Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Skepticism, Science & Pseudoscience

mn9driver

(4,618 posts)

1. The data was available to IARC. They chose not to use it

Reply to Archae (Original post)

Tue Feb 27, 2018, 07:20 PM

Feb 2018

Because it wasn’t “published”. It wasn’t published because there was too much data.

That is nuts. Good science doesn’t happen by ignoring that much data, especially conclusive data. I don’t care for Monsanto but I care even less for organizations and people who refuse to consider data that disagrees with what they feel “should” be true.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

California judge rules for Monsanto in "Roundup causes cancer" case... [View all] Archae Feb 2018 OP

The data was available to IARC. They chose not to use it mn9driver Feb 2018 #1

too bad... handmade34 Feb 2018 #2

Since I don't drink, nor live in CA, I have a question NickB79 Feb 2018 #3

Yeah, that doesn't count because... progressoid Feb 2018 #4