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

61–70 of 131 posts

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

#61

Post by plaguuuuuu »

tptacek wrote: post #57
RodericDay wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why it's so hard for some "internet skeptics" to understand Monsanto is an awful corporation. Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.

That's easy: the track record of claims against Monsanto is not great. When people proclaim very strong opinions about Monsanto, it's been a pretty reliable signal to me that they're basing their opinions off questionable sourcing.

It makes me wonder whether a lot of the more ridiculous arguments against Monsanto are actually just memes spread by Monsanto itself in order to discredit detractors.

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

#62

Post by Retric »

tptacek wrote: post #57
RodericDay wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't really understand why it's so hard for some "internet skeptics" to understand Monsanto is an awful corporation. Every single time there's someone "reluctantly" doing overtime in their defense.

That's easy: the track record of claims against Monsanto is not great. When people proclaim very strong opinions about Monsanto, it's been a pretty reliable signal to me that they're basing their opinions off questionable sourcing.

Monsanto Manufactured both PCBs and DDT well after the point they where known to be harmful. So, they had a negative reputation well before getting into biotechnology. Though with constant spinoffs and acquisitions it's arguable how consistent their corporate culture really is.

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

#63

Post by tptacek »

Retric wrote: post #62
tptacek wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's easy: the track record of claims against Monsanto is not great. When people proclaim very strong opinions about Monsanto, it's been a pretty reliable signal to me that they're basing their opinions off questionable sourcing.

Monsanto Manufactured both PCBs and DDT well after the point they where known to be harmful. So, they had a negative reputation well before getting into biotechnology. Though with constant spinoffs and acquisitions it's arguable how consistent their corporate culture really is.

Totally fair point! I'm only familiar with the Internet era of Monsanto complaints.

I'm sure Monsanto is not a great company.

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

#64

Post by julianj »

meric wrote: post #36
throwaway5752 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

I believe Christ is infallible.

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

#65

Post by KekDemaga »

burntrelish1273 wrote: post #46
bri3d wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a video where a Monsanto lobbyist spouts circular talking-points about how glyphosate was safe to drink, offered either Round Up or glyphosate and refused to drink it. https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=25s It's irrelevant if glyphosate alone is cancerous or not, because 99.9999% of deployment is via sprays like Round Up. The combined product , in both animal and human models, need thorough mutagenic research. It…

I think you'll find if someone who thinks you are evil offers you a glass of liquid of unknown providence you to would decline it as well.

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

#66

Post by nixonpjoshua1 »

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…

I agree that the polarization is useless. However what you said about selective breeding vs GM is just wrong. Selective breeding introduces numerous mutations, including ones often not even related to the desired traits. In contrast human directed genetic modification often changes a single gene, the state of the art in research universities for specific modifications is only in the tens of genes. You can only say they are not comparable in the sense that selective breeding introduces far more changes than GM and also in the sense that with GM we know what changed where in selective breeding we do not necessarily know how the change was produced or what the extent of it was.

Also I understand that this is a computer centered site but thinking of DNA as binary is a often used but terrible analogy. Living organisms were designed through complete randomness, try refactoring that. If you wanted to turn teosinte into corn without any random mutations and selection I think that would be far beyond our abilities for 100 years at least.

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

#67

Post by tstactplsignore »

themgt wrote: post #8
43224gg252 wrote: post #4

Of course they did. Anyone on the internet about a year - 2 years ago remembers every time you mentioned monsanto they would send shills in to defend them and call you a tin-foil hat conspiracy theorist.

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…

Guess I and most of the people in my department are "those people"!

Isn't your comment self-defeating? You have legitimate concerns about corporate abuse of IP law and a specific crop product- not with the scientific field of genetic modification. So why do you insist on villifying the term GMO instead of using accurate language to describe what you're talking about? From the other perspective, I cannot begin to understand how you are the one not acting in bad faith.

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

#68

Post by 0xbear »

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.

I like Monsanto and use roundup to spray weeds behind the house so I don't have to trim them. I would be very disappointed if I could not do this, because those weeds grow on a rather steep grade and trimming there is a nightmare. For the record, based on the science available to me (nut job tree hugger sites are not science), I consider roundup to be safe when used as intended.

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

#69

Post by meric »

julianj wrote: post #64
meric wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wor…

I believe Christ is infallible.

God is not in this world. This is the creation.

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

#70

Post by driverdan »

lumberjack wrote: post #15
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.

It's not like it was hard to figure out what was going on. On one hand you have scientists publishing letters of concern regarding glyphosate arguing for more studies to be done because of hints of carcinogenic properties. On the other hand you have a full blown shill campaign on Reddit and other website, being all like, "there is absolutely nothing to worry about, why do you hate science!". And lobbyists bullying th…

> On the other hand you have a full blown shill campaign on Reddit and other website, being all like, "there is absolutely nothing to worry about, why do you hate science!"

[citation needed]

Post reply on HN