There's no good evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, the extremely flawed IARC decision that it's a "probable carcinogen" notwithstanding. So any ruling that says it does is, as far as I'm concerned, a failure of the legal system.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27552246/ …
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
- Show replies
-
-
-
Hi Dr. Gorski :) Could you explain the idea of juries adjudicating silence in different words?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I, too, would prefer a model like this. In cases involving science, most of the time it isn't the science that determines the outcome.
- Show replies
-
-
-
'Adjudicating science' should happen in the lab, not the courtroom. This is shameful.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Are you proposing to repeal the Seventh Amendment and its state law equivalents? You can change the way the evidence is presented, and the rules of evidence in the courtroom, but the decision is always for the jury.
-
Seventh amendment applies to Criminal trials, not civil trials.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Given Juries have in the past found geologists guilty of manslaughter form *not* predicting an earthquake I am unsurprised
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I'll adjust my view based on evidence, not emotional pleas and cherry-picked sentences from emails.
End of conversation
-
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.