billo said " In contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always*
compliant"

H. Kuska reply: I made no such assumption. I have emphasized "real world".
How can you come to that conclusion when I later in the same reply stated:
"We live in an imperfect world. You would need closely controlled human
subjects (100 % utilization observation)."?

billo said: " 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."

H. Kuska reply: note that billow said: "That does not imply by any stretch
of the imagination, however, that Roundup is dangerous outside of that
cohort."

H.Kuska reply: Thank you. I agree with you that a study of birth defects
does not apply to those that it does not apply to (i.e. men and non-pregnant
woman). The reported facts a "Use of the herbicide glyphosate yielded an
OR of 3.6 (CI, 1.3-9.6) in the neurobehavioral category." Earlier you have
commented on the possibile ambiguity of an O.R. below 2. This is 3.6! My
point is that "Stastically" it does apply to the group being studied. It
appears that your original criteria needs another modification something
along the line that you are asking people to produce a study that applies to
everybody except any sugroup of anybody where it is dangerous. That sounds
like a very safe challenge to make.

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/