91–100 of 192 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Quoted post unavailable.
I think a more effective strategy might be shaming individuals who make up the company. Just start buying internet ads with a persons name and how they wrote reports to try and convince people something that caused cancer didn’t cause cancer.
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-...
Since adjudicate just means to decide something judicially, that is tautological but technically correct. Beyond that narrow definition though, a jury trial is not the mechanism to decide a scientific and probabalistic question like whether spraying weed killer caused a particular case of lymphoma.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand the point you’re making, explain it to me like I’m a complete moron so I don’t misinterpret you.
There's an actual controversy over whether Monsanto's best known products are actually harmful to people, especially on balance vs. their substitutes. Your response for how Monsanto should handle this situation seems to be that they should dispose of the controversy and just concede your side of it. That's only persuasive to people that already agree with your side of the argument. Do you have a better one?
What conclusion can be drawn from a company ghostwriting studies and pretending they are not the source of them that support propositions that are convenient to them? Is doing such a thing going to "add to the controversy?" Does the increase in controversy help them in any way? "There are other studies so it is unclear if on balance..."
When they are caught out doing so, should we update whatever prior we have about the truth of the proposition that is controversial? Does it make you trust what they say more, or less? Are there any similarities at all to the "smoking causes cancer, heart disease, strokes etc" controversies of the past you can see? Like for example tobacco companies hiring Berkeley's best statisticians to cast doubt on all the studies showing tobacco smoking is quite unhealthy. New statistical techniques were developed to do so and they're good ones still in use! Of course smoking is no longer controversial at all anymore, is it? They did get decades more sales out of "the controversy" and it really was one!
Once you catch an organization of any kind with a very, very large ulterior motive in influencing "the controversy" doing so dishonestly, where do you think your prior should be before you see solid evidence to update it for claims that such an organization is making?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You're wrong, and you cannot in fact accuse accounts of being shilled simply because their usernames are green. The guidelines are simple: if you think someone's actually a shill, mail hn@ycombinator.com and they'll look into it. The point is that these accusations burn down threads, and the guideline thus asks you to keep this shit off the threads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoted post unavailable.
You're wrong, and you cannot in fact accuse accounts of being shilled simply because their usernames are green. The guidelines are simple: if you think someone's actually a shill, mail hn@ycombinator.com and they'll look into it. The point is that these accusations burn down threads, and the guideline thus asks you to keep this shit off the threads.
Second, as a self proclaimed “glyphosate defender” it’s very convenient for you to advocate for disallowing the rampant spread of information against your position while advocating for a very slow resolution to the claims, one whose result wouldn’t manifest until long after this thread was forgotten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Supported or not, I don’t think you understand the weight and quality of Cochrane reviews.
Do you wish to enlighten us?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.