And I continue to have disturbing flashbacks to the 1990s, when Dow-Corning was driven to bankruptcy by scientifically ignorant rulings like this one. There is no good evidence that glyphosate causes cancer, the 2015 @IARCWHO report notwithstanding. 1/https://twitter.com/Evan_Rosenfeld/status/1128077773984026630 …
-
-
Most likely, the jury was swayed more by emotion than science. Here we have a couple in their 70s who both developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma within a few years of each other. They blame glyphosate, and juries, like all human beings, have a hard time accepting coincidence. 4/
Show this thread -
If there was a 1% chance that glyphosate caused the Pilliods' cancers, is that worth $2 billion, noting that 1% is almost certainly orders of magnitude higher than the actual chance? 5/
Show this thread -
It's all well and good to be sympathetic to a nice old couple work cancer. It's all well and good to dislike Monsanto/Bayer. It's a big company. As is the case for most big companies, it's done some shady things. 6/
Show this thread -
What's not good is allowing a combination of sympathy and antipathy trump science to make a ridiculous ruling like this. 7/
Show this thread -
Here's yet another example of why juries are a poor mechanism to evaluate and rule upon legal questions whose outcome depends on the science behind the question and evidence-based risk assessment. 8/
Show this thread -
I note that it was years after Dow-Corning went bankrupt that further studies confirmed no detectabkw link between silicone implants and the diseases and conditions attributed to them by plaintiffs in the 1980s and 1990s. Yet here we already have the evidence. 10/10
Show this thread
End of conversation
New 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.