
California jury says Bayer must pay $2B to couple in Roundup cancer trial - mi100hael
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-bayer-glyphosate-lawsuit/california-jury-says-bayer-must-pay-2-billion-to-couple-in-roundup-cancer-trial-idUSKCN1SJ29F
======
dzdt
Trial by jury is so badly equipped to answer complicated questions like does
Roundup/glyphosate cause cancer, and did it specifically cause this cancer.

Juries are equipped to answer whether a person not so different from the
jurors is guilty of a crime not so far removed from the jurors' experience.
They are not equipped to resolve factual questions about things like this (or
patent cases -- another crazy one we see on HN).

Jury == random number generator. Maybe they get it right, but only by chance.

~~~
rayiner
The jury is not answering that question. The jury is just there to evaluate
the credibility of the competing experts who have offered opinions on that
question. If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that
calls into question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions.
Luckily, lay people are qualified to make those judgments. Whenever I have
seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been impressed by the degree
to which folks can absorb the information presented at trial. They are far
from "random number generators":
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/)

> If this claim is valid, an ideal study would be to compare the judgments of
> medical doctors to the verdicts rendered by juries. A study by Taragin et
> al. [31] did just that. The study utilized data from the closed claim files
> of a medical liability insurer. The insurers had medical doctors closely
> examine the medical records in cases involving claims of medical negligence
> to determine if medical negligence had occurred. Tarragin et al. [31]
> compared these judgments with verdicts rendered by juries if the case went
> to trial. The jury verdicts tended to be consistent with the medical
> judgments. Moreover, the study found that verdicts were not related to the
> severity of the injury suffered by the plaintiff, an indication that juries
> were not basing their judgment out of mere sympathy for a seriously injured
> patient. Farber and White [13] also compared jury verdicts to hospital
> records bearing on negligence. Those authors found that the jury verdicts
> favored the hospital in all cases that the hospital had rated as not-
> negligent.

The billion-dollar punitive damages verdict, moreover, is not crazy
considering that the point of punitive damages is to deter similar conduct in
the future. If you look at what folks here on HN--presumably quite
knowledgeable about the subject matter--were saying about how much Facebook
should be fined to deter conduct like that which led to the Cambridge
Analytica issues, the numbers were likewise in the billions of dollars.

~~~
omginternets
>The jury is just there to evaluate the credibility of the competing experts
who have offered opinions on that question.

It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either.

>If lay people are not equipped to evaluate such credibility, that calls into
question the very underpinnings of our policy-making institutions.

Not necessarily. It just calls into question whether the system works well in
this class of cases.

>Whenever I have seen an actual jury at work, I have consistently been
impressed by the degree to which folks can absorb the information presented at
trial.

Have you seen something even remotely comparable to the case being discussed
here?

~~~
JohnFen
> It's not clear that they're competent to do this, either.

What's the alternative, though?

~~~
adventured
The only counter suggestion I've ever seen are expert panels that remove
decisions from The People and move it up the ladder of control and power,
where the elites and bureaucrats can ideally be more easily paid off by
companies like Bayer to rule in their favor. The elites love choke points that
amplify their control over society, always under the guise that they know best
(inevitably resulting in vast, systemic corruption that is nearly impossible
to stop).

Panels and government oversight boards are just another easy target for
lobbying (in all of its various flavors). As though the US system doesn't have
enough of those corruption points in place now. There are an enormous number
of jury cases in the US every year however, and bribery is rare.

If you replace traditional juries with expert panels, it's guaranteed that the
system will be designed - by those that benefit from all other forms of
lobbying - to have holes in it that allow forms of legal lobbying and
influence, whether direct or indirect.

I'll take juries of The People in all regards, and without exception, over the
extraordinarily dangerous, anti-democratic risks involved in shifting the
system toward elitist expert panels. We already have enough of that shit
dominating our country as it is. I choose the less perfect system - if that's
indeed the choice - that retains power in the people broadly, keeping a
critically important piece of the justice system mass-involved - something
we're all part of.

~~~
phs318u
Not necessarily disagreeing with your points but who exactly are “the elites”?
Elite thinkers? Elite earners? Elite influencers? Elite who, and elite by what
criteria?

~~~
scotty79
I read it as elite politicians. People especially apt at getting what they
want.

------
leereeves
This is (part of) what the jury heard:

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (part of the WHO) classified
glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015.

After that, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the
CDC) announced a review of the herbicide, and the plaintiffs alleged that
Monsanto conspired to conceal the risks by influencing or delaying that
review.

