Overview
Glyphosate-Gate
International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) is an anti-glyphosate & environmental-terrжrist organization.
IARC, the ONLY major science body to insist that glyphosate causes cancer [ ?!?! ], has been caught DOCTORING DOCUMENTS and MANIPULATING EVIDENCE to support its conclusion.
IARC conducts BAD SCIENCE.
Occasionally, BAD SCIENCE is promoted by lunatжcs who receive PAY-OFFS and practice SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
THE MOTIVATION SEEMS TO BE FINANCIAL.
A key IARC lunatжc-advisor who LOBBIED against Glyphosate has, in essence, received a PAY-OFF of 160,000 DOLLARS.
He was BRIBED by lawyers who stand to profit from potential lawsuits involving Glyphosate.
This is a truly GIGANTIC SCANDAL that has ( predictably ) received scant press coverage.
IARC has severely and perhaps IRREPARABLY DAMAGED the reputation of its parent, the World Health Organization ( WHO ).
ANTI-GLYPHOSATE LUNATЖCS ARE CROOKS AND LYING SACKS OF CRЖP !
NO science and regulatory body in the world classifies Glyphosate as a human carcinogen.
Nonetheless, IARC’s FAKE-NEWS CONTROVERSY over glyphosate began in March 2015, when it issued a BOGUS HAZARD REPORT that RE-CLASSIFIED the herbicide as PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS. [ ?!?! ]
WHY IS IARC A LYING SACK OF CRЖP ?!?!
Incredibly, IARC withheld information showing that there was NO link between Glyphosate and cancer under the false pretext that there was TOO MUCH to fit into one of its reports. [ ?!?! ]
The International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) operates under the umbrella of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) of the United Nations ( UN ) ― both the WHO and the UN DO NOT consider Glyphosate a health risk.
WHY IS THE IARC’S HAZARD REPORT DEBUNKED ?!?!
IARC focuses on HAZARD assessments as opposed to RISK assessments that are dependent on exposure, meaning that it tries to find out if something COULD cause cancer.
IARC DOES NOT assess whether an agent is likely to cause cancer.
IARC has classified hundreds of agents and situations as cancer-causing that are otherwise classified by regulatory agencies around the world as SAFE.
The risk/hazard distinction CONFUSES the public, and even some regulatory agencies, and is exploited by anti-pesticide & environmental-terrжrist organizations that often conspire to portray relatively safe products like glyphosate as dangerous.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
Reference -- glyphosate -- 2017 11 04 -- World Health Organization ( WHO ) Accused Of Twisting Research -- US Sciencetech -- Video Recording -- 6 Minutes 14 Seconds
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
October 24th, 2017
Dr Alex Berezow
American Council On Science And Health ( ACSH )
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore the following links …
The Library Of Glyphosate References
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
The Media Library Of Lying-Lunatжcs
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/liars/
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Lies, Scientific Fraud, & Conspiracy
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist & Advisor Christopher Portier
A Key IARC Lunatжc-Advisor Who Lobbied
Against Glyphosate Has, In Essence, Been
Received A Pay-Off Of 160,000 Dollars
The first director of IARC ( the International Agency for Research on Cancer ), Dr John Higginson, was also a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health.
Those were the glory days of IARC, which was founded for the purpose of identifying human carcinogens for further study and to guide health policy.
Unfortunately, much has changed since 1965.
Fifty-two years after its inception, IARC has become a FRINGE GROUP, seemingly MORE INTERESTED IN SCARING PEOPLE than identifying actual health threats.
Any organization that declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium has entirely LOST ITS WAY.
Things started to unravel for IARC over a popular herbicide called Glyphosate, which, according to its hazard report, is a « probable human carcinogen ».
Every major science and regulatory body DISAGREES with the IARC’s hazard report, including the US EPA and the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ).
Even the World Health Organization [ WHO ], which is the parent of IARC, believes that Glyphosate DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
What is going on ?!?!
We now have an answer.
Thanks largely to the investigative work of Dr David Zaruk on Science 2.0, The Times reports that Christopher Portier, a key IARC lunatжc-advisor who LOBBIED against Glyphosate to have listed as a carcinogen, ACCEPTED 160,000 DOLLARS from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by SUING Glyphosate manufacturers.
PORTIER’S FAILURE TO DISCLOSE SUCH OBVIOUS CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST HAS EXPLODED INTO A TEXTBOOK CASE OF SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
CHRISTOPHER PORTIER IS A LYING & FRAUDULENT SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Lies, Scientific Fraud, & Conspiracy Get Worse
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Christopher Portier
How Can The Public Trust Health Advice
From IARC When Its Lunatжc-Advisors,
Like Portier, Who Dispense The Advice,
Can Be Bought-Off By Trial Lawyers ?!?!
Reuters reports that evidence that Glyphosate was harmless was intentionally EDITED-OUT of an IARC monograph.
The monograph also DISTORTED other studies it cited ― for instance, by concluding that the research found a link between Glyphosate and cancer when the OPPOSITE WAS TRUE.
Furthermore, Reuters writes that « the agency [ IARC ] won’t say who made the changes or why ».
Sixteen scientists contacted by Reuters REFUSED to answer any questions about the edits.
That’s not how science operates ― that’s how Fight Club operates.
Truly, it is difficult to overstate the SERIOUSNESS of what IARC and Mr Portier have done.
As Dr Zaruk writes for his Risk-Monger site, such behavior UNDERMINES not only the World Health Organization, but the scientific enterprise itself.
How can people trust health advice from IARC when its lunatжc-advisors, like Portier, who dispense the advice, can be BOUGHT-OFF BY TRIAL LAWYERS ?!?!
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
Sometimes, Money Matters
IARC Challenged By World-Wide Consensus
Occasionally, Bad Science Is Promoted
By Lunatжcs Who Receive Pay-Offs
At American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ), we believe that GOOD SCIENCE IS GOOD REGARDLESS OF WHO PAYS FOR IT ― be it academia, the government, non-profits, or industry.
