6 ms·
If Monsanto caused it with such certainty for you, given the widespread use of Roundup, you'd expect vastly more cases. However decades of testing have shown n
by ChrisLomont 5y ago
If Monsanto caused it with such certainty for you, given the widespread use of Roundup, you'd expect vastly more cases.
However decades of testing have shown no such effects.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoShowing no conclusive causation doesn’t negate clusters of correlation. It just begs studies to clear up the correlating relationship.
- ChrisLomont 5y ago"Clusters of correlation" is another way of saying random clusters occur from mere statistics with no input from Monsanto, but you want to blame them anyway? If cosmic rays cause some rate of cancer, then clusters will occur, and you can then blame anything for "clusters of correlation." Or we can simply look at the hundreds of studies showing that Monsanto is not causing this, studies done fully aware of proper statistical methods, and realize what the science community has known for decades.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoYou interjected “random” and that seems odd. Correlation doesn’t mean causation but that also doesn’t mean correlation is random noise. It just means there’s an unknown relationship between facts.
- XorNot 5y agoThe point is that a random data set will spontaneously produce clustered groups of apparent events that are not due to any underlying cause.
- eyelidlessness 5y agoAnd a non-random data set will produce clusters of correlations which don’t have causal explanations. I’m well aware of this axiom which is why I found it important to address.
- ChrisLomont 5y agoAnd if there were such clusters beyond pure random noise, they'd show up in studies. They don't, hence they're random noise. How many heads in a row would you expect from an unbiased coin if you flip it long enough? That is your "clusters of correlation."
- ChrisLomont 5y agoCorrelation most certainly does not imply an unknown relation between facts. In fact, there are more completely unrelated correlations than there are correlations caused by related things. This is simple statistics. Proof? Consider M things related that show a correlation. Suppose some other thing randomly by chance correlates, and that thing has N items correlated by some other set of related facts. Then all the not causally related cross correlations between the M and N items vastly outnumber the causally ones. So no, correlation absolutely does not imply an unknown relation. It points to a place to look.
- toiletfuneral 5y ago
- tokai 5y agoAll the won lawsuits kind of support the link between cancer and Roundup. Also stuff like this makes believe that there are many cases out there: "the lawyer for the RoundUp Virginia plaintiffs had been charged with extortion after offering to stop searching for more plaintiffs if he was paid a $200 million consulting fee by a manufacturer of glyphosate." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Legal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_(herbicide)#Legal
- akyu 5y agoI have a bridge to sell you.
- wfme 5y agoIt seems to me that the companies producing these chemicals have a very strong vested interest in _proving_ that there is no connection between the chemicals they produce and any kind of serious health effects. On the other hand, there are many published studies that strongly support negative health effects: > The team determined that exposure to glyphosate may increase the risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma by as much as 41 percent [0] [0] https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190214093359.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/02/190214093359.h...
- SapporoChris 5y agoIncreased risk by as much as 41 percent... Okay, most risk of developing cancer is pretty low. https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probability-of-developing-or-dying-from-cancer.html https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-basics/lifetime-probabi... So, I found Hodgkin lymphoma at 2.43%. Increased by 41%, 2.43% * 1.41 = 3.43%. Now any increase in cancer risk is alarming, but this is a small increase. More important question would be. How many people are getting increased exposure to glyphosate? If it's only 1000 people annually, then it looks like ten more people gets cancer. If it's a global exposure, then yes, we have a big problem. Edited to correct math mistakes, thanks tomsmeding
- tomsmeding 5y agoIt's 41% increase, not 4% increase.
- throwawaycities 5y ago> If Monsanto caused it with such certainty for you, given the widespread use of Roundup, you'd expect vastly more cases. Monsanto has settled 40,000+ cases, that’s significant and a lot of cases. I’m not sure your threshold of vastly more cases but when you consider Roundup only came to market in 1976 it’s even more staggering, whereas some of the major tobacco companies had been around 100+ years before losing similar lawsuits. Also it’s not very clear what your threshold of “certainty” is, but my guess is you are trying to apply a higher standard of proof than the courts and law require. > However decades of testing have shown no such effects. That’s just not true, the most complete study published concludes that using glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41 percent.
- ChrisLomont 5y agoThere's 181 studies citing that one on Google scholar. I think the science has moved past the paper you claim as the most complete study. You should look through them instead of latching onto a single paper when there's ample rebuttals in the literature. You can find climatologists that deny global warming. Thus it's not credible to pick one of thousands of results as the truth. Pick the majority of expert opinions, not the outliers.
- throwawaycities 5y ago> You can find climatologists that deny global warming. It sounds like your argument is that if people can deny climate change, you can deny roundup causes harm…apparently without the need to cite anything. How many of those 181 studies citing the first concluded something completely inconsistent with the first study? If you think there is a more complete study disproving the 41% increased cancer risk, why not cite or link the study? > Pick the majority of expert opinions, not the outliers. In the case of Roundup/Glyphosate we can skip our own interpretations of hundreds of studies, do you know why? Because the company that manufactures the product in question settled ~96,000 claims for ~$10B. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that after taking into consideration the opinions of their own expert witnesses that they hired and who reviewed all available studies, and could have relied on only the most favorable studies at trial, their opinion was Roundup/Glyphosate causes harm and they should settle.