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

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/

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
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)."?


You stated that one cannot do better than just assuming the group
to be compliant without even asking if they are. Further you
assume that the group meets my criteria of "used as directed."
That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant.
Sure, you don't claim 100% but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70%
or 80% or 90%.

Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%?
90%?


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."


You really don't understand the difference between an observational
study to create hypotheses and a study that tests hypotheses, do you?



billo

billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own
statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption
that *all* people are *always*
compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ":
"That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice
first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either
statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100%
but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?"

H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command
to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
you ".
You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a
"real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not
*assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world"
situation.
---------------------------------------

billo then states: "You really don't understand the difference between an
observational study to create hypotheses and a study that tests hypotheses,
do you?"

H. Kuska reply: the introduction tells us what the study is about. It
concludes with: "The present cross-sectional study was undertaken to provide
more detailed information regarding the reproductive health of pesticide
applicators and their families."

Notice the "more detailed", this is a follow up study to one discussed
earlier in the introduction.

I feel that I have said enough about my understanding/experience that
conclusions in complicated matters in science are almost always tentative
(i.e. hypotheses). I am sorry that your understanding/experience does not
allow you to accept this statement.
-----------------------------------------
From: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=hypotheses
2 entries found for hypotheses.

hy·poth·e·sis ( P ) Pronunciation Key (h-pth-ss)

n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)

A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific
problem that can be tested by further investigation.

Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an
assumption.

The antecedent of a conditional statement.

-----------------------------------------

Henry Kuska, retired

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

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, you are wasting my time. Your own answers contradict your own
statements. This is what you previously said: "In contrast, your assumption
that *all* people are *always*
compliant has". Now you attempt to "change the goal posts" by stating ":
"That means you assume that the group is essentially all compliant." Notice
first the use of "*all*" and then "essentially all" - I did not say either
statement as you then admit when you then say: " Sure, you don't claim 100%
but you *assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
Tell me, Henry, what level of compliance do you *assume?* 99%? 90%?"

H. Kuska reply: the reader can easilly use his/her browsers "find" command
to search where I state that: "*assume* it's not 60% or 70% or 80% or 90%.
you ".
You then say: "Tell me Henry......." - I explained to you that this was a
"real world" study that indicates the risk in the real world. One does not
*assume* any particular number as it has no bearing on a "real world"
situation.


Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should
be considered compliant because they are licensed. You state that actually
attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world,"
in spite of the fact that it is done all the time.

When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they
are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe
they should be considered compliant.

Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do
not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be
assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you
think they should be assumed to be is appropriate.

Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not,
then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and
do not meet the criteria.

And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance
in "the real world" is simply wrong.


billo

billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a
professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist
that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements
that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between
professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of
water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize in
psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the
authors are lying"; "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.";
" 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.";
"Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program
and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines";
"Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not
tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to
pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the
Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you do
consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In
contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I
could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things
at a formal professional level.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a
professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request.

You can ask for the moon, for all I care.



I also insist
that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements
that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion between
professionals :


I love this. You can dish it out, but you can't take it, eh? I'll
tell you what, Henry, you stop acting like a supercilious ass and
I'll start treating you like a "professional."

Here's a clue, Henry, you don't start a conversation with a
professional by telling him he doesn't know what a scientist
is. You don't put in that bullshit like "if you are unfamilar with
the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory
sentence and the final conclusion sentences" and "If the referees (reviewers)
and editor agree that the choice of research is meaningful, and that their
procedure is sound, it gets published. If anyone feels that it is not,
he/she can publish their own paper and the review process will judge the
validity of their "points"," when I explicity stated I didn't have a problem
with what the authors wrote, "I would like to remind the reader that the
wording had to be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a
scientific journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and
the referees are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the field."

Well, doh. Thanks for the lecture, dude. I happen to be on
one of those editorial boards.

"If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the
wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any
paper for publication. It will be sent to reviewers, and then the editor
will review their comments and make a decision on whether your
comments/interpretation are worth publishing."

Which, of course completely ignores the point I was making in order
to act in a haughty, supercilious manner.

Not to mention your purposeful mischaracterization of my statement
about "meaningless" when you wrote:

"if the editor and reviewers did not consider the paper
"meaningless" I find your conclusion that it is meaningless, well, shall I
say "interesting"."

Your little posting of dictionary definitions was also amusing, and
arrogant, and presumptuous.

You want people to treat you like a professional? Then don't write
down to people and act like a supercilious ass.

