You're right. This guy is from ACSH. https://www.acsh.org/profile/gideon-meyerowitz-katz … The hitman-for-hire blackwater of science. Funded by Chevron, Coca-Cola, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dr Pepper Snapple Group, Bayer Cropscience, Procter & Gamble, Syngenta, 3M, McDonald's, Monsanto. La crème de la crème.
-
-
Replying to @AnagalisArvensi @GidMK
Yes, I had noticed his ACSH link too, & their very friendly relationship with Monsanto etc - pretty shocking really that the
@guardian should publish a puff piece like this which is so clearly off the mark in relation to the results of the study & attacking claims it didn't make!pic.twitter.com/9dvzBWc76k
2 replies 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @guardian
Would love to know exactly what you're suggesting here. The ACHS has republished one of my pieces - with permission - but I'd be interested to know precisely what relationship you're suggesting?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
That you completely missed the important link reported in the research between reduced NHL & eating organic food (plus you indicated that this was contradicted by Bradbury,2014) which found the same linkage - all when Glyphosate is linked with NHL in the US courts. Sloppy stuff
2 replies 3 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @guardian
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @Alan_Watson_ @guardian
Indeed. This was counterbalanced by an increased risk of breast cancer (RR 1.09, CI 1.02-1.15), which is vastly more common and thus relative risk has a greater import. Hence, overall, no reduction in cancerpic.twitter.com/d8np92QsVU
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
To be fair, both of these studies have similar issues, which I discuss in the Guardian piece (i.e. questionnaires, observational, etc) making it impossible to infer causation either way
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
If you want to be fair then admit your error! Nobody is suggesting that this proves causation - but it certainly strengthens the case against the most commonly used pesticides in relation to NHL (which has been growing @ 2–4% per year and is now c 4.3% of all cancer cases)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
This is all very tedious. There are just as many theoretical models for breast cancer, which has similarly been growing year on year. I disagree that there was a factual error, and as I've said I'm not paid by any industry group. Have a good day
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.