Using non peer reviewed studies means using studies which have not yet been properly error checked!
It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate).
I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong.
And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer).
> to undermine any study it did not like
you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods)
If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.
A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control.
> I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer
You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely. Which afaik (not a lawyer) there is even a legal principle that would have allowed the judge to go that far. Something about defendants getting caught red handed messing with evidence allowing the court to assume the worst.
> you still need to use facts to do so,
I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.
> A process which Monstantos internal discussions assumed to be completely under its control.
you are mixing up writing and reviewing paper
it's very obvious that this paper was not under any control of Monsanto
> You are going even a step further and skipping any evidence entirely
I'm not a non peer reviewed paper is no evidence at all, that given example is the best proof because pretty much all evidence went away once errors where found in peer review and corrected. Furthermore it where errors which if you understand enough about the topic where kind pretty clear, i.e. in no way any Monsanto twisted any truth think. So pretty clearly the judge did a decision which isn't based on any facts.
> I think the talk was more about using contacts to shut down the studies while in progress or outright put pressure on the people involved to "correct" the results.
but this doesn't make it okay to not wait for a peer review in any way, also there is a non small well known group of people which are very clearly not in favor of glyphosat and scientist and outside of the reach of Monsanto it's not that you can't cross review their reviews and feedbacks of the paper with other "more neutral" (but maybe Monsanto pressured) people
either way a fundamental aspect of non scientific papers is _that anything in non peer reviewed papers must be seen as not yet proven and speculative_ ((not necessary in exactly that wording)) and a judge ignoring the some of the most fundamental aspects of scientific practice but then basing a ruling on scientific practice is just ridiculous
It's like making decision based on draft laws which have not yet been passed i.e. it fundamentally undermines the justice systems claim to be based on facts, because creating a study which uses various form of "subtle accidental mistakes" to twist the truth is very viable (and sadly also often enough tricks peer reviews, but if there isn't even a peer review you have free rain to manipulate).
I mean you are basically saying because the judge belived that it's probably true that it causes cancer without prove it's okay to use some intermediate test results and pretend they are final to get a fake claim to base a decision one, that's just so wrong.
And surprise the parts which where mostly used as a reference for the ruling where found to be quite faulty (in ways which look to me a lot like someone tried to forcefully come to the result that it is causing cancer).
> to undermine any study it did not like
you still need to use facts to do so, if any study showing that it causes cancer can be undermined using facts then maybe it's a strong indication that there is no good way to proof it to be harmful (with current methods)
If the US believes there is enough suspicion for it being harmful to make it okay for judges to conjure facts where there are non then they should just ban it through a congress decision. This might not be fact based but at least it's based on a proper political due process.