For example, a Monsanto scientist contacted a former EPA toxicologist: “We’re
trying to do everything we can to keep from having a domestic IARC occur with
this group. May need your help”

And Monstanto's liason to the EPA wrote to another Monsanto toxicologist:
“[EPA division director Jesudoss “Jess” Rowland] told me no coordination
[between the EPA and the ATSDR] is going on and he wanted to establish some
saying ‘If I can kill this I should get a medal’. However, don’t get your
hopes up, I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this."

[https://www.courthousenews.com/roundup-cancer-trial-
emails-s...](https://www.courthousenews.com/roundup-cancer-trial-emails-show-
monsanto-cozy-with-feds/)

~~~
steve19
Radio waves (every frequency) are classified as “probably carcinogenic to
humans” by the same organisation.

(edit: its possibly not probably thanks to commenter below)

This has lead to anti vaxxer types believing smart electricity meters are out
to kill them (no idea why low powered smart meters are the devil over other
emmiting devices).

If you listen to International Agency for Research on Cancer every electronic
device in your home, could kill you with cancer.

~~~
leereeves
No, the IARC classified radio waves as _possibly_ carcinogenic, not probably.

Furthermore, they said the evidence was "limited" for glioma caused by cell
phone use (and thus the associated frequencies) and inadequate to draw
conclusions for other types of cancers and other exposures.

It was a very measured statement that's been misrepresented.

[https://www.iarc.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf](https://www.iarc.fr/wp-
content/uploads/2018/07/pr208_E.pdf)

~~~
steve19
And even that is outrageous.

"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans
(Group 2B)"

Its based on one small discredited study that asked people WITH cancer to
estimate their lifetime usage of mobile phones. According to that study we
should have many times more brain cancers than we do have (rates have remained
static since phones were introduced).

And yet because of that study they make a blanket statement about all RF. So a
1 milliwatt 20 hz transmitter gets the same classification as a 10 terrahert
500w transmitter and the magnetic field around a cable carrying AC.

Its insane fear mongering from people paid to fear monger, not do rational
science.

Edit: all of a sudden my posts suddenly start getting loads of down votes.
Really strange.

Here is the famous 1 Million women study that was completed after the IARC
published their infamous press release:

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200)

"In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with
increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."

~~~
leereeves
No, it was based on two studies for glioma, including "the largest
investigation so far of mobile phone use and brain tumours" with 2500 cases
and 2500 controls, and those two studies plus a third for acoustic neuroma.

Still, as you say, the evidence was limited, which is exactly what the IARC
said.

And they did not make a blanket statement for RF. They specifically and very
clearly said the possible risk was cell phone use.

[http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequenc...](http://noxtak.com/documents/Carcinogenicity_of_radiofrequency.pdf)

~~~
steve19
It explicitly, in the first line, states it covers all RF electromagnetic
radiation. Regardless of why they decided RF was bad (mobile phone) they
decided it was all bad.

"The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified
radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans
(Group 2B)"

The largest study since then has been 1 million woman.

"In this large prospective study, mobile phone use was not associated with
increased incidence of glioma, meningioma or non-CNS cancers."

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657200)

~~~
leereeves
That million woman study did find an increased risk of :s/cancer/tumors/
associated with cell phone use.

> For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk with long term use vs
> never use (10+ years: RR = 2.46, 95% CI = 1.07-5.64, P = 0.03), the risk
> increasing with duration of use (trend among users, P = 0.03).

And you quoted the IARC press release out of context. Immediately after the
words you quote it says: "...based on an increased risk for
glioma...associated with wireless phone use."

~~~
steve19
> That million woman study did find an increased risk of cancer associated
> with cell phone use. ... For acoustic neuroma, there was an increase in risk

You are incorrect. Acoustic neuroma is a benign tumor ie. non-cancerous.

~~~
leereeves
Mea culpa. I still don't see what your point is, though. That the IARC should
have included a _future_ study in their analysis?

They drew what conclusions they could based on the evidence available at the
time.

~~~
steve19
I just believe they should have revised their advisory and classifications as
new science is done. That is all.

I apologize for getting worked up about this and I removed the offending line
on a previous post.

~~~
leereeves
I agree with that. They should review this again.

------
guelo
This is the third jury that looked at all the available evidence and reached
the same conclusion. That's 36 people that spent hours carefully looking at
the available documents and u̶n̶a̶n̶i̶m̶o̶u̶s̶l̶y̶ agreed that Roundup can
cause cancer and that Monsanto covered up the risks. Maybe we shouldn't be so
dismissive?

~~~
nearbuy
How do you square this with all the major regulatory organization's experts
concluding that there is no evidence glyphosate poses a cancer risk to humans?

Organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Food and
Agriculture Organization, European Commission, Canadian Pest Management
Regulatory Agency, Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment have concluded that there
is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to
humans. The EPA has classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to
humans." One international scientific organization, the International Agency
for Research on Cancer (IARC), affiliated with the WHO, has made claims of
carcinogenicity in research reviews; in 2015 the IARC declared glyphosate
"probably carcinogenic." [1]

[The IARC] dismissed and edited findings from a draft of its review of the
weedkiller glyphosate that were at odds with its final conclusion that the
chemical probably causes cancer.

Reuters found 10 significant changes that were made between the draft chapter
on animal studies and the published version of IARC’s glyphosate assessment.
In each case, a negative conclusion about glyphosate leading to tumors was
either deleted or replaced with a neutral or positive one. [2]

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Cancer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate#Cancer)

[2] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-
speci...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-who-iarc-glyphosate-
specialreport/in-glyphosate-review-who-cancer-agency-edited-out-non-
carcinogenic-findings-idUSKBN1CO251)

~~~
rjf72
I think reading on the history of past events can answer this question quite
clearly. History has this very odd tendency to repeat itself with striking
similarity. This [1] is a reasonable brief on leaded fuel. You can find much
more in depth and interesting articles on its history elsewhere. But there are
many similarities to the current situation. As early as the 1920s the dangers
of leaded fuel were somewhat apparent. Yet the official government position
would be to proclaim its safety for many decades. It wasn't until the 1970s
that efforts towards a gradual phaseout were implemented and that was more
over environmental concerns than it's own dangers.

So what happened? Again it's all very similar. There were various reports that
were published throughout the decades about the dangers of leaded fuel but
these studies, the individuals behind them, and even the journals that
published such work were all vigorously attacked. By contrast the industry
published large amounts of their own research and strongly incentivized
"independent" research supporting the position that leaded fuel was safe. Thus
you ended up with 'decades of research proving the safety of leaded fuel.'
This, alongside further corporate influence, are what helped drive regulators
and other government agencies to fall in line.

I'd look at the World Health Organization's IARC report in a different way. A
researcher leaked to Monsanto confidential internal drafts of a UN
organization's internal deliberations. Think about the implications of that.
Whoever leaked that did so precisely in an effort to undermine the final
report. Do you think they were otherwise an impartial and objective
researcher? Probably not. Yet somehow they made their way onto an IARC panel
which makes all effort to control for conflicts of interests, both perceived
and real. _That_ sort of influence is exactly how you have things such as the
EPA saying glyphosate is perfectly safe at the same time that other countries,
such as France, find it necessary to phase out and ultimately completely ban
the product.

And the worst part here is that as corporations grow larger and become more
effective at injecting themselves into positions of influence, government
agencies can be expected to become less reliable. For instance this [2] is the
former head of the FDA, in a special position created by the last president
which he referred to as the 'Czar of Foods'. A Monsanto lawyer and VP known
for a legal argument that companies ought be allowed to knowingly add at least
a small amount of carcinogenic material into processed foods. That is the
person who was the head of food safety in the US for the better part of a
decade.

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetraethyllead#Controversy_and_phase-
out)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_R._Taylor)

~~~
BuildTheRobots
> And the worst part here is that as corporations grow larger and become more
> effective at injecting themselves into positions of influence, government
> agencies can be expected to become less reliable.

A current example of that might be the FAA allowing aircraft manufacturers to
self-certify that their planes are safe, as happened with the Boeing 737-Max
fiasco.

With regards to your specific leaded-petrol example, I honestly feel that if
the government keeps proclaiming something is safe that turns out not to be,
they should be held responsible for making right afterwards.

------
burtonator
I love this guy on Roundup:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovKw6YjqSfM)

... says it's so safe he'll drink a pint of it.

Then the interviewer says "ok, well we have a pint, would you like to drink
it? "

~~~
klmr
That guy is a twat but the safety of something isn’t determined by whether you
can safely drink a pint of it, unless, well, it’s a drink. You also can’t
safely eat a pound of salt (it’s _much_ more harmful than drinking a pint of
Roundup), yet salting your food in moderation is safe, and no jury will award
you punitive damages against McDonald’s for salting their fries (even though
McDonald’s is known to use excessive, and harmful, quantities of salt).

