www/epa.gov/OGWDW/ccl/ccl3.html.

5. Dharma-Wardana, M.W.C., Chronic kidney disease of unknown etiology (CKDu) – The search for causes and the impact of Its politicization. En route to One Health-Medical Geology, ed. P.V. Narasimha M, Vithanage M. Vol. Chapter 7. 2023: Wiley.

6. Wimalawansa, S.J., Escalating chronic kidney diseases of multi-factorial origin in Sri Lanka: causes, solutions, and recommendations. Environ Health Prev Med, 2014. 19(6): p. 375-394.

7. Wimalawansa, S.J., Dissanayake, C.B, Factors Affecting the Environmentally Induced, Chronic Kidney Disease of Unknown Aetiology in Dry Zonal Regions in Tropical Countries—Novel Findings. Environments, 2019. 7(1): p. 1-26.

8. Val Giddings, L. Points to consider: Unsubstantiated claims that glyphosate is linked to kidney disease. 2014 [cited 2024, Nov 16; Available from: https://itif.org/publications/2014/05/19/points-consider-unsubstantiated-claims-glyphosate-linked-kidney-disease/.

*Professor Nimal Chandrasena (formerly, Department of Botany, University of Colombo), Editor-in-Chief WEEDS, Journal of the Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society nimal.chandrasena@gmail.com

**Sunil Wimalawansa, Former Professor of Medicine, Endocrinology, and Human Nutrition: Distinguished University Professor of Medicine, Cardiometabolic and Endocrine Institute, North Brunswick, NJ, USA suniljw@hotmail.com

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.  Our work is not funded by any organization but was purely an academic scrutiny of a dubious claim.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 2
    7

    Remember how long it took to have the tobacco industry connected with lung disease, cancer and other serious health issues. When on the payroll it’s impossible to utter the truth. Roundup has been banned and is being sued in in many countries. Many others will follow.

    • 10
      2

      Sonali,
      It is unfair to accuse authors of being on payrolls without any evidence. The biggest producer of Glyphosate is China. Surely Monsanto cannot be controlling China?
      The highest numbers of CKD victims are also in China and India, but then they do have the highest populations.

      • 3
        5

        oc
        Incidence per 1000 will make sense.
        Per 1000 rural population even better sense.

      • 2
        2

        This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.

        For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2

    • 7
      0

      Dear Readers,
      Those who are updated with the latest publications, know
      that UKKD is multifactorial. Not a single publication found that the disease was definitively linked to glyphosate.

      Some refer to it as cancerous material, however, even that has not been fully proven yet. Histological studies have proved not only glyposate, but also various other agro chemicals cause such formations in the cortex of the human kidney.

      Real threat has been that Many local and international publishers misinterpret the data for their selfish gains. This lucrative business has been there for years. There is a huge fight between pro-Monsanto research group and their rival groups across the globe.
      .
      For your reference, I have added the list below. Some of them have gone back to continuing to use biocides.

      Where is roundup prohibited?
      Several countries have restricted or banned the use of glyphosate because of its link to the alleged risk of cancer. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in a number of herbicides, including Roundup.

      Countries where glyphosate is banned or restricted:
      Australia (some states)
      Austria
      Belgium
      Bermuda
      Bahrain
      Barbados
      Brazil
      Canada (8 out of 10 provinces)
      Colombia
      Costa Rica
      Czech Republic
      Denmark
      El Salvador
      Fiji
      France
      Germany
      India
      Italy
      Kuwait
      Luxembourg
      Malta
      Malawi
      Netherlands
      Oman
      Qatar
      Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
      Saudi Arabia
      Portugal
      Scotland
      Slovenia
      Spain
      Sri Lanka
      Thailand
      United Arab Emirates
      Vietnam

  • 9
    2

    I believe moderation is the key to many things. In the case of chemicals in agriculture, farmers tend to believe that more is better, and use kilos of the stuff where only a few grams is needed.
    Knee-jerk reactions like banning chemicals altogether will cause worse disasters than CKD, as Gota found a couple of years ago. Neither India or China has banned Glyphosate totally. India has imposed controls, which is the rational way to go:
    https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/kerala/order-issued-restricting-the-use-of-weed-killer-glyphosate/article66119824.ece

  • 8
    1

    There is an understandable hype about this disease, both from the viewpoint of the growing numbers of victims in the population and from vested interests which have political and commercial interests to protect.

