Main source? Carey Gillam. She’s not neutral. She’s spent years working with anti-GMO groups. That’s like citing an anti-vaxxer to explain mRNA vaccines. It’s not journalism. It’s advocacy. 2/

The cancer panic? They quote IARC: “Probably carcinogenic.” What they don’t tell you: ☕ Coffee is in the same category. 🌙 So is night shift work. 🔥 So are hot drinks. Hazard ≠ Risk. That context? Conveniently skipped. 3/

17+ regulators reviewed glyphosate: ✅ EPA ✅ EFSA ✅ WHO ✅ Health Canada ✅ Australia ✅ New Zealand ✅ Brazil All found no cancer risk at real-life exposures. That’s the consensus. Where was that in the video? 4/

They cite small case-control studies linking glyphosate to cancer. But these rely on memory: “What pesticides did you use in 1987?” Meanwhile: 📊 54,000 pesticide applicators. 📆 Followed for decades. ❌ No cancer link found. That’s the strongest study. Omitted. 5/

The “Monsanto Papers” get airtime. Yes, internal emails can look ugly. But cherry-picked lines ≠ scientific evidence. Regulators don’t care about email drama. They care about data. 6/

“Ghostwriting”? Let’s talk facts. Williams et al. (2000): Monsanto made suggestions - acknowledged in the paper. That’s called editing. Not ghostwriting. Every scientist does it. 7/

Then there’s the “Let Nothing Go” campaign - framed as a sinister army of trolls. In reality, it was a clumsy corporate comms plan to answer critics online. Ham-fisted? Yes. Sinister conspiracy? No. 8/

The Dicamba tragedy is dragged in too - even though it’s a different herbicide, with very real volatility problems. Mixing Dicamba’s failures with glyphosate’s record is misleading. Different chemistries, different issues. 9/

The lawsuits? Courtrooms run on emotion, not scientific weight. Juries hear about “Monsanto emails” more than they hear about EFSA’s 11,000-page safety review. Verdicts ≠ evidence. 10/

Real issues do exist: Weed resistance is growing (60+ species). Overreliance on any single herbicide is bad practice. But that’s not evidence of danger to human health. That’s a management challenge, not a cancer risk. 11/

Here’s the bottom line: Veritasium painted glyphosate as a scandal. The real scandal is how much nuance was cut: Independent science says no carcinogenic risk at real exposures. 12/

Courtrooms and activist narratives drown out data. Farmers face weed resistance, not toxicology disasters. 13/

This isn’t about defending Monsanto. It’s about defending science. Because when YouTube videos sell fear over facts, the public loses trust in the very tools that feed the world. Trust is much harder to rebuild once it’s gone. Evidence matters more than vibes. 14/

@simonmaechling Thank you so much. Im devastated that my favorite science youtuber is peddling conspiracies and misinformation. I finally have to say YOU CANNOT get good information from you tubers.

@simonmaechling Unfortunately not the first time this has happened

@simonmaechling If this is what you gleaned from the video, then we have very strong disagreements. Both on what constitutes ethical practices for scientists, and what the standard for safety should be when considering high-frequency chronic exposure to any agricultural chemical. GMOs are

@simonmaechling @konvalinka_jan Could you fact check this thread? What is the problem with glyphosate? Can I drink it? How does it taste?

@simonmaechling @skdh @threadreaderapp please unroll

@simonmaechling Nice thread, thank you. I don't see you talkinh over the 2,4D and the dioxine contamination. How do you see that topic?

@simonmaechling One day people will understand that all of his content is like that.

@simonmaechling Kevin Folt shared some thoughts and facts in his latest podcast episode. https://overcast.fm/+AAHDt0BmN...