In article ,
wrote:
look everyone, this is a classic example of pseudoscience. He already has his
conclusion that Roundup is completely safe and he will find fault with any science
that says otherwise. Look at the creationists... they do the same. Just quit trying
to deal with him logically, this isnt about facts, it was never about facts.
Ingrid


No, pseudoscience is claiming that studies claim what they don't claim.

Henry trots out the Ontario article as his proof that Roundup is
dangerous, when the authors themselves note they are not even
*testing* that question.

Henry trots out an article on Leydig cells and claims that is
proof that Roundup is dangerous, when the author himself states
that the article doesn't even *address* that question.

Henry trots out an article from the Red River, and ignores what
the authors write in order to pretend that is says something
it doesn't say.

And in all of this, he claims he doesn't have to bother to read
the articles because he just *knows* the details without reading.

Indeed, there is some pseudoscience here, but it's not coming from me.
It is coming from you and your ilk who claim "proof" without bothering
to read the article and by contradicting what is explicitly stated in
the articles.

billo