Pest Control Products CAUSE NO HARM, And DO NOT CAUSE PARKINSON’S
The Myth Of Parkinson’s Disease
Parkinson’s Disease is a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.
Anti-Pesticide Activists have attempted to FALSELY ASSOCIATE the increased risk of Parkinson’s Disease with pest control products.
They do so through the use of GARBAGE SCIENCE and EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the MERE STATISTICAL STUDY of diseases in humans.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies have been used to somehow VALIDATE EVERY CONSPIRACY against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies have been used to somehow CONCOCT IMAGINARY LINKS between pest control products and health issues, such as certain types of cancer and Parkinson’s Disease.
In fact, pest control products CAUSE NO HARM, and DO NOT CAUSE Parkinson’s Disease.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies are NOT TO BE TRUSTED !
Anti-Pesticide RESEARCHERS will say ANYTHING to get their PAY-OFFS, including FAKING DATA and POINTLESS AND BADLY DESIGNED RESEARCH about Parkinson’s Disease.
Anti-Pesticide RESEARCHERS have even been found GUILTY OF FAKING DATA associating pest control products and Parkinson’s Disease.
INDISPUTABLE AND CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that, as reported through the VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE of Health Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Pest Control Products CAUSE NO HARM, And DO NOT CAUSE PARKINSON’S
According To Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan And American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ) …
An Anti-Pesticide EPIDEMIOLOGY study, which NEVER DESERVED TO BE PUBLISHED in the journal Neurology, TRIED TO SUGGEST that there may be an association between pest control products and Parkinson’s Disease.
According to Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan and American Council On Science And Health, this study was a FIRST-RATE MESS and GARBAGE SCIENCE.
It could be used as an illustration in a college text on « HOW NOT TO DO EPIDEMIOLOGY ».
Even the authors of the Anti-Pesticide EPIDEMIOLOGY study were aware that DEFINITIVE CONCLUSIONS COULD NOT BE MADE.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies are NOT TO BE TRUSTED !
――――――――――――――――――――
Exposure To « Pesticides »
A Risk Factor For
Parkinson’s Disease ?
Not So Fast !
May 28th, 2013
American Council On Science And Health
Responding To The Journal Neurology
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
――――――――――――――――――――
The American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ) is a non-profit organization founded in 1978 by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan that produces peer-reviewed reports on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, life-style, the environment, and health.
――――――――――――――――――――
A study published in the journal Neurology TRIED TO SUGGEST that there may be an association between exposure to pesticides and solvents and Parkinson’s Disease.
Even the study authors are BLATANTLY AWARE OF THE SHORTCOMINGS OF THEIR STUDY when they say …
… the evidence is « LIMITED, OR AT LEAST INCONCLUSIVE », because of « LACK OF DEFINITIVE AGREEMENT between cohort and case-control studies ».
Yet that didn’t stop them from publishing it.
This META-ANALYSIS was based on 89 prospective and case-control studies considering a range of chemicals ― pesticides, herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, rodenticides, solvents, organophosphates, paraquat, and DDT, among others ― and their relation to Parkinson’s Disease.
META-ANALYSIS is widely used in EPIDEMIOLOGY.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the MERE STATISTICAL STUDY of diseases in humans.
After the META-ANALYSIS, researchers concluded that the risk of developing Parkinson’s Disease was [ somehow ] increased by 33 per cent to 80 per cent due to exposure to these chemicals.
The META-ANALYSIS was a FIRST-RATE MESS.
CONCLUSIONS from the included studies WERE NOT IN AGREEMENT THE MAJORITY OF THE TIME, and even higher quality studies showed statistically significant associations for solvents, paraquat, and well-water drinking, but they also found REDUCTIONS in Parkinson’s Disease for exposure to insecticides, farming and well-water drinking.
How can something ― well-water drinking ― both increase risk of Parkinson’s Disease and also decrease risk ?
The answer ― GARBAGE SCIENCE.
As if to prove this point, the case-control studies differed in terms of study quality and size and in the prospective studies, estimates of exposure were not determined in the same way.
And, the secondary causes of Parkinson’s Disease were completely ignored by the authors.
Dr. Gilbert L. Ross is the Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ).
According to Dr. Ross ―
This is a prime example of a BAD STUDY.
It could be used as an illustration in a college text on « HOW NOT TO DO EPIDEMIOLOGY ».
First of all, there was SO MUCH VARIATION BETWEEN STUDIES, a point even the authors are aware of, that definitive conclusions cannot be made.
And results were clearly CONTRADICTORY as pointed out in the well-water example previously.
The one good point made by study authors was that NO ASSOCIATION WAS FOUND BETWEEN DDT AND PARKINSON’S DISEASE.
Dr. Josh Bloom is the Associate Director of the American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ).
Dr. Bloom points out that the entire premise is BIOLOGICALLY IMPLAUSIBLE.
According to Dr. Bloom ―
THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU CAN LUMP THESE SUBSTANCES TOGETHER AND DRAW ANY TYPE OF VALID CONCLUSION.
They are all chemically different, work by different mechanisms, and each one is processed in the body in a different way.
This is like saying « since a cannon ball is round and kills people, all other round objects are dangerous ».
According to this logic, perhaps the Department Of Homeland Security ought to think about banning Nerf Balls.
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
The Wisdom Of REAL Experts
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan And American Council On Science And Health
The American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ) is a non-profit organization founded in 1978 by Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan that produces peer-reviewed reports on issues related to food, nutrition, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, life-style, the environment, and health.
Its core membership is a board of 350 physicians, scientists and policy advisors who review the Council’s reports and participate in ACSH seminars, press conferences, media communications and other educational activities.
American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ) describes itself as a « consumer education consortium ».
ACSH describes its mission as « … to add reason and balance to debates about public health issues and bring common sense scientific views to the public ».
ACSH frequently defends science against claims that industry products create risks of injury, ill-health or death.
――――――――――――――――――――
The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan
Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan is President of the American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ) and a member of its Board Of Trustees.
In 1978, she founded ACSH, a consumer education-public health organization.
Dr. Whelan is a graduate of Connecticut College. She has a Master’s Degree in Public Health from the Yale School of Medicine, a Master Of Science from the Harvard School of Public Health, and a Doctor Of Science from the Harvard School of Public Health.
Dr. Whelan is the author or co-author of twenty-three books on nutrition, smoking, and environmental issues.
She has authored or co-authored over 300 ARTICLES for popular and professional publications such as • Across The Board • Health Confidential • Journal Of The American Medical Association.
And NEWSPAPERS such as • New York Post • The Wall Street Journal.
Dr. Whelan has many PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS and HONORARY POSITIONS in associations such as • American Institute Of Nutrition • American Medical Writers Association • Men And Women In Science.
Dr. Whelan has received many AWARDS, including • American Institute Of Chemists • American Public Health Association.
――――――――――――――――――――
The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert
Dr. Josh Bloom
Dr. Josh Bloom is the Associate Director of the American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ).
Dr. Bloom is an Organic Chemist, and has worked in the pharmaceutical industry for about twenty years.
――――――――――――――――――――
The Wisdom Of A REAL Expert
Dr. Gilbert L. Ross
Dr. Gilbert L. Ross is the Executive Director and Medical Director of the American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH ).
Dr. Ross received his undergraduate degree in Chemistry from Cornell University’s School of Arts and Sciences in 1968, and received his M.D. from the N.Y.U. School of Medicine in 1972.
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
UNMASKING Research Forecast Alarms About Pesticides and Parkinson’s Disease ― Thiruchelvam
NEEDLESS HYSTERIA BY FAKING DATA
According to Anti-Pesticide Neuro-Scientist Mona Thiruchelvam and her colleagues. pesticides have somehow been implicated as risk factors in Parkinson’s disease, a degenerative disorder of the central nervous system.
However, in 2012, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity found Thiruchelvam, a Federally-Funded Pesticides Researcher, GUILTY OF FAKING DATA.
At University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Anti-Pesticide Neuro-Scientist Mona Thiruchelvam had FAKED CELL COUNTS in two grant applications and a number of papers that claimed to show how the pesticides paraquat, maneb, and atrazine might somehow affect parts of the brain involved in Parkinson’s Disease.
When the case was passed to the U.S. Office of Research Integrity ( ORI ) for oversight review, agents used FORENSIC COMPUTING SOFTWARE to determine that MANY OF THE FILES, DESPITE HAVING DIFFERENT FILE NAMES AND DATES, WERE IDENTICAL IN CONTENT.
Consequently, Thiruchelvam agreed to RETRACT two of her papers.
Thiruchelvam LEFT University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, and is now BARRED FROM RECEIVING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR SEVEN YEARS.
Moreover, the whole line of experiments by Thiruchelvam may have been POINTLESS AND BADLY DESIGNED, without regard to data quality issues.
For example, Thiruchelvam’s injecting of paraquat directly into the fetal brain tissue of mice was unlikely to do their neural development much good, but that experiment NEVER PROVIDED ANY USEFUL INFORMATION about either pesticides or Parkinson’s Disease.
Despite being DISCREDITED AND GUILTY OF FAKING DATA, Thiruchelvam is a GRANT RECIPIENT of Michael J. Fox Foundation.
REPORTS ― THIRUCHELVAM DISCREDITED
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2012 06 29 — PARKINSON’S — RESEARCHER GUILTY OF FAKING DATA ON PESTICIDES ( Report )
PESTICIDE TRUTHS — 2012 11 23 — MONA THIRUCHELVAM: MICHAEL J. FOX FOUNDATION GRANT RECIPIENT ( Report )
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
META-ANALYSIS Goes Looking For Problems Where NONE Exist
In statistics, a META-ANALYSIS refers to methods focused on contrasting and combining results from different studies, in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.
In other words, META-ANALYSIS goes looking for problems where NONE exist.
The MOST SEVERE FAULT in META-ANALYSIS often occurs when the people doing the META-ANALYSIS have an economic, social, or political agenda such as the CONSPIRACY TO PROHIBIT PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS.
META-ANALYSIS, a MERE statistical tool, is widely used in EPIDEMIOLOGY.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the MERE STATISTICAL STUDY of diseases in humans.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies have been used to somehow VALIDATE EVERY CONSPIRACY against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies have been used to somehow CONCOCT IMAGINARY LINKS between pest control products and health issues, such as certain types of cancer and Parkinson’s Disease.
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies are NOT TO BE TRUSTED !
INDISPUTABLE AND CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that, as reported through the VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE of Health Canada and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.
The RISK ASSESSMENT of pest control products indicates that they are PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
There is NOT ONE KNOWN ILLNESS OR DEATH from the proper use of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Epidemiology Studies Are Not Used By Health Canada ?!?!
This is WRONG !
