If what you say is true, we would know almost nothing about pharmacology and modern medicine wouldn't exist.

There are basic scientific and statistical methods to avoid this.

There are, but there are also strong incentives for what amounts to fraud, on both sides. Glyphosate has become both highly politicized -- it's used as an argument against GMOs -- and subject to concerted and lucrative legal attack. At the same time, the patent is expired, so the motivation to continue to defend it has waned. If anything, herbicide producers would now benefit if a cheap, public domain chemical were illegitimately banned in favor of more expensive chemicals still under patent protection.

Even when supposedly honest scientists publish, it's often wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Fi...

▲

cbolton 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> the patent is expired, so the motivation to continue to defend it has waned. If anything, herbicide producers would now benefit if a cheap, public domain chemical were illegitimately banned in favor of more expensive chemicals still under patent protection

That doesn't square with the fact that Monsanto thought it worthwhile to commit scientific fraud to push the narrative that glyphosate is safe, in a scientific paper published the same year that the patent expired.

	▲	pfdietz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		They had patents on Roundup Ready seeds. Those patents have also now expired.

▲

earlyreturns 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This was and probably still is true about tobacco. Personally, I choose to not smoke.

	▲	pfdietz 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The evidence against tobacco was overwhelming.

▲

3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]