Monsanto Sued

[bilby]

If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

Well, in the American justice system, you are not correct. The courts _are_ the place to settle these things when harm is alleged. You can sue for anything - you have that right.

Yes, and that's stupid, crazy, and harmful. It should stop.

And it's easy to bring an end to it - Just do what civilised countries do, and have the loser of any case liable for all of the costs of the winner.

You still have the 'right' to sue. But if you don't expect to win, you know it's going to cost you big time. And it won't cost your victim a red cent.

 

[bilby]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

Fuck that.

I propose that educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact should be the ones who get to decide, rather than dragging in a dozen fuckwits whose mental capacity is so limited that they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of jury service.

That's a very long way from the strawman of 'Bilby is trustworthy and knows everything'. So stick that back where it came from.

 

[whollygoats]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

Fuck that.

I propose that educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact should be the ones who get to decide, rather than dragging in a dozen fuckwits whose mental capacity is so limited that they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of jury service.

That's a very long way from the strawman of 'Bilby is trustworthy and knows everything'. So stick that back where it came from.

Like the fucking pharmaceutical industry, an entire set of "educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact."

Science bends over and takes it in the ass when profit is in the driver's seat.

Fuck that noise.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept your alternative.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

That's not what we are saying at all.

We are saying that things like this should be decided by those who do know, not by those who have no basis to make a reasonable decision.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

Fuck that.

I propose that educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact should be the ones who get to decide, rather than dragging in a dozen fuckwits whose mental capacity is so limited that they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of jury service.

That's a very long way from the strawman of 'Bilby is trustworthy and knows everything'. So stick that back where it came from.

Like the fucking pharmaceutical industry, an entire set of "educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact."

Science bends over and takes it in the ass when profit is in the driver's seat.

Fuck that noise.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept your alternative.

If you can show there's something wrong with the research that showed it safe (and all too often there is) then they should be able to be sued. However, there is no practical means of detecting low-probability threats. Something with an occurrence rate below what could be detected in a phase III trial can only be detected by monitoring--and so long as they don't try to sweep it under the rug there should be no liability.

 

[Juma]

If he had sued the church because he claimed his cancer was caused by a demon that they failed to exorcise, or sued Rand McNally for putting his life at risk by failing to mark the edge of the world on their maps, would those also be questions best decided by a jury?

Facts are not up for debate. They are not matters of opinion. If a jury rules that the sun orbits the earth, they are simply wrong.

Well, in the American justice system, you are not correct. The courts _are_ the place to settle these things when harm is alleged. You can sue for anything - you have that right.

Yes, and that's stupid, crazy, and harmful. It should stop.

And it's easy to bring an end to it - Just do what civilised countries do, and have the loser of any case liable for all of the costs of the winner.

You still have the 'right' to sue. But if you don't expect to win, you know it's going to cost you big time. And it won't cost your victim a red cent.

No, there shouldnt be any right to sue like this at all. Any part with lots of money can sue anyone just to scare them... doesnt matter that they know they are right, they doesnt dare to take the risk to lose which would destroy them.

 

[Juma]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

Fuck that.

I propose that educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact should be the ones who get to decide, rather than dragging in a dozen fuckwits whose mental capacity is so limited that they couldn't even come up with an excuse to get out of jury service.

That's a very long way from the strawman of 'Bilby is trustworthy and knows everything'. So stick that back where it came from.

Like the fucking pharmaceutical industry, an entire set of "educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact."

Science bends over and takes it in the ass when profit is in the driver's seat.

Fuck that noise.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept your alternative.

What? Fuck no. They are way too biased. The panel must consist of people from academia that dont have tight connections with the companies.

 

[Politesse]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

That's not what we are saying at all.

We are saying that things like this should be decided by those who do know, not by those who have no basis to make a reasonable decision.

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

 

[skepticalbip]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

That's not what we are saying at all.

We are saying that things like this should be decided by those who do know, not by those who have no basis to make a reasonable decision.

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

And often both parties in the trial will present their own "expert" witnesses and these "experts" contradict each other.

The problem with many trials is that the goal isn't for truth or justice but to win regardless of truth or justice.

 

[Copernicus]

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

And often both parties in the trial will present their own "expert" witnesses and these "experts" contradict each other.

