ORGANIZATION – ONTARIO COLLEGE OF FAMILY PHYSICIANS – DISCREDITED, RADICAL, AND SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT MAD SCIENTISTS WHO WERE LAZY & STUPID

Summary

MYTH ―

PROHIBITION is necessary because Ontario College of Family Physicians reported that pest control products are somehow associated various types of cancer ― WRONG !

RESPONSE ―

In 2004, Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) CONCOCTED an Anti-Pesticide Literature Review.

This organization is a DISCREDITED, RADICAL, and SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT Anti-Pesticide Organization.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was BOGUS, BIASED, DISGRACEFUL, FALSE, MISLEADING, and SUBVERSIVE, and has 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.

OCFP DID NOT conduct a serious scientific study … 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.

Quotation

He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts … for support rather than illumination.

― Andrew Lang, Poet

Similarly, Ontario College of Family Physicians uses statistics as a drunken person uses lamp-posts … for support rather than illumination.

BOGUS Literature Review

In 2004, Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) CONCOCTED an Anti-Pesticide Literature Review.

Pesticides, or pest control products, are, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE, and PRACTICALLY-NON-TOXIC.

Ontario College of Family Physicians is a SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT and DISCREDITED RADICAL Anti-Pesticide Organization.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was BOGUS, BIASED, DISGRACEFUL, FALSE, MISLEADING, and SUBVERSIVE.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review is merely a deceptive JUNK-SCIENCE DOCUMENT that simply is a CHERRY-PICKING of some of the most recklessly negative reports against pest control products.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY in the legitimate scientific community, and has been DISCREDITED, DEBUNKED, and REFUTED.

Prior to BOGUS Literature Review

Ontario College of Family Physicians ( OCFP ) had produced some pamphlets before the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review, where they said that pesticides were harmful and various other things, but they actually had no data to back it up.

This was attempt to somehow provide that data.

OCFP went to the Laidlaw Foundation, which FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS Anti-Pesticide Terrorism, and obtained MASSIVE FUNDING to put together a team of Lunatic-Doctors who were PAID-FOR-PROFIT as authors and reviewers.

No Credible Authors and Reviewers

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review has absolutely NO CREDIBILITY since none of its PAID-FOR-PROFIT authors and reviewers has ANY recognized expertise, training or background in matters concerning pest control products

Moreover, among the authors and reviewers of the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review …

● there are doctors who were found guilty of professional mis-conduct over sexual activities

● doctors whose license was suspended

● doctors who deny having reviewed the document

There is a « growing body of evidence » that some the authors and reviewers of the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review are UNETHICAL, UNPROFESSIONAL, and even CRIMINAL.

Objective of BOGUS Literature Review

The primary OBJECTIVE of the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review had NOTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH but had everything to do with BUSINESS, CASH-FLOW, PROFIT, and INCREASING MEMBERSHIPS AND DONATIONS for Ontario College of Family Physicians.

In return for CONCOCTING the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review, OCFP was PAID-FOR-PROFIT by Laidlaw Foundation, an organization that also FINANCIALLY SUPPORTS other SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES against pest control products.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was also used as a PRETEXT to FINANCE Anti-Pesticide Organizations that CONSPIRED to PROHIBIT pest control products in the Urban Landscape.

Under the guise of GOVERNMENT GRANTS, PAY-OFFS were provided to Anti-Pesticide Organizations affiliated with Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITION

With the VALIDATION from the OCFP Anti-Pesticide Literature Review …

… on April 22nd, 2009, the Government of Ontario ARBITRARILY PROHIBITED pest control products that were, in fact, HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, and SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.

The Government of Ontario spent OVER 2,000,000 DOLLARS on the DESTRUCTION of law-abiding tax-payers and businesses in the Professional Lawn Care Industry.

The Government of Ontario spent OVER 2,000,000 DOLLARS to BASELESSLY SMEAR, FALSELY ACCUSE, GROTESQUELY PUNISH, INNOCENTLY CONVICT, SHAMELESSLY PERSECUTE, and WRONGFULLY DEPRIVE those people working in the Professional Lawn Care Industry who used pest control products that were nonetheless HEALTH-CANADA-APPROVED, FEDERALLY-LEGAL, and SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.

The Professional Lawn Care Industry’s own TAX-DOLLARS were used to DESTROY its companies, and UNEMPLOY its workers.

