2 ms·

> and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control. > I mean you are

by josefx 3y ago

> and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control. > I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely. Which afaik (not a lawyer) there is even a legal principle that would have allowed the judge to go that far. Something about defendants getting caught red handed messing with evidence allowing the court to assume the worst. > you still need to use facts to do so, I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.

dathinab 3y ago
> A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control. you are mixing up writing and reviewing paper it's very obvious that this paper was not under any control of Monsanto > You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely I'm not a non peer reviewed paper is no evidence at all, that given example is the best proof because pretty much all evidence went away once errors where found in peer review and corrected. Furthermore it where errors which if you understand enough about the topic where kind pretty clear, i.e. in no way any Monsanto twisted any truth think. So pretty clearly the judge did a decision which isn't based on any facts. > I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results. but this doesn't make it okay to not wait for a peer review in any way, also there is a non small well known group of people which are very clearly not in favor of glyphosat and scientist and outside of the reach of Monsanto it's not that you can't cross review their reviews and feedbacks of the paper with other "more neutral" (but maybe Monsanto pressured) people either way a fundamental aspect of non scientific papers is _that anything in non peer reviewed papers must be seen as not yet proven and speculative_ ((not necessary in exactly that wording)) and a judge ignoring the some of the most fundamental aspects of scientific practice but then basing a ruling on scientific practice is just ridiculous

by josefx 3y ago

dathinab 3y ago

> A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control. you are mixing up writing and reviewing paper it's very obvious that this paper was not under any control of Monsanto > You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely I'm not a non peer reviewed paper is no evidence at all, that given example is the best proof because pretty much all evidence went away once errors where found in peer review and corrected. Furthermore it where errors which if you understand enough about the topic where kind pretty clear, i.e. in no way any Monsanto twisted any truth think. So pretty clearly the judge did a decision which isn't based on any facts. > I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results. but this doesn't make it okay to not wait for a peer review in any way, also there is a non small well known group of people which are very clearly not in favor of glyphosat and scientist and outside of the reach of Monsanto it's not that you can't cross review their reviews and feedbacks of the paper with other "more neutral" (but maybe Monsanto pressured) people either way a fundamental aspect of non scientific papers is _that anything in non peer reviewed papers must be seen as not yet proven and speculative_ ((not necessary in exactly that wording)) and a judge ignoring the some of the most fundamental aspects of scientific practice but then basing a ruling on scientific practice is just ridiculous