In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

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

Apparently they *do* have to lie, since you misrepresent the findings.

Bill,

do you believe that Monsanto is lying about this issue whilest knowing the
true facts? Because if they do, they're taking a huge risk with the
company. One day the truth will come out and they will be sued by
thousands of ppl and institutions (like the Danish governemnt?) being
guilty of damages by deception of the public, much like the tabacco-
companies are, at present. AFAIK Monsanto is far too businesslike to take
an enormous risk like that.

Ursa..



No. Monsanto is not lying. The scientists who do the studies that
show the safety of the product are not lying. The
envirofundamentalists who misrepresent the findings and peddle
hysteria are the ones who are lying whilst knowing the facts.


billo

Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly
paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying
repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples:

1) Their extraordinary cover-up with falsified data after they poisoned
the people of Sturgeon Missouri

2) Being fined & forced by the NY Attorney General to stop telling the
whopper you repeated earlier in this thread that RoundUp is safe as table
salt, and forced to remove from the label the lies that RoundUp was
"biodegradable" and "environmentally friendly." Though fined & forced to
take it off the label, they do keep retelling these lies off-label.

3) Though caught lying by the NY Attorney General in 1996, Monsanto did
not chagne their ways, and was again fined in 1998 for claiming in an
advertising campaign (contrary to what they were forced to admit on their
label) that RoundUp was safe to use around water. The only way these kinds
of whoppers can be regarded as accidental & unknowing is if you assume
Monsanto lacks even rudimentary knowledge of science.

4) EPA's outraged charges against Monsanto for providing falsified data
on the safety of dioxin contamination in their products.

5) Dr Ray Suskind's research for Monsanto which was found they routinely
misrepresented data for Monsanto, followed by Monsanto's routine claim
that they never imagined any scientist they gave a shitload of money to
would actually misrepresent findings in order to get the results Monsanto
paid for.

6) Deniability is one of Monsanto's trademarks. In 1994, EPA published
information on the falsified Monsanto-funded studies on RoundUp, but once
again Monsanto claimed they couldn't possibly have known that by paying
Craven Labs for specific findings, with renewed funding guaranteed if the
findings suited Monsanto, then the findings they required would be
fraudulant. Three Craven Labs employees ended up felony charges, sentenced
up to five years in prison, with a large number of employees pleading
guilty to lesser charges. "Coincidentally" when Monsanto hired another lab
to re-do the research, the new lab obediently came to the exact same
conclusions as had been falsified. It's all about not getting caught.

7) Deniability doesn't always work since much of the falsified data comes
from Monsanto's own labs & is not just paid for from others. Monsanto's
in-house "resaerch" falsified data for artificial sweeteners aspartame &
neotame. FDA toxicologists, Drs. Adrian Gross & Jaqueline Verrett, first
discovered the intentionally falsified data.

8) And how short can memory be. Both Monsanto and Dow lied for YEARS about
Agent Orange, and were again caught falsifying supportive data. In one
study alone. Yeah, yeh, that was twenty & fifty years ago, but as late as
2002 at a symposium in Hanoi, Monsanto flacks turned up to again wheedle
out of responsibility. Monsanto's most famously revealed (of scores) of
lies about Agent Orange was when they sent their scientists into the Nitro
West Virginia plant to assess health risks to workers. To get the required
results, they removed from their study five outright deaths, denied the
presence of unusual cancers that were present in the worker population, &
in numerous other ways faked data which Monsanto then used to prove Agent
Orange was totally safe. In 1979 one of the key researchers, an outraged
Bill Gaffey, sued investigative journalists for defamation of character, &
lost. A year later, under oath to Congress, he finally admitted Monsanto
hired him specifically to falsify data. Despite admitting under oath in
1980 that he lied for Monsanto, the data was nevertheless published as if
authentic in 1983, so ended up in court in 1984:

11) In the lawsuit against Monsanto in 1984, Judith Zack made further
admissions under oath of being hired by Monsanto to fake data favorable to
Agent Orange and to whitewash the effects of dioxins. Oh hell, there's
TONS more on Agent Orange. From the 1950s through the 1990s, it was their
RoundUp of the era. The same lying techniques used for decades to favor
Agent Orange are today being adapted to support RoundUp. Since RoundUp
contains dioxin contaminants, Monsanto is still using falsified Agent
Orange data, supplemented by new falsifications, to prove the levels of
dioxin in RoundUp are harmless (i.e., see #4 above).

