Comment by CGMthrowaway
3 hours ago
Trust the science. The World Health Organization on glyphosate in 2016:
"The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level"
"Glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic at anticipated dietary exposures"
"Glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet"
"The Meeting concluded that it was not necessary to establish an ARfD for glyphosate or its metabolites in view of its low acute toxicity"
https://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/Pe...
Tptacek in 2018:
"There are no credible studies indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, and it would be a little bit surprising it if was, since it targets a metabolic pathway not present in animals. Meanwhile, many of the herbicides that glyphosate displace, plenty of which remain in use, are known human carcinogens. The most widely reported declaration of glyphosate's carcinogenicity, by IARC, was disavowed by the WHO, IARC's parent organization...The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans"
https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc...
How many retractions has Dr Oz published?
Has he retracted his claim that “raspberry ketones” are a miracle for burning fat in a jar?
Idiots look at people who never admit they were wrong and think those are the people to follow.
People with the slightest bit of intelligence look at the people (or process in this matter) who are constantly checking themselves and willing to admit they were wrong (or in this case misled by frauds) when they find the truth.
Meanwhile, the real issue here is not the science. The real issue here is the American GRAS system, because Europe didn’t allow glyphosates because their political system requires stuff going into your food to be proven safe, whereas the American system simply requires it to not be proven harmful.
This is a lot of words to make no real point to who it’s replying to.
Retracting a paper showing it's safety isn't the same as proving it is unsafe. I don't see anything here that does that.
The IARC says the 2A designation was "based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans (from real-world exposures that actually occurred) and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals (from studies of “pure” glyphosatese"*
* https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/QA_Glyph...
> The evidence seems to suggest that glyphosate is basically inert in humans
It actually might be the case and it still can be damaging to people by affecting the gut microbiome:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
I would disagree with the claim/usage of “inert” if it was damaging to gut microbiome.
> affecting the gut microbiome
That is so vague it can apply to everything. Probably drinking a glass of water affects the gut microbiome.
>Tptacek in 2018:
Makes me want to punch everyone else on the high score board into a search engine and see how they did.
Kinda funny how the "it kills stuff, it can't be good for ya" luddite crowd turned out to be right all along.
He is remarkably smug and not to be trusted. There must be some affiliation with the federal agencies given how he was covering for them here back in the Snowden days.
He can just be a statist.
Speaking of luddites, I've recently stumbled on posts that point out that the framing of "luddites" was intentionally misleading and that it was never being against technology but how it was wielded.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/we-should-all-be-luddites...
[ On second thoughts, retracted ]
While it's not great I vastly prefer that sort of not great behavior to achieving the same results by being one of those people who has crappy opinions and then just cherry picks links to back them up when called out on it.
Probably a good call on the retraction TBH.
> The only large cohort study of high quality found no evidence of an association at any exposure level
Was that the retracted study or a different one?
CGMthrowaway writes:
> Trust the science.
Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.
> When Dr. Oz in 2015 spoke out against glyphosate...
Oz also promoted MLM dietary supplements, antimalarial drugs as COVID treatments, gay conversion "therapy", colloidal silver, and vaccine skepticism. He has zero credibility and cannot be trusted.
> > Trust the science.
>> Science is a process, not a result. Retractions like this promote the integrity of scientific research and evidence-based medicine.
He was obviously poking fun at people who say "trust the science" when what they really mean is "trust these scientits" or, even better, "trust this one study".
Undoubtedly "trust the science" is little more than an appeal to authority when used in a casual debate, not some appeal to skepticism, peer review and testability.
“Trust the science” … always when talking to a flat-earther or similar huckster.
There definitely needs to be more nuance to the phrase in the general case. Eg: “trust established science” Let’s be honest though, it’s a lack of nuance in some world views that need science as an authority the most.
1 reply →
Big Dr Oz fan eh? Got any quotes from Oprah or other HNers to balance the epistemic master class?
even a broken clock can be right every now and then
No the opposite. I trust Monsanto, they know this chemical better than anyone.
I wouldn't really trust either one. Plenty of big companies have known how horrible their own products are, like cigarette companies, or fossil fuels. We'll probably learn about social media companies in a few years.
That said, just because a product comes from a big company doesn't mean it's bad either. I want to see independent research.
1 reply →
Is this sarcasm or are you seriously saying you trust Monsanto on a thread about them committing scientific fraud to influence our perception of their product?
1 reply →
Got any hot tips from Marlboro I should read as well?
1 reply →