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

121–130 of 131 posts

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

#121

Post by jacobr »

stouset wrote: post #99
Zarath wrote: post #94

It's weed killer. Literally poison. Can we just curb our faith in science just a little bit and use some common sense. It's incredibly likely that ingesting poison is bad for you. Let's leave open the possibility that it isn't, but I personally require that people prove it's safe rather than continuing to ingest it until proven otherwise. It's honestly just baffling to me that people find it surprising that consisten…

Just because something is poisonous to the biology of plants, in doses typically used as a weed killer, doesn't make it toxic to humans. That's not to say this doesn't cause cancer. Whether or not it does is irrelevant to the point that plant biology is not human biology — hell, other mammals' biology isn't human biology (see: cats and chocolate, grapes, macadamia nuts, and onions) — and making inferences based upon…

If my cat is poisoned I would definitely avoid what it ate until there's overwhelming evidence that it's not harmful for me.

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

#122

Post by tscs37 »

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…

The thing is, glyphosate/roundup is still a toxin.

It may be safe in low doses but I wouldn't exactly try to drink large quantities of something that is made for the only purpose to kill some animal/plant.

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

#123

Post by ScottBurson »

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.…

> It would be surprising if glyphosate turned out to be toxic, because it straightforwardly targets a metabolic pathway that plants have and the entire kingdom of Animalia lacks.

Biochemistry is not that simple. My favorite example is n-hexane, the linear hydrocarbon with 6 carbon atoms. It is more toxic than any of the other small alkanes; about 3 times as toxic as n-pentane, with 5 carbons, but also less toxic than n-heptane, with 7 [0]. Why? I don't know if anyone knows, but seems like it must have something to do with the exact size of the molecule. Maybe it's just short enough to fit someplace and just long enough to cause a problem when it's there.

The point is, so much of biochemistry is about how molecules fit together in 3-D space. This is not something that's easy to predict. Your line of reasoning here is just not valid.

[0] https://books.google.com/books?id=e4_S46UcI2AC&pg=PT286&lpg=...

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

#124

Post by dang »

mmjaa wrote: post #104
jnordwick wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Questioning people's motives is a big no-no on HN. We try to keep the place free of that.

We'll .. I looked in the guidelines but didn't see any reference to this no-no. If its a big no-no, it should be in the guidelines, no? Is this something I should just know by experience by now, or am I overlooking this point from the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm seriously asking, not because I want to cause trouble, but because I don't see this guideline being enforced at all exce…

It's covered by the guideline that says "Be civil". Insinuating that someone else is a shill (i.e. lying for money) is deeply uncivil.

It's impossible to make a list of all proscribed behaviors and if we tried, people would take it as a license to do anything not on the list. So that's not the way it works.

As for whether the 'don't insinuate astroturfing/shillage' bit is enforced, try scrolling through https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&prefix=true&page=0&dateR... and you'll find dozens if not hundreds of cases. Actually I've posted so many of these that my body rejects writing them and I have to trick myself into doing it.

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

#125

Post by tptacek »

dang wrote: post #124
mmjaa wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll .. I looked in the guidelines but didn't see any reference to this no-no. If its a big no-no, it should be in the guidelines, no? Is this something I should just know by experience by now, or am I overlooking this point from the guidelines? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I'm seriously asking, not because I want to cause trouble, but because I don't see this guideline being enforced at all exce…

It's covered by the guideline that says "Be civil". Insinuating that someone else is a shill (i.e. lying for money) is deeply uncivil. It's impossible to make a list of all proscribed behaviors and if we tried, people would take it as a license to do anything not on the list. So that's not the way it works. As for whether the 'don't insinuate astroturfing/shillage' bit is enforced, try scrolling through https://hn.al…

I have a suggestion: write it one more time, in the site guidelines. :)

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

#126

Post by olliej »

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?

Same reason the doctor leaves the room when you take an X-ray. The issue isn’t one time exposure it’s repeated exposure.

The issue with roundup isn’t whether it’s safe if you drink it (most “safe” cleaners, etc will at least make you feel crappy if you just drink them - he’ll copper sulphate spray used for low level onset protection would send you straight to hospital if you drank it).

It’s a matter of cumulative exposure and time. Most cancers, even chemically induced ones take time to become large enough to be noticed and people get many different cancers naturally - if a small amount of roundup cause cancer immediately it would be gone already.

Much like Uber I take issue with the unethical behaviour of Monsanto in multiple areas. Maybe roundup is safe and could be used as icing at a five year olds birthday, but they shouldn’t be ghost writing papers for journals.

Also unethical is allowing someone to ghostwrite a paper for you and publishing it with your name.

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

#127

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

Zarath wrote: post #94

It's weed killer. Literally poison. Can we just curb our faith in science just a little bit and use some common sense. It's incredibly likely that ingesting poison is bad for you. Let's leave open the possibility that it isn't, but I personally require that people prove it's safe rather than continuing to ingest it until proven otherwise. It's honestly just baffling to me that people find it surprising that consisten…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pharmakon_(philosophy)

> "the ambivalent quality of pharmakon is more than purely a matter of ‘wrong drug, wrong dose, wrong route of administration, wrong patient’. Drugs, as is the case with anti-retroviral therapy, have the capacity to be beneficial and detrimental to the same person at the same time."

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

#128

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #120
briantakita wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Every credentialed scientist in the field is bought and paid for by Monsanto. Only the computer scientists can be trusted. That sounds about right for HN logic.

[deleted]

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

#129

Post by briantakita »

tptacek wrote: post #120
briantakita wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. Every credentialed scientist in the field is bought and paid for by Monsanto. Only the computer scientists can be trusted. That sounds about right for HN logic.

> Yes. Every credentialed scientist in the field is bought and paid for by Monsanto.

I only raised a real possibility that is not factored in the two bullet points. Conflict of Interest. We assume that scientists are somehow immune & should not be questioned, particularly when there is evidence contracting their conclusions.

Nothing to do with HN logic. From what it looks like, you are far more of the HN maven than I am...

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

#130

Post by briantakita »

DanBC wrote: post #92
briantakita wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 They are protecting against a lifetime of large exposures.

> They are protecting against a lifetime of large exposures

Would eating food products everyday be considered a "lifetime of large exposures"?

Post reply on HN