    The simple truth is that Glyphosate, while an effective weedicide, has not been found to have nephrotoxic effects in studies to-date (and there have been many).

    The facts are, (1) there is a lot of fluoride in ground water in the NCP in Lanka and (2) there is evidence of heavy metals in soil, that comes from natural sources as well as from large amounts of indiscriminately added fertiliser, mainly TSP.

    Heavy metals are well known nephrotoxins, but F(-) less well known for this.

    Research is showing that F(-) acts in synergy with heavy metals to magnify the latter’s nephrotoxicity, causing CKDu in the farming communities in the NCP and now spreading to other regions via contaminated rice.

  • 2
    8

    It is near impossible to read, hear, or see anything that is not commercially sponsored. That goes for newspaper, the web, radio, TV, gossip.

    Be informed, inquire and make your own decision.

    Most of what I write below has been gleaned of reputed journals on the Web. I am no expert, merely a concerned individual.

    The majority of media information thus passed on will give you contrary fact and material. That was always the case with the tobacco industry.

    Around 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer declared Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate a possible human carcinogen. Since then, glyphosate has been under a microscope.

    In addition, Roundup manufacturer Monsanto (purchased by Bayer) has been battling thousands of lawsuits alleging the product caused non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

    Besides types of cancer, it’s said glyphosate formulations can lead to adverse effects on human development and hormonal systems. Of particular concern is that certain health effects associated with the use of glyphosate can also be passed down to other generations.

    Glyphosate can be passed into human and animal systems through consumption of plant life treated with the chemical and it derivatives.

    • 10
      3

      Sonali,
      The authors are experts in the field. The article headline is clear that they are talking about kidney disease. As Easton Scott points out, there is no evidence that Glyphosate causes Kidney disease. CKD is not a cancer.
      “Besides types of cancer, it’s said glyphosate formulations can lead to adverse effects on human development and hormonal systems. “
      The operative word is “can”. Even sugar in sufficient quantities can cause cancer. Are we to ban sugar? Motor vehicles kill thousands of people. Are we to ban cars? There is always a trade-off in these things. Why do you think alcohol and cigarettes aren’t totally banned? You don’t have to be an expert to figure that out.

  • 3
    9

    Just repeating.

    Around 2015 the UN organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer declared Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate a possible human carcinogen. Since then, glyphosate has been under a microscope.

    Its use has been banned or restricted in many countries.

    Now a correspondent excitedly confutes what’s said and tells us Roundup and glyphosate does not cause “kidney disease”.

    The effective phrase is: “a possible human carcinogen”, or cancer causing. So in other words the correspondent says you may die of cancer but still have good kidneys.

    The correspondent seems to know more about the authors than we do. For they say the writers are “experts in the field”. That’s an obvious inference. The writers – professors Chandrasena and Wimalawansa – have fastidiously footnoted their educational backgrounds.

    I make no insinuations. But am reminded how near-endlessly long it took to have the tobacco industry proven to cause lung disease, cancer and other serious health issues. There were highly educated individuals who declared credentials and qualifications and fought, tooth and nail, to tell us cigarettes don’t kill.

    So yes. Give up sugar and walk instead of the car. You may live a healthier life.

    • 9
      2

      Sonali,
      I repeat,
      1 This article is about Glyphosate not causing cancer.
      2 People in NCP are dying of CKD (kidney disease)
      3 CKD is not cancer.
      That should be clear enough.
      It’s only a few years since Glyphosate, and later synthetic fertilizer, were banned on the advice of a monk and a paediatrician, causing the near-collapse of agriculture, which contributed to our bankruptcy.
      Did the rate of CKD come down? If that happened, it would have been irrefutable evidence. That’s how science works.
      We must learn from past mistakes.
      You should read this paper, from the University of Queensland, which is not biased towards any conclusion, but considers every possible cause, from agrochemicals to betel chewing and even snakebite.

