ABC2019 »20/02/20, 12:08
The question I ask you is when there is no immediate effect: for example for glyphosate I suppose that you have never seen anyone go round up and paf an hour after catching lymphoma !! So in these cases, what method do you suggest to know if glyphosate has an effect or not?
I shouldn't ask the question about glyphosate, nor about the navy or aviation, it's not my job. So it's up to independent specialists to give their opinion. [/ Quote]
Always the same thing one cannot compare aviation and marine, no more than high jump and swimming! but you refuse to admit it!
On the contrary, read what I write instead of convincing you to the contrary. We can no more compare these two branches of medicine to different criteria than marine / aviation or jumping / swimming.
I do not refuse to admit it a priori, I am just extremely surprised to read it, because I never saw written anywhere that the statistical methods depended on what one measured!
re fantasy, this is you who still wants to attribute to me what is only in your head.
Reread what I wrote
BEFORE.
as you know statistics and probability are an entire branch of mathematics,
ah bah, that then we would not suspect it! Science is beautiful!
and there is never any question that their validity depends on what you measure. It is as if you claimed that the methods of calculating volume depended on the material used! me when i calculate the volume of a room, i don't care what color the walls are.
And yet this is what I wrote. We cannot measure H by the yardstick of A. But we can compare the results later, from which we can establish undistorted statistics. But later,
once the damage has been observed in the victims.. What these future victims want is not to risk being there and therefore the first are enough to request that the precautionary principles be respected without waiting for there to be thousands of victims with whom statisticians can then do toy!
As you have not given me any indication that you are really well versed in scientific methods and statistics, I fear that the interpretation to be given to your assertions is rather that you are completely ignorant in these matters and that you express yourself on things you absolutely don't know.
Ah, the big pseudo psy string!
I don't have to give you anything!
As for ignorance, you are well placed on this subject since you obstinately refuse to seek information from organizations competent in H. So:
you express yourself on things that you absolutely don't know. And that you stubbornly refuse to know. So the lesson givers… two balls!
ABC2019 »20/02/20, 12:13
so basically you are saying that you have no idea which methods are valid for establishing the dangerousness of a product, but that you believe in those who say that it is dangerous,
or you who crunchy who say it is not, despite the victims! When Bayer / Monsanto compensates (sometimes by legal obligation) it is not to please the recognized victims, but to silence them and in this dizzying silence, it appears white as snow. The French omerta is not valid in all the countries where Monsanto has established itself. Re-view the world according to Monsanto '
So these are not hallway noises, but real victims. Real people made of flesh and blood, not on graph paper.
while others say it is not.
Who by chance are the manufacturers themselves and the ones they pay for it;
And you know who is right and who is wrong, but without having any idea which method is correct to establish it?
[/ quote] I believe like others (legally) that the precautionary principle outweighs the proven risks - that not all synthetic products are beneficial to the living. After you think what you want, we are in a democracy (for now) but we don't live with methods, but with vital realities. The rest is wind and you like to blow it since the beginning of your interventions.
and therefore back on the H!
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré
