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’.
-
-
Replying to @KeithDeHaas @cgseife and
We can never know for sure if
#glyphosate caused that particular case of cancer. But not true the jury did not take the science into consideration, even if#Monsanto's dishonesty had a lot to do with the verdict. Scientific Jury still out on#glyphosate.1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @danfagin @KeithDeHaas and
Very important issue is avoiding selective cherry-picking of evidence, which some in
#glyphosate debate tend to do. Eg when someone repeats#Monsanto's hailing of Andreotti et al cohort study without discussing case control studies. Need to look at everything.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
and here comes Martin et al https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0045653518311937 …
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @KlausRiede @mbalter and
Holy ecological fallacy and confusing correlation with causation, Batman!
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
seems to be widely spread, if the study madeit into peer-reviewed
@ElsevierConnect Chemosphere1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
A lot of crap articles make it into the peer-reviewed literature.
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.