13-08-2003, 06:02 AM
|
|
|
What's The Latest On Roundup Herbicide?
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:
In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
Bill, maybe you're right that the fear-and-doubt strategy of the opponents
is dishonest and not based on facts. But is it not Monsanto's own fault
that we doubt everything they say; is this not the punishment for
irresponsible behaviour in the past that I meant?
However, none of the peer-reviewed articles I noted are from Monsanto.
I am not relying on what Monsanto claims. Thus, whether or not Monsanto
has a habit of lying is irrelevant to the pertinent scientific literature,
which fails to show a danger of RoundUp.
You actually cited very little, but what you did cite, from an abstract
cut & pasted from the web, by Elaine Dallegrave et al, indicted herbicides
& pesticides including glyphosate -- your point is you didn't find
peer-reviewed independent science credible when they used large doses, &
you pretended there were no studies not about large doses didn't exist.
Then then you cut & paste another abstract from the web by
Williams/Kroes/Munro who did research with Monsanto funding implicitly to
prove safety rather than assess risk. Ian Munro, a notoriouis Monsanto
flack from way back, officially represents Monsanto interests at symposia.
Munro has promoted bogus data even after it was revealed to be falsified
in favor of several Monsanto products & is one of the "top ten" liars for
the company, but when revealed as promoting frauds in 1993, he claimed he
didn't know the research he relied on was faulty. "I know nothing,
NOTHING" seems always to be the fall-back position of YOUR favorite
scientists. Well, I'm willing to believe Ian this time, because I do
believe he knows very little about the diverse topics he jumps around on
like a dillatante, depending on what Monsanto needs in the given month, so
this time he's promoting genetic engineering, next time glyphosate, before
that he worked for tobacco interests when they were still claiming they
could prove smoking is harmless. Good lord Billo, who you lionize!
I looked for better citations in all your posts -- they were few & poor --
the criteria being INDEPENDENT research (not Monsanto-paid for) in peer
reviewed journals. You cited Monsanto research & now claim you didn't
cite Monsanto resarch -- I keep hating to think of you as a liar rather
than a dupe, so I'll assume you know so little of what you speak that you
really could cite even the most notorious Monsanto toxocoligists & say
with a straight face they're not Monsanto. I'll admit some independent
research in their favor does exists (truly independent research often
waffles with uncertainty -- only when Monsanto does it or pays for it do
they get certain). But you someone hit on only the worst Monsanto
flunkies. If you'd done a less agregiously bad job & found the tepidly
favorable research instead of the gung-ho Monsanto research.
So you've really provided nothing but Monsanto propoganda and the only
"peer reviewed" material you've cited that is not Monsanto-related
disagrees with you. And the issue isn't that I hate Monsanto -- I hate
that they kill people sure -- but that you find nothing whatsoever wrong
with the company even in light of their known fabrications of data, even
lying quite recently to JAMA, that it doesn't bother you their history
with Agent Orange which they are indeed repeating today with glyphosate.
It's easy to dislike killers -- the weird thing, the actually sociopathic
thing, is your clear & powerful need to give 'em love.
Nice you're at least willing to admit Monsanto notoriously lies about
everything, but how you can see that as "irrelevant to the pertinent
science" when they even lied to JAMA to get falsified data into print
where it could improve sales -- when EPA authors have said the persistant
lying by Monsanto face-to-face with EPA and in published falsified data
that has affected public policy in Monsanto's favor even when it is
against the interests of public health --- well, if you're not a dupe, and
you are indeed lying, I guess I can see that that does fit into your
philosophy that lying is "irrelevant."
-paghat the ratgirl
--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/
|