Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 4
Glyphosate is very safe according to vast, extensive experimentation and testing over decades.

Is glyphosate an herbicide or pestide? Both it seems as literature is reviewed, ask the Monarch butterflies and bees. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, the Monsanto weed killer. A California jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to a man dying of cancer, which he says was caused by his repeated exposure to large quantities of Roundup and other glyphosate-based weed killers while working as a school groundskeeper. https://www.ewg.org/childrenshealth/glyphosateincereal/#.W3h...

Stock Analysis: The World is Full of Information
A primary assumption of stock fundamental analysis is that the price on the stock market does not fully reflect a stock's "real" value. How investors estimate value varies widely involving different assumptions. All scientific tests involve making assumptions. The following is not to change your view of research, only to encourage caution.

A Statistic is Not a Fact
Our own brains can fool us. Huge numbers of fallacies, biases, errors, illusions and blind spots rule the inner life of our brain every single day. Cognitive biases (systematic thinking errors) cause us to misinterpret information and make bad decisions, Fools know this. Unfortunately, we typically have no idea that it’s happening.

“Just because there’s a number doesn’t mean that the number was arrived at properly,” says Daniel Levitin, neuroscientist and educator at McGill University. Statistics are not facts. “They are interpretations made by people —and it is people who determine what to count and what to omit.”

Not all published scientific research is created equal
The world is full of information—however, not all of it is valid, useful, or accurate. Who conducted the research? Who paid for it? What was the design of the study? Has it been replicated? By whom? Statistically, keep in mind the difference between correlation and causation. Example, “linked” does not mean “caused”:
Weed-killing chemical linked to cancer found in some children's breakfast foods https://www.cbsnews.com/news/glyphosate-roundup-chemical-fou...

Evaluating Evidence
-- https://www.foodinsight.org/sites/default/files/IFIC%202013%...
-- https://enviroliteracy.org/teaching-resources/environmental-...
-- Who pays for science? http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays
-- How science goes wrong
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/10/21/how-science-goe...
-- Trouble at the lab: Why Most Published Science Studies Are Wrong
https://www.facebook.com/OUSciSoc/posts/595228453909711
--How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
-- Monsanto says its pesticides are safe. Now, a court wants to see the proof, 2018
Carey Gillam
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/05/monsan...
-- First Place Winner - 2018 SEJ Rachel Carson Environmental Book Award
Whitewash: The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer, and the Corruption of Science
http://careygillam.com/book

The NYT reported on research misconduct occurring when standards were not followed, almost two percent of scientists admitted to having “fabricated, falsified, or modified data or results.” When asked about their colleagues’ actions, the falsification figure jumped to 14 percent. An NYU Study Gone Wrong, and a Top Researcher Dismissed
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/health/nyu-cannabis-ptsd-p......

The respected statistics-based organization, STATS.org with research expertise, an affiliate of George Mason University, asks “how could we expect journalists to report statistics accurately when it was increasingly clear that scientists and researchers were themselves getting them wrong? . . .

Recognizing faulty arguments can help you to evaluate whether a chain of reasoning leads to a valid conclusion or not. Each of us needs to think critically about the numbers and words we encounter if we want to make the most of our lives. This means checking numbers, the reasoning, and the sources for plausibility to form an opinion. You can say it is not my job to evaluate statistics, au contraire newspapers, magazines, government and Wikipedia should do that. They should, they don’t. The world is full of misinformation, unfortunately it has proliferated with digital devices and social media.
A Field Guide to Lies: Critical Thinking in the Information Age by Daniel J. Levitin
https://www.amazon.com/Field-Guide-Lies-Critical-Information...

<“We’re asking the wrong questions about Glyphosate”
The big unanswered question is the potential health effect of low levels over extended periods of time. Independent scientists often don’t know all that much about Glyphosate. The data in humans is scant and is confusing.

It's not enough to talk about how safe glyphosate is. We need to consider what "safe" actually means—and who gets to define it.

Chris Portier, a cancer expert who was former director of the National Center for Environmental Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and now works with the Environmental Defense Fund, says he doesn’t think regulatory agencies have been careful enough when it comes to cancer. And he agrees with IARC’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic, based on the data he has seen.
https://newfoodeconomy.org/glyphosate-safety-debate/

I don’t accept any report from journalists about a scientific study. Most journalists are not qualified to analyze scientific research. My query as an investor/consumer has to do with the factual soundness of the research study that is quoted; I want to review the original research paper. Peer review is not meaningful today.
-- The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility. -- http://www.ethicalpsychology.com/2014/07/corruption-of-peer-......
If interested, guidelines to help you judge how confident you should be in reviewing scientific research reports. https://thelogicofscience.com/2015/08/03/10-steps-for-evalua...

Shaking up Research Scientists
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.

In 2005, John Ioannidis (Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences) published a paper, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False”. Hilda Bastian, academic editor at PLoS Medicine and editor at the National Center for Biotechnology Information of the National Institutes of Health says it's one of the best summaries of the dangers of looking at a study in isolation andn has been the most-accessed article in the history of Public Library of Science (exceeding 1.5 million hits as of 2012). Disagreement is alive and well. http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jou...

Many flaws are found in today’s scientific research reports (major problems include design, impossible replication, small samples, and statistics) and secondly to the misreporting by some journalists. Scientific research studies unfortunately - “a lot published is junk”.

Foolishly,
Ro
Print the post  

Announcements

What was Your Dumbest Investment?
Share it with us -- and learn from others' stories of flubs.
When Life Gives You Lemons
We all have had hardships and made poor decisions. The important thing is how we respond and grow. Read the story of a Fool who started from nothing, and looks to gain everything.
Contact Us
Contact Customer Service and other Fool departments here.
Work for Fools?
Winner of the Washingtonian great places to work, and Glassdoor #1 Company to Work For 2015! Have access to all of TMF's online and email products for FREE, and be paid for your contributions to TMF! Click the link and start your Fool career.