Gay Frogs: A Deep Dive

meredith can i help you yeah i have some questions about atrazine a pesticide okay um are they putting chemicals in the water to turn the frogs gay is this a prank call no oh hey it's been a while if you follow me on twitter you might know that a few months ago i tweeted a sneak peek of what i've been working on that's right gay frogs why have i spent the last three months of my life researching gay frogs you ask well i love it when silly [ __ ] ends up being true so was alex jones right about gay frogs that's what we're going to investigate in this video here wake up wake up snap out of it snap out of it do you have been undercult brainwashing come out of it you've got to get moving you've got to get aggressive you've got to get mad you've got to get focused you've got to get crazed you got to get motivated man we are under attack the date was october 16 2015. while ranting about a globalist takeover and leftist psyops alex jones rapidly listed off ways in which he believes we are under chemical and biological attack everything they give us is to hurt us shock claim worlds on the brink of 50 year ice age scientists claim zapping brains with magnets can treat belief in god uh yeah so can giving somebody a lobotomy [Music] did parallel universe open up hundreds floating city filming skies above china that's mainstream news was videotaped and it's clearly a giant 500 yard tall wide hologram now there it is the gay bomb look it up for yourself i mean this is what they're what do you think tap water is it's a gay bomb baby and i'm not saying people didn't naturally have homosexual feelings i'm not even getting into it quite frankly i mean give me a break you think i am like oh shocked by it so i'm up here bashing it because i don't like gay people i don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay do you understand that serious crap i'm sick of being social engineered it's not funny something that struck me while watching the full broadcast was that although it's the quote that alex jones is most known for he spends no more than 10 seconds on the topic of gay frogs he just sort of peppers it into his rant and moves on without offering any sort of explanation i guess that's why it's so memorable because it's baffling how angry he gets and it just seems to come out of nowhere if i was going to be able to find out whether or not he's right about chemicals in the water turning frogs gay then i needed more context luckily he clarified his statement to vine sensation logan paul now is this the the gay frog that you were talking about no this is not the atrazine gay frogs by the way you pull up major universities folks and i'm not against gay people the point is is that accrazine artificially emasculates men it over feminizes women uh and causes cancer and where is that found where's the uh whatever you're saying is basically in all of our tap water it's in everything we're just inundated today don't believe me don't believe me i was covering like 10 years ago a berkeley study and then a south african study and a ut study going wow look almost all the frogs don't now want females they want to have sex with males who don't produce eggs so the frogs are dying and i said it's making the freaking frogs gay so the chemical that alex jones was referring to is called atrazine it's used mostly on cornfields to eradicate broad leaves atrazine gets into the drinking water through agricultural runoff an estimated 33 million americans have been exposed to atrazine through their taps according to data from water systems nationwide in 2003 it was banned in the european union a wide range of studies have identified atrazine as a possible human carcinogen and an endocrine disruptor in frogs it's been associated with increased estrogen production decreased fertility gonadal deformities altered sex ratios complete sex reversal and hermaphroditism in 2002 a berkeley endocrinologist named dr tyrone hayes published a study in the proceedings of the national academy of sciences called hermaphroditic demacianalized frogs after exposure to the herbicide atrazine at low ecologically relevant doses here's a clip i found of dr tyrone hayes explaining his work hayes is testing the effects of chemicals like atrazine a common herbicide we have a whole family of animals where we've eliminated the female chromosome specimen zero one these animals that we know are genetic males have been exposed to atrocities for their entire life and many of these genetic males now are turning into females you can see he's got eggs that kind of look like they're in a sack these are actually yoked eggs ready to be laid what's happening is you're skewing sex ratios you can get genetic bottlenecking which can cause crashes and quite frankly if you're a genetic male it'd be nice if you're developed as a genetic male and now we have a chemical very common in the environment that's effectively sex reversing animals so does atrazine turn frogs gay honestly there's not much evidence that it does look here's fine listen i'll be honest with you i'm kind of [ __ ] although hayes has reported such findings he's never published any research about gay frogs instead of gay frogs his published research shows that low doses of atrazine can cause feminization of male frogs feminization refers to hermaphroditism intersex full sex reversal and eggs inside of testes tyrone hayes is known for studying the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine especially the feminizing and chemically castrating effects he has published his peer-reviewed research to top-rated journals for decades now and is a well-respected scientist and professor so why not believe him well that's because on wikipedia it says that no one has been able to replicate his work additionally it says that the u.s environmental protection agency as well as the australian pesticides and veterinary medicines authority reviewed his work and concluded that atrazine doesn't negatively impact amphibians well tyrone hayes uh had research that showed that like it feminizes frog so he was finding intersex frogs and um yeah i'm familiar with his research actually but it was never able to be verified so i think that people are not really sure what exactly the element was in his experiments that were causing that um sex change over but i mean it's definitely interesting and and you know people have numerous research researchers have attempted to you know