Re: Roundup Unready

[Bill Oliver]

Heh. That's a lot like an old Medical Examiner joke:

Q) What do Medical Examiners call motorcyclists? A) Organ donors.

billo

[Bill Oliver]

Here are two examples of how it should be done.

The first study was a large randomized study of the Atkin's Diet, which found that the Atkins Diet resulted in good weight loss for those who stayed on it, but had a very high level of attrition. In other words, if one stayed with the original group it didn't work -- because few people stayed on the diet. It is important to actually test whether people "on the diet" actually are doing what they are supposed to do:

Foster, et al. A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity NEJM 348:2082-2090, 2003.

(begin excerpt)

A total of 49 subjects completed 3 months of the study (28 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 21 on the conventional diet), 42 subjects completed 6 months (24 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 18 on the conventional diet), and 37 subjects completed 12 months (20 on the low-carbohydrate diet and 17 on the conventional diet). The percentage of subjects who had dropped out of the study at 3, 6, and 12 months was higher in the group following the conventional diet (30, 40, and 43 percent, respectively) than in the group following the low-carbohydrate diet (15, 27, and 39 percent, respectively), but these differences were not statistically significant. Overall, 59 percent of subjects completed the study, and 88 percent of those who completed the six-month assessment completed the full study. When the analysis included data on subjects who completed the study and data obtained at the time of the last follow-up visit for those who did not complete the study, the pattern of weight loss was similar to that obtained when the base-line values were carried forward in the case of missing data. Subjects on the low-carbohydrate diet lost significantly more weight than the subjects on the conventional diet at 3 months (P=0.002) and 6 months (P=0.03), but the difference in weight loss was not statistically significant at 12 months (P=0.27)

(end excerpt)

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.

In this study, compliance was measured for studying the efficacy of a birth control pill:

F. D. Anderson, H Hait. A multicenter, randomized study of an extended cycle oral contraceptive. Contraception Volume 68, Issue 2 , August

2003, Pages 89-96

(begin excerpt)

3.2. Compliance

There were two measurements of compliance, which were evaluated by assessing patient diary data as to whether or not a patient took her OC pill every day. Pill compliance within each extended or conventional cycle was determined by observing if the patient missed 2 consecutive days of pill-taking and, if so, the patient was considered to be noncompliant for that cycle. Overall, study compliance was determined by counting the percentage of total days in the 1-year study when the patient took the designated pill for a given day. Overall compliance of

[Henry Kuska]

Second hand smoke - this is another topic which would be more appropriate for another discussion group; but for those interested, here is the MedLine search for the keywords "second hand smoke" (to find all articles related to this subject, a number of different sets of keywords would have to be used in separate searches):

Henry Kuska, retired [e-mail]

[Bill Oliver]

A more profitable search would be to use the term "passive" rather than "second hand" and to use MEDLINE.

billo

[Siberian Husky]

I didn't, or actually I seldom. If others' messages cannot express their keypoint in the first 48 lines at least, I would not be able to grasp their points. For scientifc journal papers, this is why abstracts exist.

No, but again, people made mistakes in invented chemicals before. DDT, Thalidomide, ozone-depleting carbon fluorides, you name them. Compared to mistakes of growing some plant beside another and created a monster or a poisonous fruit, the latter is few and far between -- not what I can think of.

We are human beings, not computer programs. Therefore there are situations where people do not look for evidence before drawing conclusions, and therefore there are religions in the world.

Is it safe for non-humans? Of course, Roundup is toxic and should be toxic for the weeds it is supposed to suppress, but how about the other plants, pets, honey bees, and your children playing in the yard?

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.

Please be aware I am not refuting your criterion in judging the safety of Roundup or any other xxxx-cide. You do what you believe. You benefit from the ease of using Roundup to kill weeds, and you suffer (if there is such an effect) from Roundup if your criterion is later found wrong.

But by similar arguments, others can also use their own criteria.

If you choose to eat a Big Mac in every meal, I do not think you should sue McDonald afterwards for your obesity. If you smoke 6 packs of cigars every day, I do not think you should sue tobacco companies

15 years later. If you believe in Roundup, support it rigorously and refute others' opposite views, I do not think you should sue Monsanto later for Roundup -- if later there is a class-action lawsuit.

Did I pretend I did it on the basis of science?

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.

[gregpresley]

It seems to me that the article referred by Mr. Kuska noted an increased risk of birth defects when glycophospate was used in combination with other pesticides and there has been some debate about how common this is in the real world, (whatever the real world is). However, most pesticides are persistent in the environment and end up being stored in the fat of animals higher up on the food chain, including humans. Most, if not all, of us are still carrying residues of DDT used long ago in North America, (and still being used in South America) - as well as residues of pesticides currently approved. So none of us on the planet are "pesticide free" - although it would be hard to say whether the amounts present in our blood stream (released whenever fat is burned for energy) would be at a level sufficient to activate the increased risk from glycophospate found in this study of agricultural workers. I guess my point is that "safe when used as directed" is not quite as straightforward a statement as it might appear, because we are living in a complex world now of chemical interactions not conceived of even 100 years ago, when plants were either poisonous or not, or water was either potable or not........ One need only look at the literature on prescription drug interactions, as well as drug/food, drug/herb interactions, to realize that life is seldom as simple as those statements that appear on labels. On balance, I'd say that many of the chemicals and drugs discoverd in the past century have vastly improved our lives, but that's not the same as saying that they are risk-free - and some which were miracles in their time have created nightmares later, as in the supermicrobes now resisitant to practically everything in the medical arsenal. I think many here are reacting not so much to Round Up as being the baddest chemical on the block, but rather to the notion that it is wise to place all of one's faith in a miracle chemical - because the history of the past century has not borne out that trust.

[Major Ursa]

"gregpresley" wrote in news:bjmm03$kstfq$ [e-mail]:

Exactly right, and distrusting anyone who _is_ that faithfull.

Ursa..

[Lar]

In article , [e-mail] 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). :) 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.

[Bill Oliver]

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.

billo

[Henry Kuska]

Regarding the articles concerning second hand smoke that billo refered to: I have started a new thread (with links) on an environmental forum for those who are interested:

[Bill Oliver]

... and a documented urban legend. It is untrue both in the more common claim that scientists "proved" that bumblebees can't fly and in the second claim that aerodynamics engineers cannot explain how they fly.

See:

billo

[Bill Oliver]

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

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.

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

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

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.

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."

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

[Henry Kuska]

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 are: "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 [e-mail]

[Henry Kuska]

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:

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 [e-mail]

[Henry Kuska]

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 [e-mail]

[Henry 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 ( [e-mail]) Subject: Re: 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

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, [e-mail]://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

[paghat]

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

[Siberian Husky]

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.

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.

[Siberian Husky]

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.

[Bill Oliver]

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

billo