I guess that in addition to providing "fishes", I should show the reader how
to fish. It is my understanding that this site is one of the ways that
medical doctors keep up with late-breaking information in their specialty.

The National Library of Medicine, provides free access to over 12 million
MEDLINE citations back to the mid-1960's and additional life science
journals. It now also provides links to some sites which provide full text
articles.

It can be reached at:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

My 9-7-2003 search using just the term Glyphosate can be viewed at:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...arch&DB=PubMed



Henry Kuska, retired

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

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the referent
herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The
authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each
Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling to
accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the
similar phosphine case (see below).

I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles
without reading them, but let's see, just for chuckles what
the authors said.

In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and not just
in the table to which you refer. If you read the text of the paper,
the paragraph where they discuss the glyphosate OR *starts* by
noting the referent group is the herbicide group.

Here, Henry, let's see what the text says:


"Examination of the frequency of applicator families with birth defects
by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of
applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at
least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent
exposure group who applied only herbicides... Altogether, 3.8% of
children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not
use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral
sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22?5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino
herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) 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 phosphonamino
herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35-9.65). No other commonly used pesticide
compared by major organ and/or functional system was uniquely
associated with specific adverse birth or developmental effects. Use of
different classes of pesticides over the 4?6 months of agricultural
pesticide use compared with the use of herbicides and no other
pesticide class (herbicide use period, -15 April to 1 July) suggests
that interaction among pesticide classes used may be a factor in the
birth defects observed (Table 6)."


So, Henry, the paragraph begins by noting the the referent group
was the herbicide-only group, the paragraph ends by noting that
the referent group was the herbicide group, the OR is
in the middle, and the conclusion is the one I note -- that
the interaction between pesticides is the probable cause.

But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying, and
that they are using a different referent group while claiming
they are using the herbicide group, go ahead. If you want
to claim the authors are lying when they say that it's the
interaction of pesticides and not Roundup alone, then
run with it.

But the bottom line is that the authors wrote what the
authors wrote, and the authors used the referent group
they claimed, and the conclusion is the one they concluded.

And if you bothered to read the damned articles, you would
know that.


billo

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

In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
wrote in message ...
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

Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is
100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either
scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other
people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing
Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever
he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment
results.


I am quite happey to be proven incorrect. It would help if
people didn't lie about what articles stated, however.



Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it
in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced
and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.

And it doesn't matter if your opinion is based on a lie.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
Omaha, NE, USA. Kansas University Medical Center, Kansas City, KS, USA.
University of Iowa College of Medicine, Iowa City, IA,

Published in: USA OCCUPATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEDICINE (2003 Sep),
volumn 60(9), E11. (it is not yet up on their website, their most recent
issue is the August issue).


I have not read this article. Since it is not my habit to pretend I
know what an article says without reading it, I will comment when I
have read it.

billo

On 8 Sep 2003 01:25:22 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

it is not my habit to pretend

This has been one grand charade shill. You are posting in a
gardening group pretending to have a clue about the damaging effects
of roundup.

billo said: " In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and
not just
in the table to which you refer. If you read the text of the paper,
the paragraph where they discuss the glyphosate OR *starts* by
noting the referent group is the herbicide group."

H. Kuska reply: yes, the paragraph does start with a discussion of Table 6
as you have quoted: " "Examination of the frequency of applicator families
with birth defects
by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of
applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at
least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent
exposure group who applied only herbicides...."

H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate, it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there. That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.

Why did you not take my suggestion and do the calculations for the phosphine
case and see for yourself? You can even take my suggestion one step further
and do the phosphine calculations using your interpretation:

The following is the calculation using what I interpret that you feel is the
referent data (8 infected out of 118 in herbicide only class).

a= 38
b=962
c=8
d=110

CI = 0.54, 95 % CI = 0.25 - 1.19

If you have any further questions please let me know.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
Let's face it. Bill Oliver has all his freedom to believe Roundup is
100% safe or 100% dangerous, based on the criteria he uses (either
scientific, superstitious, prejudice, or experience). The other
people cannot and should not talk him into believing the other side.