Scientific research must be JUDGED ON ITS MERITS ALONE.
That’s why people who cry, « corporate shill ! » are little more than conspiracy theorists.
However, BAD SCIENCE is another issue entirely.
The vast majority of the time, BAD SCIENCE is promulgated by researchers or journalists who are NOT good at their jobs, or DO NOT know any better.
Occasionally, BAD SCIENCE IS PROMOTED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE BEING BOUGHT OFF.
This [ the IARC’s hazard report ] is one of those times.
IARC has severely and perhaps IRREPARABLY DAMAGED the reputation of the World Health Organization [ WHO ].
Besides, given the sheer number of regulatory bureaucrats who already exist world-wide in the US, Europe, and elsewhere, IARC’s role is REDUNDANT, and ONLY SERVES TO ADD CONFUSION RATHER THAN CLARITY.
It ought to be DEFUNDED AND DISBANDED, and we are recommending the US government do just that.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
LINK
REFERENCE — GLYPHOSATE — 2017 10 24 — GLYPHOSATE-GATE — IARC’S SCIENTIFIC FRAUD — DR ALEX BEREZOW — ACSH
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Dr Alex Berezow’s Biography
Dr Berezow is a doctorate-level leading policy expert on the subject of regulatory affairs and pest control products at the American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ).
ACSH is a non-profit organization, co-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.
Dr Berezow holds a PhD in Microbiology.
He joined the ACSH as Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science in May 2016.
Dr Berezow is among several highly-rated leading experts who have recognized expertise, training, and background in matters concerning pest control products, and who promote environmental realism and pesticide truths. http://wp.me/p1jq40-8DV
Dr Berezow is a prolific science writer whose work has appeared in multiple outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, CNN, BBC News, The Economist, and USA Today, where he serves as a member of the Board of Contributors.
In 2017, he published Little Black Book of Junk Science, and with Mr Hank Campbell in 2012, he co-authored Science Left Behind, which was an environmental policy best-seller.
[ In June 2015, Mr Hank Campbell became the second President of the American Council on Science and Health, succeeding co-founder Dr Elizabeth M Whelan. ]
Dr Berezow has spoken to a wide variety of audiences about science, from graduate school seminars and church congregations to national TV and radio programs.
Formerly, he was the founding editor of RealClearScience.
Dr Berezow speaks the truth ― and deserves congratulation.
For more information, please explore the following links …
BEREZOW — GLYPHOSATE-GATE — IARC’S SCIENTIFIC FRAUD — INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ( Reference )
ACSH — THE WISDOM OF REAL EXPERTS ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/7556-2/
ACSH — THE LIBRARY OF REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/acsh-references/
ACSH — THE WISDOM OF REAL EXPERTS WHO SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CONSPIRACY TO IMPOSE RECKLESS & ARBITRARY PROHIBITION AGAINST CONVENTIONAL PEST CONTROL PRODUCTS ( Blog )
ACSH — THE ERA OF TRUMP — END OF EPA REIGN OF TERRЖR ( Blog )
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
October 24th, 2017
Dr Geoffrey C Kabat
Genetic Literacy Project
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore the following links …
Glyphosate Wins Approval For
5 Years In European Union
The Media Library Of Lying-Lunatжcs
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/liars/
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Challenged By World Consensus
–
In March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, issued a BOGUS HAZARD REPORT labeling the weed killer Glyphosate a « probable carcinogen ».
IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT caused consternation in the scientific and agricultural communities.
Glyphosate, which is manufactured by Monsanto and is the active ingredient in the company’s popular Roundup, is one of the most widely-used herbicides world-wide.
It is cheap, effective, and has low toxicity.
IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT goes against the world-wide assessment of every other agency that has evaluated the compound, including the US Environmental Protection Agency [ US EPA ], the European Food Safety Authority, and the World Health Organization, of which IARC is a part.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
IARC, which is based in Lyon, France, makes its assessments by convening a panel of experts [ in a working group ] to consider all the available evidence from human, animal, and mechanistic studies regarding a potential cancer threat.
IARC then classifies a given substance as carcinogenic ( Group 1 ), probably carcinogenic ( Group 2A ), possibly carcinogenic ( Group 2B ), or NOT classifiable as to carcinogenicity.
For its Glyphosate Working Group, IARC formed a Working Group of 16 experts who reviewed the evidence for nearly a year before issuing its report in March 2015.
The IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group was sub-divided into subgroups to assess the human evidence, the animal studies, and the mechanistic/laboratory studies.
At the end of the review process, the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group designated Glyphosate as a « probable carcinogen » based on the animal evidence, which was judged to be « sufficient ».
We will come back to this point later.
What is NOT widely known is that the IARC’s classification of a substance DOES NOT take into account the degree of exposure to that substance in the general population.
Rather, in IARC’s terminology, it evaluates « hazard » ― the possibility that a substance could cause cancer under some possible condition ― as opposed to « risk », which refers to the likelihood that actual exposure in the real world might cause cancer.
Needless to say, when headlines trumpet the IARC’s hazard report, the public and the media assume that classification of an agent as « probably carcinogenic » must have some direct relevance to human health, even when actual human exposures are at levels too low to cause adverse health effects.
Over the past few years, when scientists have questioned the IARC’s process and some of its recent classifications, rather than addressing specific criticisms, IARC officials have argued that their methods are sound and NOT in need of improvement, and have implied that their critics have CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST.
In the past year, however, as IARC’s hazard report has been subjected to scrutiny by scientists and investigative journalists, a number of INCREASINGLY DISTURBING QUESTIONS have come to light.
Three major, independent pieces of the « BACK-STORY » on IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT are presented below.
