Submitted by Jealous-Pop-8997 t3_z4g1ab in science
eng050599 t1_ixy7a97 wrote
Reply to comment by fasthpst in Glyphosate associated with lower birth weights by Jealous-Pop-8997
...look up what head filling is.
Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic, and active transport to the wheat head stops after head filling is finished.
At this stage the plant is literally dying, but in a controlled manner. Nutrients aren't being transported to the head any longer, and as such, neither is the glyphosate.
Again, you're showing that you have no understanding of any of these topics.
>Doesn't really seem that way. Are you claiming all these studies bypassed peer review?
...seriously?
Peer review isn't the issue.
The issue is that there are literally no studies that can counter the compliant studies conducted to date.
Perhaps you're a bit more dense than even I thought, so I'll take this a bit slower.
Not all studies are created equal.
A basic component of experimental design is that a study need to provide enough power of analysis to accurately distinguish treatment effects from background noise.
Power of analysis isn't some subjective metric. It's a literal calculation that takes elements of the study such as sample size, population variance, and cutoff for significance into account.
The OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals were developed to ensure that studies used to assess the toxicity of chemicals had sufficient power to test for direct causal effects. Additionally, the standardized methods make falsification of the data much more difficult, as replicating such results is almost impossible without the same manipulation conducted each time.
The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation. This isn't an arbitrary thing, and it's directly based on the ability of a study to accurately tease apart results from noise.
To date, not a single study capable of showing causal relationships has indicated anything other than there being no increased risk at the current exposure limits.
It really is that simple.
The standards in toxicology apply across the board here, and it's quite telling that you would exempt statistically weaker studies from these requirements just because they align with your pre-existing beliefs.
Again, this is good evidence that you are not a scientist.
fasthpst t1_ixz2rqg wrote
>Glyphosate requires active transport for it to be systemic
But not as residue on harvested product, which is the topic of discussion.
>The studies that you are relying on do not have the statistical power to test for causation
Which studies? What I rely on is the steady stream of publications that is being produced by independent researchers. Relying on one or a handful of papers is how you get stuck in the past.
Perhaps you arent aware
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Glyphosate+ampa+tocixity
eng050599 t1_iy0ryhg wrote
No, you're missing a key component here, and not taking the complete dataset into account.
We have multiple OECD-compliant studies showing that adverse effects are not significantly associated with exposure below the current limits.
This study claims that this isn't the case, but it does not have the statistical power to counter the ones that have the ability to test for causal effects.
Additionally, even the authors of this study concede that their results shouldn't be applied to normal pregnancies, and that their overall PoA is insufficient to account for a range of confounding and lurking variables.
As for your link, go through them and check if they can test for causation, or are just correlative assessments.
Your 15min at the U of Google doesn't quite equate to decades at the bench, and it's pretty obvious that you haven't actually taken a comprehensive look at the studies you elect to cite.
The number of studies doesn't really matter when it comes to topics like this, and the key metric is the design and strength of the studies involved.
Multiple weak studies, do not trump studies with a far greater PoA,.
Until you can wrap your mind around this fact, you will be doomed to see the scientific and regulatory communities reject your position.
Want to change things?
Commission a study with comparable statistical power to the OECD designs, and generate data that actually would be capable of countering the earlier studies conducted over the past 40 years.
Just make sure to adhere to the standards of this field in regards to experimental design and GLP in general.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments