124
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2026
124 points (96.3% liked)
science
28742 readers
619 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I do not properly understand why it is not criminal for people in companies to make decisions to hinder limits on products they make profit from, but which demonstrably harm people. In the same way that it is if I found out if I hit people with a bat it's easier for me to convince them to give me cash and so did that to a large number of people.
For decades, tobacco companies published scientific papers arguing cigarettes are not addictive and second-hand smoke isn't dangerous. These papers are ultimately retracted, but only after the damage is done.
Bayer-Monsanto did the same thing with their week-killer Roundup
https://www.science.org/content/article/journal-retracts-weed-killer-study-backed-monsanto-citing-serious-ethical-concerns
https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/glyphosate-retraction-9.7004363
These corporations were also protected by powerful politicians.
For instance this guy:
US Senator Mitch McConnell.
We now have evidence they bought him off
https://www.npr.org/2019/06/17/730496066/tobaccos-special-friend-what-internal-documents-say-about-mitch-mcconnell
Cravingly disgusting corruption.
Not surprising unfortunately
Jesus you cant even hide how smart you think you are while sounding so fucking childish doing it. Good luck carrying that personality thru life when you graduate.
Where did this come from, holy shit? You had some decent/sane comments before.
Whats going on, king?
Whilst you don't even try to hide being an anthropomorphic wank stain.
aw did someone say something mean about your tobacco daddy? hurt your fee fees?
go smoke a cool, you need to take the edge of bro.