9) Lies of omission. Monsanto has never, and will never, conduct or fund
any research on RoudUp-caused deaths. Hospital data shows it to be the #3
most dangerous herbicide or pesticide in terms of actual incidents. Yet
Monsanto repeatedly cites its own data alleging safety, a fundamental lie
they are committed to retelling as often as they can.

10) EPA findings in 1998 were that on RoundUp labels, Monsanto was still
using "false & misleading claims." Now I'm pretty sure I'm not unique in
assuming statements that are intentionally "false & misleading" are indeed
lies.

11) A 1991 document from EPA, "Impact of Falsified Monsanto Human Studies
on Dioxin Regulations by EPA & Other Agencies" confirms that the lying
chemical companies do gain by lying, because chemicals that should be
regulated end up unregulated on the basis of being lied to by Monsanto and
Dow.

12) Monsanto after years of lying about bovine growth hormones not making
it into the food chain was caught out in the big lie. Robert Cohen
testified in 1999 how the lie went: "90% of Bovine growth hormone is
removed by pasteurization at 160 degrees for thirty minutes." This is a
lie on two levels. First, milk is pasteurized for FIFTEEN SECONDS, not
thirty minutes, so the idea that thirty minutes of pasteurization would
fix all but 10% of the problem was a red herring. Second, Monsanto's
experiments with lengthy pasteurizing had in reality failed to destroy
even 20% of the bovine growth hormone, fully 81% of the hormone remained.
The FDA should never have okayed this hormone but they did, because so
many FDA operatives take advantage of the "revolving door policy" & leave
the FDA for high-paying jobs at Monsanto or its numerous subsidiaries.
Plus Cohen discovered that it took only 12 members of congress to sink a
bill that had the support of 181 congressmen to not allow milk
contaminated with bovine growth hormone to be sold to the public. Those 12
men who stopped the bill were called the Dairy Livestock & Poultry
Committee. They had all received PAC money from dairy interests & four
accepted monies direct from Monsanto. So the method is first, lie. If that
fails, buy off Congress.

13) Suppression of truth-tellers. Monsanto sues whistleblowers, but
rewards anyone who supports their views. A secret internal memo was leaked
to Gene Watch regarding Monsanto's methods of propogandizing the public
by controlling what the public is permitted to find out. The full text of
this amazing memo can be found at genewatch.org -- it is an outline for
controling or misleading government agencies & the public. Monsanto
would, for instance, do whatever it could to control who could attend
international symposia on gene modified crops; would promote the views of
agreeable scientists pretending to do independent research; would buy off
government officials in developing countries; would fight through
lobbyists for their continuing right to concoct misleading labels; would
do what they could to damage or restrict the careers of independent
researchers apt to publish data unfavorable to gene modified crops; would
provide "experts" to poison control centers around the world to help them
understand nothing Monsanto sells is harmful, under the premise that
regional legislators rely on information from poison control centers when
fashioning laws to protect the public; & would personally train the
technicians for lab work at no cost to the independent labs.

14) Anniston, an impoverished rural town in Alabama populated by
disempowered blacks, is one of the hotspots for cancer in America, because
of illegal massive dumping of PCBs into their local environment. For 40
years Monsanto and Solutia lied about the intentional dumping & paid
millions in court costs to keep from having to settle with the people of
Alabama before 2001, when at long last they admitted to guilt, but changed
their tactic to argue (successfully, alas) that they shouldn't be forced
to pay medical costs for illnesses that take a couple decades to show up.
So justice has never been done the people of Anniston.

15) EPA investigator William Sanjour found that Monsanto were chronic
liars. The examples he cited included A) Paid for falsified studies then
knowingly used the false data that "proved" there was no cancer risk from
exposure to dioxins; B) falsified data & sent PR men and attorneys to
Sturgeon Missouri to lie face-to-face to spill victims; C) Monsanto lied
to plant workers about dangerous exposures that occurred in their
chlorophenol plant; D) Monsanto knowingly dumped 30-40 pounds of dioxins
per day into the Mississippi throughout the 1970s, lied about it, then
lied again when the dioxins were found to have made their way into the
food chain; E) Monsanto lied in meetings with EPA about dioxin
contaminants in & around their plants; F) Monsanto lied in meetings with
OSHA about contaminants in their plants; F) Lied to EPA about the
feasibility of studying dioxins at all, to excuse their intentional lack
of creditable data, but turned out they had already prepared some
falsified data which they were afraid to share since they were being too
heavily scrutinized at that moment & figured they'd get caught.