But let's go down each of your complaints:


"Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of
water, no doubt";

This is a perfectly reasonable conclusion from your statement
that:

For those who are not familar with scientific methods and therefore wonder
if "billo" has a point about dosage (that the scientists themselves and the
editor and the reviewers missed), the following is a very simplified
explanation: To see if a chemical causes long term problems one can often
study exposure to a small amount for many years, or one can study a shorter
term exposure to a larger amount.


In what way does this not apply to water? Is not water toxic if there
is short term dosage to a large amount? I was merely expecting you to
be consistent. By the way, did you read the Ames chapter I pointed
you to on this subject? No, I didn't think so. Funny, you want
a "professional" discussion, but when I point you to a chapter
showing why your generalization is wrong, written by one of the
people who developed one of the foundational methods in the
area, you ignore it.

I was pointing out, and still point out, that a dogmatic and blind
adherence to the idea that if something is toxic at high doses it
must also be toxic a low doses is simply wrong. And it is.

Water is a counterexample to your proposition.

So, Henry, hows that anti-water campaign coming?


"You may think they're lying,";
"But, Henry, if you want to claim the
authors are lying";


This is me merely parroting your shitty little snide suggestion that
"If you feel that the editor and reviewers were in error in approving the
wording/publication, you are entitled to submit your own analysis of any
paper for publication. It will be sent to reviewers, and then the editor
will review their comments and make a decision on whether your
comments/interpretation are worth publishing."

Funny, it's OK when *you* do it, but Oh, it's just not "professional"
when people return the favor.


"I know that you specialize in
psychic understanding of articles";
"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."

Well, Henry, what else can I conclude since you insist that
reading an article is not necessary to understand it?


" 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.";


This is explicitly true. The Ontario paper is an example. You trotted
this out an example of an article that claimed that Roundup is dangerous
to humans when used as directed, when the authors noted that this was
exactly *not* their claim.


"Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training program
and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines";

Well, Henry, it is your contention that the applicator group meets
my criteria of "used as directed." Why do you claim that? You
claim you do not assume they do, and that in the "real world" scientists
would never attempt to find out.

You can't have it both ways, Henry. You can't claim that they use
it as directed without measuring compliance, yet at the same time
claim that you are not assuming they use it as directed. If you
don't measure it, you are assuming.

"Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not
tested.";

Once again, the Ontario paper is a case in point.




"What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to
pretend that something is being tested when it is not.";


Sorry, Henry, when you pretend to know what an article says without
bothering to read the article, I can only assume that you are using
your paranormal abilities to discern the details.


"Now, I know, Henry, that you do
consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless";


This is in direct response to you, Henry, when I stated that
one should compar compliant versus noncompliant groups:

"billo, your answer satisfies my suspicion that your quest is meaningless
since your first reply clearly shows that it excludes meaningful real world
groups."

That's what *you* said, Henry -- that attempting to compare
compliant versus noncompliant groups was "meaningless."

"In
contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; .... I
could go on, but I have other things to do.




I
could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss things
at a formal professional level.


Henry, try bullshitting someone else. You want people to treat *you*
like a professional, try treating *them* like one.


Now answer the question. I'll add the quotes you demand, so you
feel like you can bear to answer:

Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should
be considered compliant because they are licensed.

["If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet
your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to."]


You state that actually
attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world,"
in spite of the fact that it is done all the time.

[ Your suggested additional checks are impractical
in the "real world".]


When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they
are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe
they should be considered compliant.

["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)."? ]

Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do
not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be
assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you
think they should be assumed to be is appropriate.

Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not,
then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and
do not meet the criteria.

And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance
in "the real world" is simply wrong.



billo

Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding. He
is best enjoyed in your kill file.....


"Henry Kuska" wrote in message
...
billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what
you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a
professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist
that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements
that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion
between
professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of
water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize
in
psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the
authors are lying"; "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.";
" 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.";
"Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training
program
and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines";
"Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not
tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to
pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the
Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you
do
consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In
contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; ....
I
could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss
things
at a formal professional level.

Henry Kuska, retired

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

H. Kuska reply to billo. So you continue with statements like: "Henry, you
stop acting like a supercilious ass" - (coupon 1 used up) and terms like
"bullshit", - (coupon 2 used up - you cannot say that I did not make it
clear that: "I also insist that you refrain from making inferences such as
the following statements that you have made that I feel have no place in a
formal discussion between professionals ".

