Submitted by Jealous-Pop-8997 t3_z4g1ab in science
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixwjc0o wrote
Reply to comment by beebeereebozo in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997
I don't see any red flags or mischaracterizations
beebeereebozo t1_ixx0v95 wrote
Original cohort of 822 whittled down to 155 newborns. n=155 is a small study, and lots of opportunity to cherry pick subjects when starting with 822. High-risk pregnancies = preexisting health issues, lower socio-economic status, substance abuse, alcohol, smoking during pregnancy, which often have significant effects on their own. They made an attempt to adjust for confounders, but you can only do that for the confounders you know about, and they were limited by what they found in medical records. For instance, most significant correlation was between GLY concentration and less than high school education for mother. What is going on there besides just the fact mother had less than high school education? With such a small n and effect size, a few outliers is all it takes.
When there is a lot of noise in the data, pretty easy to pick out a signal that serves your purposes.
As was pointed out in peer review, all references support conclusion, in other words, they mined the literature for work that supported a preexisting narrative; they weren't trying to prove themselves wrong, they were trying to prove their hypothesis was right, which is not the way science is supposed to work.
"This study aims to establish baseline urine GLY levels in a high-risk and racially diverse pregnancy cohort and to assess the relationship between prenatal GLY exposure and fetal development and birth outcomes." They start off by saying there is a relationship = red flag.
Authors lack credentials in relevant fields; none are epidemiologists, and at least two, Mesnage and Antoniou have signed on to previous work by Seralini, which is a red flag all by itself.
Another red flag pops up when you review past, related work from authors and it always points in the same direction. That is virtually impossible if one does honest research, especially when dealing with very small effect sizes, underpowered designs (small number of subjects), and many confounders. That is the case here as well. Either its publication bias or they are putting their thumb on the scale.
In the end, those doing activist research know that most people don't read past the title or the headlines their work generates, all they have to do is dress up their reports so they can navigate past peer review and make it into some journal, any journal, even if they have to pay for it. Flawed peer review process and predatory journals are a whole other can of worms.
fasthpst t1_ixx9w61 wrote
Are you aware that Seralini continues publishing?
beebeereebozo t1_ixxixeg wrote
Unfortunately, yes, same bad science, different day. There is always a journal willing to publish crap for a price. He is the epitome of an activist research scientist. Good example of research that always supports a predetermined narrative.
Anti-pesticide, anti-GMO, anti-glyphosate crowd is always saying "follow the money," but they never say that about charlatans like Seralini who is making a nice living milking the credulous and true believers. Much the same as anti-vaxxers like Mike Adams or Alex Jones hawking snake oil and supplements for COVID19. In Seralini's case, it began with ties to Sevene Pharma and homeopathic detox products. Scare people about toxins, and then sell them detox products. He is still at it.
eng050599 t1_ixxq4mj wrote
So does Seneff, and she has yet to actually test any of her hypotheses experimentally.
Not joking about that in the slightest.
Since her first paper in Entropy, all of her publications have involved data-mining other studies, using the bits she likes to develop hypothetical mechanisms on how glyphosate is responsible for every ill mankind suffers from...and that's it.
She stops at the very first stage of the scientific method, developing a testable hypothesis.
There's a reason why she's considered to be unhinged even by the Seralini crew.
[deleted] t1_ixxugnc wrote
[removed]
beebeereebozo t1_ixy3xs5 wrote
Not to let the opportunity for even more quackery go to waste, she attempts to connect COVID19 and glyphosate. https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-pseudoscience-environment/dr-stephanie-seneff-strikes-out-again-glyphosate-and-covid-19
eng050599 t1_ixy5xdm wrote
I keep up to date on her idiocy simply because I've become the chair's go to person when a "concerned citizen" contacts my department regarding almost anything related to the dimwitted duo.
Now, I will admit that it was hilarious to see her get debunked by the likes of Antoniou and Mesnage in the case of her glyphosate substitutes for glycine hypothesis, she's simply gone off the rails too far in my opinion.
As I wrote to fasthpst, the simple fact that she hasn't bothered to experimentally validate any of her molecular spitballing should be a good sign that her research is useless, but it persists.
beebeereebozo t1_ixzqwht wrote
Must be exhausting at times, and frustrating to have to counter such ignorance. It would be one thing if it was just a matter of presenting the facts, but the anti-gly crowd knows all they have to do is plant a seed of doubt or fear, and it will grow on its own regardless of the facts.
eng050599 t1_iy0svdv wrote
The thing to realize ius that, for a depressing percent of the general public, they aren't actually looking for information when they contact someone like me, they're looking for validation of their beliefs.
When that doesn't happen, it can get spiraled up into a Machiavellian conspiracy and that all scientists who disagree with them are paid shills.
That's usually the point where I just shrug and move on.
This is also why I provide quite a bit of detail in my replies to threads like this.
In many cases, I know that nothing I write will change a zealots mind, but my answers aren't for them. They're for someone who comes across this down the road who has an actual interest in learning.
