The World Health Organization’s cancer agency says a common weedkiller is “probably carcinogenic.” The scientist leading that review knew of fresh data showing no cancer link – but he never mentioned it and the agency did not take it into account.
Read it all. Because you won’t hear about it elsewhere.
h/t nold
is that similar to the study that was done many years ago that indicated that those who are applying the various pesticides and vegicides had lower than average cancer rates? (i.e. the people most exposed, and most likely to come into contact with it).
But we had to ban them “for the children” except on golf courses, and where you find invasive or harmful species.
It is not as if we’uns do not already understand the False Narrative of the News Media ignoring this information include the New York Slime & Wash Poo plus the complete Central Canada Corrupt Cabal of See Me! Not!
News Flash….Liberals are never your friends as this requires actual tangible love, forgiveness, charity, empathy and most of all honesty.
Yeah, ‘agenda science’…ghostwriters in the sky
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-09/monsanto-was-its-own-ghostwriter-for-some-safety-reviews
Academic papers vindicating its Roundup herbicide were written with the help of its employees.
Dozens of internal Monsanto emails, released on Aug. 1 by plaintiffs’ lawyers who are suing the company, reveal how Monsanto worked with an outside consulting firm to induce the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology to publish a purported “independent” review of Roundup’s health effects that appears to be anything but. The review, published along with four subpapers in a September 2016 special supplement, was aimed at rebutting the 2015 assessment by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.
Monsanto’s internal emails … shows the company’s chief of regulatory science, William Heydens, and other Monsanto scientists were heavily involved in organizing, reviewing, and editing drafts submitted by the outside experts. At one point, Heydens even vetoed explicit requests by some of the panelists to tone down what one of them wrote was the review’s “inflammatory” criticisms of IARC.
Why don’t you address the matter at hand rather than your usual ‘oh look a squirrel over here’?
The US National Cancer Institute, entirely funded by US taxpayers, had just completed a large study of ag workers and their families and in that study they were unable to detect a link to cancer for those most directly exposed to the chemical; those who are applying the product.
Aaron Blair chose not to publish those findings in his UN report, even though they were pertinent to the matter at hand. Why?
Why is Reuters the only news organization reporting on the UN and their little game of deception?
Ghostwriters in the Skyyy…
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/monsanto-spin-doctors-target-cancer-scientist-in-flawed_us_594449eae4b0940f84fe2e57
But. drilling deeply into the sourcing and selective nature of the Reuters piece makes it clear the story is not only seriously flawed, but that it is part of an ongoing and carefully crafted effort by Monsanto and the pesticide industry to discredit IARC’s work.
The story contains at least two apparent factual errors that go to the credibility of its theme. First the story cites “court documents” as primary sources when in fact the documents referred to have not been filed in court and thus are not publicly available for reporters or members of the public to access. Kelland does not share links to the documents she references… By citing court documents, Kelland avoided addressing whether or not Monsanto or its allies spoon-fed the records to her. And because the article did not provide a link to the Blair deposition, readers are unable to see the full discussion of the unpublished study or the multiple comments by Blair of many other studies that do show evidence of links between glyphosate and cancer.
Second, the story relies in part on an anti-IARC view of a scientist named Bob Tarone and refers to him as an “independent” expert, someone “independent of Monsanto.” Kelland quotes Tarone as saying that IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate is “flawed and incomplete.” Except, according to information provided by IARC, Tarone is far from independent of Monsanto; Tarone in fact has acknowledged that he is a paid consultant to Monsanto, and a piece cited by Reuters and authored by Tarone last year in a European scientific journal is being recorrected to reflect Tarone’s conflict of interest, according to IARC, which said it has been in communication with that journal.
And finally, in an odd exclusion, the story fails to disclose that Kelland herself has at least tangential ties to Monsanto and friends. Kelland has helped promote an organization called the Science Media Centre, a group whose aim is to connect certain scientists such as Tarone with journalists like Kelland, and which gets its largest block of funding from corporations that include the agrichemical industry. Current and past funders include Monsanto, Monsanto’s proposed merger partner Bayer AG, DuPont and agrichemical industry lobbyist CropLife International. Kelland appears in a promotional video for SMC touting the group and authored an essay applauding the SMC that appeared in a SMC promotional report.
And riding right along with the Ghostwriters in the Skyyy…
https://www.rt.com/usa/monsanto-bill-blunt-agriculture-006/
Obama signs ‘Monsanto Protection Act’ written by Monsanto-sponsored senator
Published time: 28 Mar, 2013 19:04
“But Obama ignored [the petition],”IB Times’ Connor Sheets writes, “instead choosing to sign a bill that effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of GMO or GE crops and seeds, no matter what health consequences from the consumption of these products may come to light in the future.”
Same old same old. You don’t address the findings of the US National Cancer Institute but instead have decided to build a straw man argument around the Reuters article and Aaron Blair’s disposition to the courts.
I think you had better read that disposition a bit more carefully before using it to reinforce your arguments.
During the disposition when asked about study after study again and again Mr. Blair is forced to admit, “yes not statistically significant”.
The most humorous part of the disposition is when Mr. Blair admits to being himself the lead author of a study that found no statistically significant risk of cancer from exposure to Round-up.
The ‘probably carcinogenic’ finding of the 17 member IARC panel(mostly EPA people) had come about by a vote and the lawyer asks him this:
“In spite of being the author of the study that didn’t show the association you voted that in fact there was an association”
Mr. Blair: “Yes.”
So you discount anyone connected to Science, or Monsanto..You have a delusional reality that there are blow-back scientists who don’t play well with silly probabilities… Who the hell do you think will pay for scientific research, a cloistered group of idiots in Africa….Deal with the science!
It’s all good, Monsanto is merging with that other ethical company, Bayer. Who knowingly infected thousands of children with HIV.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/bayer-aided-abetted-government-knowingly-gave-hiv-thousands-children/
In 1984 Bayer became aware that several batches of this Factor 8 contained HIV. They knew this because there was an outbreak of HIV among hemophiliac children, and this outbreak was traced back to Bayer.
Unable to sell their Factor 8 in the US, Bayer, with the FDA’s permission, (yes that’s right, the FDA allowed Bayer to potentially kill thousands) sold this HIV infected medicine to Argentina, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, and Singapore after February 1984, according to the documents obtained by the NY Times.
According to the NY Times, the Food and Drug Administration’s regulator of blood products, Dr. Harry M. Meyer Jr., asked that the issue be ”quietly solved without alerting the Congress, the medical community and the public.”
Roundup has been in use for how long?
So wouldn’t all the farmers using it be dead from cancer?
Or the the people eating bread, or consuming canola products, or meat from cattle feed derived from canola?
Yikes.
“Probably carcinogenic” That reads like the label of a can of brake cleaner spray I keep in the garage. The warning label says “…in California this product was found to be carcinogenic,” which was good news for me since I was using it in New York (rimshot).