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
Back-Story On IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report – Part 1
IARC Challenged By World Consensus
Re-Analysis Of The Animal & Epidemiologic Evidence
Has Demonstrated That IARC Highlighted Certain
Positive Results , &, Glaringly Ignored Contradictory
Negative Results From The Same Studies
In August 2016, Mr Robert Tarone published a commentary entitled « On The International Agency For Research On Cancer Classification Of Glyphosate As A Probable Human Carcinogen » in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention.
Mr Tarone, who is a statistician who spent most of his career at the National Cancer Institute, RE-EXAMINED THE ANIMAL STUDIES cited by IARC.
In such studies, typically a strain of rodents is divided into one or more « treatment » groups and a control group ― and the former is exposed to a test substance at increasing dose levels ― in this case, Glyphosate ― while the control group is unexposed to the test substance.
As animals die they are examined, and at the end of the study the remaining animals are sacrificed and their organs are examined for benign and malignant changes.
What is crucial is to determine whether the treatment group shows robust evidence of a greater « tumor yield » compared to controls.
In relatively small animal experiments there will likely be ups-and-down, but one is looking for a consistent excess of tumors in the treated group.
Most persuasive would be evidence of a dose-response relationship ― that is, the more of the substance that the test animals are given, the greater the tumor yield.
Furthermore, one might expect to see consistency in male and female animals, if the substance is carcinogenic.
What Mr Tarone found is that the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group highlighted certain positive results from the rodent studies they relied upon in the deliberations, and, glaringly, IGNORED CONTRADICTORY NEGATIVE RESULTS from the same studies.
Mr Tarone also found that an INAPPROPRIATE STATISTICAL TEST was used, making the data look more impressive than they actually were.
Mr Tarone concluded ―
When all relevant data from the rodent carcinogenicity studies of Glyphosate relied on by the Working Group are evaluated together, it is clear that the conclusion that there is sufficient evidence that Glyphosate is an animal carcinogen is NOT SUPPORTED EMPIRICALLY.
Even a conclusion that there is limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity would be DIFFICULT TO SUPPORT …
In reviewing the human ( i.e. epidemiologic ) studies, Mr Tarone found that IARC’s case for Glyphosate’s association with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma also resulted from FAVORING CERTAIN STUDY RESULTS, rather than considering the totality of the evidence.
In the past week, two new insights into the IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT have emerged, coalescing into a FULL-BLOWN SCANDAL.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
Back-Story On IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report – Part 2
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Christopher Portier
Portier Signed A Lucrative Contract To Act As
A Litigation Consultant For Two Law Firms
That Were Preparing To Sue Monsanto On
Behalf Of Glyphosate Cancer Victims
Mr Davis Zaruk, a blogger who uses the pen-name Risk-Monger, examined the TRANSCRIPTS, posted on the Internet, of a deposition related to cases against Monsanto involving the lunatжc-scientist-activist Christopher Portier.
Portier, an American statistician who worked for the federal government for over thirty years, was the special advisor to the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group that issued its BOGUS HAZARD REPORT declaring Glyphosate to be « probably carcinogenic ».
The TRANSCRIPTS show that during the same week in March 2015 in which IARC published its Glyphosate opinion, lunatжc Portier SIGNED A LUCRATIVE CONTRACT to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of Glyphosate cancer victims.
His contract contained a confidentiality clause barring lunatжc Portier from disclosing his employment to other parties.
Lunatжc Portier’s FINANCIAL CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST has been confirmed by the UK newspaper The Times.
It turns out that it was lunatжc Portier himself, who as chair of an IARC committee in 2014, had PROPOSED that the IARC UNDERTAKE A REVIEW of Glyphosate in the first place.
Lunatжc Portier then went on to PLAY A KEY ROLE in the deliberations resulting in the IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT that Glyphosate is « probably carcinogenic ».
In view of the new revelations, it appears that, rather than being the objective scientist he has portrayed himself to be, lunatжc Portier may have had a PRECONCEIVED PLAN to use the IARC ruling, which he played a major role in shaping, to CASH IN ON THE ENSUING LITIGATION CAMPAIGN.
In the years following the IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT, lunatжc Portier has frequently claimed that he had NO CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST and that he has never taken a cent for his Glyphosate work. [ ?!?! ]
At the same time, lunatжc Portier and IARC generally have portrayed any scientist who questioned the evidence of Glyphosate’s carcinogenicity as being MOTIVATED BY PRO-INDUSTRY BIAS.
This has proved an effective tactic for SUPPRESSING SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS based on the scientific evidence.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
CHRISTOPHER PORTIER IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
Back-Story On IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report – Part 3
IARC Edited The Evidence To Suit
Its Pre-Determined & Preferred
Anti-Glyphosate Story-Line
Negative Conclusions That Favoured
Glyphosate Were Either Deleted Or
Replaced With Neutral Or Positive Ones
That Mock-Validated Health Concerns
On the heels of Risk-Monger’s exposé, on October 21st, 2017, Ms Kate Kelland, a journalist for Reuters, who has been investigating IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT, published findings indicating that the report underwent SIGNIFICANT EDITING to REMOVE NULL RESULTS and to STRENGTHEN POSITIVE CONCLUSIONS.
Ms Kelland obtained a draft of the key chapter of the IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT devoted to animal studies, which became available as part of the lawsuits against Monsanto, and she compared the draft with the final, published report.
Ms Kelland found 10 significant instances in which …
… a NEGATIVE CONCLUSION about Glyphosate leading to tumors was either DELETED or REPLACED WITH A NEUTRAL OR POSITIVE ONE.
Ms Kelland’s findings indicate that the ORIGINAL DRAFT FOUND LITTLE ANIMAL EVIDENCE THAT Glyphosate WAS A CARCINOGEN.
Ms Kelland’s textual analysis provides CONFIRMATION of Tarone’s INDEPENDENT RE-ANALYSIS of the original studies.
