5 ms·

In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto... > This work was supported b

In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto... > This work was supported by Monsanto Company, the original producer and marketer of glyphosate formulations.

tptacek 4y ago
Am I understanding your argument here to be that Cochrane Reviews are untrustworthy?
- cinntaile 4y ago
  "We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding. This is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests." If your research is sponsored by Monsanto, the producer of RoundUp, I would argue that is considered conflicted funding. I went to https://www.cochranelibrary.com/search https://www.cochranelibrary.com/search (redirected from their cochrane.org site) to search for this review and it wasn't there when I searched for "glyphosate". This is starting to look a lot like they're purposefully trying to mislead people into thinking this is an official Cochrane review, I am surprised Cochrane allows this.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Never even heard of Cochrane Reviews until tonight, but am I understanding your argument here to be that there exist organizations that are somehow immune to bias and corruption and are perfect at editorial filtering?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
epgui 4y ago
Supported or not, I don’t think you understand the weight and quality of Cochrane reviews.
- calibas 4y ago
  It's not even a Cochrane review, the newly-created, anonymous account appears to have been lying.
- tptacek 4y ago
  ... can you find one covering Glyphosate? A sibling comment notes that what's linked upthread isn't one.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Do you wish to enlighten us?
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    well, from my googling around it seems Cochrane holds a high position in the health field when discussing research, sort of similar to the ACM or the IEEE, or maybe the CRA. But I think maybe more guarded of their reputation and the reputation of its publications.
    - dekhn 4y ago
      if you're just googling things to participate in an internet argument, what are you adding to the conversation? Cochrane is generally well-trusted. It's not perfect and it has been manipulated. They are better than nothing, though.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      I'm googling around as well, and they seem to be an umbrella for a large number of publications. I just can't believe that every iota of information under their purview is of perfect veracity, regardless of their level of rigor and process. No entity is that perfect.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        >No entity is that perfect. I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased. Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?
testbjjl 4y ago
> In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto... Anonymously

tptacek 4y ago

Am I understanding your argument here to be that Cochrane Reviews are untrustworthy?

cinntaile 4y ago
"We do not accept commercial or conflicted funding. This is vital for us to generate authoritative and reliable information, working freely, unconstrained by commercial and financial interests." If your research is sponsored by Monsanto, the producer of RoundUp, I would argue that is considered conflicted funding. I went to https://www.cochranelibrary.com/search https://www.cochranelibrary.com/search (redirected from their cochrane.org site) to search for this review and it wasn't there when I searched for "glyphosate". This is starting to look a lot like they're purposefully trying to mislead people into thinking this is an official Cochrane review, I am surprised Cochrane allows this.
colordrops 4y ago
Never even heard of Cochrane Reviews until tonight, but am I understanding your argument here to be that there exist organizations that are somehow immune to bias and corruption and are perfect at editorial filtering?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

epgui 4y ago

Supported or not, I don’t think you understand the weight and quality of Cochrane reviews.

calibas 4y ago
It's not even a Cochrane review, the newly-created, anonymous account appears to have been lying.
tptacek 4y ago
... can you find one covering Glyphosate? A sibling comment notes that what's linked upthread isn't one.
colordrops 4y ago
Do you wish to enlighten us?
- bryanrasmussen 4y ago
  well, from my googling around it seems Cochrane holds a high position in the health field when discussing research, sort of similar to the ACM or the IEEE, or maybe the CRA. But I think maybe more guarded of their reputation and the reputation of its publications.
  - dekhn 4y ago
    if you're just googling things to participate in an internet argument, what are you adding to the conversation? Cochrane is generally well-trusted. It's not perfect and it has been manipulated. They are better than nothing, though.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    I'm googling around as well, and they seem to be an umbrella for a large number of publications. I just can't believe that every iota of information under their purview is of perfect veracity, regardless of their level of rigor and process. No entity is that perfect.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      >No entity is that perfect. I think people are suggesting not perfection, but a higher standard and thus increased likelihood of it being correct and requiring a higher standard for proving it incorrect or biased. Do you have an organization that, if they publish something even if it runs counter to your own opinions, you assume that it is fair and likely to be correct?

testbjjl 4y ago

> In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto... Anonymously