For them, the information is available for them to do so.
fasthpst t1_ixzdped wrote
It's funny how the people with claims of "activist research" seem to ignore a growing body of evidence being produced by a large number of researchers around the world. Like how big is this conspiracy they are claiming?
In research science we rarely if ever rely on one paper and rarely if ever publish a definitive result based on single tests. Since Glyohosate came off-patent there has been a steady stream of publications showing toxicity and interaction with hormones etc. Many many papers have led up to this human study.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+estrogenic
The real red flag is reddit 'scientists' who compartmentalize research papers and discredit them based on the false assumption they are meant to stand alone. In scientific research we look over all the publications
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+microbiome
I think you will find the number of researchers groups and research topics is far too broad to be painted with the same brush. When they claim 'activist research' and 'predatory journals' I wonder just how big they think the conspiracy is. Imagine the level of coordination necessary to ha e hundreds of researchers from around the world all 'making stuff up' to disparage a chemical. It's laughable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=glyphosate+embryo
Perhaps one day r science will have an honest scientific discussion on this subject. I have been waiting 10+ years for it and it hasn't happened yet. I've been involved in this discussion for 3 decades, the first decade they said it can't have an effect on animals be abuse they lack the shik pathway. The second decade they said yes it does affect animals but it isn't toxic or carcinogenic. The third decade they switched gears (thanks to Jon Entine) to claims the studies aren't good enough. Fact is that in research we make stepwise progression and build on previous conclusions. Initial studies are often broad and find hints. Those hints are studied and appropriate tests are formulated with current detection methods. If those tests show possible results, other researchers will notice and investigate closer based on their group's expertise.
This is all normal in the course of research. Don't pay attention to those who would rather shoot the messenger than discuss the data.
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzrxqd wrote
>Initial studies are often broad and find hints.
They also use unrealistically high doses to search for effects that might be hard to notice at realistic doses.
fasthpst t1_iy01vm8 wrote
Yes, that is how initial studies work Decap!
First we chuck a load at some cells to see if something happens. If we see an effect then we reduce the amounts to see at what level. Then we take those results and look closer to see what mechanisms are affected. Once we see the systems, pathways etc it affects change in, we study other organisms which also rely on those pathways.
Realistic doses are different under different circumstances too right? And once a substance become so prevalent that it is in everything and unavoidable, then we look at chronic low level exposure.
That is the stage we are at now. Apologists like yourself have enabled the ag-chem companies to continue selling Glyphosate well beyond the time we knew it was killing off target organisms. Now a decade later we see 99% of mothers in this human study are living with Glyphosate in their bodies 24/7
Still you will claim it is safe and just like always there will be more and more accurate papers published showing harmful effects. Science won't stop.
Decapentaplegia t1_iy04r43 wrote
Can you describe in more definite terms what kind of studies you are looking for? Because there are literally entire textbooks dedicated to glyphosate. It's the single most studied pesticide, and there is good reason for it to be the most widely used. It breaks down quickly, works at a low dose, has minimal off-target toxicity, binds soil to prevent runoff, and works as a post-emergent broad-spectrum spray.
>beyond the time we knew it was killing off target organisms
No industrial chemical is going to have zero consequences. How does it compare to the alternatives? How can we mitigate damage further?
>99% of mothers in this human study are living with Glyphosate in their bodies 24/7
Dose matters. 100% of mothers have arsenic in their bodies 24/7. This is not a good approach to evaluating toxicity.
>Still you will claim it is safe
The benefits strongly outweigh the harms, but I still strongly encourage mitigating those harms!
Look how the minimal toxicity of glyphosate has reduced the overall burden of toxicity for agriculture:
Consider how glyphosate has contributed to a reduction in emissions from agriculture:
fasthpst t1_iy088qv wrote
Decap, we both know no-till farming was invented well before Glyphosate and that there are many different metrics to assess environmental impact. Electric tractors are right now reducing agricultural emissions too, so what will your excuse be then?
It's pretty comical when you guys bring up the old more toxic pesticides because we were against those too! Agricultural chemical companies selling even more toxic stuff in the past and the government regulators approving more toxic stuff before glypuosate isn't the win you think it is. All it shows is that ag chem companies will happily sell poison and regulators don't look very closely at profitable products.
Which leads in to your claims:
>breaks down quickly,
Yet it is persistent in humans because of constant exposure
>works at a low dose,
Like other endocrine disruptors, yes
>has minimal off-target toxicity,
"Minimal" is a weasel word, subjective and brushes aside the lives of aquatic creatures, insects, etc
>binds soil to prevent runoff,
Which would be fine if it wasn't the most sprayed ag chem in the world constantly running past that bound soil
>nd works as a post-emergent broad-spectrum spray
Which ensures consumer exposure too right?
>Can you describe in more definite terms what kind of studies you are looking for?
Well, i have posted plenty in this page and we have been discussing this back and forth for a decade right. The studies I search for are ones that look at exposure to Glyphosate and it's associated chemicals. I read all of them. Many say they don't see effect from pure Gly but do see effects from Roundup formulations. As Glyphosate is never applied pure, both are relevant. I personally like seeing 'omics and methylation data because we knew there would be effects but the field is new. I also look for studies on microbiota because as we know now, your gut bacteria has effect on brain function.
