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 …
-
Show this thread
-
Glyphosate does not appear to cause non-Hodgkins lymphoma. There is a weak association began the highest exposure to glyphosate in agricultural workers but it is small, only weakly supported, and most likely spurious. 2/https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/update-on-glyphosate/ …
2 replies 4 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Basically, the science says that, although not impossible, it's incredibly unlikely that glyphosate caused or contributed to the Pilliods' non-Hodgkins lymphomas, not more likely than not—not even close. That's even if the Pilliods' exposure to glyphosate was very high. 3/
1 reply 7 retweets 18 likesShow this thread -
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/
2 replies 4 retweets 23 likesShow 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/
1 reply 4 retweets 19 likesShow 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/
3 replies 3 retweets 19 likesShow this thread -
What's not good is allowing a combination of sympathy and antipathy trump science to make a ridiculous ruling like this. 7/
1 reply 6 retweets 26 likesShow 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/
2 replies 3 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
It's also another example of why it's so important that scientific bodies like
@WHO get it right when issuing reports on the science of issues like this. No@IARCWHO report, no dubious inflated awards, because virtually no other relevant medical group agrees with the IARC. 9/2 replies 8 retweets 22 likesShow 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
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.