DarkHorse Podcast Round ‘Em Up! The 308th Evolutionary Lens with Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying
45 snips
Jan 7, 2026 This discussion dives into the retraction of a pivotal 2000 review on glyphosate, revealing its ties to Monsanto and serious integrity issues in scientific publishing. The hosts explore the implications of flawed peer review processes and the problem of ghost authorship in academia. They also analyze how punitive damages awarded to plaintiffs are being reduced and the significance of corporate accountability in litigation. With a focus on the impacts of glyphosate on health and the environment, the dialogue challenges regulatory norms and encourages a reevaluation of scientific standards.
AI Snips
Chapters
Books
Transcript
Episode notes
We Are Multitudes, Not Just Mammals
- Heather notes humans 'contain multitudes' including microbes vulnerable to glyphosate.
- She argues textbook mechanisms miss effects on microbiomes that impact human health.
Review Relied On Unpublished Company Data
- The retraction lists that the review relied on unpublished Monsanto studies and omitted other long-term studies.
- That means the article failed its central duty as a review and misled regulators and scientists.
Ghostwriting And Undisclosed Payments Exposed
- Litigation revealed Monsanto employees likely helped write the paper without proper authorship credit.
- Undisclosed corporate authorship and possible payment undermine the paper's academic integrity.
