I'm very confused as to whether or not roundup(glycophosphate) is actually bad for humans. It seems that the vast majority of studies point towards "no", with that one lone WHO study saying "likely".
Even stranger is that one WHO report was the IARC meta study that manipulated the data to reach that conclusion. Somehow people have latched onto a few monsanto studies, misinterpreted them to assure themselves that glyphosate is a problem, but have relied on a clearly flawed study to serve as a foundation for their beliefs. It seems that once a paranoid/conspiracy meme gains traction, it takes enormous resources to combat. The US is still having problems with anti-vaxxers despite the fact that vaccines are about the surest thing we have in medical science.
I have a running hypothesis on human behavior: people form self-serving opinions first and foremost, then scrounge around for the supporting evidence afterwards.
It is so hard for adults to admit they are wrong. Even harder if someone has been advocating for their own side at length. To change opinions, they need to have some acceptable exit strategy (e.g. "company A doesn't make vaccines with dangerous component X anymore, vaccines are safe now thank goodness!").
"Overall, our review did not find support in the epidemiologic literature for a causal association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma."
I'm a natural products scientist and I have looked as closely as I can and I really don't find much reliable data supporting the assertion that glyphosate causes cancer. I avoided using it for quite some time, but I do use it now. I have to live by logic and not hysteria. Many pesticides are bad and dangerous, but glyphosate is as close to a magic bullet that only kills plants that I can find.
People hate Monsanto, and populism is rife, so the decision wasn't shocking. Amazing that Monsanto managed to sell to Bayer with these lawsuits on the horizon.
Thanks for sharing that article, I hadn't seen it.
There are plenty of reasons to support hating Monsanto. I do as well. Generic versions of Roundup are available from generic type suppliers now and that is where I buy mine.
10 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 36.7 ms ] threadIt is so hard for adults to admit they are wrong. Even harder if someone has been advocating for their own side at length. To change opinions, they need to have some acceptable exit strategy (e.g. "company A doesn't make vaccines with dangerous component X anymore, vaccines are safe now thank goodness!").
Vaccines are a gamble. They're hard to make, and when they do, they fail in unexpected ways.
But that's mainly because the immune system is hard to understand, not because adjuvants cause autism.
"Overall, our review did not find support in the epidemiologic literature for a causal association between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma."
I'm a natural products scientist and I have looked as closely as I can and I really don't find much reliable data supporting the assertion that glyphosate causes cancer. I avoided using it for quite some time, but I do use it now. I have to live by logic and not hysteria. Many pesticides are bad and dangerous, but glyphosate is as close to a magic bullet that only kills plants that I can find.
I'm far from an expert, but this being in the news has piqued my interest as well, and I haven't seen much that confirms it either:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5705608/
People hate Monsanto, and populism is rife, so the decision wasn't shocking. Amazing that Monsanto managed to sell to Bayer with these lawsuits on the horizon.
There are plenty of reasons to support hating Monsanto. I do as well. Generic versions of Roundup are available from generic type suppliers now and that is where I buy mine.
Of course, trials like this aren't about proving the substance causes harm in a scientific way.