Pest control products are regulated by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ), which requires thorough scientific reviews and safety assessments to ensure they meet strict health and environmental standards and are shown to have value.
Pest control products are one of the most stringently regulated products in Canada.
Nonetheless, NON-EXPERT Anti-Pesticide Lunatics ALLEGE that Health Canada is somehow « weak » in examining Epidemiology Studies when evaluating the safety of pest control products.
This is NOT TRUE.
This is merely an attempt to INVALIDATE the CREDIBILTY of Health Canada.
EPIDEMIOLOGY is the study of the causes, distribution, and control of health problems in populations.
However, EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES cannot be relied upon ALONE, and MUST BE BACKED-UP WITH ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES.
These ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES are assessed to determine if there is any biological basis for the POTENTIAL ASSOCIATIONS noted in EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
The examination of ANIMAL TOXICITY STUDIES from internationally-accepted guideline studies using doses well-above those to which humans are typically exposed, combined with exposure data obtained from well-designed studies, is currently a useful methodology available for assessing risks to human health.
Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) undertakes this kind of ASSESSMENT to SUPPLEMENT INFORMATION about POTENTIAL ASSOCIATIONS that may be established by EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
This approach is consistent with that of other regulatory authorities that base human health risk assessments on ANIMAL TOXICITY DATA.
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Animal Toxicity Data Are RELIABLE
This is WRONG !
NON-EXPERT Anti-Pesticide Lunatics ALLEGE that Health Canada uses ANIMAL TOXICITY DATA that are somehow not reliable.
In fact, if a pest control product actually could cause cancer, it is fairly certain that this would be ascertained through the EXTENSIVE TESTING PROCEDURES required before it is registered for use in Canada.
Dr. Connie Moase is Director, Health Effects Division II, Health Evaluation Directorate, Pest Management Regulatory Agency of Health Canada.
According to Dr. Moase ―
For any known human carcinogen, whatever the chemical might be — I’m not speaking directly to pesticides — THE ANIMAL MODELS THAT HAVE BEEN USED HAVE SHOWN TO BE POSITIVE FOR ANYTHING THAT'S KNOWN TO BE CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS AS WELL.
So they are well understood predictors of potential human toxicity, and those are the models that are well worked out and used for toxicity testing.
REFERENCE ― DR. CONNIE MOASE
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2012 01 17 — PMRA — DR. CONNIE MOASE — BRITISH COLUMBIA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES — PAGES 2 & 7 — HIGHLIGHTED
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Epidemiology Studies Are Almost Worthless
Dr. Stan Young is a Statistician at National Institute Of Statistical Sciences In Research, Triangle Park, North Carolina.
According to Dr. Young ―
… EPIDEMIOLOGY studies are SO OFTEN WRONG that they are coming close to being WORTHLESS.
We spend a lot of money and we could make claims just as valid as a random number generator.
REFERENCE ― ANDREAS VON BUBNOFF
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2007 09 17 — ANDREAS VON BUBNOFF — NUMBERS CAN LIE — VITAMINS, HORMONES, COFFEE — TODAY THEY’RE GOOD, TOMORROW THEY’RE BAD — WHY ALL THE FLIP-FLOPS ?
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Epidemiology Studies Have False Positives
Dr. Geoffrey C. Kabat is a Cancer Epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College Of Medicine and the author of « Hyping Health Risks : Environmental Hazards In Daily Life And The Science Of Epidemiology ».
According to Dr. Kabat, epidemiologists have long been aware of the baleful effects of CONTRADICTORY FINDINGS reported in the media, which CONFUSE THE PUBLIC about what threats to health are worth worrying about.
However, only recently have prominent epidemiologists begun to critically examine their own discipline and to speak out about the FALSE POSITIVES ― initial findings that LATER PROVE TO BE WRONG.
FALSE POSITIVES are latched onto by the media, the public, advocacy groups, and regulatory agencies.
In 2005, Epidemiologist John Ioannidis published a paper entitled WHY MOST RESEARCH FINDINGS ARE FALSE.
Among the factors contributing to MOST RESEARCH FINDINGS THAT ARE FALSE, Ioannidis cited …
• METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES.
• RESEARCHERS’ DESIRE FOR THEIR RESULTS TO BE MEANINGFUL.
• THE STRONG MOTIVATION OF PROFESSIONAL ADVANCEMENT.
REFERENCES ― DR. GEOFFREY C. KABAT
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2012 11 20 — DR. GEOFFREY C. KABAT — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — PART 1
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2012 11 20 — DR. GEOFFREY C. KABAT — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — PART 2
REPORTS ― DR. GEOFFREY C. KABAT
FORCE OF NATURE — ENVIRO-TERRORISTS UNMASKED — 2012 11 20 — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS – GEOFFREY C. KABAT ( Reports )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
NO Scientific Basis For PROHIBITION
Sir Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill were the British authors behind the momentous 1950 study.
Sir Richard Doll has been designated as « THE GREATEST EPIDEMIOLOGIST OF THE 20TH CENTURY ».
In 2003, Sir Richard delivered a lecture in Guelph, Ontario.
The following is taken from an article published at the time ―
Sir Richard gave a public lecture in Guelph.
Afterward, a city councillor asked whether he’d support a BAN ON PESTICIDES in the city.
« NO », he said, to her immense surprise.
