In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

H. Kuska reply: ?????? You are citing the correct paper but the wrong
information. The quote you give is for the data in Tables 5 and 6. Please
note that in the footnotes below Table 6, they mention further analysis in
the text for phosphine. When you go to this text information (page 445) you
will find that they do do a separate analysis for phosphine and then
continue with a separate analysis for Round-Up type herbicides. The exact
quote is:

"Similarly, use of the phosphonamino herbicides (glyphosate, Round-Up) was
overrepresented in the adverse birth and developmental effect group.
Forty-three percent of the children (6 of 14) who had parent-reported
ADD/ADHD used phosophonamino herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.3-9.65). No other
commonly used pesticide compared by major organ and/or functional system was
uniquely associated with adverse birth or develomental effects."




Dude, read the paper. What is the referent group for this OR calculation?
It is the Herbicide applicator group! That's my point. ORs do not
exist in a vacuum. An odds ratio means that one group's odds are
greater than another group's odds. In this article, the group of
pesticide applicators who included glyphosate have an increased
odds ratio compared to herbicide applicators who include
glyphosate. In other words, the paper states that people who
apply pesticides+herbicides+fungicides are at greater risk
than those who apply herbicides alone.

It does not address those who apply herbicides alone compared
to people who do not use herbicides, and that is how you
are interpreting it.

If you have a quote that shows that they are using a different
referent group than the one they say they are using, trot it
out.

As I stated, it's not surprising that the addition of Roundup to an
overall exposure of numerous other pesticides may result in increased
morbidity. That kind of syndergism is pretty common, and there
is a decent biological explanation. However, the referent group
in this study *also* used glyphosate, and any conlcusion from it
that glyphosate alone is toxic when used as directed is not
supported by this study.

If you have one sentence that states that the referent group
for the OR calculation you quote is not the herbicide group,
I'd love to see it.

The paper does not show what you claim it shows.


H. Kuska reply: your criteria did not exclude applicators and their

families. This is the main group that uses a herbicide! In the future, if

you want to revise your criteria to some meaningless sub group of the human

race that is your privilege.



It's not *my* criteria -- it's the criteria of the authors. Remember, those
guys who wrote the paper. *They* used herbicide applicators as their
referent group.




H. Kuska summary: I submit to the readers of this thread that billo's

criteria have been met. It is your individual decision to evaluate his and

my points. I am willing to answer any questions if there is something that

you feel needs clarification.


Indeed when comparing one group that eats red beans and arsenic and
with a group that eats red beans, and the first group has an increased
death rate, Henry is convinced that means that red beans are poisonous.

billo