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

Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

press.jhu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 116 posts

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#31

Post by dylan604 »

moffkalast wrote: post #11
saiya-jin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why don't you report this anonymously to authorities AND media, since we know this leads to horrible deaths? Its low-energy effort, heck few envelopes to medias around the Europe and I guarantee you they would be on it like wasps on sweet food. You shouldn't be protecting people killing (also) children due to their greed or ignorance. You can save many lives and actually trigger the (necessary) change in legislation!

> authorities AND media OP mentioned being in the EEU, which would mean the media and authorities of one of the following: Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia. Yeah I doubt it'd make any difference whatsoever. Best case scenario they ignore the story and he doesn't end up falling from a third story window.

But if the news makes into other EU countries, wouldn't the EU then be able to use it's "powers" to prevent the sale of that grain into the rest of the EU?

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#32

Post by Jolliness7501 »

smolder wrote: post #26
Jolliness7501 wrote: post #23

Dear HN admins, please close this firehose of bullshit. Thank you!

Dear reader, you should elaborate on what you view as a firehose of bullshit.

Sure:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman...

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-science-behind-the-roun...

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#33

Post by user3939382 »

arminiusreturns wrote: post #28
pkphilip wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this comment being downvoted?

[flagged]

> pernicious and devious sockpuppetry cough persona management disinfo campaigns

Yeah I've gotten super weird responses when I discuss them on forums where randos are like verbatim repeating their PR talking points, and with a bizarre level of passion.

Of course I don't have the information to prove/disprove these things and, insofar as I also see it on HN, these accusations are against the rules, so I don't say anything but it's highly suspicious to say the least.

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#34

Post by [deleted] »

hammock wrote: post #30
arminiusreturns wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

>I quit a good job in the agriculture business once I found out the idiot "daddys money got squandered" business owner got his new injection in cash in a backroom deal w/ Monsanto. Curious about this. Did Monsanto give the farmer an advance or something, in return for agreeing to use/switch to their seed?

[deleted]

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#35

Post by dekhn »

overreg wrote: post #5

"Organizations such as the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the European Commission, Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[30] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. The final assessment of the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority in 2017 was that "glyphosat…

That's right- the IARC is the odd one out here and their results are based mainly on discredited experiments on rats that are known to be prone to getting cancer (meaning they aren't a good model for humans in this case).

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#36

Post by adrr »

hammock wrote: post #27
adrr wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does this have to do with the discussion? Hackernews is suppose to be about constructive debate.

Maybe I am missing the constructive nature of your comment, can you clarify? Are you proposing coffee is as cancerous as Roundup? Constructively, have you seen this video? https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2015/03/monsanto-lobbyist-dr...

Roundup hasn't been shown to be carcinogen in any animal model testing and only one observational study has shown an up lift in a cancer. Hence the designation of potential.

Hot beverages significantly increases risk of Esophageal cancer in multiple observational studies.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9035825/

Re: Toxic Exposure: The True Story Behind the Monsanto Trials

#40

Post by pella »

kazinator wrote: post #24
mbustamanter wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absence of evidence != Evidence of absence. This mistake is especially pernicious when facing the choice of repeated trials, and something inherent to this topic since constantly eating food that at some point was subject to this chemical is by definition a repeated trial.

Yes, absence of evidence is evidence of absence, under the right evidence-gathering circumstances. Would you say that perhaps there are pigs which can fly, because absence of the evidence of the existence of flying pigs isn't evidence of their absence?

> under the right evidence-gathering circumstances.

1.) Would you say that perhaps the Parachute is not working?

"Conclusions: Parachute use did not reduce death or major traumatic injury when jumping from aircraft in the first randomized evaluation of this intervention."

https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k5094

2.) Would you say that perhaps the Mask is not working?

"Yes, masks reduce the risk of spreading COVID, despite a review saying they don’t" ( February 6 )

https://theconversation.com/yes-masks-reduce-the-risk-of-spr...

Post reply on HN