Hacker News Reader

Comment by WillPostForFood | Hacker News Reader

People who have been exposed to <everything possible in the world> got cancer, but that is meaningless in showing causation. Internal documents show concern, but show no evidence that it causes cancer, or that Monsanto had internal data showing it caused cancer.

View on HN

This type of rhetoric isn’t helpful, except to companies and manufacturers looking to minimize the attention around specific products with known carcinogenic properties.

What? It's about thinking about causality in a clear way.

well it also doesn't help to make assumptions based on skewed correlations.

Every living animal, including us, drinks water.

Every living animal dies.

Is there something in the water maybe?

I don't see how this line of reasoning can be helpful honestly.

---

There is no limit on how much damages this mentality can do.

Think about the recent stream of

people got COVID vaccine, then died

> Is there something in the water maybe?

It has DHMO in it. It's pretty bad.

https://dhmo.org/facts.html

This type of rhetoric isn’t helpful, except to people who wish to replace basic critical thinking and healthy skepticism with vacuous opinionated polemics on evil corporations and their general evilness.

Blind acceptance is just as dangerous as toxic skepticism.

Many consider glyphosate as the most heavily used weed-killer in history. If 'internal documents show concern', what should we conclude?

https://theecologist.org/2016/feb/03/glyphosate-most-heavily...

https://www.greens-efa.eu/legacy/fileadmin/dam/Documents/Stu...

(All members of the EU Parliament from 13 countries, excrete glyphophosphate in their urine).

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-18110-0

(Quantifable urine glyphosate levels detected in 99% of the French population, with higher values in men, in younger people, and in farmers)

The wiki summary says two important things.

Glyphosate is the "penicillin of agriculture," a foundational discovery that has revolutionized the industry.

Glyphosate alone has not been found to be a strong carcinogen in scientific studies, but testing with the surfactants, adjuvents, and other additives with which it is normally used may increase the carcinogenicity.

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

The real question is why there is herbicide in your urine. Everything else is a smoke curtain.

Why if it does not cause cancer but is behind the obesity epidemic?, or related with the autism increase starting at exactly the same years?.

"Not causes cancer" does not mean "is harmless". This stuff shouldn't be there

right and that's why they just settled instead of proving their product is safe

You don’t prove a product is safe. You fail to prove it isn’t.

Considering how much money they have and the size of their very highly paid legal team, I'd say that says a lot.

Actually, for _most_ products, the best they do is _in different trials it appears safe_. They don't even try and prove the product isn't safe.

In a civil lawsuit, the actual legal standard is "preponderance of evidence".

Factor that by cost of defending the case and potential risk of payout in that and future cases as well.

A multimillion dollar settlement suggests some doubt on the part of the defendant to establish their case.

I was speaking scientifically.

i was speaking legally

Agreement on terms and context is critical to discussion.

(Applies to this entire thread, not just parent comment.)

... and just because this is still bothering me:

A surprisingly common form of conversational failure is when two (or more) parties are discussing some matter all with different ideas as to what is being discussed or the context of the discussion.

I'd run across a good description of that recently though I can't seem to recall where / find it presently.

It's not included in this discussion of Wiio's Laws, though there's enough other material there that's excellent guidance for communication that I'm linking it regardless:

https://jkorpela.fi/wiio.html

If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one.

Companies settle lawsuits all the time for claims they believe are meritlesss, for two reasons:

1. Going through a lawsuit all the way to conclusion, even if you win, is a long, expensive process that potentially exposes you to a considerable amount of negative publicity and causes a degree of internal chaos.

2. Juries are unpredictable and even a small chance of a bad outcome may be worth paying to avoid.

If this is to be believed, they've set aside _billions_ for cancer-related claims and pulled the product from the residential market, and there are still questions about the EPA's ruling that it is safe. Definitive, no, but certainly raises serious questions.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/court-rejects-trump-era-...

This comment contains allegations known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm.

username checks out ;)

It's safe to drink, here have some:

https://youtu.be/ovKw6YjqSfM

Boy, the Monsanto shills are out tonight.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com