The result of Sanjour's findings was that a "full field criminal
investigation" should be undertaken against Monsanto because "a potential
conspiracy between Monsanto & its officers & employees, exists or has
existed to defraud the US EPA, in violation of 18 USC 371. The means of
the conspiracy appears to be by (1) providing misleading information to
the EPA; (2) intentional failure by Monsanto to fully disclose all
pertinent TSCA [Toxic Substances Control Act] related information to the
EPA; (3) false statements in notices and reports to EPA; (4) the use of
allegedly fraudulent research to erroneously convince the EPA, and the
scientific community." After this, some heavy-duty intense lobbying of
Congress too place, Congress intervened to shut down EPA's criminal
enforcement investigation of Monsanto, & were permitted instead to
undertake a two year investigation of whistleblowers. So Monsanto knows:
Lying works.

There's much, much, much more. "Monsanto" is virtually a synonym for
"Dishonesty" and "Liars." Why Billo would tell such whoppers to the
contrary is hard to fathom, except that everything he has posted can be
found in Monsanto instructions to employees, including the instruction to
cloud the issues whenever possible on the internet (which their own PR
firm, the Bivings Group, admitted).

-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/

In article , Major Ursa
wrote:

(paghat) wrote in
news
As for business risk, Monsanto's entire future hinges on the
INCREASING marketability of RoundUp in tandem with
glyphosate-resistant crops no one but themselves can provide. From
their point of view they are "far too businesslike" to ever tell the
truth, since the goal is to increase sales of a product that shouldn't
be sold at all.

So, what you're saying is that they try to keep up the sales so they are
big enough later on to pay for the claims.

Or to pay their attorneys so that they never have to pay the claims. Even
when they settle out of court, they rarely pay off the settlements. So the
real point is that they are so heavily invested in RoundUp they can't let
go of it no matter how bad it is, they must use every trick in the book to
keep it legal. It directly impacts the nature of the crop seed they're
also producing. By providing glyphosate-tolerant grains that grow up to be
sterile crops, they trap famers into an eternal cycle of always having to
buy new seed, plus they can sell them increasing tons of glyphosate to
slather all around the crops. Monsanto will make billions & billions off
this selling toxins to use on crops that are genetically modified to be
tolerant of toxins. This is already far outpacing what they're making by
feeding us harmful bovine growth hormones in milk, as they can't actually
control the flow of the milk the way they can control seed crops by
altering them to never produce fertile seeds. They could have all their
products banned & still be a super-giant so long as they can keep
glyphosate legal. So they can afford a few million for the attorneys when
billions are the reward.

I find it hard to believe that if MS _knows_ that this stuff is as
dangerous as you claim it to be that they would go on and make these false
statements. So, since they keep doing it, they do not know for sure it is
that dangerous. And if they don't _know it, how can _you be so sure.

Certainly when the lies add up to thirty years worth & the evidence that
they are lying is finally too great & definitive for them to lie any
longer, their usual excuse is "we really didn't know." But that assumes
there are no actual scientists in the company. They have plenty of
scientists. So they know.

-paggers

Btw, I'm certainly not a friend of MS, far from it, and I disaprove
strongly of their business practice of forcing gentech on the rest of the
world, but if we can not prove a case as 'clear' as this one, then who is
to blame for the consequences? I think MS is a technocrats business plan,
but that is just one part of our society. If ppl disagree massively, and
the case is as clear as you say, than surely it must me easy to stop them.

Ursa..

--
"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/

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:


Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of law,
there's just no question but that they are never a source of truth.
Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of Sturgeon
Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up losing the
court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they lie about?
Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in their "experts"
(including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and "studies" so that they could
"prove" the chemical spill couldn't possibly hurt anyone, & then they
published as "science" fraudulant studies, & hired spin doctors to
interpret the false science in simpler terms for a population they clearly
regarded as gullible hicks.



As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs.

You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort
to quoting torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line
is that class action torts are not a test for truth in any
sense of the word. Junk science is much more often introduced
by plaintiffs than defendants in torts, and the courts
are incapable of telling the difference.

Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's
famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as
testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya.

Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired
Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society,
inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers,
persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers &
retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, & "Fund"amentally
kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out more checks for
non-independent research?