Similarly Bill cannot and should not talk others into believing
Roundup is 100% safe. He can try, and others can disregard whatever
he says, be they speculations, facts, or scientific experiment
results.

I am quite happey to be proven incorrect. It would help if
people didn't lie about what articles stated, however.

Bill, Bill, Bill. I do not care what others argue with you regarding
Roundup safety and toxicity. The fact is, all others will now turn
their attention to educate other gardeners why Roundup is bad. Maybe
they are using facts, maybe they are using lies, maybe they are using
their own experiences.

Now you can also turn your attention into convincing other gardners
that Roundup is 100% safe, use it as much as they want (of course, "as
directed" :P) Let's see which side prevails.

Paghat is telling others what berries to choose for a nice winter
theme, and tons of other useful information (like dealing with slugs).
Now an inexperienced newbie arrives in rec.gardens. She faces Bill
Oliver whose only contribution in rec.gardens is arguing Roundup is
safe, and paghat who claims Roundup is dangerous while providing tons
of other useful gardening tips. Who do you think the newbie is likely
to believe in?

Bill Oliver can keep believing Roundup is 100% safe and keep using it
in his garden. That counts as 1. If other 100 netters are convinced
and turn away from using Roundup, that count as 100.

And it doesn't matter if your opinion is based on a lie.

Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself
as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you
have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P

In article ,
Tom Jaszewski newsgroup wrote:
On 8 Sep 2003 01:25:22 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

it is not my habit to pretend

This has been one grand charade shill. You are posting in a
gardening group pretending to have a clue about the damaging effects
of roundup.


No, I simply don't belong to the Psychic Science Network like
you do.

Oh, and that reminds me Tom, since you have taken it upon yourself
to follow me around engaging in nothing but personal attacks, you
make a big deal of where I work and where I trained. Yet you run
away when I ask those same questions of you.

Who do you work for, Tom? Why are you so ashamed of it?

How much money to you make pushing your anti-science agenda,
Tom? Why do you refuse to tell us?


billo

In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...

Bill, Bill, Bill. I do not care what others argue with you regarding
Roundup safety and toxicity. The fact is, all others will now turn
their attention to educate other gardeners why Roundup is bad. Maybe
they are using facts, maybe they are using lies, maybe they are using
their own experiences.



And that's the difference. You don't care if it's truth or lies.
I do.


Better correct "a lie" into "an unproven claim". At least, I myself
as of now never claimed anything about Roundup based on a lie. If you
have problems with lies, deal with them, but don't deal with me :P

No, "a lie." Henry, Paghat, et al. trot out articles that explicitly
do not claim what they say they claim. It's one thing to state one's
belief. That's fine. It's another to outright lie about what an
article states.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate, it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there. That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.


But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares
what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you
want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please
feel free to contact them and ask them.

But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And
if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your
"I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.


billo

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: " In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and
not just

H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate, it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there. That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.



Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their
article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:

"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed paper,
this is a reviewed paper."


Go for it.


billo

H. Kuska reply to billo: I have tried to the best of my ability to explain
to you the basis of "your" difficulty comprehending the basics of an odds
ratio calculation. I even provided you with a third party computer program
so that you (and others) can test "your" interpretation against my
interpretation. The calculation based on my interpretation is consistent
with the published results; the calculation based on "your" interpretation
is not consistent with the reported results. That is sufficient
information for me to conclude that I have interpreted the paper correctly.
I am sorry that you are not able to understand what I have presented.
Henry Kuska, retired

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

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in
Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate,
it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in
the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for
sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there.
That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to
apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.


But not to those belonging to the Psychic Science Network. Who cares
what the authors actually wrote. I'll tell you what, Henry. If you
want to pretend that the authors did not mean what they wrote, please
feel free to contact them and ask them.

But before you do, I suggest you take time to read the article. And
if you want to maintain any credibility to them, don't pull out your
"I don't need to read the steenkin' paper" screed.


billo

H. Kuska reply to billo: please note that I said that the not having the
paragraph marker could of occurred after the editing process and that "Yes,
it could cause some confusion to some readers." (I was trying to bend over
backwards to accommodate your problem). Note the use of the word "some".
When I was composing that reply, I considered adding the word "initial"
before the word "confusion". In retrospect I probably should have as I
assume any scientist who would have had any initial confusion would have
done the logical thing - which is to repeat the calculation him/her self..