re-verify his results but they have not been able to now this seems strange to me from what i knew from my own research there are plenty of studies showing that atrazine does in fact have adverse effects on amphibians so is it possible that these two regulatory agencies are wrong to find out more i contacted three scientists all of whom were on the epa scientific advisory panel during the risk assessment of atrazine their names are daniel schlank i had a different guy call me up one guy and say dude am i am i gonna turn into a girl jason rohr i just happened to focus in on atrazine early in my career because it regularly produced um results that were different from the traits of animals in my control treatments and david skelly so through your own field studies you found hermaphroditic frogs in suburbia right oh yeah in our meta analysis i believe that we did find um support it just wasn't always consistent but that was also almost certainly a function of the fact that the feminization results drew much much more attention from syngenta syngenta wasn't a fan of tyrone tyrone wasn't a fan of syngenta and so i think there was a lot more effort being put by syngenta to come up with counter examples to tyrone's studies there is there are data suggesting that acazine may have effects on reproductive organs humans and so frogs are not humans but they are vertebrates they have a lot of similar traits as humans not all but there are some similar traits and i think syngenta was very worried that um there might be concerns that humans might have offspring that either have both types of gonads ovaries and testes or that their male offspring would have uh female traits and i think that's a scary thing for a lot of parents and unquestionably something that cena would want to avoid do i think that agenda was concerned about the pr outfall i i cannot tell you but i can tell you what they did and what they did was was they tried to really destroy his career in my opinion and i think that was really wrong totally affected the way he did science it totally affected his lab i mean i don't think he took any graduate students after that because he was afraid for what that would you know would do to their careers because they came out of his lab i mean it's very common for uh very common for industry to fight back on results that show something damaging in this video i'm going to explain to you why the epa's conclusion that atrazine has no adverse effects is purposely misleading but first let's start from the beginning the year was 1997 and tyrone hayes was kind of a hot shot after developing the screening test which detected hormonal disruption his work caught the eyes of sygenta who contracted his laboratory through a financial conduit called eco risk to examine the endocrine disrupting effects of atrazine on amphibians after running some experiments tyrone hayes found that atrazine could disrupt the sexual development of frogs starting at doses as low as 0.1 parts per billion so at any rate we did some studies where we just exposed frogs to ecologically relevant to levels of addressing that you might find in the environment and we literally just ask our hypothesis was does it do anything in laboratory studies hayes observed reduced larynxes in eighty percent of male frogs and twenty percent of them developed into hermaphrodites with both testes and ovaries here's testus which males should have then this guy's got some ovaries he's got another large testers he's got some more ovary there's a whole party going on in there ain't even got to leave the house but that's not normal all i mean is that frogs are not naturally hermaphroditic and people get confused and somebody always asks me aren't frogs naturally hermaphroditic who knows where that comes from jurassic park yeah somebody always so apparently in the jurassic park frog dna made the dinosaurs change sex that's science fiction when hayes shared his work with sygenta he says that they tried to stall his progress and bury his results according to him they cut his funding brought in statisticians to nitpick his data refused to share his research with the epa and frequently said that there needed to be further testing and then it seemed like they were trying to slow down the progress and because you know with each set of samples that we analyzed the problem got worse it didn't get better and then eventually then they asked me to manipulate the data in ways that were inappropriate to try to make it go away and at that point i quit at that point i left i left the contract he claims that sagenta offered him two million dollars to stay and conduct his research in private for that he refused after collecting funding hayes conducted studies in his lab and on the field two years later he published his work in two prestigious journals proceedings of the national academy of sciences and nature sagenta crop protection retaliated by going into full damage control mode they funded studies and put out a press release claiming that three separate studies by university scientists have failed to replicate his work at the same time there were other studies being published which backed up hayes's findings that atrazine is an endocrine disruptor in 2002 the u.s environmental protection agency announced that it would conduct a risk assessment to assess atrazine's eligibility for re-registration this took place around the same time that tyrone hayes published his research under a consent decree issued in court by the natural resources defense council the epa was required to review the available literature on atrazine's effects on amphibians and to convene a scientific advisory panel made up of independent scientists to help evaluate in peer review studies the epa's risk assessment was largely focused on one question at what concentrations does atrazine have adverse effects to amphibian gonadal development and is it below ecologically relevant levels there were two official risk assessments of atrazine's effects on amphibians in total one in 2003 and the final one in 2007 during both of these risk assessments the epa did everything in its power to aid the primary registrant of atrazine sygenta and keeping atrazine on the market let me explain how during the first risk assessment in 2003 the epa's review wasn't comprehensive it was limited to 17 studies in total out of those 17 studies 12 of them were funded by sygenta and only two of them found no adverse effects after reviewing these studies the epa concluded that although there is sufficient evidence to formulate a hypothesis that atrocities and exposure may impact gonadal development in amphibians there is currently insufficient data to confirm or refute the hypothesis okay so here's where the [ __ ] starts then the epa said that they required additional studies especially one that could replicate tyrone hayes research and guess who they relied on to conduct these studies well subject to crop protection of course not only was the gentle responsible for testing its own product it also put together a list of good laboratory practices which all studies subsequently had to follow in order to be considered by the epa the epa even admits in its 2007 amphibian white paper that it was sygenta who provided the agency with the signed and finalized version of the study protocol sure the epa made decisions here and there but they pretty much just left it up to sygenta to create these test protocols based on their recommendations this occurred after a former tobacco lobbyist and anti-regulation czar named jim tozi used a two-sentence rider called the data quality act which he authored by the way and he used it to throw a wrench into the epa's regulatory process of atrazine the data quality act is often used by special interest groups to challenge the legitimacy of scientific studies which is exactly what happened in the case of atrazine citing the data quality act tozi petitioned the epa saying two things one that they don't have validated test methods for determining whether or not atrazine causes endocrine disruption two he wrongly argued that the findings that atrazine caused endocrine effects had not been reproduced in any other studies anyway so the epa then told agenda to create the testing methods and to conduct their own studies after running two parallel tests and submitting them as one study segenta returned to the epa with the results and lo and behold sygenta found that atrazine had no adverse effects because agenda collaborated with the epa in designing the good laboratory practice protocols for assessing hormonal disruption in frogs the epa then said that every study has to follow those protocols and any study that doesn't is going to be thrown out the environmental protection agency then threw out every single study in the open literature because they did not meet those good laboratory practice protocols even studies conducted before the good laboratory practice guidelines were set by sygenta were retroactively considered to be either qualitative or invalid by the epa that's 36 studies in total which suddenly don't meet the criteria to be considered robust enough to be used to make a regulatory decision and the only reason they weren't considered robust enough is because they didn't follow these protocols made by sagenta so in the end before the epa made their conclusion in 2007 only one study remained that was considered to be quantitative and illegible to be the basis of a regulatory decision and that study was funded by syngenta crop protection what we could talk about for a minute that might be helpful though good laboratory practice business yeah so explain that well i i i evidently don't do good laboratory practice what it's allowed industry and kind of nayfair people to say is well they don't do good laboratory work um you know we do uh and it's a misnomer right it's a misnomer to call it good laboratory practices when it's just checks and balances basically so they don't yeah it's being used to tar and feather people um who don't uh have the money to do the work the way that industry does but the fact of the matter is that um you know you can you can do everything that it says in a good laboratory practice manual and have garbage signs so on the basis of a single sagenta funded study which was a complete outlier finding virtually no adverse effects even at high doses of atrazine the epa concluded in 2007 that atrazine causes no adverse effects on frogs and that no additional testing was warranted to address the issue epa convened a scientific advisory panel made up of independent experts to help them form a conclusion however the epa didn't really have to accept their advice and a lot of their advice was not even considered in 2016 the epa released a draft of their refined ecological risk assessment for atrazine unlike in 2007 where their conclusion was formed on the basis of a single sagenta funded study in 2016 they included 55 studies from the open literature that were previously designated as qualitative and therefore dismissed based on a weight of evidence analysis which included these studies they concluded that atrazine has possible risk to the metamorphosis growth and sexual development of amphibians so at least they eventually acknowledged it yet on their website it still says that atrazine has no adverse effects same goes for sygenta who still touts the epa's 2007 conclusion a scientific fact in 2007 they determined a closed discussion like we're not going to look into it anymore after so i mean i heard about that in that case it just seems like i was not very happy now i i disagree with that approach to be that's that's my opinion on that in fact i was a little bit upset that they didn't adhere to our recommendation to do multiple species and include the weight of evidence but you know that's we're there to provide advice they're there to make the decision i remember the result very well i don't think anybody on the panel certainly i wasn't very happy with the idea that epa hasn't funded the studies themselves it's done them you know vba has a beautiful laboratory in salute uh where they do exposure studies i have no idea why you know in aquatic systems i know some of the people who work there i don't know why on earth they didn't have those people do that work i i have nothing to tell you i don't i don't get it um it didn't make sense uh and um you know it felt uh it felt absolutely wrong that they had done it this way is it is a common practice for the epa to require multiple labs to replicate the findings of a single lab i would say no because it only used a single uh syngenta funded study to evaluate the safety of atrazine if they want to apply that policy to tyrone then it should be evenly applied to the syngenta study and they should have had an independent third party evaluate whether they could replicate the findings of syngenta so i don't know the answer