And this, which has been updated to include this study -
"Range of bacterial communities exhibited on Day 0 of the study shows great differences between the groups already. This may just reflect the fact that there is a very large natural variation in gut microbiomes in general – evident from many studies on many different species previously. This also could explain why the data, post-treatment, is noisy and inconsistent:
The study strangely finds changes in bacterial levels at the lower concentration of glyphosate only, and not the higher. This invites question about whether these findings are robust, or a result of noisy data."
Toxic to plants and not very harmful to animals, you say?
Someone should tell the guy who just got awarded millions having apparently got cancer from over-exposure - and the judge or jury that agreed with his lawyers rather than the glyphosate defenders. I appreciate a legal case is not scientific proof, but still …
Right, just like I said: we’re trying to make value judgments based on the body of evidence available. How do we do that? How can a non-expert make a decision based on scientific evidence when that evidence is usually only known in detail by a handful of experts? When that evidence is often conflicting and involves esoteric terminology and concepts?
Laypeople rely on experts to interpret and analyze the really low-level technical studies and then make a decision based on those interpretations and analyses. The only alternative in most cases is for the layperson to become an expert themselves, learning all the nuances and technicalities of the evidence…at which point they become another source of interpretation and analysis for non-experts.
How do you determine whether or not a particular source is correct? Think carefully about this one.
Sigh. There’s always the people that call people that contradict these things “Monsanto shills” and feel they’ve done their duty for the day.
I want to find out what is happening to the bees. This piece of scientific research had a lot of flaws in it. Small sample sizes. No explanation for why bees exposed to higher doses fared better.
Yet apparently, people that hate Monsanto think this is a smoking gun.
It’s not. It’s proof we need to do more research. If we just dusted our hands based and banned glyposphate just because of faulty science, we’re failing the bees. We are not determining the exact cause. We need to find the cause, when you blind yourself to everything else and blame only monsanto your research will suck.
May as well blame unicorns for snacking on bees.
And no. A guy winning in court is not science. It is this stupidity that has given fuel to the vaccines cause autism debate. It is stupid. It is non-scientific. It has no basis in discussion about science (unless it’s social science. Then it could be interesting)
