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

In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#41

Post by thenewnewguy »

ricardobeat wrote: post #19

Seems to me that they edited out opinions , not findings, which is exactly how it should be done. Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.

Presumably those "opinions" were based on the data the scientists collected. All of the following cannot be proven to be 100% objectively facts, so we better just throw them out out science:

- Theory of Evolution

- Big Bang Theory

- General Relativity

- Global Warming/Climate Change

- Cell Theory

- Germ Theory

- etc etc (Just look up "scientific theories" or similar if you want more)

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#42

Post by Retric »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #41
ricardobeat wrote: post #19

Seems to me that they edited out opinions , not findings, which is exactly how it should be done. Ex: "The authors firmly believe" and "the authors concluded"; not exactly scientific facts.

Presumably those "opinions" were based on the data the scientists collected. All of the following cannot be proven to be 100% objectively facts, so we better just throw them out out science: - Theory of Evolution - Big Bang Theory - General Relativity - Global Warming/Climate Change - Cell Theory - Germ Theory - etc etc (Just look up "scientific theories" or similar if you want more)

There is a huge difference between ’the author believes’ and ‘this evidence supports’. The important bits of scientific research is the evidence not the scientists conclusions.

If an existing test was not sensitive enough to detect some effect, any conclusions from that data are effectively worthless. However, the test still provides an upper bound for the magnitude of an effect.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#43

Post by delhanty »

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto.

Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2]

>Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source,) but now we see evidence that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news outlets.

[0] https://usrtk.org/monsanto-roundup-trial-tacker/new-monsanto...

[1] https://gmwatch.org/en/news/latest-news/18746-monsanto-fed-r...

[2] https://twitter.com/careygillam/status/1121417187531677696

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#44

Post by thenewnewguy »

Retric wrote: post #42
thenewnewguy wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably those "opinions" were based on the data the scientists collected. All of the following cannot be proven to be 100% objectively facts, so we better just throw them out out science: - Theory of Evolution - Big Bang Theory - General Relativity - Global Warming/Climate Change - Cell Theory - Germ Theory - etc etc (Just look up "scientific theories" or similar if you want more)

There is a huge difference between ’the author believes’ and ‘this evidence supports’. The important bits of scientific research is the evidence not the scientists conclusions. If an existing test was not sensitive enough to detect some effect, any conclusions from that data are effectively worthless. However, the test still provides an upper bound for the magnitude of an effect.

"The author believes" or "The author concludes" in a conclusion of a report essentially always has the subtext "because of the evidence".

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#45

Post by singularity2001 »

delhanty wrote: post #43

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing…

There should be a mechanism to reward such highly valuable meta-journalism as you provided.

Also there should be a judicial mechanism to lock up the board of Monsanto in a dark dungeon.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#46

Post by Retric »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #44
Retric wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between ’the author believes’ and ‘this evidence supports’. The important bits of scientific research is the evidence not the scientists conclusions. If an existing test was not sensitive enough to detect some effect, any conclusions from that data are effectively worthless. However, the test still provides an upper bound for the magnitude of an effect.

"The author believes" or "The author concludes" in a conclusion of a report essentially always has the subtext "because of the evidence".

Authors rarely limit themselves to only the evidence gathered from a single study when making these conclusions. I have even seen many conclusions not particularly supported by the evidence presented.

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#47

Post by 6510 »

delhanty wrote: post #43

So I read this story and wondered whether there were any undisclosed links between the author (Kate Kelland) and Monsanto. Google led me to sites alleging that this 2017 article and others were written to spec on the instructions of Monsanto. [0][1][2] >Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it, (without disclosing…

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/kate-kelland-b5995618

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#49

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

emodendroket wrote: post #34
cies wrote: post #26

Any food "additive" (including all chemicals used in farming) should be listed, carcinogen or not. The fact that products can be sold as "cucumber" but actually have a long list of chems on their skin is a very dark practice. See how companies abused their power when ingredient lists where not enforced by law. Or how tobacco comps are still abusing their freedom not to list ingredients. This malpractice disgusts me d…

I kind of agree. I'm not really swayed by arguments that consumers shouldn't have information because they'd use it to make mistaken decisions. Let them; that's not my business.

The concern is that disclosures can be used selectively, to make unpopular businesses embarrass themselves while favored ones skate by. If we make people slap “contains glyphosate” on produce, is there any realistic chance that organic produce will say “contains blood meal” or apples will say “contains beeswax”?

Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)

#50

Post by CWuestefeld »

modmans2nd wrote: post #31
op00to wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So disingenuous. Roundup is safe because the LD50 is high? I guess you’re one of those people that are baffled by why we stopped using asbestos or DDT.

Show evidence it’s not safe. DDT was destroying bird populations.

Also, many insects (including some species of mosquito) had already developed resistance to DDT.
Post reply on HN