« There’s NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR IT. »
REFERENCE ― SIR RICHARD DOLL
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2003 05 24 — SIR RICHARD DOLL — PESTICIDE PANIC ZAPS THE FACTS
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 1950 09 30 — SIR RICHARD DOLL — SMOKING AND CARCINOMA OF THE LUNG
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Canadian Cancer Society Cherry-Picked Very Weak Epidemiological Studies
Canadian Cancer Society CONSPIRES to PROHIBIT against pest control products that are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.
Canadian Cancer Society is a FUND-RAISING, PROFIT-SEEKING, and LOBBYING organization, and NOT a science, research, or health organization.
Health Canada, and NOT Canadian Cancer Society, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.
Observers do not understand how Canadian Cancer Society has trouble comprehending information provided by Health Canada regarding the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ARE SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.
Observers have tried to follow the trail ( a.k.a. growing body ) of information against pest control products provided by Canadian Cancer Society, but to no avail.
Canadian Cancer Society is NOT PROVIDING ANY INFORMATION THAT IS FACTUAL.
Canadian Cancer Society implies that that Health Canada is LYING TO THE PUBLIC ?
NO LEADING EXPERTS WERE EVER CONSULTED by Canadian Cancer Society, and yet, it CONCOCTED IMAGINARY DANGER about pest control products by alleging that it consulted with the HIGHEST QUALITY SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS.
Canadian Cancer Society should LEAVE THE FACTS ON PEST CONTROL PRODUCT SAFETY UP TO THE EXPERTS AT HEALTH CANADA.
Health Canada, and NOT Canadian Cancer Society, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.
Canadian Cancer Society is NOT BEING HONEST since it is CHERRY-PICKING VERY WEAK EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, and PRETENDS that this is the ONLY evidence that is available.
It CHERRY-PICKED A MERE 100 EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES !
Furthermore, Canadian Cancer Society has STATED REPEATEDLY that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer.
Why is Canadian Cancer Society WASTING EVERYBODY’S TIME on the issue of pest control products ?
Canadian Cancer Society is RIDICULOUSLY IMPLYING that its NON-EXPERT ASSESSMENT is somehow being withheld from Health Canada and EVERY other regulatory agency in the world.
INDISPUTABLE and CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that, as reported through Health Canada’s VAST TOXICOLOGY DATABASE, NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products are used according to label directions.
The RISK ASSESSMENT of pest control products indicates that they are PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.
There is NOT ONE KNOWN ILLNESS OR DEATH from the proper use of pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
There is a GROWING and CONCLUSIVE BODY OF EVIDENCE about Canadian Cancer Society SQUANDERING AND MISAPPROPRIATING its PUBLIC DONATIONS on SUBVERSIVE and PARTISAN ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACIES.
WEB-PAGES ― CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – SUBVERSIVE, CONTEMPTIBLE, AND RADICAL ( Web-Page )
ORGANIZATION – CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY – NO DIRECT PROOF PESTICIDES CAUSE CANCER ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Canadian Cancer Society REFUTED By Health Canada
Canadian Cancer Society claimed to possess a MERE 100 EPIDEMIOLOGY studies somehow linking pest control products to cancer.
Health Canada has estimated that ABOUT 23 MILLION PAGES OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES have been used to support the decisions made about pest control products.
Canadian Cancer Society’s position concerning CANCER is CONGRUENT WITH ALL OTHER ANTI-PESTICIDE AND NON-SCIENCE-BASED ORGANIZATIONS ―
Over 100 STUDIES have linked pesticide exposure to both adult and childhood cancers. [ ?!?! ]
The findings of this LIMITED NUMBER OF EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES can be challenged by reference to the following statement provided by Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) in 2012 ―
We estimated that just proprietary studies that are sub-mitted to us, which we keep on file, AMOUNTED TO ABOUT 23 MILLION PAGES OF SCIENTIFIC STUDIES that are used to support the decisions that we make on pesticides, which is FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT.
REFERENCE ― JASON FLINT
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2012 01 17 — PMRA — JASON FLINT — BRITISH COLUMBIA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES — PAGES 2 & 20 — HIGHLIGHTED
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Canadian Cancer Society REFUTED By Health Canada, Again
Furthermore, Canadian Cancer Society FAILED TO EXPLAIN that its 100 STUDIES are ALL EPIDEMIOLOGICAL OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES WITH VERY WEAK LINKS between pesticides and disease.
According to Health Canada ―
EPIDEMIOLOGY studies identify associations rather than causation, and are examined IN CONJUNCTION WITH well conducted toxicity studies that are specifically designed to elicit toxic effects over a series of dose levels.
These animal toxicity data are assessed to determine if there is any biological basis for the potential associations noted in EPIDEMIOLOGY studies.
The examination of animal toxicity data from internationally accepted guideline studies using doses well above those to which humans are typically exposed, combined with exposure data obtained from well-designed studies, is currently a useful methodology available for assessing risks to human health.
Health Canada’s PMRA undertakes this kind of assessment to supplement information about associations that may be established by epidemiology studies.
This approach is CONSISTENT with that of OTHER REGULATORY AUTHORITIES that base human health risk assessments on animal toxicity data.
[ REFERENCE ― « Answers to Additional Questions for Health Canada (PMRA) », submitted by British Columbia Special Committee On Cosmetic Pesticides, April 30th, 2012. ]
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
Canadian Cancer Society Irresponsibly Squandered Its Efforts On Municipal Anti-Pesticide Campaigns
Canadian Cancer Society has SQUANDERED OVER 5,000,000 DOLLARS ON NEEDLESS ANTI-PESTICIDE CONSPIRACIES.
Dr. Lorne Hepworth is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
Dr. Hepworth is also Canada’s MOST EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT SPOKESMAN on the subject of public policy and pest control products.
According to Dr. Hepworth ―
If the CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY has information to back up its pesticide claims it is IRRESPONSIBLY SQUANDERING ITS EFFORTS ON MUNICIPAL [ ANTI-PESTICIDE ] CAMPAIGNS rather than presenting « proof » to Health Canada, which regulates the products, or to the industry, which runs hundreds of tests on each and every product seeking federal government registration.
Furthermore, if the CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY had even a shred of relevant, compelling information Health Canada would be all over it.
After all, the health of Canadians is Health Canada’s top priority and it is mandated to assess all scientifically credible evidence available regarding the pesticides it has approved for sale and use.
If the CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY does know something about the safety of pesticides that the rest of us do not, they have an obligation to bring it to Health Canada so it can be investigated.
REFERENCE & WEB-PAGE ― DR. LORNE HEPWORTH
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2011 02 09 — DR. LORNE HEPWORTH — CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY — TERRACE, BRITISH COLUMBIA
THE WISDOM OF HEPWORTH, LORNE – THE NATION’S MOST EFFECTIVE AND CONSISTENT SPOKESMAN – CROPLIFE CANADA ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP Review Contained Weak Epidemiology Studies
Ontario College Of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) has CONSPIRED to PROHIBIT against pest control products that are HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC, and CAUSE NO HARM.
In 2004, Ontario College Of Family Physicians CONCOCTED an Anti-Pesticide Literature Review of CHERRY-PICKED WEAK EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES.
The BOGUS OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review of CHERRY-PICKED WEAK EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES was NEEDLESSLY ALARMIST with its ALLEGATIONS that pest control products MAY be the cause of certain types of cancer.
It was a PRINCIPAL PARTISAN ARCHITECT with the Ontario McGuinty Government in CONSPIRING TO PROHIBIT pest control products used in the Urban Landscape.
Unfortunately, the OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review DID NOT CONSIDER ALL OF THE RELEVANT EPIDEMIOLOGY EVIDENCE.
What is not explained in the OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review is that the so-called evidence against pest control products consisted of some EPIDEMIOLOGY studies showing a WEAK ( in most cases, a VERY WEAK ) link between some pest control products and cancer.
The best method for assessing risks to human health is the examination of ANIMAL TOXICITY DATA from internationally-accepted guideline studies, which OCFP DID NOT DO.
OCFP DID NOT conduct a serious scientific study of EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES … it conducted a mere Literature Review, and could only use those reports found in the OPEN PUBLIC LITERATURE.
OCFP was NOT even in « The Information Loop » on issues regarding pest control products.
Moreover, OCFP DID NOT avail itself to the EXTENSIVE TOXICOLOGY DATABASE that is available from Health Canada.
Unfortunately, this database is NOT DIRECTLY AVAILABLE TO OUTSIDE GROUPS like OCFP.
OCFP never even bothered to request to look at the TOXICOLOGY DATBASE through a process that Health Canada refers to as The Reading Room.
The authors and reviewers of the Anti-Pesticide Literature were not only SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT, they were LAZY AND STUPID.
This organization is a DISCREDITED, RADICAL, and SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT Anti-Pesticide Organization.
Health Canada, and NOT OCFP, has THE ESSENTIAL EXPERTISE on the subject of pest control products.
The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was BOGUS, BIASED, DISGRACEFUL, FALSE, MISLEADING, and SUBVERSIVE, and had absolutely NO CREDIBILITY in the legitimate scientific community, and has been DISCREDITED, DEBUNKED, and REFUTED by Health Canada and by The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and by SEVERAL LEADING EXPERTS.
WEB-PAGE ― ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS
ORGANIZATION – ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS – DISCREDITED, RADICAL, AND SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT MAD MEN PRETENDING TO BE SCIENTISTS WHO ARE LAZY & STUPID ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP Review Was MISLEADING and UN-SCIENTIFIC
John J. Holland is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products and public policy.
Mr. Holland is Communications Director for Integrated Environmental Plant Management Association Of Western Canada ( IEPMA ).
He is Canada’s MOST ELOQUENT and INTELLIGENT WRITER on the subject of public policy and pest control products.
According to Mr. Holland ―
This [ OCFP ] « study » has been widely used by anti-pesticide groups as part of their claim of a « growing body of evidence », and has then been accepted by many municipalities as proof of pesticide carcinogenicity.
However, [ OCFP ] the Review has been INTERNATIONALLY DISCREDITED, due to the fact it consists of CHERRY-PICKED EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES, with VIRTUALLY NO REFERENCE TO IMPORTANT AND RELEVANT TOXICOLOGICAL RESEARCH.
and
As you may be aware, there are also numerous MISLEADING ― or UNSCIENTIFIC ― studies with such a negative point of view, such as the Ontario College of Family Physicians’ [ OCFP ] Pesticide Literature Review ( 2004 ).
THIS REVIEW HAS BEEN USED TO SUPPORT ALMOST EVERY PROPOSED PESTICIDE BAN, from the Municipal to the Provincial ( e.g., Ontario ) level.
The information used by those like the OCFP has been CHERRY-PICKED by the physicians ― NOT SCIENTISTS ― writing the report, and the report has been DISCOUNTED by many scientists and government experts in this and other countries.
