Total Pageviews

Saturday, March 30, 2019

The fake science demonizing RoundUp

Modern climate "science" 
is not the only fake science !

The French International Agency 
for Research on Cancer (IARC) 
received over $48 million 
from America’s National 
Institutes of Health (NIH).

They have "tested" 
over 900 chemicals,
and 899 were claimed 
to be carcinogenic ! 

Complete nonsense !

The IARC has now 
"tested" glyphosate, 
the active ingredient 
in RoundUp herbicide.

My wife and I happen 
to use a gallon or two,
every year at home.

IARC colluded with
anti-chemical 
activist groups,
and class action lawyers.

IARC manipulated 
scientific reports.

IARC deliberately withheld 
other studies concluding 
glyphosate was safe.

IARC panelists inserted 
a new statistical analyses, 
that reversed the study’s 
original finding,
saying glyphosate was safe.

NIH Cancer Research Institute scientist 
Aaron Blair conducted a years-long study,
that found glyphosate was safe,
but he kept his study secret,
until after IARC published their "study",
so IARC would not have to mention,
his “unpublished” study in their report.




Fortunately, 
the European Union
extended its authorization, 
for glyphosate use, 
but only for 5 years, 
instead of the usual 
15 years.




IARC rulings are used 
by predatory lawyers,
to sue glyphosate
manufacturers. 

IARC reviewers 
told US congressmen,
who were asking questions 
about their science,
to come to France,
if they wanted answers !

Congress authorizes 
taxpayer funding,
for IARC, 
but apparently 
Congressmen,
have no right 
to question 
their work ?




Glyphosate is the 
most popular herbicide
in the world, important 
for modern agriculture.

Before the IARC "study",
there had already been 
3,300 studies,
over four decades,
proving glyphosate 
was safe.

Only IARC said 
glyphosate causes cancer. 

AIRC employed 
Italy’s Ramazzini Institute, 
to work on their study
 -- Ramazzini had
falsely claimed 
in the past,
that cell phones and 
artificial sweeteners,
cause cancer. 

Evidence is accumulating 
that Ramazzini 
worked closely 
with anti-chemical 
pressure groups,
and even trial lawyers.




The 2014 advisory group 
that decided IARC 
would review glyphosate
was led by activist statistician 
Dr. Christopher Portier.

Shortly after serving 
on the advisory group,
Portier signed up 
with trial lawyers,
to work on their 
glyphosate law suits,
and was initially paid
at least $160,000. 





This is leftist fake science,
supported by US tax dollars, 
used to drive safe chemicals,
off the market.

Thousands of US lawsuits,
already claim glyphosate 
causes cancer.

No more US money 
should be wasted on

IARC's junk science.





A revised Obama-era report
 -- the new Trump version 
of the EPA report, released 
December 18, 2017, 
only included 
a few more studies 
that don’t alter 
the initial conclusions.

On September 12, 2016, 
the EPA had issued 
the first version of 
their glyphosate report. 

On December 18, 2017, 
the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) 
issued a paper titled 
“Revised Glyphosate Issue Paper: 
Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential”
as part of a larger release 
of its latest findings 
on glyphosate, the main active 
ingredient in the world’s 
most used, and safe, 
weed killer, Monsanto’s Roundup.

The reaction of the American press 
on the 2017 EPA report 
was almost complete silence.

When 300 million pounds 
of glyphosate are used each year 
in the US, one has to be sure of its safety.


From the glyphosate.eu website:

“Glyphosate has undergone more thorough toxicological testing than almost any other active substance used in pesticides. 

As part of the latest risk assessment, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) evaluated more than 3,000 studies. 

They found no indications of nerve damage or of carcinogenic or mutagenic properties.

Nor is glyphosate associated with reproductive toxicity.

The public had been concerned, among other things, by a classification of glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” (category 2A) by the IARC, the WHO’s cancer research agency. 

However, the IARC does not look at actual risks to consumers, but at theoretical considerations.

It does not consider how the assessed substances are handled, or look at actual exposure to them in everyday life. 

This explains why the same body has classified sausages and sawdust as “carcinogens” 
(category 1A).”