>No industrial chemical is going to have zero consequences
Correct. . and the closer we look the more we find
>How can we mitigate damage further?
Apply the same level of R&D money to Organic Agriculture and soil science so we can end the use altogether
Decapentaplegia t1_iy0f77l wrote
> many different metrics to assess environmental impact. Electric tractors are right now reducing agricultural emissions too, so what will your excuse be then?
Oh no... you think emissions from tilling come from tractors... okay, have a nice day.
My advice: if this stuff interests you, seek out an actual education in it. :)
[deleted] t1_iy0gs1s wrote
[removed]
beebeereebozo t1_iy07jp5 wrote
You are absolutely right, one study does not stand alone, the body of evidence counts, but so does the quality and relevance of the evidence. Your claim reminds me of acupuncture studies. There are tons of them out there that claim to show it works, so it must work, right? Dig deeper and you find profound publication bias where large positive effects correlate with lower quality studies, and no or tiny effects correlate with high quality studies.
Did you read all of those papers? How about the one from EFSA that concludes "The current assessment concluded that the weight of evidence indicates that glyphosate does not have endocrine disrupting properties through oestrogen, androgen, thyroid or steroidogenesis mode of action based on a comprehensive database available in the toxicology area. The available ecotox studies did not contradict this conclusion"?
Or Dai et al. "Taken together, we conclude that glyphosate alone has low toxicity on male rats reproductive system." after washing rat testes with glyphosate solution?
And of course, there is the fact that professional, career toxicologists and epidemiologists at national regulatory agencies around the world have reviewed the body of evidence and have concluded that glyphosate can be used safely (does not mean zero risk) as labeled. Among those who have concluded otherwise are well represented by the organic industry (fear and uncertainty is good for business), lawyers employing science by jury against Bayer, and political interests.
fasthpst t1_iy0apie wrote
>professional, career toxicologists and epidemiologists at national regulatory agencies around the world
Regulatory agencies and industry share experts. EFSA included. I've read their 2015/17 decision and the references too. If you notice, they discount papers which dont use pure glyphosate. Pure glyphosate is never applied alone. It's a dodge commonly used. They also give a lot of weight to outdated studies and ignore hormonal findings because they were not 'consistent'.
Considering EFSA has a mandate as safety authority, you would think that they would sponsor some lab bench research. Ah well, we will keep doing it with or without them. Now there is about 7 years more worth of publications.
In 2015 glyphosate had only been available to independent researchers for a short while.
beebeereebozo t1_iy0paca wrote
And finally, when reason and evidence is no longer in their favor, antis move the goal posts and turn to conspiracy theories. Same tropes and logical fallacies I have heard repeated for over a decade.
[deleted] t1_iy1y8ea wrote
[removed]
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzlasw wrote
I thought it was interesting that this person said that glyphosate is mischaracterized by being correctly categorized as an organophosphorous compound, the sort of compound that it actually is. It’s actually a projection, they are suggesting that they wish to classify it incorrectly because being in the same class with insecticides makes it look bad even though it truly is an organophosphorous compound
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzrftm wrote
>because being in the same class with insecticides makes it look bad even though it truly is an organophosphorous compound
I think you're a little confused here. Organophosphates are the insecticide class, and they aren't the same thing as organophosphorous compounds like glyphosate (technically a phosphonate).
What was that about projection?
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzuifc wrote
Glyphosate is an organophosphorous compound and you want it falsely classified otherwise. If insecticides are a different class than correctly classifying glyphosate should not be confusing for others even though it may be for you
Decapentaplegia t1_ixzuz0p wrote
You were the one who said it's in the same class as insecticides. It's not.
Jealous-Pop-8997 OP t1_ixzwxil wrote
No, I was responding to the person that said “Red flags: Strong correlation related to urban (more access to health care) vs rural (less access to health care); mischaracterize gly as "organophosphorous compound," which is a common tactic by anti-gly activists to associate it with organophosphate insecticides. This is activist research.”
beebeereebozo t1_ixzwh3v wrote
More accurately, an organophosphonate, but don't be coy, all you have to do is read the title of Monograph 112 to know what is going on: "Some Organophosphate Insecticides and Herbicides", and there's glyphosate listed along with tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, and diazinon. Why? Certainly not because of its mode of action or risk to humans. It's an obvious attempt to mischaracterize and associate glyphosate with organophosphates in the minds of the public to stoke greater fear and uncertainty. Prominently identifying glyphosate as an organophosphorus compound may be technically correct, and not quite as disingenuous as what IARC did, but it's disingenuous nonetheless, and a common feature of activist research.
fasthpst t1_ixzmgpp wrote
It says glyphosate is an organophosphorous compound in the first line of the Wiki. How do these people bring up such nonsense in good faith?
Every year more studies come out showing toxicity and every year they claim its not enough. Unfortunately this is the result of propaganda being pushed on Reddit by Cornell's industry mouthpiece "Alliance for Science" and 'geneticliteracyproject' who unsurprisingly also claimed Neonic pesticides don't harm bees.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments