@smh what gives? An entire article suggesting that glyphosate is connected with pancreatic cancer without a single mention of the scientific evidence - that there is no link at allhttps://www.smh.com.au/national/these-high-school-sweethearts-died-of-the-same-disease-their-daughter-says-a-popular-weed-killer-is-to-blame-20190531-p51t5j.html …
-
-
Reminds me - I was furious (from an
#epidemiology point of view if nothing else) when the GP put pancreatic cancer on my Dad's death certificate without it being diagnosed or even mentioned. How can you trust the data? -
Yes that's very odd. I can't see why they'd do that
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
And these are people using it in large (industrial) amounts, right?
-
Pretty much. I don't think there are any observed correlations at exposures lower than the highest ones
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
So, this is a potential liability law nightmare. Imagine that: 1. F0 exposure didn't significantly have effects. 2. F1 offspring did have increased cancer and birth defects. 3. F2 offspring of F1 also had effects. Where and how is liability assigned? Is it reasonable to do so?
-
That was the case in rat studies, and observations in S America (lots of soybean farms), according to some, are starting to coincide. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6476885/ … In point of fact, this sort of question is raised with PCBs as well.
- 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.