Sadly (actually not sadly) @thackerpd blocked me a long time ago for calling out his anti-GMO bullshit. Ironically, @mbalter also blocked me a few months ago because I got into it with him about his credulity regarding anti-GMO pseudoscience. I regard both as anti-GMO ideologues.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @ScienceBlogs and
You know, I don't honestly know what
@thackerpd's or@mbalter really believe about GMOs; we've never talked about it. My association w/@thackerpd, in particular, comes from shared distaste for hidden corporate influence on science. (He was instrumental w/r/t physician payments.)3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
I'll let
@thackerpd and@mbalter speak for themselves about GMOs/antivax, but I'll say that I've been labeled as both by Hank et al., and I am stridently pro-vax, and don't have a problem with GMO safety, generally. I do have concerns about seeds being intellectual property...3 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @cgseife @ScienceBlogs and
I never accused Thacker of being antivax but he is definitely anti-GMO. Of that there is no doubt. Anti-GMO activists frequently disingenuously conflate corporate IP issues and GMO science, and Thacker delights in sliming good scientists.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gorskon @ScienceBlogs and
And I'll also mention that
@thackerpd's anti-corporate leanings are real and go way back... that's genuine and is not caused by anti-GMO feelings. If anything, I'd say the causal arrow would go the other way.2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @cgseife @ScienceBlogs and
I have no doubt that that's the case. Anticorporate leanings are often the gateway drug to anti-GMO and antivax on the left.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @ScienceBlogs and
Fair enough... but on the other side, don't let pro-vax & pro-GMO lead to indifference to corporate abuses and scientific misconduct. Whether or not you think
@monsanto is the savior of a starving planet or Satan incarnate,@monsanto was doing tobacco-style ghostwriting.2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
One key reason
#Monsanto lost the San Francisco case is the plaintiff’s attorneys were able to show beyond any possible doubt that the company had manipulated the science behind the scenes. That has been their strategy from the get-go, like tobacco companies.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
But they didn’t show that glyphosate caused that poor man’s cancer, because in all likelihood it didn’t. I’m happy his family will be financially set, but this verdict was more about punishing Monsanto than discovering any ‘truth’.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KeithDeHaas @mbalter and
"That, nevertheless, is the balance that is struck by Rules of Evidence designed not for the exhaustive search for cosmic understanding, but for the particularized resolution of legal disputes." --Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phamaceuticals
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Something at which the Daubert standard utterly failed to do justly in this particular case. By any decent scientific standard, the verdict in the case was a travesty, like the verdicts over breast implants and numerous other product liability suits.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.