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

Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

disinformationchronicle.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 192 posts

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#51

Post by calibas »

throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto...

> This work was supported by Monsanto Company, the original producer and marketer of glyphosate formulations.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#52

Post by tptacek »

user3939382 wrote: post #41
throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

Wasn’t there a school groundskeeper who won a lawsuit whose decision was based on it being carcinogenic? If memory serves, he had a lawyer vs a huge team of high priced attorneys who, after a long lawsuit, failed to convince the court. I’m not an expert but courts are designed to adjudicate technical issues like this: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit-...

Courts are not designed to adjudicate technical issues like this; the conventional wisdom in our separation of powers is that they're uniquely bad at it, which is part of why controversies in upper courts so often devolve to the question of whether fact-finding should be deferred to legislatures instead of court cases.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#53

Post by photochemsyn »

throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

Funny thing about the Monsanto cancer case is that they know that the problem is in the Roundup formulation (including surfactants that are required to get the glyphosate across the waxy plant cell wall barrier) yet Monsanto financed studies on purified isolated glyphosate to demonstrate it didn't cause cancer. Sneaky and dishonest, isn't that? Why not just do the study with the Roundup formulation?

> Mike DeVito, acting chief of the National Toxicology Program Laboratory: “We see the formulations are much more toxic. The formulations were killing the cells. The glyphosate really didn’t do it".

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/may/08/weedkiller-t...

https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/about_ntp/bsc/2017/december/pr...

As far as Monsanto and GMO, modifying certain crops to make them resistant to weedkiller just so you can dump more weedkiller on the field... might be good for weedkiller sales, but I don't think 'feeding the world' is the goal here, more like 'maximizing product sales'. Dumping all that weedkiller into lakes and rivers also destroys the base of ecosystems, which is unwise.

https://toxics.usgs.gov/highlights/glyphosate02.html

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#54

Post by Cadwhisker »

throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

[deleted]

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#55

Post by tptacek »

calibas wrote: post #51
throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

In response to an article about how Monsanto has undue influence on scientific studies, you posted a review paid for by Monsanto... > This work was supported by Monsanto Company, the original producer and marketer of glyphosate formulations.

Am I understanding your argument here to be that Cochrane Reviews are untrustworthy?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#56

Post by 0fcb88 »

throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

this is not a "true" Cochrane Review

https://www.cochrane.org/search/site/glyphosate

your link just used the method ( ~ aggregation of Ghostwriting researches)

EDIT: check the https://www.cochrane.org/search/site/vaccine

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#57

Post by tptacek »

Cadwhisker wrote: post #54
throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

[deleted]

You are not allowed to comment this way on HN. This is spelled out in the guidelines, and is probably the single most common mod correction Dan gives.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#58

Post by vasoolibhai »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #13
diogenescynic wrote: post #2

Monsanto also pays shills to comment positively about pesticide use and try to brow beat anyone who is has a negative opinion their products. It's crazy how aggressive it is. Basically any thread on Twitter or Reddit the same users will defend Monsanto. You see the same thing about other controversial products, such as BPAs. It seems like some tactic they learned from Big Tobacco and Big Oil to just push as much doub…

A couple years ago there was a reddit account that did nothing but pop up like clockwork whenever Mons.anto was mentioned. It cited these ghostwritten studies, claiming that they were proof Gl..ypho-sate was safe. It was so obvious other commenters would poke fun at them and tell other redditors to go look at their comment history.

Why did you spell Monsanto as Mons.anto and Glyphosate as Gl..ypho-sate ? Any specific thing you are trying to stay out of ?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#59

Post by tptacek »

0fcb88 wrote: post #56
throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

this is not a "true" Cochrane Review https://www.cochrane.org/search/site/glyphosate your link just used the method ( ~ aggregation of Ghostwriting researches) EDIT: check the https://www.cochrane.org/search/site/vaccine

This is an interesting point. Can you say more? How do we determine whether this is a "true" Cochrane Review? Thanks!

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#60

Post by [deleted] »

throwaway042722 wrote: post #27

Please, before you comment how evil Monsanto is, read the Cochrane review of glyphosate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/ This is produced by the Cochran which "is a British international charitable organisation formed to organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based choices about health interventions involving health professionals, patients and policy makers. It includes 53 rev…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN