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

yellowcanine

(36,746 posts)
19. So if we ask for good science, we are "shills?" Okay.
Tue Mar 24, 2015, 03:46 PM
Mar 2015

I will wear the badge of "Science Shill" with honor. Sure is a lot better than "Antivaxxer" etc.

Recommendations

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

This is scary. bravenak Mar 2015 #1
What a bummer! gollygee Mar 2015 #4
Yes and no. bravenak Mar 2015 #5
:( gollygee Mar 2015 #6
Yeah. 4 dollar Mangoes are a piss off. bravenak Mar 2015 #7
You might want to check for mold in your home, because that can be a year round pnwmom Mar 2015 #9
Honestly, I had a mold problem in a previous apartment. bravenak Mar 2015 #10
NOW will our government label GMOs? Not really surprised at all by this. sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #2
Well "who" and "woo" do rhyme. gollygee Mar 2015 #3
Yes, don't give them any ideas though. Monsanto is probably working on dismissing these findings sabrina 1 Mar 2015 #8
The WHO says GMOs on the market are safe. HuckleB Mar 2015 #23
Excerpts from Regulatory Authorities: No Evidence of Carcinogenicity (Glyphosate aka Roundup) yellowcanine Mar 2015 #11
How many Superfund sites are Monsanto responsible for? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #14
How does that relate to question at hand - whether glyphosate is a carcinogen? yellowcanine Mar 2015 #16
What do you think of the companies that make glyphosate? SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #17
"Simple question." But not a relevant one. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #18
wow - thank you for a very thoughtful responce. SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #20
"i find it strange when someone does not err on the safe side of these issues" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #48
it goes to the agricultural system SoLeftIAmRight Mar 2015 #51
Banning organic spinach seems like the only reasonable course Major Nikon Mar 2015 #54
Round Up is more toxic than glyphosate alone GreatGazoo Mar 2015 #12
"recent studies seem to show....." Need a link if you make a claim like that. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #13
Séralini "study" Major Nikon Mar 2015 #31
Where are all the "SCIENCE!" shills? whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #15
So if we ask for good science, we are "shills?" Okay. yellowcanine Mar 2015 #19
If you're ever confused as to what people here mean by "anti-science" NuclearDem Mar 2015 #22
Well whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #24
Sure you do... SidDithers Mar 2015 #26
Oh yay, it's time for another episode of whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #28
"skeptical about the safety of ingesting Roundup." Who is suggesting you should ingest Roundup?" yellowcanine Mar 2015 #49
This OP has been repeated over and over again, always with scary headlines, but no actual context. HuckleB Mar 2015 #21
3/20/15 W.H.O. IARC Monographs Volume 112: evaluation of five organophosphate insecticides Zorra Mar 2015 #25
Sorry, only Merican science is valid whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #27
Only Merican science funded by corporations is valid! All them Gubmint studies Zorra Mar 2015 #29
Yep - you are correct. Only "Merican" studies here...... yellowcanine Mar 2015 #50
Interesting how IARC relied on Séralini's widely discredited rat study Major Nikon Mar 2015 #34
Write them a stern letter and explain to them why their findings are all wrong. nt Zorra Mar 2015 #36
I'm sure they knew before they published it Major Nikon Mar 2015 #37
Nice try! But more fail. It does not even indicate that the IARC used the Seralini Study Zorra Mar 2015 #39
Review of Rachel Maddow's book Drift: NuclearDem Mar 2015 #40
You are using a strawman to deflect from the fact that the Seralini Study was not Zorra Mar 2015 #42
Oh, horseshit. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #44
Whatever, blahblahblah...Do you know what the funding sources for American Academics Zorra Mar 2015 #45
Nah, that's even more solid Major Nikon Mar 2015 #53
Sure. I failed because you said so Major Nikon Mar 2015 #41
The point is you either deliberately lied when you said that the IARC relied on the Seralini Zorra Mar 2015 #43
Wow, those are the only two options I get? Major Nikon Mar 2015 #46
Something else: glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor. Octafish Mar 2015 #30
Only two references to Séralini "studies" so far in this thread Major Nikon Mar 2015 #32
Please tell me you're not actually citing the Seralini paper. NuclearDem Mar 2015 #38
Even that isn't peer reviewed Major Nikon Mar 2015 #52
Kick and recommend. Wella Mar 2015 #33
No shite, sherlock! "monsanto .. assured.. doesn't cause cancer.."?! Brawaaaaa Cha Mar 2015 #35
I purposely didn't read the posts yet. Has the "why do you hate science?1!!?" guy posted? U4ikLefty Mar 2015 #47
Yeah they're all over it whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #55
Hey, looks like some more, oh, what are they called... NuclearDem Mar 2015 #57
Haha whatchamacallit Mar 2015 #58
Better raise food stamps... bobclark86 Mar 2015 #56
Let them eat cake Major Nikon Mar 2015 #59
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Study: Monsato's Roundup ...»Reply #19