Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

baumhedlundlaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 131 posts

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#31

Post by meric »

tptacek wrote: post #28
laser wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the danger of glyphosate is one step removed from direct action on "human" cells, so bringing up metabolic pathways is a straw-man argument. The suspected danger is from disruption to the symbiosis of the entire human system, including the ~10x bacterial cells for every human cell that can be killed by glyphosate. https://www.nature.com/articles/npjbiofilms20163 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p…

If this effect is real, can you link to animal studies conclusively demonstrating it? Because obviously we've been feeding a lot of rats a lot of glyphosate.

Well there's https://www.cornucopia.org/2017/01/glyphosate-harmful-rats-l... but I suppose fatty liver disease is not as serious as cancer...Wash your vegetables before eating.

EDIT: I think it's prudent to wash vegetables to clean off any herbicides and other chemicals even if they are "known" to be harmless.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#32

Post by lumberjack »

tptacek wrote: post #23

I don't know what Monsanto did or didn't do and don't have any particular rooting interest for Monsanto, but I think it's worth noting that the published science for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate (the "weed killer" we're talking about here) is extremely flimsy. Most publicity about "cancer" and "Monsanto" is traceable back to an IARC report that the World Health Organization (IARC's parent) essentially retracted.…

What the fuck do you know?

You, honestly come here on every such thread and act like one of those ghostwriters mentioned in the documents.

You have no authority to make any claims on the authenticity of the link between glyphosate and cancer. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

And it's weird that you posted and the minute you posted, your comment made it to the top and remained there. How's that work?

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#33

Post by bri3d »

tptacek wrote: post #23

I don't know what Monsanto did or didn't do and don't have any particular rooting interest for Monsanto, but I think it's worth noting that the published science for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate (the "weed killer" we're talking about here) is extremely flimsy. Most publicity about "cancer" and "Monsanto" is traceable back to an IARC report that the World Health Organization (IARC's parent) essentially retracted.…

While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mutagenic.

Many of the later documents in this dump center around formulated Round-Up's unexplained toxicity when compared to the survey of glyphosate studies in the literature, and a variety of understudied surfactants in the formulation.

Ex (ignoring sensationalized document titles):

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/37-Monsanto...

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/38-Email-Sh...

http://baumhedlundlaw.com/pdf/monsanto-documents/42-Internal...

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#34

Post by tptacek »

meric wrote: post #31
tptacek wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this effect is real, can you link to animal studies conclusively demonstrating it? Because obviously we've been feeding a lot of rats a lot of glyphosate.

Well there's https://www.cornucopia.org/2017/01/glyphosate-harmful-rats-l... but I suppose fatty liver disease is not as serious as cancer...Wash your vegetables before eating. EDIT: I think it's prudent to wash vegetables to clean off any herbicides and other chemicals even if they are "known" to be harmless.

Note how the press release on this study, from Kings College London, done in 2017, calls it "the first to show a causative link between consumption of Roundup at a real-world environmental dose and a serious disease condition."

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#35

Post by cageface »

tptacek wrote: post #23

I don't know what Monsanto did or didn't do and don't have any particular rooting interest for Monsanto, but I think it's worth noting that the published science for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate (the "weed killer" we're talking about here) is extremely flimsy. Most publicity about "cancer" and "Monsanto" is traceable back to an IARC report that the World Health Organization (IARC's parent) essentially retracted.…

The problem isn't pure glphosate, it's the complete mixture that is actually sprayed on crops that seems to be toxic to humans:

https://nutritionfacts.org/2016/07/07/monsantos-roundup-pest...

It took until 2014, but eight out of nine pesticide formulations tested were up to one thousand times more toxic than their so-called active ingredients. So, when we just test the isolated chemicals, we may not get the whole story. Roundup was found to be 100 times more toxic than glyphosate itself. Moreover, Roundup turned out to be among the most toxic pesticides they tested.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#36

Post by meric »

throwaway5752 wrote: post #14
eadz wrote: post #6

It is a real shame not to be able to trust "science" anymore. We'll have to come up with a new word for what we used to call science because I don't think corporations and media set on manipulating public opinion and laws will give it back.

