iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Replies

Robert "The Bobby Yaga" McNees @mcnees.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

I’m no expert, but I’ve seen this paper described as an important justification for claims about the safety of Roundup. And now it has been retracted by the journal it appeared in. 🧪

sciencedirect.com

RETRACTED: Safety Evaluation and Risk Assessment of the Herbicide Roundup and Its Active Ingredient, Glyphosate, for Humans

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/locate/withdrawalpolicy)This article has b…

915770

kevinbleakley.bsky.social @kevinbleakley.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

WHAT A SURPRISE I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE IT

010

A Ramblin Wreck @aramblinwreck.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

Oh yeah, no. It causes cancer. The corruption in scientific studies performed by industry with industry-paid scientists is pretty deep and documented. "Science for sale," they call it.

240

SantaCruzMag @santacruzmag.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

Glyphosate was removed from Roundup for residential use, eg the stuff sold in stores, in 2023 and is only used for commercial purposes by big AG. Not saying that's okay at all, but for the average homeowner, Roundup no longer uses this toxic ingredient. Small applications are safe(ish)

140

U.S. Right to Know @usrighttoknow.bsky.social · 03/12/2025

Thank you Robert for posting about this important story. We just published an article about it: usrtk.org/pesticides/l...

usrtk.org

Landmark glyphosate safety study retracted for Monsanto ghostwriting, other ethics problems

A scientific study that regulators around the world relied on for decades to justify continued approval of glyphosate was quietly retracted last Friday.

010

Raven Onthill @ravenonthill.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

This explains a lot. We had dueling systematic reviews and now this one has been withdrawn.

040

russellh777.bsky.social @russellh777.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

Aren't there many dozens of other studies? Isn't this just one study?

100

Robert "The Bobby Yaga" McNees @mcnees.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

The retraction basically says the authors relied on unpublished Monsanto studies to make key claims, that the authors weren’t independent, that Monsanto likely co-wrote the paper, and the authors received undisclosed financial compensation.

15318

SJ Worrier @sjworrier.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

I’ve seen so many physicians declare Roundup perfectly safe based on this very “study.” Disinformation is literally killing us. There should be more punishment for these grifters than simply a retraction of their lies.

180

Brantman @brantman.bsky.social · 02/12/2025

Long overdue pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29843257/

share.google

The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the scientific well - PubMed

The use of third-party academics in the corporate defense of glyhphosate reveals that this practice extends beyond the corruption of medicine and persists in spite of efforts to enforce transparency in industry manipulation.

120