------
mythrwy
Probably glyphosate isn't really carcinogenic. It's a substituted amino acid
and lots of studies have shown it to be benign.

But maybe it is. Maybe there is something we didn't know. Maybe Monstanto
pumped out a bunch of fake studies. Probably not but this could be.

Something to consider is this. The cheapness of our food production, which is
not just the US but much of the world at the moment is in part to use of
glyphosate aka "roundup ready" base crops like corn and soybeans. This allows
higher yields with less cultivation. Now maybe this is all wrong and we should
do it differently, but at the moment that is how it is. These "base" products
trickle up into all sorts of things like meat, sodas, beer, who knows what
else. And internationally.

If glyphosate is not carcinogenic and this case is about lawyers and
sensationalists and non scientific people out to stop "chemicals" or make a
fast buck and in so doing raise global food prices it would be very egregious.
Because it won't just be Wheaties in California that go up in price, it will
be tortillas in Honduras and flatbread in Algeria and who knows what else. In
those places, unlike the US, a non insignificant portion of income is spent on
food so the pain will be greater.

I'm not suggesting if a chemical is shown to be harmful it should be allowed.
But there are ramifications of short term greed and non scientific thinking
beyond the immediate.

~~~
ragerino
I think we did know all of those things, but Monsanto was very well connected
to the political establishment. Is it so difficult to accept the fact that
this whole thing screams "corruption on the highest levels"?

If I remember correctly, Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Family were heavily
involved with Monsanto.

------
godzillabrennus
Bayer doesn’t seem to have won the lotto buying Monsanto.

I wonder if the CEO will get a golden parachute for this one?

~~~
Alex3917
All of the liability was well known before the purchase though.

~~~
notimetorelax
Bayer claimed that they could not do full due diligence because Monsanto was
an American company.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
That's a very surprising claim. How does being an American company stop them
from doing full due diligence?

Bit if it's true, Bayer shouldn't have bought them.

~~~
ekianjo
I dont know the details about that but there a long history of bad blood
between the US and Bayer so this may have played some part in it.

------
mzs
detailed coverage

[https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-
couple-1-billion-...](https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-
couple-1-billion-in-roundup-cancer-case/)

[https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/11280492289771438...](https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/status/1128049228977143811)

------
blattimwind
Is it just me or did everyone say before the Bayer / Monsanto merger that it's
a hugely bad idea and the joint company will have way more problems in court?

Told you so. (Also seems to be the opinion of the majority of shareholders...)

------
ragerino
This whole thing stinks. It's hard to imagine, that those issues did not exist
before Monsanto was acquired by Bayer.

------
wmblaettler
Something I have yet to find is how much these people have been exposed to the
chemical. Are they farmers that are spraying it in large quantities throughout
the season or just regular folks at home spraying a little here and there on a
weed? The difference is 100's of gallons vs less than 1 gallon. Also, are they
then handling, processing and possibly eating food crops that have been
previously doused with it? Sort of critical information to make educated
choices on what's a "safe" amount vs "risky" amount.

------
PaulHoule
I can't get it why Bayer bought Monsanto when they saw this was coming...

~~~
ragerino
This all started happening after Bayer bought Monsanto.

~~~
PaulHoule
First, talk about Roundup and cancer and endocrine disruption has been going
on for 20 years. It's not just about Glyphosate but about the adjuvants that
Monsanto adds. These make it work better against insects but might be more
toxic than the active ingredient.

Second, the lawsuits have been in the courts for a long time. Yes the big jury
awards happened after the merger, but these were brewing long before that.

------
writimov
What does this do to the company's financial future? If there are thousands
more of these lawsuits coming and the legal precedent has been set, and this
one verdict took 40% of Bayer's cash position away, how can they survive the
next 12 months? Are they bankrupt already if even 10% of these lawsuits go
through with the same verdict? [https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/BAYRY/balance-
sheet#figure_t...](https://seekingalpha.com/symbol/BAYRY/balance-
sheet#figure_type=quarterly) Even if the verdict is slashed to 1/10th $100mil
and they win 90% of their lawsuits, they will still lose 1,000. That's 1k X
$100mil = $100bil in losses. Even cutting this by 50% they are still out of
business.

~~~
staticautomatic
The punitive damage awards will be reduced to no more than about 10X the
compensatory damage awards, so the math shouldn't be done using the actual
verdict size.

------
tomohawk
There goes another useful product, victim of the court lottery. I was
wondering why I was hearing all of these ads today from lawyers saying that if
you're a roundup user to contact them. The gold rush is on.

We so badly need the English Rule.

