In article ,
Siberian Husky wrote:
(Bill Oliver) wrote in message ...


So talking about Roundup safety. The anti-Roundup people can
emphasize its effect on salmon, pets, and monarch butterflies and stay
shy of human beings (IF, it is indeed safe for humans). The
pro-Roundup people can emphasize the chemical is 100% safe on human if
used as directed and stay shy of its effect on salmons which
eventually go to human stomachs. When the anti-Roundup people carry
out experiments trying to prove the toxicity of Roundup on human
beings, they might do 1000 experiments and find nothing, and they
would not say it (if they do they made the experiments more
conclusive). Similarly, the pro-Roundup people, including Monsanto,
might have done 1000 experiments, and they find some "questionable"
results or "suspicious" data which deserve another look, but they
won't tell unless there is a whistleblower.


Well, no. First, you assume that someone is either "pro-Roundup"
or "anti-Roundup." Many people are neither. Second, particularly
for academia and government, if someone funds a large study, there
better damn well be a publication at the end of the tunnel or there
won't be any more funding. Nobody is going to spike a large
multicenter study on Roundup because of the results. Third, I
have no problem with people "emphasizing" one thing or another.
I have a problem with people saying that articles say things they
don't say. I have problems with people saying a study proves
ill effects in humans when the authors explicitly state they
aren't even testing it. I have a problem with people trotting
out studies on cells and claiming that proves a danger when the
authors themselves note that such an inference cannot be made.
That's not "emphasizing." That's deceit.

I am not "pro-Roundup." I am anti-deceit.

billo