EPA forced to study Glyphosate, finds pesticide could injure or kill 93% of endangered species.

submitted by HibikiBlackCaudillo from childrenshealthdefense.org

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (20 children)

antivax has no authority about what is healthy whatsoever. antivax could tell me that smoking cigarettes is bad and I would ignore that. (I wouldn't ignore others who say smoking is bad). Glyphosate is probably bad. I wouldn't drink it. But I am not letting antivax define the extent to which it is unsafe. You also have to keep in mind how dangerous the alternatives to glyphosate are. Including an agriculture whose food is so expensive people starve. Or an agriculture that has to contend with climate change.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

You are literally proud of being ignorant, that is pathetic. There is nothing intelligent about your policy. Nothing of value in it. You are a slave to the appeal to authority fallacy and manipulated by the ad hominem.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

When you begin with "vaccines cause autism" type of a "science", you can go almost anywhere. They are worse than flat earthers. You can say I am ignorant. But being anti-anti-vax is not ignorant. Knowing climate change is real in not ignorant. Maybe one could make the case against glyphosate? These fools are not qualified to do so.

[–]Velocity 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (17 children)

Your anti science quackery has no power here. You're like a flat earther

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

I am anti-science because I am pro vaccine?

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (15 children)

If you actually studied the topic instead of parroting your precious high priest pharmaceutical employees words. You would clearly see that the subject is in great dispute. I'm guessing you're a masktard too. Maybe just put your muzzle on and keep your head down. Obviously thinking isn't your strong point.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I mainly know the math. They collect data on both the vaccine and a placebo then apply a binomial probability distribution to both sets of data. The greater the sample size, the less likely there is a statistical error. If efficacy exists, one will definitely see how effective it is as the sample size approaches infinity. But you do not need an infinite sample sample size to have reasonable confidence. I don't think you have the IQ to understand that.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

Yeah, I'm aware of how Pharma Mega Corporations game data to achieve desired results to boost sales. I've been studying abstracts, papers and methodologies ad nauseum for years. It's appalling. Judging from past performance, their injections are no where near the efficacy that they claim.

I've been researching this since a vax.x shot killed my friend many years ago, spookmobile. If you think these corps care anything about your health, you are either a naive idiot or another Pharma sponsored shill that spreads their unique cancer all over the internet. And I've dealt with those filthy whores long before you even knew what the internet was.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (12 children)

You might as well claim the earth is flat.

[–]Velocity 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (11 children)

Questioning corporate integrity does not equal flat earth junk. If you think mega corporations value your life and health over profit, it is then you that is living in a fantasy land. Cognitive dissonance... yes that's the feeling you're having.