~~~
webninja
Monsanto just needed to go out of business, even if it’s renamed to Bayer.
They’re one of the most evil companies in US history. They jury voted this way
simply because Monsanto is an evil company.

------
wcchandler
Stephanie Seneff has some interesting things to say about glyphosate.
[https://youtu.be/mX5OiRRNRnU](https://youtu.be/mX5OiRRNRnU)

~~~
selimthegrim
Seneff’s credibility in this matter is questionable.

------
genericone
I'm in favor of giant companies being beholden to the citizens of the country
that they operate in, but I'm not happy that some random jury's opinion on
medicine or science is being touted as any sort of authority on the matter.

~~~
ertyuip
> I'm not happy that some random jury's opinion on medicine or science is
> being touted as any sort of authority on the matter.

Well you never sat on the jury so you dont know what information was presented
to them. Obviously enough data was presented to them to form a conclusion
though.

~~~
rndgermandude
You're talking about juries from the same nation, even same state, as the jury
who was utterly impressed by "if it does not fit, you must acquit!", right?
Juries, that suffer from the CSI Effect[1]. Juries that not only are made up
of scientific laypersons but judicial laypersons. Juries, that have been shown
to fuck up every 1 in 8 criminal cases[2], where the burden of proof is
supposed to be a lot higher than in a civil case, such as this one.

So, I am not convinced about your use of "obviously".

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSI_effect)

[2]
[https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpa...](https://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2006/IPR-
WP-06-05.pdf)

------
pfdietz
This will almost certainly get tossed out on appeal.

------
TaylorGood
The mass tort industry will have a field day with this.

~~~
mr_toad
They’ll have to be quick, a few more cases and there’ll be nothing left.
Especially if the company is liquidated.

------
sjg007
Both of them got non Hodgkin lymphoma.. clearly they were exposed to
something..

~~~
cjensen
That's not how statistics work. Perhaps you were making a joke?

------
sigzero
That's just crazy. Will the judge nullify it?

~~~
throwaway2048
The judge decided on it, juries don't decide penalties, only the merit of the
evidence presented.

~~~
mzs
This was a civil case, so yes the jury does:

>After three days of deliberations, the jurors awarded the Pilliods $1 billion
each in punitive damages. The jury also awarded Alva Pilliod over $47,000 in
past economic damages, $8 million in noneconomic damages and $10 million for
future damages.

>Jurors handed Alberta Pilliod over $201,000 in past economic damages, $8
million in noneconomic damages and $26 million for future damages.

…

>… Three jurors disagreed with the $1 billion award for each of the Pilliods,
including Olsen. “I thought it was too high,” he said.

[https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-
couple-1-billion-...](https://www.courthousenews.com/jury-awards-
couple-1-billion-in-roundup-cancer-case/)

>It appears to be more specifically about damages calculations.

[https://twitter.com/MariaDinzeo/status/1127981744127266817](https://twitter.com/MariaDinzeo/status/1127981744127266817)

------
krapht
I'm a little disgusted with these lawsuits. The preponderance of scientific
evidence is on the side of Monsanto (gag): Roundup isn't carcinogenic. The one
study that is significant to these cases from the IARC has numerous
statistical flaws. From the coverage that I've seen, most of these cases have
been won on the back of numerous emails and texts from Monsanto trying to
delay and suppress the release of potentially negative studies until after
their legal cases are resolved.

So I guess Monsanto are jerks but also these cases are flawed science.

~~~
freeopinion
Monsanto can and has spent millions to provide scientific results that back
their position. Mansanto can and has spent millions to block scientific
research that contradicts their position.

The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply
cannot be trusted. There is no study that Mansanto can't buy. There is no
study than mom and pop can buy.

So, we look them in the eyes and we see scumbag villain vs simple folk. We see
scumbag villain pumping out lakes of chemicals and crushing people and my what
big teeth you have. And you've made how many billions on these chemicals? And
how much is the poor little grandma asking for?

It's a no-brainer. Dig some millions out of your sofa cushions and pay the
poor family.

It's not scientific. It's emotional. And lots of normal people get pretty
emotional about the big bad wolf. Still, they didn't shoot the wolf. It's
still alive and able to eat some other grandma. It just had to pay for a
grandma it may not have eaten at all.

~~~
Karunamon
_The balance of power is so unbelievably skewed that "the science" simply
cannot be trusted._

I don't think this is an argument you want to be making, as it would
legitimize most forms of quackery.