Studies used are generally all epidemiological, and links to cancer and other diseases have been WEAK and NOT CONSISTENT from study to study.
Toxicological studies DO NOT CONFIRM the EPIDEMIOLOGICAL findings.
By definition, EPIDEMIOLOGY CANNOT FIND CAUSES ― they merely suggest correlations, and the basic tenet of EPIDEMIOLOGY is that CORRELATION DOES NOT MEAN CAUSATION.
Studies must also be consistently reproducible before a finding can be found meaningful.
At any rate, the OCFP study ignored or down-played other important EPIDEMIOLOGY studies that did not conform to its premise of the dangers of pesticides ( again, check with the PMRA ).
REFERENCE ― JOHN J. HOLLAND
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2009 11 00 — JOHN J. HOLLAND — REAL SCIENCE AND ACTUAL FACT
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2009 04 05 — JOHN J. HOLLAND — LETTER TO MINISTER DAY — 2,4-D — NAFTA
WEB-PAGE ― JOHN J. HOLLAND
THE WISDOM OF HOLLAND, JOHN J. – THE NATION'S MOST ELOQUENT AND INTELLIGENT WRITER ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP Review DEBUNKED By Dr. Frank N. Dost
Dr. Frank N. Dost is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
Dr. Dost is Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Chemistry And Forest Toxicology, Oregon State University, and Fellow of the Academy Of Toxicological Sciences.
According to Dr. Dost ―
In my view, the OCFP report FAILS SEVERAL IMPORTANT SCIENCE TESTS, and SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A GUIDE TO SETTING POLICY ON PESTICIDE USE.
Indeed, I question whether the OCFP paper should have been made public, given that IT WAS NOT SUBJECT TO RIGOROUS EXTERNAL PEER SCRUTINY.
This document [ OCFP REVIEW ] DOES NOT DESCRIBE THE HEALTH IMPACT OF PESTICIDES.
It should NOT supplant the judgment of Health Canada on regulatory policy issue.
REFERENCE ― DR. FRANK N. DOST
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2004 06 26 — DR. FRANK N. DOST — STUDY FAILS TESTS
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP Review DEBUNKED By Dr. Keith R. Solomon
Dr. Keith Ross Solomon is among several LEADING EXPERTS who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
According to Dr. Solomon is the nation’s LEADING EXPERT IN THE FIELD OF ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGY, TOXICOLOGY, AND PESTICIDE SAFETY.
Dr. Solomon is Professor of Environmental Biology and Director at the Centre For Toxicology, University Of Guelph.
The OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review somehow made some links between pest control product exposure and diseases in humans.
According to Dr. Solomon ―
Ontario College of Physicians [ … ] made some CONCLUSIONS about linkages between pesticide exposure and diseases in humans.
[ … ] there are some ISSUES with this report.
First of all, IT’S BASED ONLY ON EPIDEMIOLOGY.
MANY STUDIES WERE OMITTED FROM THEIR REPORT.
It DIDN’T CONSIDER THE TOXICITY DATA that PMRA [ Pest Management Regulatory Agency Of Health Canada ] and other agencies use.
It DIDN’T CONSIDER THE EXPOSURES, and it DIDN’T CONSIDER THE PUBLISHED REGULATORY REVIEWS from PMRA and the U.S. EPA and other agencies.
In terms of EPIDEMIOLOGY [ … ] EPIDEMIOLOGY is the study of diseases in humans.
They’re good organisms to study, but we are extremely difficult to work with because we don’t always say what we do.
These [ EPIDEMIOLOGY ] studies are really based only on correlation and suggested links, and they CANNOT ESTABLISH CAUSALITY ON THEIR OWN.
[ … ] the Ontario College Of Family Physicians report WAS NOT VERY WELL DONE, but others have done the same thing.
These people [ CRITICS OF OCFP ] are not even from Canada, so I don’t think there’s any axe to grind here at all.
But the U.K. Advisory Committee on Pesticides basically said that this [ OCFP ] report didn’t raise any new concerns, and there was NO REASON FOR ADDITIONAL REGULATORY ACTION in the United Kingdom.
There was another opinion on this report from the Royal Commission On Environmental Pollution.
The quotation [ … ] from this is that, basically, STRONG CONCLUSIONS WERE BEING DRAWN FROM EVIDENCE THAT WAS OF VERY WEAK QUALITY.
REFERENCES ― DR. KEITH R. SOLOMON
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2011 11 08 — DR. KEITH R. SOLOMON — BRITISH COLUMBIA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES — TRANSCRIPT
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2011 11 08 — DR. KEITH R. SOLOMON — BRITISH COLUMBIA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES — PRESENTATION
WEB-PAGE & REPORTS ― DR. KEITH R. SOLOMON
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMONS, KEITH R. AND SANDRA ( Web-Page )
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON, KEITH R. – BRITISH COLUMBIA SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON COSMETIC PESTICIDES – 2011 11 08 ( Report )
THE WISDOM OF SOLOMON, KEITH R. – HOLLAND – PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE – 2011 10 00 ( Report )
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP Review REFUTED By Health Canada
In light of the public interest in the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review, Health Canada issued a media release on August 4th, 2004.
Health Canada’s respected Pest Management Regulatory Agency ( PMRA ) is the federal regulatory body responsible for the regulation of pest control products in Canada.
According to Health Canada ―
As the OCFP report notes, some population groups, such as children and pregnant women, may be more susceptible to potential effects of pesticides.
