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

81–90 of 192 posts

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#81

Post by 0fcb88 »

related: BY KAVIN SENAPATHY 06.27.2019

"Opinion: I Was Lured Into Monsanto’s GMO Crusade. Here’s What I Learned. As a once-vocal supporter of the company’s GMO push, I learned that debates about science are never just about science."

"Crowe (Monsanto) preached a scientific gospel of GMOs that went something like this: If you’re pro-science, you must be pro-GMO. If you’re anti-Monsanto, then you’re anti-GMO. Therefore, if you’re anti-Monsanto, you’re anti-science. His objective, it seemed, was to render opposition to GMOs as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot, and to amass a movement that could be counted on to shout that message from the rooftops."

https://undark.org/2019/06/27/monsanto-gmo-crusade/

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#82

Post by colordrops »

epgui wrote: post #67
calibas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Supported or not, I don’t think you understand the weight and quality of Cochrane reviews.

Do you wish to enlighten us?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#83

Post by seattle_spring »

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]

It's sad that the "well you're just a paid shill" retort is used to heavily nowadays. Not just for GMO related discussions either. It's got to be the laziest, empty non-argument out there and I wish more people would call it out for what it is.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#84

Post by testbjjl »

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.

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

Anonymously

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#85

Post by colordrops »

tptacek wrote: post #62
nickpeterson wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

You can't write comments like this here. Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, bots, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

No post body was provided.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#86

Post by colordrops »

tptacek wrote: post #55
calibas wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Never even heard of Cochrane Reviews until tonight, but am I understanding your argument here to be that there exist organizations that are somehow immune to bias and corruption and are perfect at editorial filtering?

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#87

Post by tfigment »

photochemsyn wrote: post #53
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, ac…

If you are not using roundup, you are still using something. "Organic" pesticides do not work better so you will generally be using more and that goes to the same places roundup does.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#88

Post by anikan_vader »

nickpeterson wrote: post #38
vlovich123 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would imagine a huge piece of it is libel and slander laws protect you unless you’re in the public sphere.

I would argue publishing a journal is a very public thing, note the root word of publishing.

What about publishing an HN comment? At the root of it, they’re both means of publicly disseminating information.

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#89

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…

>I find there are a lot of parallels between anti-GMO and anti-vax:

it is a Monsanto gospel

"Crowe (Monsanto) preached a scientific gospel of GMOs that went something like this: If you’re pro-science, you must be pro-GMO. If you’re anti-Monsanto, then you’re anti-GMO. Therefore, if you’re anti-Monsanto, you’re anti-science. His objective, it seemed, was to render opposition to GMOs as ridiculous as belief in Bigfoot, and to amass a movement that could be counted on to shout that message from the rooftops."

from: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31310371

Re: Monsanto’s ghostwriting to influence science and media

#90

Post by seattle_spring »

harry8 wrote: post #79
tptacek wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you maybe summarize it further, for those of us who don't know what you mean by this?

Agree or not all you like but I flat out don't believe you don't know what is meant. 1) Doesn't wish to discuss the ethics at all. 2) The working conditions are very good.

They likely don't want to discuss ethics because the exact same arguments and insults get trotted out everytime. Especially because if his arguments don't align with the common narrative, several people will likely just dismiss him as a "paid shill." Why would anyone willingly wade into that mess with nothing to gain?
Post reply on HN