I don't really think that's you, as I've never regarded you as that sneaky
& have enjoyed so many of your posts for, what, three or for years?, but
did want to be sure that in this case you're honestly misguided rather
than willfully & as a matter of professional courtesy repeating by rote so
many Monsanto whoppers right down their "safe as salt" cliche & their idea
that testimony under oath is not as reliable as their PR people, that
people concerned about the environment are not as truthful as people
profiting by selling toxins, & any science not paid for or conducted by
Monsanto can't possibly be correct but their press releases are the real
truth.

-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/

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's
famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as
testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya.



Except, of course, that independent peer reveiwed science
demonstrated no danger of RoundUp at reasonable doses.


Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired
Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society,
inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers,
persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers &
retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, & "Fund"amentally
kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out more checks for
non-independent research?



Oh, please. No, if such a person exists at all.


billo

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly
paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying
repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples:

[lots of stuff having nothing to do with RoundUp]


Whatever. I'm not interested in your fixation on Monsanto, or
playing games about them. My point is, and remains, about RoundUp.

The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies
have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings
about Monsanto don't change that.

As far as RoundUp is concerned, they are not lying, and you
have not shown that they are. Dredging up accusations from
two decades ago doesn't change that simple fact.


billo

In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

Now you're just being silly. Monsanto practices spin control with a highly
paied PR department. They falsify data. They have been caught lying
repeatedly even to Congress, and under oath in coruts of law. Examples:

[lots of stuff having nothing to do with RoundUp]

"Monsanto has lied, misrepresented facts, poisoned people & the earth, &
put profit before its workers, consumers, farmers, children &
communities time and again." -Sarah Wright,
Selling Food, Health, Hope: The Real Story Behind Monsanto, 2003

Whatever. I'm not interested in your fixation on Monsanto, or
playing games about them. My point is, and remains, about RoundUp.

The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies
have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings
about Monsanto don't change that.

The bottom line is among the independent peer-reviewed studies MANY either
prove outright harmfulness while others more conservatively call for
further studies to see if the indications of harmfulness can be given
further evidence. While the vast majority of positive assessments are
generated by Monsanto in-house, funded by Monsanto, designed to find
positive elements without looking at harmful elements at all, & even then
rarely peer-reviewed.

As far as RoundUp is concerned, they are not lying, and you
have not shown that they are. Dredging up accusations from
two decades ago doesn't change that simple fact

billo

Funny that stuff happening as recently as 2002 and 2003 is, to you, two
decades ago.A fifty year history of lying I did document; the earliest in
the 1950s, much more in the 1960s, more still in the 1980s and 1990s, it's
still going on now. Lying is an ongoing habit that has never wavered, &
their leaed memo outlining their propoganda mission & methods shows that
it is in fact their intent to keep lying. A record like that & you
continue not to "care" that you're lionizing liars & repeating like a
robot dupe Monsanto's press releases.

Their own scientists have attested to the lies UNDER OATH in courts & to
Congress -- ah, but you've already stated that you think testimony under
oath is not as good as a public relations press release from Monsanto.
EPA investigators have point-blank called them liars on many issues, no
waffling about it, EPA investigators documented Monsanto persistently
lying to EPA. OSHA called them liars, no waffling about it there either,
just called them liars who fabricate data & get in the way of on-site
investigations, then lie to their workers rather than encourage workers to
take precautions in the deadly environment of Monsanto plants.

Monsanto is synonymous with lying, that part cannot rationally be denied,
so get rational. And the only puzzle here is why you'd write such lies as
you did just now above, pretending RoundUp is safe or that 2002 was twenty
years ago. The "best take" on your above commentary is you might be
willing to admit (or at least not deny, and certainly not care) that yeah,
yeah, sure, they lied for the entire history of their existence about
agent orange, about genetic engineering of crops, about bovine growth
hormone -- but you're dead set on the idea that they couldn't possibly be
lying about RoundUp. Very twisted.

You want more Monsanto lies to not care about? They lied to Percy
Schmeiser about the percentage of GM in a canola crop, & when they were
discovered to have lied & some farmers made a big stink about it, Monsanto
hired thuggish private detectives to pose as Canadian Mounties and
threaten the farmers. Not 20 years ago, but 1998. Then in court in 2000
they further lied under oath, & their own employee Morris Hofman later
admitted to the lies & his own role in fabricating evidence.

Their lies about dioxin contaminants in RoundUp continue to this day.
Though they started lying to the sick and dying residents of Anniston two
decades ago -- which to you doesn't matter because it was two decades ago
-- they were still lying about it in 2001 when secret in-house documents
were leaked to the Washington Post, & right now in 2003 they're still
fighting to not pay the settlement after all.