Weak Epidemiological Studies

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was NEEDLESSLY ALARMIST with its ALLEGATIONS that pest control products MAY be the cause of certain types of cancer.

Unfortunately, the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review DID NOT consider all of the relevant epidemiology evidence.

What is not explained in the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review is that the « evidence » against pest control products consists of some epidemiological 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.

Toxicology Database

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 DATABASE through a process that Health Canada refers to as The Reading Room.

The authors and reviewers of the BOGUS-OCFP-Review were not only SCIENTIFICALLY IGNORANT, they were LAZY and STUPID.

DEBUNKED by Doctor Frank N. Dost

Doctor Frank N. Dost, DVM, is Emeritus Professor of Agricultural Chemistry and Forest Toxicology, Oregon State University, and Fellow of the Academy of Toxicological Sciences.

According to Doctor Dost ―

This document does not describe the health impact of pesticides.

It should not supplant the judgment of Health Canada on regulatory policy issue.

DEBUNKED by Professor Keith R. Solomon

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review somehow made some links between pest control product exposure and diseases in humans.

Doctor Keith R. Solomon is Professor of Environmental Biology and Director at the Centre for Toxicology, University of Guelph.

According to Professor Solomon ―

The conclusions of the OCFP report should be treated with great caution.

According to Professor Solomon, here are some issues with this report, which WAS NOT VERY WELL DONE.

First of all, it is BASED ONLY ON EPIDEMIOLOGY.

Epidemiology is the study of diseases in humans.

Additionally, many studies WERE OMITTED FROM THEIR REPORT.

It DID NOT CONSIDER THE TOXICITY DATA that Health Canada and other agencies use.

It DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPOSURES, and it did not consider the published regulatory reviews from Health Canada and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.

According to Professor Solomon, humans are good organisms to study, but humans are extremely difficult to work with because we don’t always say what we do.

EPIDEMIOLOGY STUDIES are really based only on CORRELATION and SUGGESTED LINKS, and they CANNOT ESTABLISH CAUSALITY ON THEIR OWN.

Internationally DISCREDITED

Internationally, the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was DISCREDITED as …

● inadequately addressing the issues

● inconsistent

● over-interpreting studies

● superficial in its approach

● unclear

● weak quality.

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was INTERNATIONALLY DISCREDITED by THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION.

It provided the following conclusions ―

The treatment of [ OCFP ] review papers is UNCLEAR and appears INCONSISTENT.

The [ OCFP ] review takes a rather SUPERFICIAL APPROACH in bringing together the findings of the individual studies.

FEW of the cited studies [ by OCFP ] adequately address the issue of confounding by co-exposures.

Much of the evidence supporting an association between pesticide exposure and cancer is derived from occupational exposures, e.g. in agriculture, where animal viruses, diesel fumes, fertilisers [ sic ] and other factors may play a role.

The [ OCFP ] review seems to OVER-INTERPRET the findings, given the limitations of the relevant studies; strong conclusions are drawn from evidence of rather WEAK QUALITY.

Scientifically Safe ― Agencies

There are LEADING AUTHORITIES that SUPPORT or VALIDATE the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.

These authorities are educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies that are considered as many or all or the following …

● Experts

● Highly-Rated

● Independent

● Leaders

● Non-Profit

● Respected

● World-Renowned

They have publicly stated that, or have validated the concept that, in one form or another, pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE.

These agencies are NOT unduly influenced by any stake-holder in those industries manufacturing and using pest control products.

The following educational, regulatory, research, scientific, and trade agencies have SUPPORTED or VALIDATED the concept that pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY-SAFE ―

● American Chemical Society

● American Council for Science and Health

● American Cancer Society

● CropLife Canada

● Health Canada

● International Agency for Research on Cancer

● The Fraser Institute

● U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

● World Health Organization

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 pesticides in 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.

Is OCFP MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE Than Health Canada ?!?!?

NO !

Conventional pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE since they have been scrutinized and approved by the HUNDREDS of expert scientists at Health Canada !

Evidently, OCFP-Lunatics conveniently considered the hundreds of qualified scientists of Health Canada’s respected Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be incompetent and/or incapable of arriving at correct scientific findings concerning conventional pest control products.

In order to allow SOUND SCIENCE to be effectively practiced, it would be preferable leave the interpretation of scientific research to those people who ARE competent to do it ― Health Canada, and NOT OCFP-Lunatics.

