Thoughts as I read: This is a review, not original research. It seems to also conduct a meta-analysis as part of this, however that is somewhat unusual for a r

Thoughts as I read: This is a review, not original research. It seems to also conduct a meta-analysis as part of this, however that is somewhat unusual for a review. In general, both the review and meta-analysis quality is dependent on the quality of the source material. Garbage in and garbage out. "Some epidemiological studies have reported an increased risk of NHL in GBH-exposed individuals [[15], [16], [17]]; however, other studies have not confirmed this association [18,19]." This is why we should approach this with skepticism. "the 2018 AHS update [24] contributes 11-12 additional years of follow-up with over five times as many NHL cases" If we look at the AHS updates conclusions they say "In this large, prospective cohort study, no association was apparent between glyphosate and any solid tumors or lymphoid malignancies overall, including NHL and its subtypes." so why are we adding in older controversial studies with less power and sample size? The other studies used in the meta-analysis are confounded by the use of up to 40 different pesticides. The confidence intervals on those case-control studies range from 1.0-6.0 odds ratio for glyphosate significance with its association with NHL, so basically all across the board. For herbicides with known worse toxicity, the effect and confidence intervals is much more robust with odds ratios bottoming out around 1.5. Again, this relates to garbage in/garbage out, if we are combining a bunch of confounded studies with one glyphosate specific one (the AHS one quoted above), it might bias the results. Tables 1-4 - background on the N=6 studies in the meta-analysis Figure 2 tells the story, huge confidence intervals, and the older studies are the ones which show the effect. The larger glyphosate specific studies show no effect. Conclusion : I don't find this to be compelling evidence that glyphosate exposure is linked to NHL. Recent, specific studies find no effect and adding in older, less specific research will only bias and confound that result.