This is why PMRA assessments include the application of EXTRA SAFETY FACTORS to ensure that the most sensitive sub-populations are protected.
For example, the PMRA PAYS SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THE UNIQUE EXPOSURES AND PHYSIOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF CHILDREN, ensuring that factors such as their unique behaviours, different diets and lower body weights are considered.
The OCFP report is a review of EPIDEMIOLOGY studies selected from the public scientific literature.
There are many such studies published which suggest that there MAY OR MAY NOT be associations between adverse health effects and pesticide exposure.
As the report acknowledges, EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES ARE HARD TO INTERPRET because of BIASES AND CONFOUNDING FACTORS that make it very difficult to either establish or definitively rule out links between pesticide exposures and effects.
For example, other chemical and physical environment effects are usually encountered at the same time as pesticide exposures and biases in the exposures remembered by study participants may affect the result.
Without an actual exposure calculation, it is difficult to assess whether pesticides could have been responsible for an adverse health outcome.
When determining the acceptability of a pesticide, PMRA scientists CRITICALLY EXAMINE THE TOTALITY OF THE SCIENTIFIC DATABASE for pesticide active ingredients and end-use products, including the types of studies in the OCFP report.
When new studies in the public literature are released, the PMRA examines them to determine if further regulatory action is required on the pesticides mentioned in the study.
REFERENCE ― PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AGENCY
REFERENCE — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES — 2004 08 05 — PMRA — PEST MANAGEMENT REGULATORY AGENCY INFORMATION NOTE
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products & Epidemiology Studies
OCFP’s Mere 140 Epidemiology Studies
Ontario College Of Family Physicians claimed to possess a MERE 140 EPIDEMIOLOGY studies somehow linking pest control products to cancer.
On June 19th, 2012, Ontario College Of Family Physicians issued the following statement ―
The Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) is strongly recommending the public reduce their exposure to pesticides wherever possible, based on the findings [ OF A LIMITED NUMBER OF EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES ] of its second comprehensive review of research on the effects of pesticides on human health.
Released today, this review shows associations between pesticide exposure and various neurological and respiratory diseases, as well as reproductive problems. [ ?!?! ]
Covering 142 studies, the review also demonstrates that children are particularly vulnerable to pesticide exposures that occur during pregnancy. [ ?!?! ]
OCFP ALLEGED having A MERE 140 UNDISCLOSED, NON-EXISTENT, AND UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE about the safety of pest control products.
The findings of this LIMITED NUMBER OF EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES can be EASILY CHALLENGED.
How could this Anti-Pesticide Organization obtain studies that have somehow been withheld from the entire world ?
Moreover, pest control products like 2,4-D Herbicide have been the subject of over 40,000 STUDIES.
40,000 !
Furthermore, since 1988, The Industry Task Force II on 2,4-D Research Data has submitted to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over 250 studies concerning mammalian and environmental toxicology, environmental fate and residues.
2,4-D is probably THE MOST studied and best understood of ANY chemical … not just pesticide … in existence.
INDISPUTABLE AND CONCLUSIVE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH shows that NO HARM WILL OCCUR when pest control products like 2,4-D are used according to label directions.
WEB-PAGE & REPORTS ― 2,4-D HERBICIDE
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – 2,4-D HERBICIDE – EVALUATIONS & ASSESSMENTS ( Web-Page )
CONVENTIONAL PRODUCT – 2,4-D HERBICIDE – THE INDUSTRY TASK FORCE II ON 2,4-D RESEARCH DATA – REVISED WEB-SITE – MYTHS VERSUS FACTS – UPDATE – 2012 09 00 ( Reports )
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information From An Independent Perspective
Pest Control Products Are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE
The following LEADING EXPERTS have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
These EXPERTS have publicly stated, in one form or another, that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―
AMES, Bruce Nathan, Doctor
BRANHAM, Bruce, Professor
BLOOM, Josh, Doctor
CHORNEY, Doug, Policy Expert
CHUDLEIGH, Ted, Political & Policy Expert
DOLL, William Richard Shaboe, Doctor
DOST, Frank N., Doctor
DRIESSEN, Paul K., Juris Doctor
DRYSDALE, Art C., Horticulturist
EDWARDS, J. Gordon, Doctor
FELSOT, Allan S., Doctor
HEPWORTH, Lorne, Doctor
HOLLAND, John J., Communications Director
MAINS, Howard, Government Relations & Public Affairs
MILLOY, Steven J., Juris Doctor
RITTER, Leonard, Doctor
ROSS, Gilbert L., Doctor
SCHWARCZ, Joseph A., Doctor
SOLOMON, Keith Ross, Doctor
STEPHENSON, Gerald R., Professor
SWITZER, Clayton M., Doctor
TAYLOR, Peter Shawn, Journalist & Policy Expert
The 350 EXPERT SCIENTISTS at HEALTH CANADA
The THOUSANDS OF EXPERT SCIENTISTS at U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
VON STACKELBERG, Katherine, Doctor
WHELAN, Elizabeth M., Doctor
WOOD, Joel, Doctor
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Discover What Anti-Pesticide And Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists Are Doing And Saying About Subversively Imposing Their Life-Style Choices Against Our Society
Read … Force Of Nature ― The Whole Truth From An Independent Perspective.
Communities and businesses are being HARMED and DESTROYED and RAPED by PROHIBITIONS against pest control products used in the Urban Landscape, and by other ACTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL TERRORISM.
