I cannot stress this enough. Animal models are great, but there is limited applicability when it comes to actual people
-
-
There have been a number of animal studies into glyphosate over the years. Thus far, the evidence has been spotty and very inconclusive The IARC decision, for example, was based on only a handful of positive studies
Show this thread -
Of the dozen or so animal studies into glyphosate, about half have shown no association, and a further quarter have shown only a very weak association Not exactly damning
Show this thread -
So, to recap: 1. Glyphosate is not a carcinogen 2. It is a "probable carcinogen" 3. But only at industrial exposures 4. This evidence is weak and spotty in animals 5. And non-existent in humans 6. GLYPHOSATE ALMOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER /end thread
Show this thread -
P.S. I'm paid entirely by the Australian Government and have no competing interests, so don't @ me with your hilarious shill accusations
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.