Monsanto: 'They have to pay for not being honest'

[Perknose]

Meet The (Dying) Man Who Beat Monsanto

"Dewayne Johnson tries not to think about dying.

Doctors have said the 46-year-old cancer patient could have months to live, but he doesn’t like to dwell on death. These days, he has an easy distraction – navigating the international attention on his life.

The father of three and former school groundskeeper has been learning to live with the gift and burden of being in the spotlight in the month since a California jury ruled that Monsanto caused his terminal cancer. The historic verdict against the agrochemical corporation, which included an award of $289m, has ignited widespread health concerns about the world’s most popular weedkiller and prompted regulatory debates across the globe.

Johnson, who never imagined he would be known as “dying man” in dozens of news headlines, is still processing the historic win.

“Going against a company like this, becoming a public figure, it’s intense,” he told the Guardian in a rare interview since the 10 August verdict. “I felt an enormous amount of responsibility.”

^^^ Of course, Monsanto's army of corporate lawyers will appeal this verdict 'till the cows come home, and Mr Johnson will be long dead before any amount of settlement is payed out. This is the dark underbelly of Corporate America in a nutshell.

 

[dainthomas]

Jury verdicts ≠ science

 

[dank69]

Jury verdicts ≠ science

From the article about the verdict:

“We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that ... Roundup could cause cancer,” Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner said in a statement. The verdict, he added, sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup is over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits”.

 

[1prophet]

Jury verdicts ≠ science

Corporate profits trump science.

 

[dainthomas]

From the article about the verdict:

I'm curious about the wording of the memo. Did it say normal usage causes cancer, or that abnormally high exposure over decades may cause cancer?

There are two facts. Glysophate is extremely effective while being better for the environment due to how quickly it breaks down. Also, there have been numerous studies and none have conclusively showed an increased risk of cancer due to exposure.

 

[Stokely]

In a nutshell, this is one big reason I oppose the GOP. They want "small government" (well, they claim to, that's another discussion) while letting corporations run amok. Let the "free market" decide. Well, the free market would gladly decide that none of our lives matter. Ironically, a lot of the deregulation done or talked about so far is going to hurt poor white Trump voters, thoug it will be down the line when they get cancer from the rivers.

I don't trust the government to do the right thing, or efficiently...but I sure as shit would trust a corporation to do the right thing FOR THEM and quite efficiently indeed. At least with the government you'd have a chance of getting help. This is guy is one of the few who prevailed against the mountains of money a big corporation can bring to a situation like this. And they'll learn nothing, other than maybe some tricks to avoid losing next time.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Jury verdicts ≠ science

Correct - Actual scientific evidence and studies have never indicated that glyphosate is a carcinogen

IARC is also accused of cherry-picking data to reach politically motivated findings. The agency has reviewed nearly 1,000 substances and activities, and only one has been deemed noncarcinogenic. IARC looks for any shred of evidence to prove that something might cause cancer, even under extreme circumstances. It is confirmation bias at its worst: Reach a conclusion first, find the evidence later.

In 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as a "probable human carcinogen." It put the weed killer in the same cancer-causing category as dental implants, consuming red meat, being a barber, and doing shiftwork that disrupts your biological clock. Since then, government agencies from Japan to the EU, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and another agency at WHO, have countered that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. (IARC is to date the only governmental organization to call glyphosate carcinogenic.)

But none of this stopped California officials from placing glyphosate on its danger list. The ubiquitous chemical has become a target of environmentalists, in part because it is used on genetically engineered crops and was created by Monsanto, a company much despised by green activists. Since IARC's report was published, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto as lawyers in the "environmental justice" industry seek to profit from so-called glyphosate victims.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kelly-miller-defending-glyphosate-20170427-story.html

It's very clear that there is certainly nothing proven about if it causes cancer or not.

 

[Thebobo]

BTW one part 1 part salt 3 parts water > roundup


And good for him he should of had help from the EPA.

 

[Josephus312]

I'm curious about the wording of the memo. Did it say normal usage causes cancer, or that abnormally high exposure over decades may cause cancer?