The problem with many trials is that the goal isn't for truth or justice but to win regardless of truth or justice.

Well, that's what TV and movie dramas suggest, but you haven't got it quite right. The goal is legality, which is not always consistent with justice, but one generally strives for a legal system that results in justice more often than not. It is certainly true that most juries do not contain experts in the subject matter on which legal issues turn, but the legal system does not exist for experts. It exists for ordinary people. So courts rely on expert testimony from both sides of a dispute, the idea being that the expert testimony will need to be explained in terms that ordinary people can understand. It is a wonderful idea to be able to think that some higher authority in the government or scientific community can make these judgments for ordinary people, but it strikes me as likely that that kind of system is going to lead to just as much injustice (maybe even more) than the system where ordinary people have to listen to experts "dumbing down" their work so that the folks on behalf of which the legal system exists can make a reasonable decision. However, in the abstract--a movie or TV show--the good guys almost always prevail. Otherwise, why would we bother to watch them? So we can imagine that the "experts" will always make the best decisions, especially if we imagine that the best "experts" end up making those decisions and not some panel that has been handpicked to arrive at a specific conclusion.

 

[Politesse]

And often both parties in the trial will present their own "expert" witnesses and these "experts" contradict each other.

Almost like exactly what would happen if we let "experts" decide instead of juries.

 

[whollygoats]

Like the fucking pharmaceutical industry, an entire set of "educated, skilled and qualified people, who can demonstrate to their peers that something is a reproducible and observable fact."

Science bends over and takes it in the ass when profit is in the driver's seat.

Fuck that noise.

I'm sorry, but I don't accept your alternative.

What? Fuck no. They are way too biased. The panel must consist of people from academia that dont have tight connections with the companies.

Well, if what we are hearing from the likes of Jefferson, Angell and Horton, those sources have been heavily sullied, at least with regard to biopharmaceuticals. The firms in that industry purchase heavily of 'knowledge opinion leaders (KOL)' amongst the higher ranks of academic researchers and have been for more than three decades. Even peer reviewed documentation has been manipulated and sullied beyond trust.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

FFS, Cope....

It is the people here who know everything there is to know who should be the arbiters of what goes to trial or not.

Isn't that obvious?

Bilby is trustworthy, right? He knows everything and has all the correct opinions.

That's not what we are saying at all.

We are saying that things like this should be decided by those who do know, not by those who have no basis to make a reasonable decision.

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

So what? Dueling liars.

What counts is the scientific research.

You said you got cancer from Roundup? Where's some decent research that shows Roundup causes cancer? Don't have any? Get lost!

 

[Politesse]

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

So what? Dueling liars.

What counts is the scientific research.

You said you got cancer from Roundup? Where's some decent research that shows Roundup causes cancer? Don't have any? Get lost!

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Did you know that in any jury trial, lawyers for either party have a right to call on an expert witness to testify?

So what? Dueling liars.

What counts is the scientific research.

You said you got cancer from Roundup? Where's some decent research that shows Roundup causes cancer? Don't have any? Get lost!

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

 

[Copernicus]

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

Maybe some doctors just don't want to be told that they should wash their hands.

 

[DBT]

I think glyphosate is currently classified as probably carcinogenic;

Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans

* Glyphosate

 

[Juma]

I think glyphosate is currently classified as probably carcinogenic;

Agency for Research on Cancer
Group 2A: Probably carcinogenic to humans

* Glyphosate

Bad link...
is it the classification by WHO that you refer to?

 

[Juma]

I am merely pointing out the ridiculous fallacy being used to suggest, preposterously, the abandonment of the jury system.

I'm not saying to abandon the jury system. I'm saying that a case like this should be barred because there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup. I'm saying that in a case of zero meaningful evidence in either direction the verdict automatically should go to the defense.

Instead, we get these cases where nothing can be proven at all, the jury tends to award money to the hurt person despite zero indication the deep pockets actually did them harm.

I don't really understand your argument here. On what grounds would a case like this be barred? Who would make that decision? You've put the horse before the cart in saying that "there's no evidence that his cancer is due to Roundup". How could that be determined before such a trial and by what authority? If it can be determined without a trial, then why bother having one? Just tell us how it can be done.

Just that a specific persons cancer can very seldom be said to be caused by a specific cause.
This guy has blood cancer. He could have get that in many ways.