Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

fasthpst t1_ixxbeex wrote

Reply to comment by perfmode80 in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997

>As our previous low-risk cohort found an association with GLY and shortened pregnancy, we sought to conduct a larger study of more diverse women with higher risk pregnancies living across the state of Indiana.

This is the continuation of earlier studies.

0

beebeereebozo t1_ixy4i7f wrote

It's a small study with tiny effect size, dubious subject selection methods, and unknown confounders. Add scientists with a history of anti-gly activism and no relevant credentials in epidemiology, and you wind up a big load of nothing.

1

fasthpst t1_ixy5lc9 wrote

Again, if it was a standalone paper you might have a point however there has been a steady stream of independent research showing toxicity in a wide array of non target organisms ever since Glyphosate came off-patent.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518303004

>Our results showed that a postnatal subacute treatment with GBH induces endocrine-disrupting effects in the male mammary gland in vivo, altering its normal development.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0278691518303880

>The data from this study indicate that glyphosate can induce cell growth in ERα positive CCA cells through non-genomic estrogen receptor/ERK1/2 signaling pathway

"big load of nothing" huh

1

beebeereebozo t1_ixy7hbb wrote

Yup, still big load of nothing. Activist scientists have been churning out this stuff out for well over a decade. Look beyond the titles and actually read the papers and you find animal models, high exposures that are not relevant to actual human exposures, and conclusions that are not supported by the data.

2