definitively uh but if they're going to have that be a policy i'm not saying that it shouldn't be i think it would be a reasonable policy it needs to be evenly applied to um industry as well as to academics so we find out and this is happening to you so you're aware of it where it becomes more broadly known as in a lawsuit a class-action suit against syngenta in 2012 which they eventually settle for over 100 million dollars with communities in illinois over water but in that process in the discovery process uh the notes of syngenta and their records become public and we find there that they um you know that they had written down and had records and i i was going through some of that it says they made a list of ways to discredit you and those lists included have your work audited ask journals to retract your articles and i'm this is all their language set trap to entice him to smooth instead of trap who writes it down right instead of trap trap it's like bugs bunny road no one will ever read this uh investigate your funding and even investigate your wife in 2011 sagenta's internal documents were released by the madison county circuit court in response to a freedom of information act request by investigative journalist claire howard these documents showed that sigenta discussed ways to destroy tyrone hayes career and credibility strategies included investigate his wife tap his phone calls set them up purchase tyrone hayes as a search word on the internet and direct searches to their own marketing materials offer him unlimited research funds and the commissioning of a psychiatric profile on haze which refers to haze as a paranoid schizo and narcissist notes from one memo reads if th tyrone hayes is involved in a scandal the enviros will drop him another note red can prevent sighting of tyrone hayes data by revealing him as non-credible additionally segenta hired a detective agency to investigate scientists on the epa's scientific advisory panel they looked into the personal life of a judge and they paid 130 experts to appear as independent supporters without disclosing ties to the company syngenta's internal documents show that they routinely paid these experts to appear in the media and support the safety of atrazine documents show that people on this list were coached and that their statements in support of atrazine were edited by the company court documents include an email dated october 28 2009 from a segenta employee asking her boss how to pay these third-party allies who write in support of atrazine don corzi ameritech professor of public policy at the university of chicago who received 500 an hour from sygenta to make media appearances supporting the necessity of atrazine stephen milloy publisher of junkscience.com and president of citizens for the integrity of science was also in suggested support of third-party stakeholders database in a letter dated august 6 2008 milloway requested a 25 000 grant for the nonprofit free enterprise project of the national center for public policy research he writes send the check to me as usual and i'll take care of it a pr company called the white house writers group based in washington dc received more than 1.6 million dollars in 2010 and 2011 to write op-ed pieces in favor of atrazine another pr firm called jane thomas and associates which is based in chicago devised a plan to send trained critics to tyrone hayes speaking events to disrupt intimidate him and question his science if you want to learn more about sagenta's secret campaign i'm mostly citing from a website called 100 reporters from an article by claire howard you can find that in the description box below before i end this video i need to address a certain elephant in the room and that's the question of haze's credibility when i first started working on this topic i watched a three-part series from a youtuber and skeptic named miles power in his video he says that hayes never provided data to the epa and it's not really surprising because if you look at miles power sources you'll see that most of them come from known agrochemical company shills or just straight from sygenta's website here's what hayes says about his data at this point i was talking to the epa if you you read some weird stuff online that i never shared my data the epa was in my lab watching me collect data they had a statistician who reanalyzed all of my raw data they were right there the company made that stuff up now i can't prove that hayes shared his data but i can show you why i suspect that this is a misleading talking point manufactured by syngenta's br team with the help of some members of the epa this point stems from a statement made by an epa representative in 2005 named ann lindsey while she testified before the agricultural and rural development committee of the minnesota house of representatives she said quote dr hayes claims that not only his laboratory has repeated the findings many times in experiments with thousands of frogs but that other scientists have also replicated his results epa however has never seen either the results from any independent investigator published in peer-reviewed scientific journals or the raw data from dr hayes additional experiments now this seems pretty damning until you realize that within her same testimony she said quote dr hayes published the first report of his scientific research in 2002. in 2003 epa began to collect all scientific studies that examined the potential effects of atrazine on various species of frogs including all of the studies published by tyrone hayes as part of its efforts to understand the available data epa scientists visited dr tyrone hayes lab and reviewed some of his raw data so i mean which is it now here's something suspicious that i found while i was looking through zagenta's internal documents i noticed anne lindsay's name written three times as you can see here it says check if we sent lindsay testimony on another page it says is anne lindsay prepared to speak to reporters and again lindsay testimony of course i'm speculating here but i don't know it seems very fishy in 2010 the us epa wrote to dave winters a state representative who requested clarification about tyrone hayes data in this letter the epa said quote in your letter you asked whether epa received from dr hayes a complete transparent set of raw data which could be interpreted and analyzed by the epa and used in generating a full evaluation of his work in addition