THCFarmer.com
121,264 Members Log In Register
Log In Register

Avid / Abamectin residual

  • Thread starter Thread starter max_well
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

Avid / Abamectin residual

max_well 101 Replies 82,949 Views
Page 2 of 6 · Replies 21–40 of 102
#22
leadsled said:
the links are there.... you'all cant read when you got your panties all bunched up!
Click to expand...
no need to be that way, and I don't wear panties. you still are not correct, show proof....

She is recovering from a rare, extremely debilitating illness that may have resulted from chemical exposure, according to her Kaiser doctors.
Click to expand...

The doctors say may have because that is what she keeps saying over and over again, and I don't blame her for looking for answers, but the doctors could not verify her claim or what was really wrong....

You see, so did you read? I am not saying avid never has caused an illness in humans, but if it has where is the proof...I, as well as thousands of others have researched this a great deal and there is no proof that I can find.

If you actually read the studies(clinical) that have been done, and the amount you would have to consume to actually get sick....well, no one in their right mind would use that much for anything

FWIW, I do not use avid any longer, but if anything gets outta control I will in a second...at least until there is some proof that it is dangerous....when used as it should be.
 
Last edited:
#23
Part of the problem with proving these things, with pesticides manufactured by companies like Syngenta is that they often don't do long term studies. Many are limited to 90 days. We've already learned with glyphosate that 90 days is entirely insufficient, especially when we're talking about possible exposure times far beyond 90 days.

Also, it's not approved for use on edible food crops, only ornamentals.

Just making an observation. :)
 
#25
Jolly Mon said:
I personally know of breeders from the farm that use Avid up to 5 weeks into flowering and they have a reputation for having the bomb meds. They use Steephill labs to do their testing. After being applyed @ 5 weeks and havested @ week 9 there was no trace of Avid in Steephills testing. You can imagine what the breeders did with that info, now all their crops are treated with avid. I don't use it myself but it is widespread through out the community. If you were concerned about health risk smoking all together is bad for the respitory system so we are all splitting hairs.

" If the thunder don't get you then the lightning will."
Click to expand...
I assume those are indoor farmers?
 
#26
SunGrown said:
no need to be that way, and I don't wear panties. you still are not correct, show proof....



The doctors say may have because that is what she keeps saying over and over again, and I don't blame her for looking for answers, but the doctors could not verify her claim or what was really wrong....

You see, so did you read? I am not saying avid never has caused an illness in humans, but if it has where is the proof...I, as well as thousands of others have researched this a great deal and there is no proof that I can find.

If you actually read the studies(clinical) that have been done, and the amount you would have to consume to actually get sick....well, no one in their right mind would use that much for anything

FWIW, I do not use avid any longer, but if anything gets outta control I will in a second...at least until there is some proof that it is dangerous....when used as it should be.
Click to expand...


Dr. Russell Jaffe, apprised of Weirick’s history, sees "a good chance that a hormone disrupter chemical is at work, perhaps along with its metabolite (epoxide, usually)."

Dr. X comments: "Avid works as a GABA agonist. So if Jane was given any GABA-agonist medications she would have gotten worse (valium or other muscle relaxants, alcohol). If you go to Pubmed, you’ll find lots of research that suggests THC decreases GABA in parts of the brain, so Jane’s treatment makes sense!"

A serious organic agronomist consulted by C Notes comments, "Abamectin [the active ingredient in Avid] is called by some a "soft" pesticide because it’s made by a bacterium, it’s ‘natural.’ But just because a toxin is made by a bacterium doesn’t mean it’s safe for human ingestion. Occasionally people have called to ask what pesticide to use and I say, ‘Absolutely no, out of the question.’ There need to be cultural practices initiated up front that prevent the need for controlled materials.

"Prevention is the key, period. There are truly ‘soft’ materials: Soaps, oils, water pressure. There are tools to contol pests, there’s no excuse to use these pesticides -it’s greed, it’s dumb, it’s just not right."
Click to expand...

Proof as far as a clinical trial done in a controlled study, NO then we can agree the proof is not there. She is only speculating along with the doctor. Not intended for edible plants should be enough for most.

