In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

Billo's statement: "But Henry, what is that odds ratio compared to -- what
is the referent population? The referent is to compare the pesticide
applicators against those who apply herbicides only.

Oops.

In other words, the article states that pesticide applicators who apply
glyphosate in addition to all the other stuff they apply have an increased
odds ratio compared to using herbicides (such as glyphosate) alone. That's
why, by the way, the article is about *pesticide" applicators and not
*herbicide* applicators."

H. Kuska reply: ?????? I am sorry but I cannot follow. Your statement seems
to be assuming that pesticide and herbicide are independent terms. A
herbicide is a sub set of what scientists define as a pesticide. I feel that
they made the obvious and best choice for the referent population. If they
had selected, say as an example, a referent group of pregnant typists in
Ohio; they would have been correctly criticised for opening the door to all
kinds of possible missed correlations such as the glyphosate group may have
been exposed to xxxxxx effects in that area of Minnesota that were not
present in Ohio. The chosen referent group was made up of pregnant wives of
all pesticide applicators from the same area. The editor and the reviewers
accepted this. They are in the field. If you feel that there is something
critically incorrect about this, you can submit your viewpoint to be
considered for publication. You asked for reviewed papers, yet you are
unwilling to accept the results of that review.


Oh, please. Let's try this slowly.


Group A:

high exposure to Pesticide + Glyphosate


Group B:

high exposure to Glyphosate.


Group A has more problems compared to Group B. You claim that this shows
that glyphosate is dangerous. It does not. It shows that high doses
of *other pesticides* when added to glyphosate is dangerous.

If you want to show that glyphosate is dangerous, you should
try:

Group A:

Glyphosate


Group B:

No glyphosate.


See the difference?


billo