39 studies tested environmentally relevant concentrations of atrazine (11 industry sponsored, 24 non-industry sponsored, 4 with no funding disclosures). Non-industry sponsored studies (12/24, 50.0%) were more likely to conclude that atrazine was harmful compared to industry sponsored studies (2/11, 18.1%) (p value=0.07).
So even in the confirmed non-industry funded studies, only 50% found atrazine was harmful.
So if “only” 50% of doctors report that their patients are falling like flies because of a drug…
Well, how essential is the drug? People need to eat, and killing weeds is part of making that happen. If we stop using one of our most effective and safe herbicides, there will be an impact to humans with increasing food prices, even more toxic herbicides, tilled farming (which releases CO2), or all three.
Do you want to tell poor/food insecure people they need to be even poorer and more food insecure because maybe some frogs have reproductive issues? This isn’t a black and white issue, it’s complicated with drawbacks on both sides. We need to make decisions based on solid evidence.
We are talking about peer-reviewed papers from multiple countries, and an additional layer of scrutiny from this meta-analysis (the entire point of which was to identify bias in industry funded studies). It was funded directly by the government, and all authors were researchers employed by various universities. The likelihood a significant number of them have had faked funding that no one noticed is very low.
But no, your conspiracy theory with no evidence at all trumps any logic.
some yes, not all.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26694022/
So even in the confirmed non-industry funded studies, only 50% found atrazine was harmful.
So if “only” 50% of doctors report that their patients are falling like flies because of a drug…
We need nature. It’s not something you want to gamble with.
Well, how essential is the drug? People need to eat, and killing weeds is part of making that happen. If we stop using one of our most effective and safe herbicides, there will be an impact to humans with increasing food prices, even more toxic herbicides, tilled farming (which releases CO2), or all three.
Do you want to tell poor/food insecure people they need to be even poorer and more food insecure because maybe some frogs have reproductive issues? This isn’t a black and white issue, it’s complicated with drawbacks on both sides. We need to make decisions based on solid evidence.
Removed by mod
jesus. chill the fuck out.
We are talking about peer-reviewed papers from multiple countries, and an additional layer of scrutiny from this meta-analysis (the entire point of which was to identify bias in industry funded studies). It was funded directly by the government, and all authors were researchers employed by various universities. The likelihood a significant number of them have had faked funding that no one noticed is very low.
But no, your conspiracy theory with no evidence at all trumps any logic.
Chill the fuck out about the systematic poisoning of life on earth for a few multinationals to make a buck? I decline.