H. Kuska comment to billo concerning the second part of hisr reply: things
that you quote as being said to you were actually stated to the general
reader. Lets start with the first one that you cite. This is what you
just said: "Henry, you don't start a conversation with a professional by
telling him he doesn't know what a scientist is. You don't put in that
bullshit like "if you are unfamilar with the structure of scientific
abstracts".
H. Kuska reply: I did a browser find to see where it occured. This is the
start of the actual post: "
---------------------------------------------------------------
Message 103 in thread
From: Henry Kuska )
Subject: Roundup Unready


View this article only
Newsgroups: rec.gardens
Date: 2003-09-01 09:08:05 PST


Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with
the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory
sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of
the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web
page...."-------------------------------------------H. Kuska comment:
Nothing in this post states that this post was addressed to someone named
"BILLO".---------------------------------------------- H. Kuska comment:
Then you state as your second example: "If the referees (reviewers) and
editor agree that the choice of research is meaningful, and that their
procedure is sound, it gets published. If anyone feels that it is not,
he/she can publish their own paper and the review process will judge the
validity of their "points"," when I explicity stated I didn't have a problem
with what the authors wrote, "I would like to remind the reader that the
wording had to be approved by the editor and the referees. The editor of a
scientific journal is normally one of the top scientists in the field and
the referees are also a select group chosen for their contributions to the
field."------------------------------------------------- H. Kuska comments:
Note the use of "If anyone" and "I would like to remind the reader"Again no
mention of "billo". I have tried to make it very clear when I was replying
to you, billo.I do not have time to track and respond to stuff this this -
coupon 3 used up.I am sorry but you have used up your "coupons".Good
by.Henry Kuska,

In article 9nR7b.24740$n94.17204@fed1read04, "Just another fan"
wrote:

Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding. He
is best enjoyed in your kill file.....

If you killfile him you'll miss him on other topics for which he's not
loony. Besides, even the loony stuff can be amusing.
Personally I only read about one in ten of his posts on this topic (after
the first week) because he got too trolly & redundant & stopped even
trying to make sense, but do see a bit more than I bother to open & read
when he gets quoted by others whose responses I read more wholeheartedly.
I wouldn't go so far as to killfile because in other threads he can be
totally of interest.

-paghat the ratgirl

"Henry Kuska" wrote in message
...
billo, I have decided to only answer questions from you concerning what
you
state that I have said when you put my actual statement in quotes. As a
professional courtesy I feel that I can ask such a request. I also insist
that you refrain from making inferences such as the following statements
that you have made that I feel have no place in a formal discussion
between
professionals : "Which is why you are working so hard to ban the use of
water, no doubt"; "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."; "You may think they're lying,"; "I know that you specialize
in
psychic understanding of articles"; "But, Henry, if you want to claim the
authors are lying"; "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.";
" 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.";
"Boy, you must be right. A person who goes through a quick training
program
and certification must never act in a way contrary to those guidelines";
"Once again, you pretend that something was tested in a paper that was not
tested."; "What is meaningless is to use the Psychic Science Network to
pretend that something is being tested when it is not."; "Now, using the
Henry Psychic Method of assuming results,"; "Now, I know, Henry, that you
do
consider comparing compliant vs noncompliant groups "meaningless"; "In
contrast, your assumption that *all* people are *always* compliant"; ....
I
could go on, but I have other things to do. I am willing to discuss
things
at a formal professional level.

Henry Kuska, retired

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



--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/

Lar wrote in message et...
In article 4cf8dc14.0309092251.75c94d86
@posting.google.com,
says...
In the very beginning DDT was also safe for humans when used as
directed. Its effect on human beings was not realized until we humans
completed the food chain.

You've been "drawin" DDT out lately as if it was a six
shooter It's sort of comparing apples to oranges.
The pesticide industry is the second most
regulated/tested industry there is, pharmaceuticals is
number one. The days of pre market testing was nothing
when it came out as compared to todays products. One of
DDT's sister pesticides that was also pulled for
environmental issues (chlordane) actually has gone
through the testing after it was pulled and could
technically be put back into the market as a restricted
use product (don't worry, I doubt that would ever
happen).

You can add more and more rigorous tests. For most synthesized
chemicals and drugs, the tests will be conclusive. For some of them,
the tests can still be inconclusive. There is no guarantee the tests
we do on xxxx will be conclusive.

And the ozone-depleting freon was neither done by the pesticide nor
pharmaceutical industry.

