5 ms·

The issue I have here is that research data can often be falsified or biased when there are billions of dollars on the line, and there are so many unknowns with

by jly 10y ago

The issue I have here is that research data can often be falsified or biased when there are billions of dollars on the line, and there are so many unknowns with some of these things that it's hard to make absolute safety conclusions. When you take something and spread it so pervasively that it has the chance to impact such a wide spectrum of life, the risks are extreme. Perhaps there is no level of scientific evidence acceptable for this kind of widespread usage, but we are probably far less conservative than we should be.

jack9 10y ago
If you go through all the available studies on Glyphosate (there aren't that many peer reviewed), you will find Monsanto consults or is directly involved in EVERY SINGLE ONE. This is because, while Monsanto does not have a monopoly on Glyphosate anymore, they meticulously collected the data when they did and use/manipulate it (supposedly) when providing it to data scientists. This is the primary way they have been able to steer the data. The one study being cited in this story wasn't particularly good and had no basis for the finding. The correlation was just noise. I posted on a similar thread 139 days ago @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12797175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12797175 "...every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing." This leads someone to believe that the data can be considered "known to be tainted" or "pure". I would suggest that you can't have a data source of this nature, because of the almost certain bias (now for certain after the internal memos).

by jly 10y ago

jack9 10y ago

If you go through all the available studies on Glyphosate (there aren't that many peer reviewed), you will find Monsanto consults or is directly involved in EVERY SINGLE ONE. This is because, while Monsanto does not have a monopoly on Glyphosate anymore, they meticulously collected the data when they did and use/manipulate it (supposedly) when providing it to data scientists. This is the primary way they have been able to steer the data. The one study being cited in this story wasn't particularly good and had no basis for the finding. The correlation was just noise. I posted on a similar thread 139 days ago @ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12797175 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12797175 "...every study I've seen uses and SOLELY RELIES on Monsanto supplied data and is usually run by a Monsanto agent (current employ, previous employ, or political friend of Monsanto), although there was one study from Germany that did not have a Monsanto agent and came up with "probably not carcinogenic". You do not get data on how Roundup affects a population, excepting through Monsanto's blessing." This leads someone to believe that the data can be considered "known to be tainted" or "pure". I would suggest that you can't have a data source of this nature, because of the almost certain bias (now for certain after the internal memos).