In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
H. Kuska reply: billo, thank you for your specific examples. Your examples
definitely should clarify to the thread readers how restricted your criteria
is.

billo's statement: "or the toxicity in adverse effects -- recognizing that
one can both measure and separate compliant from noncompliant groups is
important. In the case of looking at pesticide/herbicide toxicity when used
as directed, that means actually looking at whether or not it is used as
directed." and " See, Henry, you don't just assume that because someone has
received instructions that they follow them. You ask the question, and
compare those who do and do not follow directions."

H. Kuska's comment: First I would like to point out that "periodic
recertification by completion of a program of education and examination."
Note the "and examination". Your suggested additional checks are impractical
in the "real world".


No, it is not impractical in the real world. It is standard of
practice in medicine, epidemiology, and allied health fields.


Even observing and / or asking is not going to give 100
% assurance that a product is going to be used "as directed" when the
inspector is not present. Remember there would be a risk of losing a license

As you have stated many times, 100% of anything is impossible
to achieve. That, however, is not a reason to abandon all
attempts at rigor. In fact, it is both possible and practical
to measure compliance. Your claim of "risk" of losing a
license is a red herring; such problems arise commonly in
population-based observational studies -- particularly those
involving illegal drug use and other risky behaviors. It
turns out that people are pretty responsive in blinded
studies when the methods are explained. Certainly any
interview-based method will *underestimate* the degree
of noncompliance, but an interview- or visit- based study
that measures compliance and finds low compliance will
be more meaningful because of that underestimation.

In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always*
compliant has *no* basis in the "real world," as demonstrated
by *all* studies that do look at compliance.


I again submit that this group is as close as one can come to "real world"
assurance that the product is being used as directed.

You can speculate all you want. However, until you test
a hypothesis, it remains speculation.


We live in an
imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human subjects (100 %
utilization observation). This is impractical so animal studies are
substituted:


Ah, once again, the Psychic Science Network strikes again.

[Wistar rat study deleted]
But this does not meet your very restricted "criteria" since we are now not
looking at "humans".


No, it does not meet *many* criteria for making the cognitive
leap that this demonstrates any kind of threat to humans
by Roundup when used as directed. Indeed, if you drink 1%
glyphosate as your sole source of fluids for a long enough
period of time, I would expect *you* to have some enzymatic
abnormalities.

You never did read that Ames chapter, did you? I didn't
think you would. I'm sorry there's not an abstract, but
you might just pass your hands over it; you might catch
some vibes.


The Minnesota paper gives me the type of information I am interested in; and
the reading that I have done suggests, to me, that obstetricians would base
their "real world" advice to pregnant mothers on studies of how dangerous
the product is in the "real world".


In the "real world" of medicine, Henry, an obstetrician who
based his or her advice on the basis of a single observational
study that had low statistical power and did not address the
cohort to which the patient belonged would be committing
malpractice. It's that kind kind of reasoning that pushed
estrogens on menopausal women in order to "protect" them
from heart disease.

Studies designed to generate hypotheses and studies designed
to test hypotheses are different.

The studies you have mentioned are descriptive studies. In
evidence-based medicine, these are the lowest class of studies
(Class III in some taxonomies and class IV in others) and should
not be used for modifying practice. They are, instead, used
to generate hypotheses that in turn are tested by higher class
studies that involve randomization, blinding, and controlling
for things like compliance.

That's why the Ontario study you trotted out as claiming
to demonstrate that Roundup was dangerous to humans
when used as directed was explicit in the kind of study
it was:

"Because the farmers used many different pesticides
during the study and our sample size was limited,
findings may be unreliable, particularly for multiple
pesticide interactions. Because pesticide products
were reported primarily by the farm applicator or
husband, differential recall of pesticide exposure
by the mother is not likely to be a problem in this
study; however, some nondifferential recall of pesticide
and spontaneous abortion is likely. Because the
analyses were designed to generate, not test, hypotheses,
and multiple comparisons were conducted, results should
be interpreted with care and tested in other studies."


I know you didn't read this because you believe that
you only need to read abstracts and what the authors
say in the actual article is unimportant, but this
*is* important. The authors aren't saying "we did a
bad study." The authors are saying "we did a class IV
study, and a Class II or Class I study should be done
to see if this means anything."



I have already presented the March of Dimes information. Here is another:
"Avoid working with chemicals, solvents, fumes and radiation." from
http://www.sogc.org/healthybeginnings/tips.htm home page is
http://sogc.medical.org/index.html These two recommendations are "real
world" recommendations.



A "real world" recommendation to avoid all chemicals and all
"fumes" is not all that practical, nor is it based on real
science. There is a difference between saying "assume everything
is bad and stay away from everything when you're pregnant," which
is a standard, though pretty useless, admonition, and claiming
that "Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed."

It is probably true that there are specific cohorts for whom
Roundup, like virtually everything from peanuts to chocolate,
poses a risk, that does not generalize to humans in general,
though. If and when that cohort is identified, and the risk
demonstrated, then that cohort should stay away from hanging
around crop dusters filled with Roundup. That does not imply
by any stretch of the imagination, however, that Roundup is
dangerous outside of that cohort.



billo