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything. There
are tons of mysteries in gardening, botany and zoology which are not
yet solved. One such example is (you can point out I am wrong as I am
not too sure) according to aerodynamics, the hummingbirds should not
be able to fly at all; at least the aerodynamics engineers cannot
explain how they fly.

Think that was the bumblebee.

Not sure. Anyway, my point is in gardening, botany and zoology there
are still many unsolved mysteries. Using scientific approach on these
problems is a good one, but don't expect science to cover everything.
Yet.

(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?

Just one reminder. Science is not the solution of everything.

No, science is not the solution of everything. I did not
challenge the anti-Roundup hystterics because they didn't
like it on religious principles, matters of faith, aesthetics,
whatever. I called them on their pretense that their statements
of faith were based on science -- and that they lied about
what the science said in order to do it. That is what
I object to.

Don't forget science is done by humans. Human beings can twist facts
(emphasizing the parts they like and playing down on those they don't
want), and so can they twist facts. It is like the polls. By
"designing" the questions in a certain way, you can move people's
comments in the direction you like to see. The same thing can be said
on scientific experiments on Roundup or any pesticide safety.

So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can
emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay
shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.

How to draw the conclusion and interpret the results is up to each
individual, each gardener and each farmer. Unfortunately, not
everyone is a scientist.

In article 9nR7b.24740$n94.17204@fed1read04,
Just another fan wrote:
Why bother Henry, Dr. Shill will continue without ever understanding. He
is best enjoyed in your kill file.....



Another sock puppet. Pathetic. You really are a stunning
coward, Tom.

billo

X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 33
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 16:55:25 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.30.180.83
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: twister.rdc-kc.rr.com 1063299325 65.30.180.83 (Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:55:25 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 11:55:25 CDT
Path: kermit!newsfeed-east.nntpserver.com!nntpserver.com!news-west.rr.com!news.rr.com!cyclone.kc.rr.com!cyclone2 .kc.rr.com!news2.kc.rr.com!twister.rdc-kc.rr.com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
Xref: kermit rec.gardens:249099

the inherent problem is ... scientists really cant run controlled experiments on
humans like they can on animals for this kind of toxicity. So toxicity studies for
humans are retrospective enrolling huge numbers of people and trying to determine
excess diseases without being able to hold anything as a control. What makes it
worse is there is no way of really determining who has and who hasnt had contact once
the toxin is released into the environment.
There was just a bit of junk science on TV last night. Some study found how even
mild exercise like walking reduced cancer rates. Its all complete and utter
nonsense. Anybody can find any association they want using statistics. Without a
mechanism of action all they got is a statistic blip. Ingrid

(Siberian Husky) wrote:
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:

Another recent refereed scientific article, (if you are unfamilar with
the structure of scientific abstracts, please look at both the introductory
sentence and the final conclusion sentences, also note the affiliation of
the authors, I have also provided the link to the journal web
page...."-------------------------------------------H. Kuska comment:
Nothing in this post states that this post was addressed to someone named
"BILLO".

Except, of course, that it it was in reply and in answer
to a post by "billo." Funny that. Now I should assume that
when you post replies, the replies don't address the posts
to which you are replying?

Nice try, Henry. Anything to avoid the question. Playing
this game does not change the fact that you cannot answer
it. I added the quotes you demanded.


Now answer the question.

Henry, you cannot have it both ways. You argue that this cohort should
be considered compliant because they are licensed.

["If a group of licensed and periodically recertified people does not meet
your criteria, then I cannot visual any meaningful real world group that
your criteria would apply to."]


You state that actually
attempting to determine compliance cannot be done in the "real world,"
in spite of the fact that it is done all the time.

[ "Your suggested additional checks are impractical
in the "real world"."]


When I ask how compliant you think people you should assume they
are you then change your tune and claim that you do *not* believe
they should be considered compliant.

["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)."? ]

Fine. If they should not be assumed to be compliant, then they do
not meet my criteria of "used as directed." If they should be
assumed to be compliant, then my question of *how* compliant you
think they should be assumed to be is appropriate.

Which is it, Henry? Do you assume they are compliant? If not,
then we agree that they cannot be assumed to be compliant, and
do not meet the criteria.

And your repeated assertion that one cannot test for compliance
in "the real world" is simply wrong.

By the way Henry, since you are opining as a "professional"
about what is practical in observational cohort studies of
selected populations, exactly how many have you published?
After all, will all that "real world" experience in epidemiology,
you clearly have a better handle on questionnaire design and
population studies than me. I have only published two of these
kinds of observational studies. What about you?


billo