5 ms·

This is the paper version of [1]. Worthy of further research? Sure. "Damning" and "urgent"? Probably not. [1]https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations h

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?
  - throwaway5752 7y ago
    Environmental Health is predatory? I am looking at https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... (first link in 8th paragraph of Bloomberg oped) It cites a number of studies. In particular, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 ("Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling") and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0... ("Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines") I don't even know what you're talking about with Samsel and Seneff. And I can't view your link. From the Chemical Research in Toxicology article: "A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development." From the Toxicology article: "First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm."
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.

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?
- throwaway5752 7y ago
  Environmental Health is predatory? I am looking at https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0 https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-... (first link in 8th paragraph of Bloomberg oped) It cites a number of studies. In particular, https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/tx1001749 ("Glyphosate-Based Herbicides Produce Teratogenic Effects on Vertebrates by Impairing Retinoic Acid Signaling") and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X09003047?via%3Dihub https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0300483X0... ("Glyphosate-based herbicides are toxic and endocrine disruptors in human cell lines") I don't even know what you're talking about with Samsel and Seneff. And I can't view your link. From the Chemical Research in Toxicology article: "A reporter gene assay revealed that GBH treatment increased endogenous retinoic acid (RA) activity in Xenopus embryos and cotreatment with a RA antagonist rescued the teratogenic effects of the GBH. Therefore, we conclude that the phenotypes produced by GBH are mainly a consequence of the increase of endogenous retinoid activity. This is consistent with the decrease of Sonic hedgehog (Shh) signaling from the embryonic dorsal midline, with the inhibition of otx2 expression and with the disruption of cephalic neural crest development." From the Toxicology article: "First, we observed a human cell endocrine disruption from 0.5 ppm on the androgen receptor in MDA-MB453-kb2 cells for the most active formulation (R400), then from 2 ppm the transcriptional activities on both estrogen receptors were also inhibited on HepG2. Aromatase transcription and activity were disrupted from 10 ppm. Cytotoxic effects started at 10 ppm with Alamar Blue assay (the most sensitive), and DNA damages at 5 ppm."

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.