In article ,
Major Ursa wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in
:


What the man is saying, Bill, is that it is very well possible and even
likely that this scientific literature is also possibly 'influenced' by
the companies.


He provides no evidence that the science is bad.


But IMO the reason why this drags on is that you are so rigidly trusting
scientific evidence.

Yeah, when we know we *really* should be trusting Tarot
cards and channelling.

Animaux said it best with her little:

"Of course I can, but you don't believe anything other than your
silly little man world of knowing."

Nothing like a little anti-rational sexist bigotry to really
show what's important. Maybe Robin Morgan is right.
We should be basing our science on listening to
telepathic messages from the dolphins.


History is full of monumentous mistakes that at the
time were either not seen in need of scientific approval or were
approved with the (incomplete) knowledge of that time.


And even greater mistakes made by anti-scientific
irrationality.



I find it hard to believe that _anyone_ could be so rigid in trusting
the evidence around a product coming from a company ...


In other words, ignore the science, ignore the evidence,
ignore any rational considerations about the product
itself whatsoever.

Roundup is dangerous because you don't like Monsanto.
No other evidence is needed or accepted.

Any evidence to the contrary is to be dismissed out of
hand. The fact there is *no* evidence whatsoever that
Roundup is dangerous to humans when used as directed
is *irrelevant.*

And, of course, after all these screeds about conflict
of interest and the horrors of making money, you
ignore the fact that animaux made a *career* of pushing
this bullshit. You want to talk about conflict of
interest? And Tom -- he certainly clammed up when
asked what kind of money he made from pushing his
anti-science agenda. As far as I know, the only
person in this discussion who isn't making money
one way or the other on this is me.

Funny, you don't have any problems with *that*
conflict of interest, do you?

Roundup must be declared dangerous because it represents
unacceptable thought.

Pure and simple.

That's why the lack of any evidence of danger to humans
when used as directed is irrelevant, and why anybody
guilty of the non-organic thought crime must be
demonized.


billo