6 ms·

> This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true. I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% w

> This is so ridiculous, the science points to the fact that the claim that it causes cancer is not true. I just Kagi'd it and UW says non-hodgkins up by 40% with roundup exposure. I guess the question would be "whose science".

darth_avocado 3y ago
I don’t understand why this comment is downvoted. The studies do show a link between non Hodgkin’s lymphoma and roundup. And if you want to dispute the studies, fine. But Monsanto settled for $10B on the round up lawsuits. That should tell you something.
- 0ckpuppet 3y ago
  you don't suspect monsanto would pay to have negative comments downvoted in every corner of the internet?
  - zadokshi 3y ago
    We already know for a fact that the pharmaceutical companies have teams to manipulate social media through bot accounts. I don’t know why Beyer/Monsanto would be any different.
    - jrmg 3y ago
      How do we know this?
      - jacquesm 3y ago
        Receipts, mostly.
- refurb 3y ago
  Companies settle all the time without being guilty. If it’s cheaper to just settle than fight it out, you settle.
abledon 3y ago
exactly, in the court rooms you have scientists on each side of the case. They've all graduated from the same Ivy Leagues, just are getting paid by different teams.
throwawaaarrgh 3y ago
"up by 40%" only on a study of people living on or near farms where glyphosate is sprayed. Actual probability you will get NHL from roundup if the figures are accurate (again, limited study results, no causation found), in the worst case, goes from 2% chance to 2.8% chance. Amazingly, none of this considers the additives to roundup that aren't glyphosate, which everyone agrees are much more likely to hurt you. The case seems to hinge on the least harmful part of Roundup. This whole case is a great example of a lack of scientific literacy and a whole lot of fear, combined with a dislike for large corporations, resulting in a whole lot of disinformation. Roundup might be bad for you, but we still don't actually know, because we have no causative proof.
- mistercheph 3y ago
  I agree, we really don't know what the effects are, or even how to establish a set of criteria that we would look for in an empirical investigation that determined what its effects on human health are. That's why I say we should just keep spraying the fucking shit on all of our food, and wait for the science to come out before clutching at our pearls here folks!
shadowgovt 3y ago
My understanding is what complicates the science hears that we don't actually have a causal story, all of the evidence is correlative. And broad correlative analysis of the link between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and glyphosate is difficult to tease out because the leading cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is HIV. The HIV numbers muddy up the wideband statistics a lot (for many reasons, including patients not being willing to disclose they have an STD), so depending on how the question was asked different research projects get different answers.

darth_avocado 3y ago

I don’t understand why this comment is downvoted. The studies do show a link between non Hodgkin’s lymphoma and roundup. And if you want to dispute the studies, fine. But Monsanto settled for $10B on the round up lawsuits. That should tell you something.

0ckpuppet 3y ago
you don't suspect monsanto would pay to have negative comments downvoted in every corner of the internet?
- zadokshi 3y ago
  We already know for a fact that the pharmaceutical companies have teams to manipulate social media through bot accounts. I don’t know why Beyer/Monsanto would be any different.
  - jrmg 3y ago
    How do we know this?
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      Receipts, mostly.
refurb 3y ago
Companies settle all the time without being guilty. If it’s cheaper to just settle than fight it out, you settle.

abledon 3y ago

exactly, in the court rooms you have scientists on each side of the case. They've all graduated from the same Ivy Leagues, just are getting paid by different teams.

throwawaaarrgh 3y ago

"up by 40%" only on a study of people living on or near farms where glyphosate is sprayed. Actual probability you will get NHL from roundup if the figures are accurate (again, limited study results, no causation found), in the worst case, goes from 2% chance to 2.8% chance. Amazingly, none of this considers the additives to roundup that aren't glyphosate, which everyone agrees are much more likely to hurt you. The case seems to hinge on the least harmful part of Roundup. This whole case is a great example of a lack of scientific literacy and a whole lot of fear, combined with a dislike for large corporations, resulting in a whole lot of disinformation. Roundup might be bad for you, but we still don't actually know, because we have no causative proof.

mistercheph 3y ago
I agree, we really don't know what the effects are, or even how to establish a set of criteria that we would look for in an empirical investigation that determined what its effects on human health are. That's why I say we should just keep spraying the fucking shit on all of our food, and wait for the science to come out before clutching at our pearls here folks!

shadowgovt 3y ago

My understanding is what complicates the science hears that we don't actually have a causal story, all of the evidence is correlative. And broad correlative analysis of the link between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and glyphosate is difficult to tease out because the leading cause of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is HIV. The HIV numbers muddy up the wideband statistics a lot (for many reasons, including patients not being willing to disclose they have an STD), so depending on how the question was asked different research projects get different answers.