NO pest control product can be sold or used until Health Canada’s scientists have evaluated ALL the existing evidence to determine whether the product meets stringent health and safety requirements.

Overall, when they are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !

OCFP NOT In « The Information Loop »

On January 17th, 2012, Health Canada responded against the Anti-Pesticide Literature Review with the following statement ―

Essentially, what you’re referring to, in both your reference to the OCFP report and other published studies, are EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDIES themselves.

Those are the studies you would find in the OPEN PUBLIC LITERATURE.

These are certainly studies that we are aware of.

We are aware, certainly, of the studies that the OCFP report referred to.

It’s our job to look at those studies.

[ … ] We have such an extensive toxicology database that is required in Canada.

Unfortunately, that information — the tox database itself ― is NOT DIRECTLY AVAILABLE TO OUTSIDE GROUPS, although they can request to look at that information now through a process we refer to as the reading room.

So that data is AVAILABLE.

Literature Review DEBUNKED in Quebec

The Anti-Pesticide Literature Review was ultimately DEBUNKED in the Province of Quebec.

Thanks to the AGREEMENT reached between Dow AgroSciences and the Canadian federal government of May 25th, 2011, it was concluded that …

● Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE

● PROHIBITIONS are IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED

On April 3rd, 2004, Quebec became the first province to ARBITRARILY IMPOSE the PROHIBITION of pest control products like 2,4-D.

Pest control products are SCIENTIFICALLY SAFE and prohibitions are now IRREFUTABLY INVALIDATED.

On May 25th, 2011, Dow AgroSciences, the manufacturer of the pest control product 2,4-D, SETTLED THE NAFTA CHALLENGE CASE with the Canadian government.

The North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, is an agreement signed by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States, creating a tri-lateral trade block in North America.

2,4-D has been used for the control of broad-leaved weeds in the Urban Landscape SINCE 1946.

2,4-D has a 65-YEAR UNBLEMISHED SAFETY RECORD regarding long-term risk to health.

As part of the agreement, a VICTORY for the company, the GOVERNMENT OF QUEBEC was HUMILIATED into making a STATEMENT saying that …

2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.

Quebec was the first province to declare weed control products containing 2,4-D as POSSIBLY carcinogenic, which has now been DEEMED AS FALSE.

On that basis, municipalities in Quebec instituted NEEDLESS, SENSELESS, and MALICIOUS PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D use as a lawn pest control product.

Other jurisdictions outside of Quebec also CONSPIRED to IMPOSE the Anti-Pesticide PROHIBITIONS of 2,4-D under the PRETEXT that it was a so-called carcinogen.

In fact, ABSOLUTELY NO regulatory body in the world classifies 2,4-D as a human carcinogen ― 2,4-D is probably the MOST STUDIED and BEST UNDERSTOOD of ANY chemical ― not just pesticide ― in existence.

2,4-D DOES NOT POSE AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK to human health or the environment.

Prohibition NOT Necessary

Any PROHIBITION of pest control products is NOT JUSTIFIED because STRICT REGULATIONS based on scientific research already PROTECT our health and our environment.

ALL PROHIBITIONS are 100 per cent Politically-Based and 0 per cent Science-Based.

The MAJOR SOURCE of exposure to pest control products is from FOOD SUPPLY, and NOT the Urban Landscape.

PROHIBITION is NOT necessary, and has led to CARNAGE.

In jurisdictions like Ontario, PROHIBITION led to the DEATH of an elderly man who was forced to hand-pull TOXIC NOXIOUS WEEDS.

In jurisdictions where PROHIBITION has been IMPLEMENTED, the Professional Lawn Care Industry has SUFFERED IMMENSE LOSSES, in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

Moreover, because of PROHIBITION, green spaces are OVER-RUN WITH WEEDS, INFESTED WITH INSECTS, and DISMALLY DESTROYED ― they look like GARBAGE DUMPS.

PROHIBITION is NOT NECESSARY because, overall, when pest control products are used properly, there are NO harmful irreversible effects to health and the environment !

Incredibly, some jurisdictions ARBITRARILY PROHIBIT pest control products.

In fact, pest control products are …

● Health-Canada-Approved

● Federally-Legal

● Safe For Children *

● Scientifically-Safe

● Practically-Non-Toxic

● Good for the Environment

* Except when stored improperly in the home.

Furthermore, pest control products …

● Cause No Harm

● Do Not Cause Cancer