Furthermore, lunatжc Portier admits in his deposition that the interim report produced by the animal sub-group during the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group meeting also concluded that there was « limited evidence of animal carcinogenicity ».
Lunatжc Portier PROCLAIMS IGNORANCE of when or how the conclusion was upgraded to « sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity » during the deliberations of the entire IARC Glyphosate Working Group.
It is crucial to repeat that the classification of Glyphosate as « probably carcinogenic to humans » relied entirely upon the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence of animal carcinogenicity ( because the epidemiologic evidence was NOT strong ).
ALL OF THIS POINTS TO A TRUSTED AGENCY [ IARC ] REDACTING [ i.e. EDITING ] THE EVIDENCE TO SUIT ITS PRE-DETERMINED AND PREFERRED STORY-LINE.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
What Is At Stake
In addition to PROVIDING THE BASIS FOR LITIGATION by U.S. law firms, IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT against Glyphosate PROVIDED POWERFUL AMMUNITION to environmental activists, anti-GMO groups, NGOs, and organic foods industry lobbyists on both sides of the Atlantic in their campaign to PROHIBIT Glyphosate.
For the past two years, the European Union has been TRYING TO RE-AUTHORIZE the herbicide, but has been opposed by politicians in Member States who have been swayed by the anti-Glyphosate crusade [ i.e. conspiracy ].
A decision to PROHIBIT or to PHASE-OUT the use of Glyphosate will HURT both farmers and consumers by decreasing crop yields, increasing the costs of produce, and requiring substitution of herbicides about which less is known and which may pose a greater health risk.
A final decision is expected next month.
Update
GLYPHOSATE HAS BEEN VINDICATED BY THE EUROPEAN UNION !
The majority of EU nations DO NOT WANT anti-glyphosate prohibition. On November 27th, 2017, the European Union ( EU ) voted to EXTEND its RE-APPROVAL of glyphosate for a period of 5 YEARS. Glyphosate was NOT approved for the typical 10 or 15-years because the EU review process was driven more by politics than science. Nonetheless, the European Union has VINDICATED glyphosate. With the EU RE-APPROVAL, the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) has been DISCREDITED, again, and forever. The IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT has been disputed by EVERY science-based national regulatory agency in the world, including two in Europe ― the European Food Safety Authority and the European Chemicals Agency. The latest major study, published in November 2017 by National Cancer Institute researchers concluded that … glyphosate was NOT statistically significantly associated with cancer. Nonetheless, the EU may still be able to prohibit glyphosate’s use after the 5-year re-approval period. Anti-glyphosate terrжrism will NEVER end ! But, it is inescapable that glyphosate DOES NOT cause cancer !
Glyphosate has been VINDICATED around the world, in the following jurisdictions ― • Australia • Canada • European Union • New Zealand • Nova Scotia • Switzerland • United States ( America ).
For more information, please explore the following link …
√ — Glyphosate Vindicated By The European Union ( EU ) — LINK
The REVELATIONS about IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT carry crucial lessons regarding relations among scientific evidence, policy, and public opinion.
Decisions about the safety of chemical residues in the environment are challenging and require critical evaluation of the available evidence by experts in the relevant disciplines.
These can only be achieved through a hashing out of the relevant evidence in a forum in which qualified scientists with NO PROFESSIONAL OR POLITICAL STAKE in the question at hand have an important role in order to keep the proceedings honest.
In the highly-charged and polarized climate surrounding questions involving public health and the environment, it is only too easy for advocates to gain support for their cause by appealing to public concern.
Often this concern relates to trace levels of a chemical in our food, water, or environment.
But the two sides in the debate are NOT equal.
Evidence, NO matter how weak or questionable, of a positive association is readily accepted as pointing to a serious threat.
In contrast, even when there is superior evidence that calls into question the existence of threat, this simply DOES NOT have the same power to persuade concerned citizens.
A closely related point is that the prevailing view of CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST is one-sided and naïve and represents a major obstacle to achieving rationality in the public discussion of hotly contested questions like Glyphosate.
To be sure, industry has its clear interests, and, of course, these should be taken into account.
In fact, the awareness of industry interests is, by now, built into our thinking.
Things are quite different when it comes to seeing the interests at work on the other side.
Given that deliberations on these matters involve human beings, we need to take it as axiomatic that all parties may be influenced by financial considerations ― or equally importantly — by ideological and professional agendas.
We delude ourselves if we think that environmental activists and allied scientists ( including academic and government researchers ) engaged in these questions are free of their own interests.
The recent REVELATIONS about IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT throw these issues into stark relief.
Scientists and agencies need to be transparent.
It’s NOT acceptable for an agency [ i.e. IARC ] to argue that « we are impartial authorities, trust us ».
Rather, we should follow the rule, « trust but verify » ― or rather, « distrust but verify ».
THESE REVELATIONS ABOUT IARC’S BOGUS HAZARD REPORT MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, WHERE HIGH-STAKES ISSUES INVOLVE POWERFUL BELIEFS, SUBSTANTIAL FINANCIAL REWARDS, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADVANCEMENT, NEITHER INDIVIDUALS NOR AUTHORITATIVE AGENCIES CAN BE ASSUMED TO BE FREE OF CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
LINK
REFERENCE — GLYPHOSATE — 2017 10 24 — GLYPHOSATE-GATE — IARC’S PRE-DETERMINED CANCER FINDING — DR GEOFFREY C KABAT — GENETIC LITERACY
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Dr Geoffrey C Kabat’s Biography
Dr Kabat is among several leading experts who have recognized expertise, training and background in matters concerning pest control products.
Dr Kabat is among greatly respected and highly rated experts who promote environmental realism and pesticide truths.
Dr Kabat is a Doctorate-Level Expert and a Leading Scientific Expert on Cancer and Pest Control Products.
