3 ms·
I find it interesting that companies are allowed to make statements like this: > “Despite decades of investigation and myriad epidemiological and laboratory st
by slimsag 3y ago
I find it interesting that companies are allowed to make statements like this:
> “Despite decades of investigation and myriad epidemiological and laboratory studies, no scientist or doctor — whether or not affiliated with Syngenta — has ever concluded in a peer-reviewed scientific analysis that paraquat causes Parkinson’s,” the company’s chief communications officer, Saswato Das, wrote in an email.
This has many qualifiers, it must be:
* 'Concluded', so an 'extremely strong link between' would not be sufficient for them
* 'causes Parkinson's' -> so if it 'triggers' Parkinson's, or is 'strongly linked to' the onset of Parkinson's, that wouldn't be sufficient
Effectively they're saying unless you can show me video evidence of this bullet killing not just one person, but multiple people and can prove that the bullet is what did it.. then we don't believe it.
That doesn't surprise me at all, money is money. But why are companies /allowed/ to make such deceptively worded statements like this? If it later turns out someone /can/ prove this, will they pay for such deceptive statements, let alone return the lives of those they have taken? Doubtful
- webnrrd2k 3y agoAlso, paraquat may actually be a safe chemical. However, there may be unsafe additives in the pesticide, as applied, that are causing serious problems.
- consumer451 3y agoYou raise an excellent point. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764160/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1764160/ It’s utter insanity: > EPA says too many pesticide formulas exist to check all for the safety of ingredients that could harm humans, plants and wildlife https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/epa-cfs-toxic-inactive-ingredients-pesticides https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/09/epa-cfs-...
- rightbyte 3y agoCorporate communication by this point is some sort of injoke. You are a loser if you don't "get it". It is bad since I think I notice how the phycopatic behaviour smears of to people.
- melagonster 3y agowait, do we talk about paraquat, the pesticide which can kill people with 15 ml on their skin?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- probably_wrong 3y ago> But why are companies /allowed/ to make such deceptively worded statements like this? I believe it's rooted in the same reasoning that allows anyone to defame anyone just by writing "allegedly" in front of the accusation: we know that words have meanings and we know how human cognition works, and yet we allow people to openly lie because courts don't want to argue about the difference between what you said, what you meant, and what a reasonable reader would infer. To me the real issue is: why are reporters playing this game? Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"?
- rlpb 3y ago> Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"? Because then they'd have to make a subjective judgement about what is substantive and what is not. If they go there, then it's the journalists that get accused of bias.
- vkou 3y ago> Why aren't they writing "when reached for comments, the company sent some generic statement that we won't bother printing"? Because they'll be roasted and accused of bias (For printing the verbatim complaints of one side, but not the rebuttal of the other.) A good reporter would, of course, state the firm's response, and also point out that it doesn't actually mean anything (Which is an objective assessment).
- refurb 3y agoYou're over thinking it. The statement is just specific. "Causes" versus "triggered" is not a distinction. "Concluded" would be the same as "an extremely strong link". A more accurate analysis would be - "no studies, conducted at a rigor to make a definitive claim, have found paraquat causes Parkinson's". The literature is full of "links" based on shaky analysis using retrospective data while attempting to adjusted for confounding factors. But no serious scientist would say that rises to the level of "proof that X causes Y".
- dappermanneke 3y agounfortunately plenty of scientists presenting themselves as quite serious are willing to say things like that based on even weaker evidence because companies that actually make stuff that keeps us alive, fed, warm, are piñatas full of money to be beaten out of in another David and goliath feelgood case
- bjornsing 3y agoYes, you would essentially have to do a randomized controlled trial on humans. So any study that fits that bill would most likely be illegal and/or unethical.