3 ms·

> why are we adding in older controversial studies with less power and sample size? Because if meta-studies only get to include the single most recent and larg

> why are we adding in older controversial studies with less power and sample size? Because if meta-studies only get to include the single most recent and largest study, they wouldn’t be very ‚meta‘, would they? > however, other studies have not confirmed this association [18,19]." This is why we should approach this with skepticism. I love how you’re trying to appear all scientificatious while really just saying „some say A, others say B. No way to know. Be sceptical!“

searine 8y ago
>Because if meta-studies only get to include the single most recent and largest study, they wouldn’t be very ‚meta‘, would they? I'm saying the earlier are clearly non-specific to glyphosate. The 2015 and 2018 AHS are targeted to glyphosate specifically and with larger samples of cases, and thus warrants more consideration. If your meta-study can only be done by including specious sources, then maybe that should be questioned. >I love how you’re trying to appear all scientificatious while really just saying „some say A, others say B. No way to know. Be sceptical!“ Yes that is exactly what I am saying. The results of multiple independent researchers are inconclusive, thus anyone claiming clear evidence of anything should be have to prove their point very robustly, particularly when the issue is charged with social/political bias.