He is also a Senior Cancer Epidemiologist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine at the Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, located in the Bronx in New York City.
He also holds the position of Scientific Advisor at American Council on Science and Health ( ACSH ).
Dr Kabat contributes a column to Forbes magazine, described as being about The Science and Politics of Health Risks.
He is the author of the books entitled Hyping Health Risks – Environmental Hazards In Daily Life and the Science of Epidemiology and Getting Risk Right : Understanding the Science of Elusive Health Risks.
Dr Kabat is also one of the most prominent and knowledgeable spokesmen on the subject of pest control products.
He has also effectively spoken out against the lies and mis-information that are spread by International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Dr Kabat speaks the truth ― and deserves congratulation.
For more information about Dr Kabat, please explore the following links …
DR KABAT — GLYPHOSATE-GATE — IARC’S PRE-DETERMINED CANCER FINDING — INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ( Reference )
DR KABAT — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — INTERNATIONAL AGENCY FOR RESEARCH ON CANCER ( IARC ) ( Reports )
DR KABAT — EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES HAVE FALSE POSITIVES — EXPOSURE TO PESTICIDES A RISK FACTOR FOR PARKINSON’S ( Report )
DR KABAT — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — PART 1 ( Reference )
DR KABAT — CONFLATION OF ADVOCACY WITH SCIENCE — HOW ACTIVISM DISTORTS THE ASSESSMENT OF HEALTH RISKS — PART 2 ( Reference )
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
October 22nd, 2017
Genetic Literacy Project – Biotech Gallery
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
――――――――――――――――――――
Explore the following links …
The Media History Of Victories
Against Anti-Pesticide Terrжrism
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/victories-against-terr%d0%b6rists-reports-blogs/
The Media Library Of Lying-Lunatжcs
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/liars/
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Challenged By World-Wide Consensus
IARC’s Lies, Scientific Fraud, & Conspiracy
IARC Focuses On Hazard Assessments
As Opposed To Risk Assessments That
Are Dependent On Exposure, Meaning
That It Tries To Find Out If Something
COULD Cause Cancer
IARC Does Not Assess Whether An
Agent Is LIKELY To Cause Cancer
IARC Has Classified Hundreds Of Agents
& Situations As Cancer-Causing That Are
Otherwise Classified By Regulatory
Agencies Around The World As SAFE
The International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) is a semi-autonomous inter-governmental agency under the umbrella of the World Health Organization ( WHO ) of the United Nations ( UN ) funded by member countries, including the United States.
[ Both the WHO and the UN DO NOT consider Glyphosate a health risk. ]
It brings together groups of scientists to review studies to identify chemicals, physical and biological agents, and life-style factors that could POSSIBLY cause cancer in humans.
IARC focuses on « hazard assessments » as opposed to « risk assessments », meaning that it tries to find out if something COULD cause cancer.
It DOES NOT assess whether an agent is LIKELY to cause cancer ( that’s a « risk » assessment, and risk is dependent on exposure ).
As a result, IARC has classified hundreds of agents and situations as cancer-causing that are [ otherwise ] classified by regulatory agencies around the world as safe.
Of the nearly 1,000 factors that IARC has evaluated, ONLY ONE has ever been deemed non-carcinogenic.
The IARC’s list of « known » ( group 1 ), « probable » ( group 2A ), and « possible » ( group 2B ) carcinogens includes ― sunshine, mobile phones, alcoholic beverages, wood dust, coffee, outdoor pollution, working as a hairdresser, wood smoke, night shifts, hot yerba mate tea, red meat ― and the herbicide Glyphosate.
Only the Glyphosate designation has led to world-wide protests by advocacy groups and concern by government agencies in some countries, particularly in Europe.
The risk/hazard distinction confuses the public and even some regulatory agencies, and is exploited by [ anti-pesticide & environmental-terrжrist ] organizations that often want to PORTRAY RELATIVELY PRODUCTS AS DANGEROUS. [ ?!?! ]
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
Reference -- glyphosate -- 2015 03 25 -- What Does Probably Cause Cancer Actually Mean ?!?! -- Risk Science Center -- Video Recording -- 4 Minutes 55 Seconds
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Challenged For Lies, Scientific Fraud, & Conspiracy
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Aaron Blair
IARC Withheld Information Showing That
There Was NO Link Between Glyphosate &
Cancer Under The False Pretext That There
Was Too Much To Fit Into One Of Its Reports
IARC became embroiled in a SCANDAL in June 2017.
Reuters reported that IARC WITH-HELD INFORMATION SHOWING NO LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE AND CANCER.
Aason Blair is the lunatжc–head of the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
Lunatжc Blair said that unpublished research by the US National Cancer Institute that he participated in would have made it less likely that Glyphosate would meet the agency’s criteria for being classed as « probably carcinogenic ».
According to lunatжc Blair, the data was available two years before IARC assessed Glyphosate, but was NOT published in time because …
… THERE WAS TOO MUCH TO FIT INTO ONE SCIENTIFIC PAPER.
[ ?!?!?!?!?!?! ]
AARON BLAIR IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
Michael Eisen, a professor of genetics, genomics, and development at the University of California-Berkeley and the founder of the Public Library of Science told Mother Jones ―
This is a board of people whose job it is to assess evidence, so they should be able to do that before it’s published …
… The broader issue is that they seem eager to have reached the conclusion that they reached.
In October 2017, Reuters reported that a draft of IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT DIFFERED SUBSTANTIALLY from its final, published review.
Reuters found 10 CHANGES made to the animal studies chapter.
In each case, a negative conclusion about Glyphosate was either DELETED OR REPLACED with a neutral or positive one.
Reuters was NOT able to determine who made the changes.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Fake-News Controversy Involving Lies, Scientific Fraud, & Conspiracy
IARC’s [ FAKE-NEWS ] CONTROVERSY over Glyphosate, the world’s most popular herbicide, began in March 2015, when it issued a statement ( also published in medical journal the Lancet ) that RE-CLASSIFIED Glyphosate as « probably carcinogenic to humans ».
