[Mikeod]

The referenced article displays some of my pet peeves with reporting in general.

1. The article states that the researcher "suspects" there may be a connection between glyphosate use and autism. But the article goes on to use terms like "obviously", implying that the link is proven, when it is not proven at this time.

2. A graph is presented showing use of glyphosate on one axis and autism incidence on another over time. The curves are remarkably similar. However, if I change the units on either axis, the resulting graph could show that glyphosate use is increasing at a much faster rate than autism incidence. Or I could change the units to make the graph show that autism is rising much faster than glyphosate use. Or I could change one of the elements and show that autism is rising at the same rate as cell phone usage among seniors as long as I set my parameters properly to do so.

This not to disparage the researcher nor her work or findings. Her findings are worthy of note and demand further investigation to determine if there is a definite causal connection. My training demands I look at the results of one researcher's findings with a jaundiced eye and look for corroborating findings from someone else and/or look at the source of funding for the research to establish whether there is any built-in bias.