Scientists undertake a research project for a reason (i.e. they are trained
to know what type of experiments will produce meaningful data). They then
submit their results to a refereed journal which is edited by someone well
respected in the field. If the referees (reviewers) and editor agree that
the choice of research is meaningful, and that their procedure is sound, it
gets published. If anyone feels that it is not, he/she can publish their
own paper and the review process will judge the validity of their "points".

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Title: The teratogenic potential of the herbicide glyphosate-Roundup(R)
in
Wistar rats.


Yes, yes. If you give an animal enough of anyting, you will
poison it. Go back and read the article, instead of just
downloading the abstract. Tell me, Henry, *how much*
did it take to cause problems compared to exposure associated
with use as directed?

billo