We are living in the 9|11 Era of Anti Pesticide and Environmental Terrorism where at least ONE SUBVERSIVE ACT OF TERROR is perpetrated EVERY SINGLE DAY by these terrorist.
We are living in the DARK AGE OF ANTI PESTICIDE TERRORISM where sound science is trumped by FAKE SCIENTISTS, JUNK SCIENCE and UNVERIFIABLE SECRET EVIDENCE through FABRICATION, INNUENDO, and INTERNET RUMOR ― scientific research PROVES that pest control products CAUSE NO HARM and can be USED SAFELY.
An informed public is better able to protect itself and its communities and businesses from so-called activists who are THE LEAST QUALIFIED TO PROVIDE ANY ADVICE about pest control products or the environment.
NORAHG is the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that seek to harm and destroy the Green space industry, and the well being of our communities.
NORAHG morally represents the VAST SILENT MAJORITY of people associated with turf and ornamental plant maintenance who are OPPOSED to Anti Pesticide PROHIBITION and the CLOSURE or ABANDONMENT of green spaces under the RIDICULOUS PRETEXT of somehow « saving » the environment.
NORAHG is a NATIONAL NON PROFIT NON PARTISAN organization that does not accept money from corporations or governments or trade associations, and represents NO VESTED INTERESTS WHATSOEVER.
NORAHG is dedicated to reporting the work of RESPECTED and HIGHLY RATED EXPERTS who promote ENVIRONMENTAL REALISM and PESTICIDE TRUTHS.
NORAHG pledges to deliver comprehensive reports that are worthy of peoples’ time and of peoples’ concern, reports that might ordinarily never have breached the parapet.
NORAHG was the brainchild of William H. Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991. Mr. Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder.
Force Of Nature was launched by NORAHG for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet on January 1st, 2009 ― however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone FORCE OF NATURE Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.
On January 1st, 2009, Force Of Nature Reports were launched for CONTINUOUS transmission on the Internet ― however, the VERY FIRST Stand-Alone Force Of Nature Report was issued on September 19th, 2008.
On March 15th, 2010, Uncle Adolph independently launched The Pesticide Truths, an easy-to-use Web-Site that collects relevant reports of information right-off-the-press.
Pesticide Truths and Force Of Nature, in some ways, are like Google for everything concerning the SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES of Anti-Pesticide and Enviro-Lunatic Terrorists.
For The Complete Library of Force Of Nature and A LOOK AT Reports & References, go to the following web-page …
THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
For the original copy of this Force Of Nature Report, go to the following link …
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & ACSH — 2013 05 28 — EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES A RISK FACTOR FOR PARKINSON’S — NOT SO FAST ( Reports )
――――――――――――――――――――
Here are previous reports and references about DR. ELIZABETH M. WHELAN AND AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH, just in case you missed them …
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & ACSH — 2012 12 03 — MYTH-BUSTING — DOES EVERYTHING YOU EAT GIVE YOU CANCER ( Report )
https://pesticidetruths.com/2013/01/06/does-everything-you-eat-give-you-cancer/
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & ACSH — 2012 09 03 — ORGANIC FOODS NOT HEALTHIER OR MORE NUTRITIOUS ( Reports )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2012 03 30 — MYTH-BUSTING — CANCER RATES DROPPING IN THE U.S. ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2012 03 14 — IS IT SAFE TO PLAY YET ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2012 01 18 — UNMASKED — AGRICULTURE — PESTICIDES ON FOOD ARE SAFE ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2011 07 00 — PESTICIDES AND HEALTH — POSITION PAPER ( Reference )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2011 04 25 — PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS & CHILDREN LOWER IQ — ORGANO-PHOSPHATES ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2011 03 31 — MYTH-BUSTING — CANCER — RATES DECLINING ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2011 02 28 — STRIKES BACK — INCREASED U.S. LOBBYING ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2011 02 09 — DDT — BED-BUGS — EPA PRIORITIES ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2010 12 00 — CELEBRITIES VS SCIENCE — REFERENCE ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2010 08 05 — PRESIDENT’S CANCER REPORT ( REPORT )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2010 07 08 — CANCER DOWN, CHEMOPHOBIA UP ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 2010 06 02 — CHEMICALS, CANCER, & CLAPTRAP ( Report )
FORCE OF NATURE — THE WISDOM OF WHELAN & AMERICAN COUNCIL ON SCIENCE AND HEALTH ( ACSH ) — 0000 00 00 — CONFRONTING PSEUDO-SCIENCE ( Slide Presentation )
――――――――――――――――――――
NORAHG has archived more information on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site …
THE PESTICIDE TRUTHS WEB-SITE
PESTICIDE BANS ARE A FARCE ( Report )
REAL TRENDS AGAINST PESTICIDE BANS ( Web-Page )
CARNAGE CREATED BY CATASTROPHIC ANTI-PESTICIDE PROHIBITION – MAIN WEB-PAGE
THE COST OF PESTICIDE BANS ( Report )
ATTACKS AGAINST GOLF FACILITIES ( Report )
MYTHS ABOUT BANNING PESTICIDES – LEADING SCIENTIFIC HEALTH AND POLICY EXPERTS ( White Paper )
2,4-D HERBICIDE ( Web-Page )
COMPLAINT CHANNELS – COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ANTI-PESTICIDE LUNATICS ( Web-Page )
PESTICIDE LINKS ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/pesticide-qa-links/
THE COMPLETE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
