Two independent radiation experts who reviewed the study for the Guardian said they agreed with the conclusions.
Other political scientists who have reviewed the study said it involves some extrapolation and leaves important questions unanswered, like the exact manner in which clerks influence their bosses.
Epidemiologists and biostatisticians who reviewed the study for The New York Times said the researchers had based their estimates on conservative assumptions and used a sound methodology.
On Oct. 19, a panel of scientific experts reviewed the study and, in a series of votes, said phenylpropanolamine could no longer be "generally recognized as safe and effective," the agency's standard for over-the-counter products.
We reviewed the study designs used by these studies and the results obtained.
"Some of this might have to do with the interpersonal intensity of gazing directly at another person," Spiegel, who reviewed the study for HuffPost, went on to explain.
(Sommers made these comments on a conference call that HHS, which sponsored and reviewed the study, held on Monday -- although the paper itself does not represent the agency's official view).
Australia's Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts carefully reviewed the study, finding the lab work flawed, and recommending no change to its conclusion that atrazine is safe as used.
Given all of the data reviewed, the study reported here examined low-stake deception.
R.B.S. and J.A.V. reviewed the study protocol.
PES and MK reviewed the study.