Its release read ―
IARC classified Glyphosate as « probably carcinogenic to humans » ( Group 2A ).
This was based on « limited » evidence of cancer in humans ( from real-world exposures that actually occurred ) and « sufficient » evidence of cancer in experimental animals ( from studies of « pure » Glyphosate ).
IARC also concluded that there was « strong » evidence for geno-toxicity, both for « pure » Glyphosate and for Glyphosate formulations.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
Push For Fanatжcal Prohibition Challenged By World-Wide Consensus
No Science & Regulatory Body In The World
Classifies Glyphosate As A Human Carcinogen
The U.S. Centers For Disease Control & Prevention
States That Just Because We Can Detect Levels Of
An Environmental Chemical In A Person’s Blood Or
Urine DOES NOT Necessarily Mean That The
Chemical Will Cause Effects Of Disease
It was a surprise finding to some in the scientific community because WORLD-WIDE, EVERY MAJOR REGULATORY AGENCY ( then and since ) has determined that Glyphosate, often paired with genetically-modified crops, is NOT CARCINOGENIC.
In fact, its « lethal dosage » measure ( LD50 ) is about that of COMMON TABLE SALT.
IARC’s determination was widely reported in the media and activists have used it to PUSH FOR BANS and « carcinogen » labels, succeeding in several countries and states.
The state of California added Glyphosate to its « Proposition 65 » list of carcinogens, requiring products containing Glyphosate to be LABELED as a carcinogen.
CALIFORNIA IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
In a New York Times article entitled « Stop Making Us Guinea Pigs » [ ?!?! ], influential food writer Mark Bittman argued that because of the IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT, Glyphosate should be PROHIBITED, at least until « Monsanto can prove » that the herbicide is safe. [ ?!?! ]
BITTMAN IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
The main-stream world-wide science community has PUSHED BACK.
All foods are chemicals and many CAN BE TOXIC at certain levels.
But every chemical has a dosage curve showing how much ingestion is needed to cause harm, and most foods contain very low doses of these toxins.
As the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states ―
Just because we can detect levels of an environmental chemical in a person’s blood or urine DOES NOT necessarily mean that the chemical will cause effects of disease.
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Continues To Be Challenged By World-Wide Consensus
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Aaron Blair
While IARC Found Cancer Hazards, The World
Health Organization ( WHO ) Itself Declared That
The IARC’s Hazard Report Did Not Indicate A
Need For More Regulation Of Glyphosate
The IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT was more nuanced than many media reports, or even IARC’s summary statement, suggest.
There was NO finding of a link between Glyphosate traces of food and cancer.
The group found « limited evidence » of carcinogenicity in agricultural workers exposed to Glyphosate for non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and prostate cancer.
The IARC’s Glyphosate Panel found « sufficient evidence » of carcinogenicity in experimental animals.
The panel DID NOT determine a specific cancer-causing mechanism or what level of exposure to Glyphosate may be harmful.
According to IARC researcher Aaron Blair, a lunatжc activist-scientist at the US National Cancer Institute ―
« Probable » means that there was enough evidence to say it is more than possible, but NOT enough evidence to say it is a carcinogen …
… It means you ought to be a little concerned about.
[ Aaron Blair is also the lunatжc–head of the IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group at the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ). ]
This ambiguity explains why IARC found cancer hazards, while the World Health Organization [ WHO ] itself declared that the IARC’s hazard report DID NOT INDICATE A NEED FOR MORE REGULATION of Glyphosate.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Continues To Be Challenged By World-Wide Consensus Of Regulatory Agencies
Glyphosate Is Not A Carcinogen According To
European Food Safety Authority, German
BfR, Health Canada, United Nations, & US
Environmental Protection Agency
Since the release of IARC’s BOGUS HAZARD REPORT, ALL prominent national regulatory agencies have reviewed the science and concluded that Glyphosate is NOT A CARCINOGEN.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
UNITED NATIONS
A Joint Meeting of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ( FAO ) Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the World Health Organization ( WHO ) Core Assessment Group on Pesticide Residues ( JMPR ) concluded in May 2016 that …
… Glyphosate is UNLIKELY TO POSE A CARCINOGENIC RISK to humans from exposure through the diet.
US EPA
In September 2016, the US Environmental Protection Agency [ US EPA ] issued a review authored by 13 independent scientists, concluding ―
… there is NOT STRONG SUPPORT for the « suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential » cancer classification descriptor based on the weight-of-evidence, which includes the fact that even small, non-statistically significant changes observed in animal carcinogenicity and epidemiological studies were CONTRADICTED by studies of equal or higher quality.
The strongest support is for « NOT LIKELY TO BE CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS » at the doses relevant to human health risk assessment for Glyphosate.
HEALTH CANADA
A June 2015 re-review of Glyphosate by Health Canada concluded ―
An evaluation of available scientific information found that products containing Glyphosate DO NOT PRESENT UNACCEPTABLE RISKS to human health or the environment when used according to the proposed label directions.
EUROPEAN FOOD SAFETY AUTHORITY
In November 2015, the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ) issued its evaluation of the IARC’s hazard report ―
Glyphosate is NOT proposed to be classified as carcinogenic under the EU regulation for classification, labelling and packaging of chemical substances. …
… NEITHER the epidemiological data ( i.e. on humans ) nor the evidence from animal studies DEMONSTRATED CAUSALITY between exposure to Glyphosate and the development of cancer in humans.
GERMAN BfR
The German BfR, an agency that does evaluations for the European Commission, issued a FAQ on Glyphosate in March 2016, concluding …
… based on current scientific knowledge, NO CARCINOGENIC RISK to humans is to be expected from Glyphosate if it is used in the proper manner for the intended purpose.