      Accepted Article – UQ eSpace https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:4ac623e/UQ4ac623e_OA.pdf

    • 9
      1

      Hello Sonali – the subject is CKDu of unknown aetiology, i.e., no known causation, and hence excludes CKDu secondary to any other illness such as diabetes or cancer.

      • 0
        0

        What is CKDu?
        A variant of CKD?

        • 7
          0

          The term chronic kidney disease of unknown aetiology (CKDu) refers to chronic kidney disease (CKD) in the absence of diabetes, long-standing hypertension, glomerulonephritis, obstructive uropathy or other apparent causes

        • 9
          0

          CKDu = CKD of unknown aetiology

          • 1
            0

            Thank you.

  • 2
    11

    I tried to verify the bonafides of the authors.

    I find that Prof. Chandrasena, the editor of the journal WEED is a person whose credentials can be verufied. He has stated that he was at the Dept of Botany, Colombo University. The journal WEED obviously supports getting rid of weeds, and is probabaly funded by Monsanto, directly or indirectly?

    As for this “Professor” Wimalawansa, I find that many questions arise
    (i) He has NOT stated in what University he is (or has been) a proefssor of. If you google universities and match names, you find that he is NOT a professor of ANY university ever, as far as I can determine.

    (ii) Go to Linkden and check his details. You can confrim that he is NOT, and has nver been a professor of any American University. He has avoided putting this out – just says he is a professor.

    (III) I googled “Cardiometabolic and Endocrine Institute, North Brunswick, NJ, USA” as I am very familar with this area of USA. It is not a University or a Research institute but just adoctor’s clinic and directed to fitness. You go there and get treatment or a get set up with a cardio-vascular physcial workout program. You can look at the list of staff, and Dr. Sunil Wimalawansa’s name does not appear anywhere. see: (https://www.cminj.com/)

    (iii) Here is the list of doctors at this ckinic: (https://www.cminj.com/provider)

    So, judge for yourself by the available facts.

    Are we to trust these fly-by-nitght -operators perhaps working for Monsanto? Can the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest?

    Can Dr. Wimalawansa name the University where he has been (or is) a Professor of?
    (Then his name should be in a staff list or an alumni list)

    • 11
      2

      Hello SebastianSR – please check these out:
      https://rbhs-rutgers.academia.edu/SunilJayalath
      https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sunil-Wimalawansa
      Evidently, Prof. S.J. Wimalawansa is quite an academic and research scientist with over 360 research publications.

      Certainly, conflict of interest declarations should have been appended to the article.

      • 1
        7

        Just for information:
        Of the 360, how many represent in-depth study of CKD?

        • 10
          1

          Study of Pathology/Pathobiology of CKD is irrelevant to the assessment undertaken by these two scientists.

          The assessment was of a published epidemiological study that claimed correlation between glycophosphate/hard water and CKDu.

          The two scientists assessed the scientific methodologies used in that study and found those to be deficient.

          A quick perusal of the list of publications by the particular scientist showed similar CKD related epidemiological studies and other CKD related papers.

          • 3
            9

            S
            It is relevant as they are considered experts.
            To comment on complex technicalities of a subject one needs expertise.
            A commonsense comment or a logically argued comment is possible to anyone; and a non degree-holder can make a more sound observation than one with a doctorate of any description.

            • 8
              1

              SJ, your ramblings have no bearing on either the field of scientific research or the work of these two scientists.

              You need to understand what is “in – depth study of CKD” versus what these two scientists have specifically undertaken here and what scientists who conduct epidemiological research do.

              In relation to this CT article, neither of these scientists needed to be nephrologists or experts in pathology of kidney disease. It was sufficient to be aware of scientifically established causations (e.g. hard water) of CKD.

              Establishing potential causative associations is different from studying (for example) how a known chemical agent or a microbe causes a certain disease (i.e., pathology).

