In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article ,
paghat wrote:
N. Vigfusson & E. Vyse in MUTATION RESEARCH, v.79 p.53-57, found
that glyphosate has a genetic mutagenic effect on human lymphic cells. To
Monsanto of course that translates "unproven for cancer," but what it
really shows is that glyphosate at least sets in motion conditions that
result in nonhodgson's lymphoma, as further shown to be the situation by
L. Hardell & M. Eriksson in
Of course, when you use near-lethal doses of *anything,* one can induce
mutagenic effects. Using this criteria, table salt is a deadly
poison. ... . Smashing
in someone's skull with a hammer is not a test of iron toxicity.
[billo's cut-&-paste job deleted for space]
Nice that you're steeped in the Monsanto party line, which you tidily
paraphrase from Monsanto's official response to peer-reviewed independent
studies that showed a connection between glyphosate & lymphoma.
No, I actually paraphrased it from a scientific article in a
peer-reviewed journal.
It appears that you believed Monsanto rather than checking the studies,
because the Hardell & Ericksson study BY NO MEANS subjected anyone to
lethal doses of anything. So you repeated the lie that cancer or cell
death was caused by near-lethal doses, and anything less is safe as salt.
Wrong again. Perhaps you should read all the studies, not just the
ones you like. If, by "the Hardell and Ericksson" study you mean
Hardell L, Eriksson M, Nordstrom M. Exposure to pesticides as risk
factor for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and hairy cell leukemia: pooled
analysis of two Swedish case-control studies. Leuk Lymphoma. 2002
May;43(5):1043-9., then you are wrong again. In fact, they did not
find an increased risk for cancer with Roundup. Try again. While
there was a slightly increased univariate association between exposure
to Roundup and a rare form of lymphoma, the risk *disappeared*
when subjected to multivariate analysis. As the authors
state:
Among herbicides, significant associations were found for glyphosate
(OR 3.04, CI 95% 1.08-8.52) and 4-chloro-2-methyl phenoxyacetic acid
(MCPA) (OR 2.62, CI 95% 1.40-4.88). For several categories of
pesticides the highest risk was found for exposure during the latest
decades before diagnosis. However, in multivariate analyses the only
significantly increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of
other herbicides than above.
Simple logic would indicate nobody induced lymphic cancer in humans by
feeding them lethal doses of glyphosate, yet that's what you're claiming
yourself to believe. In reality, the 404 lymphoma victims in the Swedish
study were individuals who presented at a cancer center because they had
cancer, they were not volunteers given lethal doses of glyphosate.
And how many of those lymphoma victims had been exposed to glyphosate,
eh? If you are quoting the 1999 study, the answer is *three*. What,
paghat, is the statistical power of that. You are waxing poetic about
a study of three cases and four controls, not 404 cases and a thousand
or so controls. Be honest.
And the 2002 study showed no increased risk for cancer with glyphosate when
other factors were taken into account. Thank you very much. It is very
common to find associations between things that are not causal. That's
why we do multivariate statistics. Let's say that I found a study saying
that people who drive pick-ups have a higher risk of lung cancer. That
does not imply that pick-ups cause lung cancer; it may be that more
smokers drive pick-ups and *smoking* causes lung cancer. That's why
the finding that "in multivariate analysis the only significantly
increased risk was for ... other herbicides than above" is important.
The
study they became part of sought to find lifestyle associations for
ordinary lymphoma patients, and included assessments of diet, smoking,
drinking, weight, workplace, hobbies, and environment, in a large enough
group to find statistical significance. They were not looking to prove
Monsanto gave these people cancer, it just surfaced as statistically
significant. It was found that the actual incidents of lymphoma
encountered in the normal course of medical practice in a cancer clinic
could be corrolated to exposure to glyphosate products, and the
significance increased dramatically when use of these products was
continued for ten or more years. The control group was twice the size the
lymphoma sufferers, and there was no similar connection found for healthy
people. THAT is the finding of the Hardell & Ericksson study, and they
smashed nobody over the head with lethal doses of glyphosate, salt, or
ballpeen hammers.
What part of "However, in multivariate analyses the only significantly
increased risk was for a heterogeneous category of other herbicides than
above." do you not understand? The univariate findings disappeared when
other factors were taken into account.
I having trouble believing you intentionally lied, but also having trouble
believing you're dumb enough to believe what you paraphrased about the
lymphoma connection being true only with lethal doses, as that was simply
irrational.
Which is not what I stated, of course. And the study you quote
does not support your position.
What is certain is Monsanto intentionally lied, and what you
paragraphased from Monsanto literature is not founded in fact.
No, I paraphrased from the peer-reviewed article I cited.
The
lymphoma connection has yet to be refuted by any peer-reviewed research.
The lymphoma connection was refuted by the authors you cite. It was
was never *established* in any peer-reviewed research.
[When environmentalists]
their clear agenda cite Hardell & Ericksson, they may have a
propogandistic purpose, but they don't have to lie because the facts
really are against Monsanto.
Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings.
billo