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Continues To Be Challenged By World-Wide Consensus On Cancer
Weed scientist Andrew Kniss assembled a chart [ see below ] to illustrate how problematic were the findings in the IARC’s hazard report ―
In the figure, each point represents the relative risk of developing cancer between people who had been exposed to Glyphosate and those who hadn’t.
To interpret the figure, any points on the left side of the blue line ( less than 1 ) means that, on average, people who were exposed to Glyphosate were less likely to get that type of cancer.
So what does this all mean ?!?!
I may change my mind when the IARC’s full monograph is published later, but based on the data I could find, I DON’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE FOR ALARM.
And I say that as someone who is exposed to more Glyphosate than a vast majority of the population.
THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT I THINK CAN TARNISH GLYPHOSATE’S REPUTATION AS A VERY SAFE PESTICIDE.
–
LINK
–
REFERENCE — GLYPHOSATE — 2015 03 28 — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — WHAT DOES THE DATA SAY ?!?! — CONTROL FREAK
–
–
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp – Glyphosate-Gate
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report Continues To Be Challenged By World-Wide Consensus On Cancer, Again
One of the basic principles of toxicology is that « the dose makes the poison ».
LOTS OF THINGS CAN CAUSE CANCER, BUT NOT EVERYTHING THAT CAN CAUSE CANCER DOES, BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE NOT EXPOSED TO THE LEVELS NECESSARY TO CAUSE CANCER IN THE REAL WORLD.
In the video below, Arizona State University Risk Expert Dr Andrew Maynard notes that the IARC classification …
… doesn’t indicate how likely. *
It is the equivalent of saying a rock could kill you but NOT pointing out that it probably needs to be dropped on your head from a great height first.
* doesn’t indicate how likely Glyphosate is to cause cancer
――――――――――――――――――――
Reference -- glyphosate -- 2017 01 20 -- Risk Is Not Just A Four Letter Word -- University Of Arizona -- Dr Andrew Maynard -- Video Recording -- 14 Minutes 21 Seconds
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp
IARC’s Conflicts-Of-Interest Controversy With Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Christopher Portier
In October 2016, Reuters journalist Kate Kelland reported that IARC advised academic experts on its Glyphosate Working Group NOT TO DISCLOSE DOCUMENTS they were asked to release under U.S. Freedom of Information laws ― purportedly in an attempt to keep private the Glyphosate Working Group’s deliberations.
In October 2017, the Times ( UK ) reported that lunatжc-scientist-activist Christopher Portier, a scientist who advised IARC’s Glyphosate Working Group, RECEIVED 160,000 DOLLARS from law firms bringing claims by cancer victims against Glyphosate manufacturers.
Lunatжc Portier DID NOT DECLARE THE CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST in a letter to the European Commission urging it to accept the IARC classification against Glyphosate.
CHRISTOPHER PORTIER IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp
History Of IARC
IARC was created May 20th, 1965, by resolution of the World Health Assembly.
At its founding, members of IARC Governing Council were ― the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Today, IARC’s membership includes 25 countries.
The first IARC Director was John Higginson ( 1966 – 1981 ), who was followed by Lorenzo Tomatis ( 1982 – 1993 ), Paul Kleihues ( 1994 – 2003 ), Peter Boyle ( 2004 – 2008 ), and lunatжc-activist Christopher Wild ( 2009 – present ).
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp
IARC’s Continues To Be Challenged On Financing
Major world-wide funding sources include the European Commission, the US National Institutes of Health ( NIH ), the World Cancer Research Fund International, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
In September 2016, Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Chairman of the US House of Representatives’ oversight and government reform committee, sent a letter to Francis Collins, Director of the National Institutes of Heath, asking why NIH continued to fund IARC despite having a record of « CONTROVERSY, RETRACTIONS, AND INCONSISTENCIES ».
According to Congressman J Chaffetz, NIH has given IARC several millions of dollars in grants since 1992, including over 1.2 million dollars in 2016.
–
LINK
–
REFERENCE — GLYPHOSATE — 2017 12 19 — IARC — US FUNDING FOR IARC THREATENED OVER CONTROVERSIAL REPORT — GENETIC LITERACY
–
–
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp
IARC Continues To Be Criticized
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report
Confuses & Scares The Public
The IARC has been widely criticized world-wide for its LACK OF TRANPARENCY and for CONFUSING AND SCARING THE PUBLIC about the causes of cancer ―
SCIENCE JOURNALIST ED YONG
In a 2015 article in the Atlantic, science journalist Ed Yong questioned the IARC’s « confusing » classification scheme.
According to Mr Yong ―
What we have is a CLASSIC IVORY-TOWER MENTALITY ― a group of academics who hole up in a room, make proclamations to the world, and ignore the chaos that consistently ensues.
Perhaps we need a separate classification scheme for scientific organizations that are confuso-genic to humans.
JOURNAL REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY & PHARMACOLOGY
In December 2016, a group of 10 well-known academic, government, and industry scientists criticized IARC for using « OUTMODED HAZARD-BASED ASSESSMENTS ».
In a commentary published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, the scientists argue that using only two categories, carcinogens and non-carcinogens, « SERVE NEITHER SCIENCE NOR SOCIETY ».
Instead, they suggest approaches based on hazard and risk characterization, which allow for more informed risk management decisions.
PROFESSOR SIR COLIN BERRY
In response to the IARC’s hazard report, Sir Colin Berry, a professor of pathology at Queen Mary University of London, said ―
There are over 60 geno-toxicity studies on Glyphosate with NONE showing results that they should cause alarm relating to any likely human exposure …
… For human epidemiological studies there are 7 cohort and 14 case control studies, NONE OF WHICH SUPPORT CARCENOGENICITY.
The authors have included non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ), but that diagnosis is NO LONGER USED IN PATHOLOGY because it’s far too IMPRECISE.