Monsanto lied to JAMA about Celebrex, misrepresenting from their in-house
fake study that "proved" their product was safer than two other arthritis
medications, but when the actual data was leaked to JAMA, the editor said,
"We were flabberghasted." Because the fact was the data untwinked proved
Celebrex had no safety advantages whatsoever -- none -- but to tell the
truth wouldn't increase their sales percentage. No, this not 20 years ago,
it was in 2001. Pharmacia, Searle, & Upjohn are all part of Monsanto; they
were after an increasing sahre of the ten billion dollars per year
generated by arthritis analgesics, & lying is second nature to them, so
they lied. Though caught in this lie, right now, in 2003, Celebrex is
marketed as safer less likely to cause ulcers & liver disease than other
products, a known lie.

This year they repeated AGAIN a lie that began in 2001, about how safe
RoundUp is to dump all over central America to get rid of coca crops.
Funny thing is, even if their stats on RoundUp had been true, which of
course they're not true, what they actually sent to the government to dump
on Columbian citizens was not the RoundUp formula they allege to be safe.
Rather, they used trumped up stats for 3% glyphosate formulas, & applied
these already dubious stats to a special glyphosate formula that was over
100 times more toxic than what is legal in the Untied States -- that's
what was dumped on Columbians as "safe." This was proven to be dumped ON
PEOPLE. When in 2001 a Congressman went to Columbia to check on some of
this himself, a fly-over accidentally soaked with the toxin, on camera.

Further lies for 2002 and 2003 lies have already been found out, but
expect many more to be reported in 2004, as more mount up each year.

Greed & dishonesty IS what Monsanto is all about.

-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/

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:21:05 GMT, "David J Bockman"
wrote:

Respectfully, this is a terrible thing to do. Please, always apply
glyphosate at the recommended strength. There are other chemicals one can
use to paint stumps rather than the foliage sprouts that will kill a tree
just fine.

Roundup at the normal levels is ineffective. I tried it and it was
like water, instead of 20 sprouts there would still be 3 or 4. In
woods with hudreds of stumps re-application every 2 to 3 weeks is a
massive waste of time.

Dan

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies
have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings
about Monsanto don't change that.

The bottom line is among the independent peer-reviewed studies MANY either
prove outright harmfulness while others more conservatively call for
further studies to see if the indications of harmfulness can be given
further evidence.

Nope. So far you have not provided a single such article. The
one article you claimed showed harmfulness was noted by the
authors *not* to show such harmfulness. The article you quoted
about sister chromatid exchange admitted within the article that
the findings were equivocal. In fact, the peer-reviewed
studies show just the opposite. The better-controlled and more
rigorous the study is, the less likely it is to show any effect.
Those that have shown *equivocal* effects admit that they have
no power.



Funny that stuff happening as recently as 2002 and 2003 is, to you, two
decades ago.A fifty year history of lying I did document; the earliest in
the 1950s, much more in the 1960s, more still in the 1980s and 1990s, it's
still going on now. [blah blah blah]

Yes, yes. We all know you hate Monsanto. The question at hand,
however, is whether or not RoundUp us harmful. The overwhelming
evidence is that it is not. The peer-reviewed studies indicate
it is not. And all the sidebar bullshit about how much you
hate Monsanto doesn't change that.

billo

On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 15:44:08 -0400, paghat wrote:

In article , (Bill Oliver)
wrote:

In article , paghat
wrote:


Monsanto has been caught out lying so many times even in courts of
law, there's just no question but that they are never a source of
truth. Examples on the record: When Monsanto lied to the people of
Sturgeon Missouri about the "safety" of chemical spills, they ended up
losing the court case & paying over $16 million dollars. What did they
lie about? Everything. A deadly chemical gets spilled, they sent in
their "experts" (including Frank Dost) to conduct "tests" and
"studies" so that they could "prove" the chemical spill couldn't
possibly hurt anyone, & then they published as "science" fraudulant
studies, & hired spin doctors to interpret the false science in
simpler terms for a population they clearly regarded as gullible
hicks.



As opposed, of course, to the hired guns put on by the plaintiffs.

You know that your scientific case is lost when you resort to quoting
torts as your basis for "truth." The bottom line is that class action
torts are not a test for truth in any sense of the word. Junk science
is much more often introduced by plaintiffs than defendants in torts,
and the courts are incapable of telling the difference.

Yes, yes, independent peer reviewed science is not as good as Monsanto's
famously fabricated "science," & testimony under oath is not as good as
testimony from Monsanto PR flacks. I get ya.


I suppose you only believe fake green science from the likes of
Needleman, Gould, Epstein, or Landrigan. And what about that big green PR
machine that calls itself Greenpeace? They just keep repeating the same
lies till people like you start to believe them.

Idle curiosity, you're not the same William Oliver who has chaired
Monsanto love-fest symposia through the American Chemical Society,
inviting primarily Monsanto and DuPont researchers as speakers,
persistently giving recognition dinners & awards to Monsanto workers &
retirees, gives out chemistry awards funded by Monsanto, &
"Fund"amentally kisses Monsanto's butt in order to get them to write out
more checks for non-independent research?

I don't really think that's you, as I've never regarded you as that
sneaky & have enjoyed so many of your posts for, what, three or for
years?, but did want to be sure that in this case you're honestly
misguided rather than willfully & as a matter of professional courtesy
repeating by rote so many Monsanto whoppers right down their "safe as
salt" cliche & their idea that testimony under oath is not as reliable
as their PR people, that people concerned about the environment are not
as truthful as people profiting by selling toxins, & any science not
paid for or conducted by Monsanto can't possibly be correct but their
press releases are the real truth.

-paghat the ratgirl

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.


Somehow the capitalist
system has to allow for a check on this kind of behavior. And wouldn't it
be easy enough for them to admit to their mistakes in the past and start
talking to the ppl?


Whatever social theory one wants to promulgate has nothing to do
with the fact that RoundUp is not a danger.


billo

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/

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


You actually cited very little, but what you did cite..

And you, I see, cite nothing in this screed.

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.

blah blah blah.

When you can't argue the science, argue the people. Forget about
this peer-reviewed articles in peer-reviewed journal stuff; everybody
who disagrees with you is a "Monsanto flack."


billo

On 13 Aug 2003 02:28:51 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:


The bottom line is that independent peer-reviewed studies
have failed to show a danger in RoundUp. All your railings
about Monsanto don't change that.

The bottom line is among the independent peer-reviewed studies MANY either
prove outright harmfulness while others more conservatively call for
further studies to see if the indications of harmfulness can be given
further evidence.

Nope. So far you have not provided a single such article. The
one article you claimed showed harmfulness was noted by the
authors *not* to show such harmfulness. The article you quoted
about sister chromatid exchange admitted within the article that
the findings were equivocal. In fact, the peer-reviewed
studies show just the opposite. The better-controlled and more
rigorous the study is, the less likely it is to show any effect.
Those that have shown *equivocal* effects admit that they have
no power.



Funny that stuff happening as recently as 2002 and 2003 is, to you, two
decades ago.A fifty year history of lying I did document; the earliest in
the 1950s, much more in the 1960s, more still in the 1980s and 1990s, it's
still going on now. [blah blah blah]

Yes, yes. We all know you hate Monsanto. The question at hand,
however, is whether or not RoundUp us harmful. The overwhelming
evidence is that it is not. The peer-reviewed studies indicate
it is not. And all the sidebar bullshit about how much you
hate Monsanto doesn't change that.

billo

Please, since it's so non-toxic, have a nice cool drink of it.

In article ,
animaux wrote:
On 13 Aug 2003 02:28:51 GMT, (Bill Oliver) wrote:


Please, since it's so non-toxic, have a nice cool drink of it.

As I noted, when you don't have science behind your claims,
you attack the person. It's the ecofundamentalist way.

The *science* does not back up the claims of toxicity made
by the hysterics. Of course one would not "have a nice cool
drink of it." That is not how it is properly used. As properly
used, the science shows no ill effect.

billo

I hear that Monsanto lost the patent or it ran out for Roundup.
"Chris Owens" wrote in message
...
" wrote:

Is glyphosate as "safe as table salt" as alleged by Monsanto, or is it
extremely hazardous as contended by some environmentalists? What are
the latest opinions? Thanx, Jack

Well, there's no question that RoundUp cuts a pretty wide swath
through the invertebrates that encounter it. It has a very short
stability profile, however; so, it doesn't hang around to keep
killing. And, as herbicides go, it's pretty safe for humans if
handled correctly. So, basically, it comes down to the old
question of cost-benefit ratios: Is the advantage of one-pass
defoliation worth the loss of all your invertebrates in this
particular instance?

Chris Owens


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----