6 ms·

Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!

by Jolliness7501 4y ago

smolder 4y ago
Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.
- Jolliness7501 4y ago
  Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
  - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
    As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s
    - kuhewa 4y ago
      Since we all know a jury is the best way to arbitrate scientific fact
      - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        Guessing you didn't watch to where he said "We tried to get scientists on the jury. That's how we won".
        kuhewa 4y ago
        No, I watched it, I'm a little surprised that one imprecise statement is compelling to you regarding a matter of scientific facts. I mean rather than taking it second hand from a lawyer that an unknown portion or a jury were 'scientists', you could actually take it from scientists and advisory and investigatory bodies comprised of scientists the cite specific sources.
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I suppose it's my Bayesian priors coming to light - I'm so distrustful of one side of this debate in general that simply having 'science' in a website title gives me a reaction similar to a lot of people who see 'truth' or 'infowards' in a headline. I'd probably be much more receptive to the same studies if you were linking to google scholar or scihub.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        You had just been linked scientific sources in the parent of the comment I replied to right? And your counterpoint was that a lawyer said 'scientists' were on the jury.
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I disagree. If science means anything it means the same to a trained professional as a literate layperson. The idea that twelve ordinarily competent people sequestered and doing nothing but studying the science for months would be more likely to come to the wrong conclusion than people whose careers depend on a specific outcome is not science. If science is an impenetrable language available only to a designated elite, then it's just religion with weirder cosmology.
  - myshpa 4y ago
    Just skimmed your sources. > https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... "Glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides used. It inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase which interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the accumulation of shikimic acid in plant tissues and ultimately plant death. The enzyme and pathway do not exist in animals, which is why toxicity is so low." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway "The shikimate pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is a seven-step metabolic pathway used by bacteria, archaea, fungi, algae, some protozoans, and plants for the biosynthesis of folates and aromatic amino acids ..." Even if there is no biaccumulation of glyphosphate in animals (maybe), can we be sure that there are no negative effects on digestive systems of humans (and wild animals)? What about water and soil biomes? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_propaganda Is is really wise to base food production on (overuse of) poisons? Especially when reasonable alternatives exists? The idea that current industrial agriculture practices are the only viable method of farming is just another form of propaganda.
- elhudy 4y ago
  AFAIK there hasn't really been a clear link between roundup and certain rare blood cancers. Just a correlation between them in certain geographical areas. Some studies have found the correlation and others haven't. I believe even the doctors who treat these diseases know this to be true. Though, it would be really easy to write a book citing only the evidence in support of the link. At this point I'm not sure what to believe, but I have no need for roundup so I avoid its use.

Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!

smolder 4y ago

Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.

Jolliness7501 4y ago
Sure: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roundup-lawsuit/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...
- SuoDuanDao 4y ago
  As a counterpoint, here's a relevant part of an interview with the lawyer who won 2 billion dollars in damages from Monsanto addressing skeptics of the trial: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gw5H36B1tJE&t=2842s
  - kuhewa 4y ago
    Since we all know a jury is the best way to arbitrate scientific fact
    - SuoDuanDao 4y ago
      Guessing you didn't watch to where he said "We tried to get scientists on the jury. That's how we won".
      - kuhewa 4y ago
        No, I watched it, I'm a little surprised that one imprecise statement is compelling to you regarding a matter of scientific facts. I mean rather than taking it second hand from a lawyer that an unknown portion or a jury were 'scientists', you could actually take it from scientists and advisory and investigatory bodies comprised of scientists the cite specific sources.
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I suppose it's my Bayesian priors coming to light - I'm so distrustful of one side of this debate in general that simply having 'science' in a website title gives me a reaction similar to a lot of people who see 'truth' or 'infowards' in a headline. I'd probably be much more receptive to the same studies if you were linking to google scholar or scihub.
        kuhewa 4y ago
        You had just been linked scientific sources in the parent of the comment I replied to right? And your counterpoint was that a lawyer said 'scientists' were on the jury.
        SuoDuanDao 4y ago
        I disagree. If science means anything it means the same to a trained professional as a literate layperson. The idea that twelve ordinarily competent people sequestered and doing nothing but studying the science for months would be more likely to come to the wrong conclusion than people whose careers depend on a specific outcome is not science. If science is an impenetrable language available only to a designated elite, then it's just religion with weirder cosmology.
- myshpa 4y ago
  Just skimmed your sources. > https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman... "Glyphosate is one of the least toxic herbicides used. It inhibits the enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimic acid-3-phosphate synthase which interferes with the shikimic pathway in plants, resulting in the accumulation of shikimic acid in plant tissues and ultimately plant death. The enzyme and pathway do not exist in animals, which is why toxicity is so low." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shikimate_pathway "The shikimate pathway (shikimic acid pathway) is a seven-step metabolic pathway used by bacteria, archaea, fungi, algae, some protozoans, and plants for the biosynthesis of folates and aromatic amino acids ..." Even if there is no biaccumulation of glyphosphate in animals (maybe), can we be sure that there are no negative effects on digestive systems of humans (and wild animals)? What about water and soil biomes? > https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_propaganda https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_propaganda Is is really wise to base food production on (overuse of) poisons? Especially when reasonable alternatives exists? The idea that current industrial agriculture practices are the only viable method of farming is just another form of propaganda.
elhudy 4y ago
AFAIK there hasn't really been a clear link between roundup and certain rare blood cancers. Just a correlation between them in certain geographical areas. Some studies have found the correlation and others haven't. I believe even the doctors who treat these diseases know this to be true. Though, it would be really easy to write a book citing only the evidence in support of the link. At this point I'm not sure what to believe, but I have no need for roundup so I avoid its use.