~~~
wtallis
No, it doesn't legitimize any quackery or pseudoscience. Inspecting the
financial motivations for bias behind studies can only reveal them to be
weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance, but it cannot
_reverse_ their conclusions.

If removing from consideration the Monsanto-funded studies changes the balance
of evidence from "probably safe" to probably unsafe" instead of merely
changing it to "I don't know", then that's only because there was already
credible evidence on the unsafe side of the scale.

~~~
Karunamon
> _Inspecting the financial motivations for bias behind studies can only
> reveal them to be weaker evidence than they appeared to be at first glance,
> but it cannot reverse their conclusions._

Strictly speaking, you're absolutely right, but in the court of public opinion
where policy battles are fought, financing is commonly used as grounds to
dismiss entire studies outright, without the slightest thought given to the
actual scientific methodology used in the papers.

~~~
cco
As well it should be? We've shown time and time again that the source of
funding control a) whether or not results get published, e.g. 99 "bad results"
don't ever get published but the 1 "good result" is, and b) the extent to
which the design and execution of the study is biased towards a "good result".

The pendulum has swung very wide in favor of controlling interests, in fact I
would argue that a large portion of the "anti-science" sentiment we are seeing
is due to the perceived rigging of the scientific landscape. I say perceived
here because even if 95% of science produced today is good the ones that
directly affect the public and garner headlines are going to be related
directly to a corporate interest, e.g. pharma, chemical companies etc. Also of
note, guess who doctored the results about vaccines and autism? A credentialed
scientist, obviously retracted at this point but I would put it to you that
the very fact that this got published represents to the laity that there is a
fundamental problem in science today.

Science was the belle of the ball in the early/mid 20th century, then had the
benefit of the doubt as the century ended but now clearly has a public
reputation problem. Getting money(the wrong kind) out of science is just as
important as getting money out of politics, you should not trust the result of
an article paid for by Monsanto anymore than you should trust the politician
that they have bought as well.

~~~
Karunamon
>As well it should be?

 _Absolutely not!_

The moment you're discounting the science and dismissing stuff based on
fallacious reasoning is the moment you place opinion over empiricism.

If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to the
reasons why in those studies.

~~~
wtallis
> If the Monsanto-funded studies suck, it will 100% be possible to point to
> the reasons why in those studies.

You can't read a study to determine that it's wrong because of something like
survivorship bias, because you're not reading all the conflicting results that
didn't get published. The only way to determine that kind of cause is to
conduct a lot of independent research seeking to replicate the questionable
study. That's more likely to happen if you discount and throw out the
questionable studies, leaving you with a more realistic picture of the
quantity and quality of evidence you have on the issue. If you take
questionable studies at face value, you're more likely to decide that you have
enough evidence to come to a conclusion.

------
zavi
HackerNews:

American-owned company collects logs when you use their free website - pure
evil that needs to be banished; due process is not necessary.

European-owned company gives people literal cancer - system is totally rigged
and unjust. More evidence needed.

~~~
dang
Please don't take threads further into flamewar, let alone nationalistic
flamewar.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19904445](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19904445)
and marked it off-topic.

------
anm89
How is there still a massive display of this stuff when I walk into home depot
when it is widely acknowledged to be so harmful?

~~~
esaym
It has been sprayed over entire villages in South America to kill all cocaine
plants in the area for decades. I'm not aware of any higher cancer rates of
these villagers vs the regular populous. I'm not actually sure where all the
hysteria over this product is coming from really.

~~~
puranjay
I don't know about South America, but in most parts of Asia, the data is
unreliable because a) poor rural people don't always get treatment, and even
when they do, the diagnostics aren't always correct or even reported, and b)
data collection is poor in rural areas - both the quality and quantity.

So I'd take any statistical claim with a grain of salt.

~~~
bluGill
Farmers in the US have been using it for years as well. We have much better
data on them. While farmers cancer numbers are not the same as the general US
population, when you control for other known differences in farmer behavior
roundup isn't an issue.

------
plink
Can a legal mind please explain to us laypeople how $! billion (per plaintiff)
in punitive damages doesn't belong on the other side of Alice's looking glass.
Why not make it $1 Cajilion?

~~~
FfejL
It's a punishment. You can't send a corporation to jail, you can only fine
them. The Jury found that Monsanto committed fraud, and acted with malice. $1B
is enough to hurt the corporate finances, very much by design.

What punishment do you think would be appropriate?

~~~
ptah
i agree, the punitive damages should be equivalent to a few years jailtime at
least. it should equal the company not doing any business for a decade or so