Think about it:
Healthy, add avid, now is sick. No more avid, no more sickness. Should be enough for most sheeple. But probably not cause most have skewed thinking.

imho, Better safe than sorry.
Plants become weak and sick when you use pesticides. The plants were weak and sick to start with and then are made sicker and weaker.

fucked up thing is that avid doesnt ALWAYS work that great, been over used and abused. With avid there is also the risk of creating resistant mites. Same goes with floramite.

Time and cost = solution people choose. Greed usually rules there. Do what you need to do not going to argue with that......













 
#29
leadsled said:

Time and cost = solution people choose. Greed usually rules there. Do what you need to do not going to argue with that......
Click to expand...

So, are you implying that only greedy people would use pesticides like avid?
 
#31
caregiverken said:
So, are you implying that only greedy people would use pesticides like avid?
Click to expand...
No, maybe your not comprehending. Sometimes boils down to being educated on all the solutions and the outcomes.

A certified advisor for example: gives options and the customer chooses what best fits there scenario. Most of the time potential harm to health and the earth is no longer a factor then.
IPM program takes work time and $$. vs spraying pesticides cost $$ but take less time usually.

--------




TheWercShop_Pesticide-POSTER-ICRS2013.jpg


Study: Determination of Pesticide Residues in Cannabis Smoke
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/378168/
Medical Cannabis Quality Control in California: Keeping a Weed Free Garden
 
#33
caregiverken said:
So, are you implying that only greedy people would use pesticides like avid?
Click to expand...



IPM program takes time and $$$ predators cost $$.
One shot pesticide or multiple applications of others products. more time and $$ and therefore more work.

That is why people choose what they do. Real world farming, landscaping etc all make the same choices. Does not always involve an edible/consumable plant.
Best to be educated on all your choices so you can make the best choice. Even if that is a pesticide.

Hope that makes more sense.
 
#34
I think it's becoming more obvious how passionate people are about not using poisons on their medicine.
leadsled said:
No, maybe your not comprehending. Sometimes boils down to being educated on all the solutions and the outcomes.

A certified advisor for example: gives options and the customer chooses what best fits there scenario. Most of the time potential harm to health and the earth is no longer a factor then.
IPM program takes work time and $$. vs spraying pesticides cost $$ but take less time usually.

--------




TheWercShop_Pesticide-POSTER-ICRS2013.jpg


Study: Determination of Pesticide Residues in Cannabis Smoke
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jt/2013/378168/
Medical Cannabis Quality Control in California: Keeping a Weed Free Garden
Click to expand...
great post
 
#37
Seamaiden said:
Part of the problem with proving these things, with pesticides manufactured by companies like Syngenta is that they often don't do long term studies. Many are limited to 90 days. We've already learned with glyphosate that 90 days is entirely insufficient, especially when we're talking about possible exposure times far beyond 90 days.

Also, it's not approved for use on edible food crops, only ornamentals.

Just making an observation. :)
Click to expand...
But Avid has been used in California on cannabis for decades now, so shouldn't there be patients left and right being diagnosed with problems directly related to avid at this point?
 
#38
leadsled said:

Proof as far as a clinical trial done in a controlled study, NO then we can agree the proof is not there. She is only speculating along with the doctor. Not intended for edible plants should be enough for most.

Think about it:
Healthy, add avid, now is sick. No more avid, no more sickness. Should be enough for most sheeple. But probably not cause most have skewed thinking.

imho, Better safe than sorry.
Plants become weak and sick when you use pesticides. The plants were weak and sick to start with and then are made sicker and weaker.

fucked up thing is that avid doesnt ALWAYS work that great, been over used and abused. With avid there is also the risk of creating resistant mites. Same goes with floramite.
Time and cost = solution people choose. Greed usually rules there. Do what you need to do not going to argue with that......
Click to expand...
Resorting to name calling again?? Silly.

True, if proper IPM is not applied in any farming situation there is room for disaster. But not when handled appropriately. I have a background in horticulture, so I was trained, but most are not.

So instead of reacting to a thread like this one the way you have responded to me, why not respond in a way to help encourage those that do not understand proper use.
 
Last edited:
Page 2 of 6 · Replies 21–40 of 102
Back
Top Bottom