        • 1
          7

          360 in 40 years of academic life! Dr. Wimalawansa has written 9 papers each year on the average. That is, almost one paper every six weeks. So, as an ex-engineer who has been dabbeled a bit in research and in agronomy, I would say most such papers should be junk, and would have appeared in predatroy journals where they publsih without refereeing. If you google and look thorugh his list of papers on CKDu you should be confimm this easily ( I havent checked).
          The other person Chandrasena is said to be editor of “Weed” magazine. There is no such thing as a weed. It is an outdated word nolonger used by Scientists. One man’s weed is another man’s good herb. In fact, scietifically Glyphosare is called a herbicde and not called a weedicide except by laymen. So, is Chandrasena also another outdated “old scientist” holding Panadan to agri-business? He had left SL but after that did he get a faculty job in Australia? Or did he just pick weeds?

          • 4
            1

            Sebastian,
            “did he get a faculty job in Australia? Or did he just pick weeds?”
            You are so amazing! Brilliant!
            What deductive skills you have! I assume your skills are highly valued at the University where you work. But presumably it isn’t a University that teaches typing or spelling.

  • 11
    2

    Appreciated this article here on CT by these two expert scientists.

    The article serves well to educate us on many of the basic but key principles fundamental to scientific research. The arguments made solidly support the authors’ conclusion.

  • 2
    10

    Quite an enthusiastic group of die-hards for Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate, the possible human carcinogen. They endorse its use because, people in NCP are dying of CKD (kidney disease).

    CKD is not cancer, we are assured, and there may be an oblique suggestion here that Roundup and glyphosate are excellent weed killers, leaving us mammals unaffected.

    Dissembling is an interesting word in the English language. Part of its meaning is the expression, Beating around the bush. Just only a part. Do look it up

    • 9
      1

      Sonali,
      I appreciate your misguided enthusiasm. But enthusiasm is no substitute for discernment. Just ask Ratana Hamuduruwo.
      Your arguments remind me of people who want tyres banned because bald tyres cause accidents.

  • 1
    6

    Do the seeming “educated” individuals understand what they read?

    The article we quibble over starts off to tell us that people in the NCP who are dying of CKD (kidney disease) cannot be victims of glyphosate, the weed-killer Roundup’s active ingredient.

    They say their findings are based on field research they have done in in Sri Lanka.

    So it’s all about glyphosate. Also about kidney disease. They remind us glyphosate is a herbicide.

    So you read on and some paragraphs down come across sneering condemnation of scientific reports that caution against the use of glyphosate; that discuss problems and damage the herbicide may cause. Here I quote the article:

    “The herbicide glyphosate is rapidly chelated—firmly bound to cations (such as Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions) in hard water present in the NCP and becomes insoluble. Similarly, glyphosate quickly binds to similar ions in the soil, which makes it unavailable. Besides, glyphosate breaks down through microbial actions, making the molecule unavailable. Therefore, glyphosate is unlikely to remain intact without change and in measurable amount.

    Continued 2/

  • 1
    6

    Glyphosate continued:

    The authors go on: “Standard glyphosate analysis always detects some amounts of the main breakdown product (i.e., AMPA). However, in the method used in the study, the so-called ‘ultra-sensitive’ analysis failed to detect and/or report AMPA and even to discuss AMPA non-detection.”

    Passionately we are assured that Roundup and glyphosate will not give you CKD, possibly not even cancer. But if cancer does kill you, you will still have kidneys in excellent condition.

    The die-hards group supporting glyphosate use on this forum, tell us the “article serves well to educate us”; that “the arguments are solid”.

    I was mocked because I was “GCE fail”. Too late now for GCE. Had I passed though, maybe I too would have fallen for commercially sponsored articles, hook, line and sinker.

    The article provides 8 citations, two of which are by one, Wimalawansa, S.J.,
    Couldn’t be Sunil Wimalawansa, one of the authors of the article, could it? The author of 360 academic articles in 40 years.

    Have been extra cautious about typos. One die-hard has taken issue over such triviality.

    • 6
      1

      Sonali,
      Good. You are now going easy on the enthusiasm and heavier on the discernment.

  • 1
    4

    Individuals who come into this forum to pat each other on the back or mock another commentator are unnecessarily taking up space, leaving a cavity as empty as the space between their ears. When visiting this forum do so with a comment that is valuable and relevant to the main article, or which expands or rebuts another’s comment intelligently. Surely no satisfaction can come from looking at your alias in print with foolishness appended?

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 5 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.