I have considered going vegan for ethical and environmental reasons, but I don’t have the will power to give meat up completely. So I’ve been trying to shift a larger portion of my meat intake away from livestock and more towards the more environmentally friendly poultry and fish. I ain’t gonna lie – it’s hard for me. I’m really hopeful for an assist from technology in the near future – such as lab grown beef.

It’s interesting that everyone assumes the secret to Brady’s longevity is his diet. Of course, eating healthy is important but his ability to play at a high level this late into his career may have more to do with other factors – work out regimen, genetics, luck, etc. Many QBs are playing longer than in the past and they all aren’t as strict with their diets as Brady.

There’s little to fear from gluten unless you have celiac disease. But if you’ve found a diet you can be happy with then stick with it.

I’ve eaten vegan before too.

They’re not bad.

Taste like chicken.

The Science Behind the Roundup Lawsuit

On August 10th a California jury awarded Dewayne Johnson $289 million dollars in damages against the company Monsanto (now owned by Bayer). The decision was based on the claim that Johnson (a greenskeeper) developed non-Hodgkins lymphoma because of his exposure to Roundup, an herbicide that contains the active ingredient glyphosate that was developed by Monsanto.

The decision will almost certainly be appealed, and is being widely criticized because it is not in line with the science. There is a long history of juries awarded damages based on flimsy science. Dow Corning famously filed for bankruptcy following class action law suits for alleged damages due to silicone breast implants, while the science was still preliminary. The claim was that the breast implants were causing auto-immune disease, which the manufacturer denied. Juries found the women sympathetic, however, and companies rarely appear sympathetic in such trials. But in 2000 a meta-analysis found:

On the basis of our meta-analyses, there was no evidence of an association between breast implants in general, or silicone-gel-filled breast implants specifically, and any of the individual connective-tissue diseases, all definite connective-tissue diseases combined, or other autoimmune or rheumatic conditions. From a public health perspective, breast implants appear to have a minimal effect on the number of women in whom connective-tissue diseases develop, and the elimination of implants would not be likely to reduce the incidence of connective-tissue diseases.

It seems we have a similar situation with Roundup and cancer, except the meta-analysis was published before the huge jury award, rather than after. The wrinkle here is that this and other lawsuits were likely sparked in part by the WHO decision in 2015 to classify glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen”. That decision was an outlier, however, and was immediately criticized. Several independent reviews of the WHO decision concluded that the decision was in error, and that the totality of evidence does not support the conclusion that there is any link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkins lymphoma specifically, or any cancer. I review the evidence and the expert panel reviews here.

An interesting 2017 review explored why the European Union (which concluded glyphosate was safe) came to a different conclusion than the WHO:

Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses.

Essentially they used different data and methods. There is also this:

In a Special Report published on June 14, 2017, investigators at Reuters uncovered the shocking fact that an American scientist, Dr. Aaron Blair, the Chairman of the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) Monograph 112 on glyphosate, suppressed critically important science.

The hidden science in question is recent data from the Agricultural Health Study (AHS), the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on pesticide exposure in humans. Evidence shows that Dr. Blair withheld updated data from the study which evaluates the pesticide exposure of more than 50,000 farmers and their families. The updated data reinforces the study’s original conclusion in 2005 that there is no evidence linking glyphosate exposure to cancer incidence.

So the best data we have shows no link between glyphosate and cancer, but that data was ignored by Dr. Blair. Further, Blair was involved with this study, and so definitely knew this data existed. Also, under oath Dr. Blair admitted: “[the] data would have altered IARC’s analysis.”

We are now, in part, seeing the fallout from this bad decision by the IARC.

According to reports of the case, Johnson’s attorney had to overcome the actual science showing glyphosate is safe and not associated with cancer. He did this by claiming that Roundup as a whole may cause cancer, even though glyphosate alone does not. While not impossible, this is an implausible claim that is still lacking in evidence. This was an act of simply moving the goalpost to avoid the more definitive scientific evidence. The ploy worked.

Johnson is also claiming that he has two accidental exposed to Roundup, so he was exposed to far more than would be the case with normal use. However, the time between exposure and his development of NHL was probably far too short for a causal relationship – a fact apparently not considered compelling by the jury.

Why should we all care about this? I of course have sympathy for Mr. Johnson, just as I have sympathy for all of those women who developed autoimmune diseases after getting silicone breast implants. I also think it is extremely important to hold corporations accountable if they cause harm due to their products. But justice in these cases will only prevail if the science prevails.

Further, glyphosate is demonstrably far less toxic than the alternative herbicides. If glyphosate is banned, or rendered unusable because of unfair lawsuits and unscientific jury verdicts, an important agricultural option will be eliminate – not because of science or because it’s the right thing, but out of fear and ignorance.

Reasonable people can argue and disagree about the optimal role of glyphosate and other herbicides in agriculture, and that is not the point of this article. But agricultural decisions should be based on a consensus view of the science, not the emotions of 12 jurors who clearly wanted to punish Monsanto regardless of what the science says.

This and other decisions also point to a flaw in our legal system. This is a much longer discussion outside the scope of this article, but the rules on the admissibility and role of scientific evidence in the courtroom still leave much to be desired in my opinion. Ultimately this case turned on an evaluation of a scientific claim, and I don’t see why such scientific questions should be decided by non-expert jurors.

Posted in: Epidemiology, Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Legal, Politics and Regulation Tagged in: Dewayne Johnson, genetically modified organisms, glyphosate, gmo, Roundup
Posted by Steven Novella
Founder and currently Executive Editor of Science-Based Medicine Steven Novella, MD is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is also the president and co-founder of the New England Skeptical Society, the host and producer of the popular weekly science podcast, The Skeptics’ Guide to the Universe, and the author of the NeuroLogicaBlog, a daily blog that covers news and issues in neuroscience, but also general science, scientific skepticism, philosophy of science, critical thinking, and the intersection of science with the media and society. Dr. Novella also contributes every Sunday to The Rogues Gallery, the official blog of the SGU.