There are two facts. Glysophate is extremely effective while being better for the environment due to how quickly it breaks down. Also, there have been numerous studies and none have conclusively showed an increased risk of cancer due to exposure.

The IARC concluded, in 2015 after 17 scientists input in to the matter, that Glysophate is a probable human carcinogen.

Glyphosate and Roundup induce DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro and in animal cells (mice and rats) in vivo.

 

[Josephus312]

BTW one part 1 part salt 3 parts water > roundup


And good for him he should of had help from the EPA.

Acetic acid works even better.

 

[ivwshane]

Correct - Actual scientific evidence and studies have never indicated that glyphosate is a carcinogen


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kelly-miller-defending-glyphosate-20170427-story.html

It's very clear that there is certainly nothing proven about if it causes cancer or not.

Lol! Another opinion piece cited as evidence.

 

[Josephus312]

Correct - Actual scientific evidence and studies have never indicated that glyphosate is a carcinogen


http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-kelly-miller-defending-glyphosate-20170427-story.html

It's very clear that there is certainly nothing proven about if it causes cancer or not.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187439190900390X

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.biolcel.2003.11.010

These are actual links to actual studies, not some opinion piece and they disagree with you.

Of course the Glyphosate Task Force of which Monsanto is a partner disagree, I cannot imagine why.

Also, nothing is EVER scientifically proven, it's simply a misnomer but it sure is well evidenced that it is linked to cancer in vitro and in vivo in rodent studies.

 

[mect]

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513003633

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187439190900390X

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1016/j.biolcel.2003.11.010

These are actual links to actual studies, not some opinion piece and they disagree with you.

Of course the Glyphosate Task Force of which Monsanto is a partner disagree, I cannot imagine why.

Also, nothing is EVER scientifically proven, it's simply a misnomer but it sure is well evidenced that it is linked to cancer in vitro and in vivo in rodent studies.

You do realize the linked risk for glyphosate and cancer is weaker than that for consumption of bacon or grilled food, right. Right now glyphosate is rated as a probable cause (which was an edit made to the original draft which found it should be categorized as an even lower risk) while bacon and grilled foods are ranked as causes according to the world health organization. Are we going to allow people to start suing Weber and Oscar Meyer as well?

 

[uclaLabrat]

The IARC concluded, in 2015 after 17 scientists input in to the matter, that Glysophate is a probable human carcinogen.

Glyphosate and Roundup induce DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro and in animal cells (mice and rats) in vivo.

And that conclusion was reached after their lead scientist ignored recent findings. The preponderence of evidence doesn't support the conclusion that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

 

[Josephus312]

You do realize the linked risk for glyphosate and cancer is weaker than that for consumption of bacon or grilled food, right. Right now glyphosate is rated as a probable cause (which was an edit made to the original draft which found it should be categorized as an even lower risk) while bacon and grilled foods are ranked as causes according to the world health organization. Are we going to allow people to start suing Weber and Oscar Meyer as well?

I can only provide the information, if you refuse to read it and regurgitate the talking points from the Glyphosate Task Force (which is, of course, exactly what you are doing) I can't really do anything about that.

It's been indicated in three forms of cancer, thyroid, melanoma and breast cancer. It has shown to affect DNA of humans in vitro and of mammals (rats and mice) in vivo.

 

[Josephus312]

And that conclusion was reached after their lead scientist ignored recent findings. The preponderence of evidence doesn't support the conclusion that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

Yes that is what the Glysophate Task Force claims.

It's not true though as I showed with the three links to actual studies which shows that it has been indicated to cause tumors in mammals and that it affects human DNA in vitro.

 

[mect]

I can only provide the information, if you refuse to read it and regurgitate the talking points from the Glyphosate Task Force (which is, of course, exactly what you are doing) I can't really do anything about that.

It's been indicated in three forms of cancer, thyroid, melanoma and breast cancer. It has shown to affect DNA of humans in vitro and of mammals (rats and mice) in vivo.

I have doctorate in chemistry and several friends who are professors of agriculture. I know how to look at the entire body of literature and consensus opinions of professional organizations to form my opinions. I don't pay much attention to cherry picked studies presented in isolation to form opinions.

 

[Josephus312]

I have doctorate in chemistry and several friends who are professors of agriculture. I know how to look at the entire body of literature and consensus opinions of professional organizations to form my opinions. I don't pay much attention to cherry picked studies presented in isolation to form opinions.

Argumentum ad auktoritatem doesn't work when you ignore the presented information in favor of what a lobby group is telling you.

The only way this would matter is if you have actually conducted studies on this matter

You have friends who are professors? Well I have a cat, so fucking what?

 

[mect]

Argumentum ad auktoritatem doesn't work when you ignore the presented information in favor of what a lobby group is telling you.

The only way this would matter is if you have actually conducted studies on this matter

You have friends who are professors? Well I have a cat, so fucking what?

Are you trying to portray the WHO as a lobby group? Of course I ignored three papers. You can't just cherry pick individual papers and draw conclusions from that. If you had any idea how research was done you would know that. That is why I referred you to the opinion of the WHO who aggregates the entire body of the literature and consults experts to form an opinion on the matter. I have enough scientific understanding to know what I don't know, and as such I'll trust the opinions of the experts in the field. If you are going to try to persuade someone, at least link a metastudy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/

 

[Josephus312]

Are you trying to portray the WHO as a lobby group? Of course I ignored three papers. You can't just cherry pick individual papers and draw conclusions from that. If you had any idea how research was done you would know that. That is why I referred you to the opinion of the WHO who aggregates the entire body of the literature and consults experts to form an opinion on the matter. I have enough scientific understanding to know what I don't know, and as such I'll trust the opinions of the experts in the field. If you are going to try to persuade someone, at least link a metastudy.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4866614/

I can't pick papers that show an absolute and undeniable indication? Are you also in favor of teaching the controversy in public schools because you can't just pick papers supporting evolution willy nilly?

The WHO disagrees with you and the Glyphosate Task Force on this (check out the link in point #2.)

I've read that article based on no studies what so ever and I'll dismiss it because:

1. BfR no longer agrees with this conclusion and they used it as a source, as new evidence has arisen they changed their minds.
2. The WHO that is cited has changed their minds after reviewing evidence. (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...ee-criticisms-about-glyphosate-cancer-warning)
3. EFSA disagrees now.
4. The rest is based on the AHS study, a study funded by the Glyphosate Task Force.

What you are presenting actually IS a cherry picking article that doesn't relay the actual reality but goes through decades of history to make a point that is no longer relevant.

You have no "scientific understanding", all you have is an article filled with outdated data and opinions from organizations who since changed their minds.

Do you understand that if something causes mutations in DNA in vitro and in vivo in lab animals that this is the standard that is used to determine if something is carcinogenic? Read the fucking studies I linked, there is no question whether it's carcinogenic, it IS and the WHO agrees that it is.

 

[mect]

I can't pick papers that show an absolute and undeniable indication? Are you also in favor of teaching the controversy in public schools because you can't just pick papers supporting evolution willy nilly?

The WHO disagrees with you and the Glyphosate Task Force on this (check out the link in point #2.)

I've read that article based on no studies what so ever and I'll dismiss it because:

1. BfR no longer agrees with this conclusion and they used it as a source, as new evidence has arisen they changed their minds.
2. The WHO that is cited has changed their minds after reviewing evidence. (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018...ee-criticisms-about-glyphosate-cancer-warning)
3. EFSA disagrees now.
4. The rest is based on the AHS study, a study funded by the Glyphosate Task Force.

What you are presenting actually IS a cherry picking article that doesn't relay the actual reality but goes through decades of history to make a point that is no longer relevant.

You have no "scientific understanding", all you have is an article filled with outdated data and opinions from organizations who since changed their minds.

