5 ms·

“The linking of this effective herbicide to the alphabet soup list of conditions enumerated by the authors seems to be “shotgun science” — namely, multiple asso

“The linking of this effective herbicide to the alphabet soup list of conditions enumerated by the authors seems to be “shotgun science” — namely, multiple associations based on population‐based statistics, disconnected correlations, and manipulation of numbers and conditions that create an epidemiological recipe for errors and nonvalid associations. The authors link every kind of disorder imaginable to a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders.” Quoting from criticism of that paper in [1]. Seems to a rather apt description. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/

throwaway5752 7y ago
It's a fair point to bring up, but that statement is extremely biased in phrasing. Why is "effective herbicide" relevant here? Agent orange is also an effective herbicide. Further, "a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders" ... you might not pick up on it, but "specifically linked clinically" has some pretty specific meaning and is an extraordinary level of proof to call for at this stage. What they have at this point are theoretical pathways for the observed effects and epidemiological correlations. Taken together, those are pretty damning and worthy of urgent funding of further study.
- grandmczeb 7y ago
  This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1]https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs. It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
    - grandmczeb 7y ago
      They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots. > You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs. Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal. > It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects. It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - JamesBarney 7y ago
      If I look at number of glasses of water drank and 30 types of cancer and find that one statistically significant correlation between water and increased incidence of one of those cancers have I done good science? Not to mention if I give someone a glass of water it will do nothing. If I force feed them a 1000x the dose, like many of these studies, they would die. A far worse outcome than what happened to these mice and fish. But if glyphosate is this poisonous why don't rats get sick when we give it to them?
    - asdff 7y ago
      The health risks of lead, asbestos, or cfcs have a direct mammalian mechanism explaining their correlation. That part is important, because glyphosate targets a pathway that isn't present in animals at all. From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for diagnosis which gives you power to detect smaller tumors that you'd otherwise miss and not diagnose as thyroid cancer. The authors know that this paper is crap, that's why they published it in a predatory journal. There are lots of x that are rising at the same time as y and it's very easy to ignore context and make a correlation. Depression is rising while smoking is falling; you want a cigarette? Read this damning critic on samsel and seneff: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/ https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/ar... "Dr. Seneff has already predicted that by the year 2025, half of the children will be afflicted with autism from glyphosate poisoning." Half of all kids in 2025 will be autistic, right from the horse's mouth, does that seem reasonable to you?
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Urgent, extremely urgent in fact. This thing will take time to phase out if it's dangerous. As in a decade or more. And if it's actually toxic, considering how common it is... Oof.
tracker1 7y ago
Pretty status quo for most Food Science publications it would seem. Eggs bad! Eggs good! Eggs bad! Of course GMO Wheat, Soy, Corn and the increased intake in Fructose in general along with refined seed oils are probably all at least in part to blame about the general state of health in the world. Now that we've generally solved the issues of famine, we need to work on healthier foods... of course corporations aren't aligned with such concerns.

throwaway5752 7y ago

It's a fair point to bring up, but that statement is extremely biased in phrasing. Why is "effective herbicide" relevant here? Agent orange is also an effective herbicide. Further, "a widely used chemical that has not been specifically linked clinically to any of those disorders" ... you might not pick up on it, but "specifically linked clinically" has some pretty specific meaning and is an extraordinary level of proof to call for at this stage. What they have at this point are theoretical pathways for the observed effects and epidemiological correlations. Taken together, those are pretty damning and worthy of urgent funding of further study.

grandmczeb 7y ago
This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1]https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  It is absolutely not. They observed sub agricultural limit exposure in vivo and in vitro (see linked papers and their footnotes from the article). The identified pathways for observed effects. They then saw similar effects in human populations with higher than average glyphosate exposure. You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs. It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects.
  - grandmczeb 7y ago
    They don't even have a clear hypothesis, just a spew of possible connections to every condition under the sun and population level correlations with no thought as to controls or study design (or as they call it "compelling correlation data".) This is not a serious attempt at science, this is a gish gallop designed to foster alarmism by known crackpots. > You argument is precisely the kind of one that would be deployed to argue against the health risks of tetraethyl lead, asbestos, or CFCs. Except there are specific clinical links between lead/asbestos and particular, well identified conditions. On the other hand, your argument is the same used by the anti-vax and "alternative science" crowd since time immortal. > It's possible it's not related, but it probably is. You are right, though "damning" and "urgent" are subjective, and depend on how much you care about preventable cancers and birth defects. It must also depend on your definition of "probably"; typically, people use the word to mean "very likely" or "more likely than not", but I see you've developed your own definition here.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - JamesBarney 7y ago
    If I look at number of glasses of water drank and 30 types of cancer and find that one statistically significant correlation between water and increased incidence of one of those cancers have I done good science? Not to mention if I give someone a glass of water it will do nothing. If I force feed them a 1000x the dose, like many of these studies, they would die. A far worse outcome than what happened to these mice and fish. But if glyphosate is this poisonous why don't rats get sick when we give it to them?
  - asdff 7y ago
    The health risks of lead, asbestos, or cfcs have a direct mammalian mechanism explaining their correlation. That part is important, because glyphosate targets a pathway that isn't present in animals at all. From that samsel paper, figure 3 is the most damning to me as it's closer to my field so I know more about it. The reason why thyroid cancer incidence is rising is mostly that ultrasound is increasingly used for diagnosis which gives you power to detect smaller tumors that you'd otherwise miss and not diagnose as thyroid cancer. The authors know that this paper is crap, that's why they published it in a predatory journal. There are lots of x that are rising at the same time as y and it's very easy to ignore context and make a correlation. Depression is rising while smoking is falling; you want a cigarette? Read this damning critic on samsel and seneff: https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/articles/PMC4538578/ https://www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/pmc/ar... "Dr. Seneff has already predicted that by the year 2025, half of the children will be afflicted with autism from glyphosate poisoning." Half of all kids in 2025 will be autistic, right from the horse's mouth, does that seem reasonable to you?
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Urgent, extremely urgent in fact. This thing will take time to phase out if it's dangerous. As in a decade or more. And if it's actually toxic, considering how common it is... Oof.

tracker1 7y ago

Pretty status quo for most Food Science publications it would seem. Eggs bad! Eggs good! Eggs bad! Of course GMO Wheat, Soy, Corn and the increased intake in Fructose in general along with refined seed oils are probably all at least in part to blame about the general state of health in the world. Now that we've generally solved the issues of famine, we need to work on healthier foods... of course corporations aren't aligned with such concerns.