I cannot stress this enough. Animal models are great, but there is limited applicability when it comes to actual people
-
Show this thread
-
Studies in actual people have not shown a link between glyphosate and cancer. The largest study ever done on the subject, which followed 55,000 people for over a decade, found no link whatsoeverpic.twitter.com/kAPFuNMgXn
1 reply 5 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Meta-analyses of similar studies also show no association THERE IS NO LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER IN HUMANS
1 reply 3 retweets 13 likesShow this thread -
There *may* be a small increase in risk for people who are exposed to enormous amounts for decades (like farmers), but that is a) not demonstrable and b) not applicable to most people
1 reply 2 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
4. COURT DECISIONS DO NOT IMPACT SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
1 reply 2 retweets 17 likesShow this thread -
I mean, honestly, this is a no-brainer. Convincing a jury in California does not mean much in terms of 'truth'
1 reply 2 retweets 16 likesShow this thread -
5. IARC CLASSIFICATIONS ARE GARBAGE FOR CONVEYING RISK
1 reply 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
There is a lot of utility for epidemiologists/public health in determining which products definitely do and do not cause cancer, but for your average person the IARC classification of "probable carcinogen" for glyphosate is worthless
1 reply 2 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
Glyphosate being a "probable carcinogen" simply means that animal models have shown some association, but human studies have not Which is exactly the point
2 replies 2 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
I could use "rodent studies" but I think there may have been a primate one hence "animal" Forgive me the colloquialism!
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.