This is a hell of a retraction. If we had a functional FDA, they’d ban glyphosate immediately and save a lot of lives.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230099913715
Discussion
Loading...
Discussion
@aram I read some old Monsanto documents in an aging leather bound volume, when they still had "library desks" in the McHenry library of UCSC. The books were 40 years old already.
It was clear to Monsanto in the mid60s they were poisoning the line workers manufacturing their synthetic rugs and they took no action.
Those documents held on for a long time, but only a few years after the tables were turned, half a million volumes disappeared.
Thank Janet Napolitano.
one hella history
@aram “the handling (co) Editor-in-Chief lost confidence in the results and conclusions of this article, and believes that the retraction of this article is necessary to maintain the integrity of the journal. The scientific concerns regarding the lack of carcinogenicity only derived from #Monsanto studies, concerns regarding (ghost-) authorship(s) and potential conflicts of interest, none of which have been responded to, are sufficient to warrant this action. “
bonfire.cafe
A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate
Automatic federation enabled