Do you know of Nina Illingworth?

I follow her on twitter. She also has a blog. She’s prolific.

I think you two would see eye to eye on just about everything.

Link: http://www.ninaillingworth.com/

wv wrote:

Well I’m just sayin if the plaintiff’s lawyers were cherry-picking evidence, Monsanto’s lawyers could have pointed that out with ‘their’ experts. etc.

w
v

I’m sure they did. And I’m sure the plaintiff’s lawyers made the same claim about the evidence presented by Monsanto’s lawyers. In the end it didn’t come down to which side had the best evidence; it came down to which side could convince the jury they had the best evidence – something the members of the jury really aren’t trained to know.

Plus I’m sure their decision wasn’t completely based on evidence. The jury had to decide between the poor unfortunate individual who is dying of cancer and a giant corporation that once made agent orange. I might have decided the same way.

I don’t care that Monsanto has to fork out $289 million. Fuck’em. I do care that this ruling advances the false narrative that glyphosate is extraordinarily bad. It’s not perfect, but if it goes away, the stuff that will replace it will be much worse.

I wonder if Bayer would have purchased Monsanto if they knew they would lose this suit?

I’ll never shed a tear when a big corporation takes one on the chin, but glyphosate most likely didn’t cause Dewayne Johnson’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Nearly every credible study has found no link between glyphosate and cancer. The IARC’s classification of glyphosate as a Class 2a carcinogen (meaning it probably causes cancer in humans) was based on cherry-picked data and the exclusion of some more relevant studies. Coffee is also a Class 2a carcinogen, btw.

Glyphosate isn’t the only chemical in Round-up. It also contains a surfactant that helps the glyphosate penetrate plant tissues more effectively. There aren’t a lot of studies to show if the surfactant is a carcinogen or not. More research is needed here. My guess is, when used correctly, Round-up isn’t carcinogenic. But the dose makes the poison. Any chemical (including water) becomes toxic at too high of a level.

Of course, the Organic Industry sees this court ruling as a victory. The irony is that glyphosate is one of the least toxic pesticides available. It’s much less toxic than the ‘natural’ pesticides approved for organic farming like copper sulphate, rotenone, azidirachtin, pyrethrin, etc…

wv wrote:

Anybody got any opinions on whether it was a good idea to ban the loathesome-disgusting-weasel Alex Jones?

w
v

I go back and forth on it. I understand Camp’s point that banning Jones may have opened a door to the banning of leftist sites like Redacted Tonight. On the other hand the collective IQ of the country went up 30 points the minute after it happened.

And besides, that could happen anyway, Jones or no Jones, right? Facebook, Youtube, etc are all privately owned companies. They have a right to determine what content is suitable for their sites. And the content policies change depending on which way the wind is blowing. Facebook has a content policy that one could argue Jones has been violating for years. Some might ask why has it taken this long for Facebook to ban him.

And of course Jones is free to start his own social media platform. I’m surprised he didn’t already have one. I’m sure he has enough followers who would pony up some cash to support it.

But I guess I’m in the “Let’s wait and see what happens” box. I’m happy about anything that impacts Infowars in a negative way but I am a little apprehensive about what this means for the future of political content on free social media.

Agamemnon wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

In addition to the Los Angeles local broadcast on CBS 2 and UniMás 46/KFTR, Rams preseason football will extend to households throughout California, Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada and Utah.

Alaska, Nevada, Utah?

That’s nice, but how about streaming it in places where people actually live?

That is talking about regular tv, cable etc. I think they will stream to whoever connects with their website at https://www.therams.com/

Cool. Thanks, Ag.

Aaron Donald standing on the sidelines in uniform but not participating.

zn wrote:

Zooey wrote:

Suicidal teen loves happy octogenarian.

Tyrannical media tycoon loses toboggan.

Shark eats tourists.

Well I was thinking more of a quote from the movie. A short quote that summarizes a movie for you.

Since you did Jaws, I will offer an example.

“Not with three he can’t!”

FYI for everyone, the line I posted (“Foreground my ass!”) is also from the movie, Jaws.

It’s said by Brody when they are on the Orca and they see the shark for the first time. Hooper is taken aback by the sharks size and wants to get photos of it. He keeps pleading with Brody to go to the end of the pulpit (the platform that sticks precariously out from the front of the boat) and Brody keeps asking why. Finally Hooper says he needs Brody in the foreground of the photo so people can see the scale of the shark. That’s when Brody shouts ‘Foreground my ass!’

• This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by nittany ram.
• This reply was modified 6 years, 10 months ago by nittany ram.

Previous Rams’ front offices often leaked negative and ridiculous comments about high profile players in contract disputes to the press (ie “Marshall Faulk is just a third down back”, etc).

I guess it’s a good sign that we haven’t heard anything of the sort from the current front office about Donald yet.

When asked how he got the shirt, @sonofbum told me “They send it to you when you’re the champion”
I seriously doubt the guy could even turn on an XBox though..with all due respect. pic.twitter.com/TVVrjyTOpJ

— Johnny Hekker (@JHekker) July 27, 2018

Doesn’t Johnny know Fortnite will work with the iPhone SE, iPhone 6S, iPhone 7, iPhone 8, and iPhone X, as well as the iPad Mini 4, iPad Air 2 and later models, and all versions of the iPad Pro?

— Wade Phillips (@sonofbum) July 27, 2018