you asked whether epa was in agreement with dr hayes findings in response to your first question i regret that the epa science staff in the office of pesticide programs efed could not properly account for the sample sizes and study design reportedly used by the berkeley researchers as a result we were unable to complete any independent analysis to support the study's conclusions this letter does not say that hayes refused to provide his data it says that the epa was unable to properly account for the sample sizes or experimental design it is a statement which is intentionally vague and allows for multiple interpretations some sinister and some mundane it can refer either to the reproducibility of haze's results or the ability of the epa to replicate those results but nowhere does it say that he refused to share his results in other words it's a diplomatic way of saying that they did not attempt to replicate his experiment but that there are other experiments which may or may have not contradicted hayes results hayes research and hermaphroditic frogs are a small part of a much larger story for the sake of time i left out a lot of things such as the carcinogenic effects of atrazine the class-action lawsuit in 2010 which sigenta lost because of persistent atrazine contamination and drinking water and i didn't even get to talk about how atrazine exposure is associated with higher rates of micro penises in boys when i embarked on this journey to see if alex jones was right about gay frogs i didn't know at the time that it would reveal itself to be a complex tale of corporate malfeasance bureaucratic corruption and scientific manipulation so here's what i learned first for alex jones statement about gay frogs to be right he should have said the herbicide atrazine gets into the water through agricultural runoff and sometimes turns frogs into hermaphrodites although i suppose that's not as memorable as i don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turned the friggin frogs gay second i learned a lot about the product defense industry which specializes in scientific uncertainty campaigns if a product is on the market and scientific studies are published showing that it has adverse effects what typically happens is that the registrant of that product will try to delay regulation for as long as they possibly can in doing so they will manufacture doubt by commissioning their own contradictory studies which they then show to policymakers as proof that the science is still uncertain then policymakers will often aid industry by giving them their stamp of approval while assuring the public that they've tested the product and deemed it safe this is business as usual just look into the ineffectual regulatory history of ddt teflon climate change or fracking there are multiple layers to this issue it's not just that corporations are bad and evil man really it's it's systemic federal agencies like the epa are in the pockets of big corporations legislation is enacted that enables business interests to slow or prevent regulation completely such as the halliburton loophole which made fracking exempt from regulation by the epa unethical scientists are willing to aid corporations in distorting the truth by producing studies not meant to advance science but instead to support companies and policy and legal quagmires and much of the general public doesn't have the time or expertise to know it's safe or who to trust truth is central to this story i'm not an activist and i don't even think that atrazine should be banned my issue is with blatant dishonesty when institutions lie to us who can we rely on to expose the truth if regulatory bodies like the epa are so compromised by political and financial conflicts of interest who can we depend on to ensure that human interests don't take a backseat to economic growth and product sales additionally how do we maintain the type of economic growth which our modern consumer lifestyles depend on without severe costs to human health and the environment sadly i don't have the answers to these questions after looking at this story and many similar to it my opinion is that most corporations cannot be trusted to weigh public health over short-term financial gain and they definitely shouldn't be solely relied on to test the safety of their products all i know now is that if a product poses a risk to the public it's unlikely that most corporations will be forthright about it let me begin my questioning on the matter of whether or not nicotine is addictive let me ask you first i'd like to just go down the row whether each of you believes that nicotine is not addictive i heard virtually all of you touch on it and just yes or no do you believe nicotine is not addictive i believe nicodemus is not addictive yes mr johnston uh congressman cigarettes and nicotine clearly do not meet the classic definitions of addiction there is no intoxication we'll take that as a no and again time is short if you could just i think each of you believe nicotine is not addictive we just would like to have this for the record i don't believe that nicotine or our products are addictive i believe nicotine is not addictive i believe that nicotine is not predicted i believe nicotine is not addictive and i too believe that nicotine is not addictive okay so thanks for agreeing to talk to us um we have two clips to uh prepared for you today we're gonna show you uh the first one and then i'm gonna come back i'm gonna ask you some questions about it and then after that we have a follow-up clip and then i'm going to ask you some questions about that so mira is going to come here and show you the clip now there it is the gay bomb look it up for yourself i mean this is what they're what do you think tap water is it's a gay bomb baby and i'm not saying people didn't naturally have homosexual feelings i'm not even getting into it quite frankly i mean give me a break you think i've i'm like oh shocked by it so i'm up here bashing it because i don't like gay people i don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay all right so so can you tell me about what you just watched um it was about gay bombs and turning turning the water gay like putting chemicals into the water like i don't understand that's what he's talking about what he's saying is there's chemicals in the water the government is putting chemicals in the water that are turning the freaking frogs that's all you need to know now