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/
"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: " In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group,
and
not just

H. Kuska continuation of reply: notice they are discussing the data in
Table
6 (for the reader the data in Table 6 does not even mention glyphosate,
it
discusses classes of pesticides
(herbicides/insecticides/fumigants/fungicides/other)). Later in the
paragraph they then discuss other cases. Yes, they probably should have
started another paragraph at that point; perhaps they did; and that in
the
typesetting process the indentation was lost - all we can conclude for
sure
is that, for whatever the reason, a new paragraph marker is not there.
That
doesn't mean that they intended for the referent group definition to
apply
to the phosphine and glyphosate sentences nor does it mean that they are
lying. Yes, it could cause some confusion to some readers.



Here Henry, since you don't like the way the authors wrote their
article, I'll suggest you follow your own advice:

"The editor and the reviewers accepted this paragraph. They are
considered
experts in the field. If someone feels that there is something critically
incorrect about what they have accepted, he/she can submit their viewpoint
to be considered for publication. The stated criteria was a reviewed
paper,
this is a reviewed paper."


Go for it.


billo

I have used Round Up for years now. Never been a problem. Can't have kids so
no mutant babies, NOT do to using Round Up. My only problem with using Round
Up is that it takes some heat to activate and it takes too long to
work...............2 weeks. If one not likes Round Up, ya better not drink
wine from California, they use it in the Sonoma County Vineyards by the 50
gallon barrel. !!!!
I hear Round Up was used for Migraine Headache's in the beginning of it's
first use. Don't know if it's true or not.

"Bill Oliver" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

H. Kuska reply: Billo, please go back to table 6, that is where the
referent
herbicide group (that you refer to) was utilized (8 out of 118). The
authors do not have to state what referent group they are using for each
Odds Ratio calculated, it is defined by definition. If you are unwilling
to
accept this by trusting the authors, do the calculation yourself for the
similar phosphine case (see below).

I know that you specialize in psychic understanding of articles
without reading them, but let's see, just for chuckles what
the authors said.

In this case, the authors *did* state the referent group, and not just
in the table to which you refer. If you read the text of the paper,
the paragraph where they discuss the glyphosate OR *starts* by
noting the referent group is the herbicide group.

Here, Henry, let's see what the text says:


"Examination of the frequency of applicator families with birth defects
by pesticide use class category (Table 6) shows that 15.4% of
applicators who applied fumigants, insecticides, and herbicides had at
least one child with a birth defect compared with 6.8% in the referent
exposure group who applied only herbicides... Altogether, 3.8% of
children whose parent used phosphine versus 1.5% of those who did not
use the fumigant had adverse central nervous system or neurobehavioral
sequelae (OR = 2.5; CI, 1.22?5.05). Similarly, use of the phosphonamino
herbicides (glyphosate, Roundup) 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 phosphonamino
herbicides (OR = 3.6; CI, 1.35-9.65). No other commonly used pesticide
compared by major organ and/or functional system was uniquely
associated with specific adverse birth or developmental effects. Use of
different classes of pesticides over the 4?6 months of agricultural
pesticide use compared with the use of herbicides and no other
pesticide class (herbicide use period, -15 April to 1 July) suggests
that interaction among pesticide classes used may be a factor in the
birth defects observed (Table 6)."


So, Henry, the paragraph begins by noting the the referent group
was the herbicide-only group, the paragraph ends by noting that
the referent group was the herbicide group, the OR is
in the middle, and the conclusion is the one I note -- that
the interaction between pesticides is the probable cause.

But, Henry, if you want to claim the authors are lying, and
that they are using a different referent group while claiming
they are using the herbicide group, go ahead. If you want
to claim the authors are lying when they say that it's the
interaction of pesticides and not Roundup alone, then
run with it.

But the bottom line is that the authors wrote what the
authors wrote, and the authors used the referent group
they claimed, and the conclusion is the one they concluded.

And if you bothered to read the damned articles, you would
know that.


billo