Even if you do include NHL, there are still 7 studies, only one of which is positive ― and that one is NOT A GOOD STUDY, in my view.
THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS AGAINST CARCINOGENICITY … this appears to be a rather SELECTIVE REVIEW.
DR OLIVER JONES
According to Dr Oliver Jones, Senior Lecturer in Analytical Chemistry at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia, ―
IARC’s probable carcinogen designation sounds scary and IARC evaluations are usually very good, but to me the EVIDENCE CITED HERE APPEARS A BIT THIN.
From a personal perspective, I am a vegetarian so I eat a lot of vegetables and I’m NOT worried by this report.
DR DAVID ZARUK
Professor and journalist Dr David Zaruk has documented a series of DAMAGING CHARGES against IARC, among them ―
IARC Scientific Fraud & Conspiracy
• IARC had CHERRY-PICKED the studies to include in their evaluation.
• The studies were of a VERY LOW QUALITY ( mostly NOT fit for peer review ).
• A study has just been published where ten toxicologists show how IARC’s hazard assessment is OUTMODED AND INADEQUATE.
Lunatжc-Activist Kate Guyton
• Monograph lead author, lunatжc Kate Guyton, had announced at an anti-chemical NGO meeting the year before that they would find certain pesticides carcinogenic.
• IARC’s lunatжc Kate Guyton tried to SUPPRESS the Glyphosate Panel members from co-operating with freedom-of-information requests.
Lunatжc-Scientist-Activist Christopher Portier
• Environmental Defense Fund lunatжc-activist, Christopher Portier, chaired IARC’s independent advisory group that recommended doing a monograph on Glyphosate.
• Lunatжc Portier sat as the only external technical advisor to the Glyphosate Working Group.
• IARC DID NOT declare lunatжc Portier’s AFFILIATIONS with Environmental Defense Fund, even though they knew about these clear CONFLICTS-OF-INTEREST at least six months earlier.
• IARC DID NOT distance itself from lunatжc Portier’s POLITICAL LOBBYING using his affiliation with the Glyphosate Working Group.
Lunatжc-Activist Christopher Wild
• IARC’s lunatжc director, Christopher Wild, INTERFERED with a US Congressional committee’s internal investigation.
IARC Terrжrism NEVER Ends
• IARC’s Glyphosate Panel were found to be MEDDLING with US EPA research on Glyphosate.
• IARC’s communication team displayed a series of UNETHICAL DIRTY TRICKS.
• Rather, IARC went on the OFFENSIVE, ATTACKING SCIENTISTS and agencies who disagreed with their findings, including EFSA and the German BfR.
• IARC’s communications team went so far as to provide information to an activist writer in Le Monde to ATTACK EFSA.
• IARC DIMINISHED INDUSTRY STUDIES and rejected any involvement, advice or data of industry experts.
• Their ANTI-INDUSTRY BIAS is outrageous. At IARC’s 50th anniversary, which had over 1000 cancer researchers and administrators in attendance, NOT a single industry cancer researcher from the pharmaceutical industry was invited.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
IARC Is A Lying Sack Of Crжp
IARC Continues To Be Criticized By American Chemistry Council
IARC’s Bogus Hazard Report
Is Dubious & Misleading
In January 2017, the American Chemistry Council ( ACC ), the trade group for US chemical companies, accused IARC of « DUBIOUS AND MISLEADING » work and called for IARC to be REFORMED.
IARC IS A LYING SACK OF CRЖP !
――――――――――――――――――――
LINK
REFERENCE — GLYPHOSATE — 2017 10 22 — IARC — GLYPHOSATE CANCER DETERMINATION CHALLENGED BY WORLD CONSENSUS — GENETIC LITERACY
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
Background Information
Glyphosate
The Entire Media History
GLYPHOSATE — THE LIBRARY OF REFERENCES ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
GLYPHOSATE — THE LIBRARY OF REPORTS & BLOGS ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-reports-blogs/
GLYPHOSATE — THE LIBRARY OF BLOGS ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-blogs/
GLYPHOSATE — SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ACCORDING TO REAL EXPERTS ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate/
GLYPHOSATE — EUROPEAN UNION — WINNING APPROVAL FOR 5 YEARS ( Blog )
See Also … THE MEDIA HISTORY OF VICTORIES AGAINST ANTI-PESTICIDE TERRЖRISM ( Web-Page )
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/victories-against-terr%d0%b6rists-reports-blogs/
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
WE SPEAK THE WHOLE TRUTH ABOUT GLYPHOSATE FROM AN INDEPENDENT PERSPECTIVE !
We are the National Organization Responding Against HUJE that conspire to destroy the Green space and other industries ( NORAHG ). As a non-profit and independent organization, we are environmentalists who are dedicated to reporting about truth-challenged pesticide-hating fanatжcs ( HUJE ) who conspire to destroy businesses that are dependent on the use of safe and effective conventional pest control products. We also report on the work of several highly-rated leading experts who have recognized expertise, training, and background in matters concerning pest control products, and who promote environmental realism and pesticide truths.
Not surprisingly, enviro-fanatжcs have demonstrated that they are incapable of processing overwhelming scientific evidence. Should we trust these fanatжcs, who conveniently ignore scientific evidence, and attempt to impose their politicized-doctrines and twisted life-style choices against our society ?!?!
NORAHG was the brain-child of Mr William H Gathercole and his colleagues in 1991. Mr Gathercole is now retired, although his name continues to appear as founder. We dare to defy the pesticide-hating fanatжcs by exploring the whole truth from an independent perspective on The Pesticide Truths Web-Site … https://pesticidetruths.com/ If you wish to receive free reports on issues that concern you, please contact us at … force.of.de.nature@gmail.com WILLIAM H GATHERCOLE AND NORAH G
――――――――――――――――――――
――――――――――――――――――――