Channel: Oki's Weird Stories

Views: 907,437

Rating: 4.9557147 out of 5

Keywords: OKIPC, OKI, Weird, Surreal, Strange

Id: i5uSbp0YDhc

Length: 34min 38sec (2078 seconds)

Published: Wed Oct 07 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/agasizzi]

Tyson foods actually fired several researchers who were identifying some of these issues when it came up. Several of the studies had to be repeated independently because Tyson wouldn't release the data if I recall correctly.

[u/_noho]

Alex Jones has entered the chat.

[u/reverse_friday]

OKI is one of those YouTubers who genuinely puts time and effort into everything he uploads, regardless of how long it takes.

[u/foodfood321]

Atrazine is an endocrine disrupting estrogenic substance, that is used commercially as a herbicide. Atrazine can initiate sexual polymorphism in some frogs at levels below what has been declared safe for human drinking water by the EPA/FDA. Exposed male frogs may subsequently transition to hermaphroditic or female and breed clutches of polliwogs.

[u/Sredni_Vashtar82]

I don't like them putting chemicals in the water that turn the frikin frogs gay!!

[u/Synxx69]

I'm not surprised at the lengths industry will go, but I am constantly disappointed. There is no such thing as business ethics.

[u/Deizelqq]

Y'all don't think they be gaying up the frogs but they is

[u/LostTank84]

Where's Erik (Salvia) at?!

[u/best_damn_milkshake]

Alex Jones blew the lid off this story years ago