Do you understand that if something causes mutations in DNA in vitro and in vivo in lab animals that this is the standard that is used to determine if something is carcinogenic? Read the fucking studies I linked, there is no question whether it's carcinogenic, it IS and the WHO agrees that it is.

Dude, can you fucking read. You just posted exactly what I stated in my original post. The WHO has categorized glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic", indicating a less likely link to cancer compared to things like bacon and grilled foods. Note that I've never reference the Glyphosate Task Force.

 

[mect]

In case you are interested in another metastudy confirming the ambiguity of Glyphosate's relationship to cancer.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5515989/

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

I can only provide the information, if you refuse to read it and regurgitate the talking points from the Glyphosate Task Force (which is, of course, exactly what you are doing) I can't really do anything about that.

It's been indicated in three forms of cancer, thyroid, melanoma and breast cancer. It has shown to affect DNA of humans in vitro and of mammals (rats and mice) in vivo.

"If you disagree with me than you're just ignorant"

Try harder twat

 

[zinfamous]

"If you disagree with me than you're just ignorant"

Try harder twat

No, that's not what he said.

But you are a conservative, and science terrifies you. Hence, I find your response and inability to understand and address his comment unremarkable in its predictability.

The evidence for Glyphosate is really at the same standard of asbestos and mesothelioma, that atrazine is a potent neurotoxin that destroys amphibian development and "very likely" causes serious neurodegenerative disorders in humans living near these affected water supplies, that lead causes severe developmental disorders in young children. etc etc.

The standards of evidence, within the community, are essentially the same and meet the same requirements to make such claims. In all of these cases, of course, there is always a counterpounch from "scientists" that represent the specific industries that argue only to the benefit of the specific industries that stand to profit off these toxic chemicals that up until such data has surfaced, exist unregulated. As always, this has always been the case, and will continue to always be the case. Lead, Aspestos, Syngenta, Monsanto, Oil and Energy--over and over and over and over again.

Nothing changes. THese are exactly the arguments you latch on to, in defense of science and the influence that you simply do not understand--because you don't care. You were wrong about lead, you were wrong about asbestos, you were wrong about atrazine, you are wrong about glyphosate and you will continue to be wrong every single time you claim to the defense of obvious corporate data that exists only defend corporate profits at the clear expense of public health, all the while arguing that this is "honest and open science," while decrying the evil, "America-hating scientists" that universally do non-profit work and live off of relatively meager grants.

Every single fucking conservative that tries to talk about science has been sold a fucking bill of good by their GOP handlers for decades now, and I'm fucking tired of these plain and obvious lies. This poisoned belief that you have which is essentially: "non-profit, non-invested work is, by nature, biased and evil! The good work of corporate America is by principle unbiased because they know more about their own industry than anyone! Why not trust the profit-driven industry to care about my health above their profits?" It's the core science perspective of the gaslighted dependable GOP voter: "Science bad, except when my corporate overlord speaks. Then we trust the data!"

 

[Josephus312]

Dude, can you fucking read. You just posted exactly what I stated in my original post. The WHO has categorized glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic", indicating a less likely link to cancer compared to things like bacon and grilled foods. Note that I've never reference the Glyphosate Task Force.

No, a probable (as opposed to probably) carcinogenic compound is one that has been indicated to cause cancer.

For example, Arsenic is known to cause cancer and thus it's a probable carcinogen.

I do love that you bring up bacon and grilled (or fried) red meats (not "foods") though since they also produce a KNOWN carcinogen when prepared in that way.

Heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are absolutely known carcinogens or in other words probable carcinogens and those are the compounds released when frying or grilling red meats.

I note that those are also chemicals that are BANNED as food additives because .... they are carcinogenic in the same way that glyphosate is carcinogenic.

"Since EFSA's publication, the agency has been arguing that there is enough detailed information in its documentation to perform a good analysis, but IARC scientists respond that the descriptions and summaries published miss key elements and cannot replace original data."

There was no original data in the publication of that "meta study" which is just an article cherry picking points from other articles that cherry picked studies since they are sponsored by the GTF.