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

81–90 of 131 posts

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

#81

Post by briantakita »

parshimers wrote: post #52
burntrelish1273 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k

Here's a comment on the video by the user K SA:

> The bar tender reaches down at 5:16 and brings up a different glass than the one he pours the chemicals in so this is a snow job. The two glasses have a different shape too and the new glass is greener. This is so fake. Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?

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

#82

Post by briantakita »

tptacek wrote: post #55
Danihan wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, only around 15 years too late. http://people.csail.mit.edu/seneff/ITX_2013_06_04_Seneff.pdf

Regarding that Senneff cite: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9281240

Two ad hominems.

Here's a possibility. The scientific social networks consist of people who's research is paid for by the same corporations/government agencies with inherent conflicts of interest.

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

#83

Post by joatmon-snoo »

driverdan wrote: post #70
lumberjack wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Seriously. Whenever I see stuff like this on Reddit or the like I always challenge it because the anti-Monsanto attitude is so easy to buy into - it's the classic corporate bully, storybook Goliath caricature - and so many claims are unsubstantiated.

Skimming this link definitely raises some serious red flags for me with Monsanto, but there's also some very stupid shit in there, e.g. the highlighted "you cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen" - hell, I bet the same is true of most foods in the freezer aisle.

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

#84

Post by Deestan »

briantakita wrote: post #81
parshimers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. But, you can actually watch a video of someone else drinking some! (at about 8:00) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sgEhpHM4k

Here's a comment on the video by the user K SA: > The bar tender reaches down at 5:16 and brings up a different glass than the one he pours the chemicals in so this is a snow job. The two glasses have a different shape too and the new glass is greener. This is so fake. Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?

> Why do the guys sprying this crap wear spacesuits if it is so safe?

The guy on the street outside wears thick waterproof pants and thick waterproof rubber boots when he cleans the street with a pressurized water hose.

Water is generally considered safe [citation needed], but you still don't want to get hosed in it for hours on a daily basis.

- Constantly wet feet catch fungus and foot rot.

- Water lowers your body temperature, making you more susceptible to infection from and outbreak of common cold.

- Containing water contamination to an surface - instead of your clothes and skin - makes it easier to rid yourself of surplus water when taking a break.

- Wet clothes are highly impractical because they are heavy and shed water everywhere you go for hours after.

TLDR; Protective clothing doesn't imply toxicity.

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

#85

Post by battwell »

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.

> Science is a process and is close to an infallible thing as we have created as humans. There is no problem with science.

Wouldn't you say mathmatics is the most infallible thing human's have come to creating? The level of rigor in mathematics is much higher and there aren't as many repeatability issues.

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

#86

Post by Sone7 »

driverdan wrote: post #70
lumberjack wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

Pfft. You want a citation, go make a vaguely anti-GMO comment on a major sub. Include keywords. See what happens.

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

#87

Post by KSteffensen »

sigstoat wrote: post #59
meric wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I think it's prudent to wash vegetables to clean off any herbicides and other chemicals even if they are "known" to be harmless. you're gonna have a real hard time getting all the chemicals off your veggies using dihydrogen monoxide, what with its high boiling point. i suggest using formaldehyde instead.

High boiling point of water is irrelevant for solubility of veggie chemicals. What matters is hydrophilic/hydrophobic qualities. My suggestion would be to start with water, GI through methanol, acetonitrile, chloroform and end up with a good fatty oil, maybe olive oil. Remember to rinse if the oil with soap as the final step.

Or maybe get some veggies that don't have the chemicals on them in the first place?

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

#88

Post by KSteffensen »

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 fact that the metabolic pathway glyphosate mainly targets in plants doesn't exist in mammals does not preclude it being carcinogenic by other biochemical mechanisms.

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

#89

Post by mmjaa »

tptacek wrote: post #63
Retric wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The question I have for you, is why do you always pop up to defend Monsanto, no matter what, every single time?

Its so obvious you are a supporter of the company, because every single time there is the word "Monsanto" on the HN front page, I can come to the article and search "tptacek" and see you defending the company, diverting the discussion, using a whole suite of tactics to avoid letting anyone make the conclusion that Monsanto is up to something nefarious.

You've been called a shill for Monsanto before. I'm just curious why you seem to be so energetic about defending this particular company? I do understand: you like science. You like real science, real good.

But at some point you have to look at your own track record and wonder if, perhaps, a scientific perspective wouldn't lead someone to conclude that you are, in fact, a Monsanto shill. I mean, there is a lot of data to support this fact, scientifically.

Post reply on HN