Study: "Exposure to #Glyphosate-Based Herbicides & Risk for Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma: A Meta-Analysis" https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1383574218300887 … cc @kevinfolta @joeschwarcz? Will stir more debate.
See also https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/feb/14/weed-killing-products-increase-cancer-risk-of-cancer … Study "'well conducted' but lacking 'fundamentally new information'".
-
-
I hope the study authors did not say this, because it is fairly obviously wrong. That's not really how confounding works at allpic.twitter.com/fQu8OvA88x
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @CaulfieldTim and
Michiel van Andel Retweeted Michael Stiles
Michiel van Andel added,
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @MvAndel @CaulfieldTim and
Yes I'm also quite confused as to their methodology. The statistical heterogeneity may have been low, but the studies were fundamentally very different so it's hard to see how the meta-analysis holds much weight
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
They statistical machinations are beyond my training or interest, as this gets into a realm I don't play in. My stats are easy, even when complex. Combining disparate works into a meta analysis is quite a feat. I want to get them on the podcast to explain it to me.
3 replies 0 retweets 5 likes
It's not that much more complex to do than any other study, the complexity is in the interpretation. For example, one of the included trials calculated glyphosate exposure based on any reported use, another on detailed telephone interviews/questionnaires
-
-
Replying to @GidMK @kevinfolta and
The same is true for most of these studies - they were very different. So makes it hard to interpret the results because they might all be pointing to different things
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. 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.