My new piece in the Guardian talking about That Organic Study and why it doesn't mean much/anything for your health https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/26/dont-believe-the-hype-organic-food-doesnt-prevent-cancer?CMP=share_btn_tw&__twitter_impression=true …
There's an entire article other than the single line you're picking out describing why that correlation is unlikely to be causative. No, I was more interested in precisely what you're implying with Monsanto
-
-
I can see why you want to move on from your erroneous reporting of Bradbury (and your silence on the findings by Baudry) but it is an important and newsworthy point - not least in the context of the invited editorial which raises the NHL concerns in the same issue:pic.twitter.com/BiB9aDwVPL
-
In relation to Bradbury (Doi:10.1038/bjc.2014.148) your wrote there was "no reduction in risk whatsoever" whilst Bradbury actually reported a significant RR for Non-hodgkin lymphoma (RR 0.79 95% CI: 0.65-0.96). Your article was simply wrong!pic.twitter.com/lACEQ6wTIq
- Show replies
New conversation -
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.