Science is a process and is close to an infallible thing as we have created as humans. There is no problem with science. What is happening here is "lying". The people creating false and misleading scientific results are liars and it becomes a question of taking skeptical views towards sources and knowing who to trust.

Christianity is belief in Christ and is close to an infallible thing as we have as humans. There is no problem with Christianity.

What is happening here is "corruption". The people using Christianity to further their own egos and desires are liars and it becomes a question of taking skeptical views towards authoritative figures and knowing who to trust.

Be careful about making Science™ a religion.

Nothing in this world is infallible.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#37

Post by tptacek »

bri3d wrote: post #33
tptacek wrote: post #23

I don't know what Monsanto did or didn't do and don't have any particular rooting interest for Monsanto, but I think it's worth noting that the published science for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate (the "weed killer" we're talking about here) is extremely flimsy. Most publicity about "cancer" and "Monsanto" is traceable back to an IARC report that the World Health Organization (IARC's parent) essentially retracted.…

While glyphosate is only questionable, Round Up itself, which includes a variety of surfactants, seems to have a more pronounced effect - both cytotoxic and mutagenic. Many of the later documents in this dump center around formulated Round-Up's unexplained toxicity when compared to the survey of glyphosate studies in the literature, and a variety of understudied surfactants in the formulation. Ex (ignoring sensationa…

Sure! And this is a really good point. But then, how many of those surfactants (and other additives) are unique to Monsanto, versus things that are present in lots of other herbicides?

Again: fuck Monsanto, I guess? My interest here is mostly in the notion that glyphosate is toxic, since that, along with "glyphosate is genetic engineering" and "Monsanto sues farmers for growing seeds that blow onto their fields" falls into the bucket of "things the Internet very strongly believes about Monsanto, despite being based on very incomplete information".

Thanks for that clarification.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#38

Post by Laforet »

vbuwivbiu wrote: post #22
themgt wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's been really frustrating trying to have any nuanced stance on GMOs with proponents doing the "durr all modern crops are genetically modified by human selection" and such. Like no shit, it is still possible to acknowledge that and believe that there are legitimate concerns about intellectual property, or with modifying a crop to be resistant to a carcinogenic poison farmers are going to dump all over it. A lot of…

Exactly this. Every thread on GM quickly polarizes into useless for and against sides, when we need to be selective about it. And I've never bought the characterization of breeding/selection as a form of GM. Breeding is selection of a pathetically tiny set of modifications, but GM is on a whole other level. With GM we can write arbitrary binary strings of code into any organism. That's simply not comparable with bree…

Modern breeding involves actively mutating known species with DNA-altering chemical mutagen and ionising radiation. Think fuzzing vs. static code analysis, which one would you do first when it comes to debugging?

>Breeding is selection of a pathetically tiny set of modifications, but GM is on a whole other level.

The truth is probably closer to the opposite of this: most GM species in the pipeline are rather unimaginative ones improving one phenotype at a time, and the vast majority of them focus on pest or herbicide resistance. There is a couple of near commercial crops aimed at improving nutritional content such as golden rice and high-lysine corn, but they are more exceptions than the rule.

The kind of totally disruptive GM e.g. introduce C3 photosynthesis in C4 plants, has not left the drawing board yet for a good reason.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#39

Post by Laforet »

nerpderp83 wrote: post #18
wu-ikkyu wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>lot of the popular "anti-monsanto", "anti-gmo" groups (e.g. David Avocado Wolfe) are pretty nutjob It's worth noting that having such groups is a commonly used counter intelligence tactic: create a loud and incoherent pseudo-strawman opposition to distract from those who are actually asking legitimate questions. An effective astroturf campaign calls for both pro-x and anti-x shills.

If anyone was in a place to make a Strawman, it would be Monsanto.

Sometime it feels like Monsanto is the strawman for the entire biotech industry.

Re: Monsanto leaks suggest it tried to ‘kill’ cancer research about weed killer

#40

Post by bpodgursky »

ada1981 wrote: post #9

Who actually likes Monstanto? I imagine a vast majority of the American people would support an outright shutdown of their business.

Luckily we still have the rule of law, so the majority can't simply shut down a company they dislike based on an internet misinformation campaign.
Post reply on HN