2 ms·

I'm sorry, I don't see what you see in that article and I don't think you understand it either. Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was intro

I'm sorry, I don't see what you see in that article and I don't think you understand it either. Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. Lot of other things have happened in that same time period such as increases in obesity, etc. The real way to study it is to give an animal glyphosate and see if it does anything to cancer rates. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819582/ Evaluation of carcinogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate, drawing on tumor incidence data from fourteen chronic/carcinogenicity rodent studies "There was no evidence of a carcinogenic effect related to glyphosate treatment."

titzer 5y ago
You seem motivated to push a particular narrative and are cherry picking papers to support it, so I really don't want to go back and forth anymore about this, but here's a even larger meta-study that has a completely different conclusion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ > The strongest evidence shows that glyphosate causes hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors and malignant lymphomas in male CD-1 mice, hemangiomas and malignant lymphomas in female CD-1 mice, hemangiomas in female Swiss albino mice, kidney adenomas, liver adenomas, skin keratoacanthomas and skin basal cell tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats, adrenal cortical carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats and hepatocellular adenomas and skin keratocanthomas in male Wistar rats. In fact, this paper links to some of the same studies that the paper you linked to also does, with different conclusions. In particular, it seems your paper was extremely selective about which cancers could be caused by glysophate, e.g. ignoring several types. > Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. That's just an absurd statement, so I'll disengage now.

titzer 5y ago

You seem motivated to push a particular narrative and are cherry picking papers to support it, so I really don't want to go back and forth anymore about this, but here's a even larger meta-study that has a completely different conclusion. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7014589/ > The strongest evidence shows that glyphosate causes hemangiosarcomas, kidney tumors and malignant lymphomas in male CD-1 mice, hemangiomas and malignant lymphomas in female CD-1 mice, hemangiomas in female Swiss albino mice, kidney adenomas, liver adenomas, skin keratoacanthomas and skin basal cell tumors in male Sprague-Dawley rats, adrenal cortical carcinomas in female Sprague-Dawley rats and hepatocellular adenomas and skin keratocanthomas in male Wistar rats. In fact, this paper links to some of the same studies that the paper you linked to also does, with different conclusions. In particular, it seems your paper was extremely selective about which cancers could be caused by glysophate, e.g. ignoring several types. > Graphs showing increased cancer risk since glyphosate was introduced is almost zero evidence that it does anything. That's just an absurd statement, so I'll disengage now.