> I am more inclined to trust polemic publications...
> because I can trust that their funds do not come from
> pesticide companies, which is more than we can say for
> most University pesticide
This is personally offensive to me as a former University researcher.
To tell you the truth, it never occurred to me to fake, or shade the
meaning of any of my results, regardless how I got the money. The
glyphosate findings we have been talking about are mostly simple
technical matters, not nuanced interpretation. In effect, you are
accusing dozens of people of fraud.
> Have you ever wondered about the selection process for the
> "peers" in a peer-reviewed journal? Team players play this
> game, not iconoclasts...
> ....jury-rigged peer-reviewed journals.
As an ad-hoc reviewer and former Associate editor, I don't need to
wonder about this. The truth is we covet keen-minded iconoclasts.
University researchers are notoriously bad team-players, although they
often don't take the time to decently review a manuscript.
> Which leads me to another interesting observation. If the
> Journal of Pesticide Reform published untruths, surely the
> pesticide manufacturers would have litigated them...
What findings are you speaking of? Let's talk about them. If they are
as speculative and idle as the musings in your post, they are not worth
Monsantos time and effort.
To Unsubscribe: Email firstname.lastname@example.org with "unsubscribe sanet-mg".
To Subscribe to Digest: Email email@example.com with the command