Total Pageviews

Thursday, May 23, 2019

Glyphosate (RoundUp) -- leftist science fraud allows California couple to win $2 billion from Bayer's Monsanto

DUE DILIGENCE:
My wife and I happen 
to use one to three gallons
of RoundUp every year
at home, for our 
one acre yard. 

We would stop using
RoundUp if we thought 
the vegetation killer 
was not safe.

We have never invested
in Bayer, or any other 
chemical company.


SUMMARY:
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. 

IARC 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 with 
anti-chemical 
pressure groups,
and trial lawyers.




HISTORY:
On September 12, 2016, 
the Obama EPA ssued 
the first version of their 
'glyphosate is safe' report. 

On December 18, 2017, 
the United States 
Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) issued 
a revised paper titled 
“Revised Glyphosate 
Issue Paper: 
Evaluation of 
Carcinogenic 
Potential” 
as part 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 
to the 2017 EPA report 
was almost complete silence,
as you would expect while
Donald Trump was president !




THE  EPA's  NEW  
GLYPHOSATE  
ASSESSMENT

The EPA’s new assessment 
looked at 167 epidemiological, 
animal carcinogenicity, and 
geno-toxicity studies. 

The agency excluded 
39 of those studies 
over concerns about quality.

The IARC relied on 
fewer than half 
as many such studies. 

The international agency IARC
also failed to exclude research 
focused on non-mammalian species, 
such as worms and reptiles.

The EPA’s glyphosate judgment 
is an interim finding, that follows 
similar judgments by regulators 
from the European Union, Australia, 
Japan, Canada and other developed 
countries.

A 2017 longitudinal study published 
in the Journal of the National Cancer 
Institute tracked cancer incidence 
among nearly 45,000 licensed pesticide 
applicators who used Roundup. 

The study found glyphosate was NOT 
statistically significantly associated 
with cancer at any site.

The EPA also looked for possible hazards 
to those who ate crops exposed to glyphosate,
based on conservative assumptions about 
the levels of glyphosate residue on the crops 
and drinking water and concluded there is 
no risk to human health.




COUPLE  WINS  $2 BILLION 
IN  ROUNDUP  LAWSUIT
Recently, a California jury 
awarded $2.055 billion 
to a couple claiming 
Monsanto's (Bayer AG) 
Roundup weed killer 
caused their cancer. 

The smarmy California judge 
refused to allow the jury 
to see contradictory evidence.

The Alameda County Superior 
Court judge denied a request by 
Bayer to inform the jury that the 
US Environmental Protection Agency 
concluded last month that Roundup’s 
active ingredient, glyphosate, 
is non-carcinogenic 
( no risk to public health, 
when used as directed ).

If glyphosate is safe, 
then it isn’t 
responsible for 
the non-Hodgkin
lymphoma of Alva 
and Alberta Pilliod. 

That huge verdict follows 
two other cases 
awarding $158 million 
against Roundup. 

Monsanto / Bayer 
now faces lawsuits 
from 13,400 plaintiffs 
with similar claims.




INTERNATIONAL 
AGENCY
FOR  RESEARCH  
ON  CANCER 
( IARC )
The plaintiff lawyers 
relied heavily on the 
World Health Organization’s 
International Agency 
for Research on Cancer 
which claimed glyphosate 
is ‘probably carcinogenic.’

In 2017, Reuters 
reported the IARC 
had ignored and omitted 
evidence that glyphosate 
was non-carcinogenic.

IARC is a leftist science fraud
organization that finds 
almost every chemical tested 
to be 'probably carcinogenic'.

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

( Reminds me of 
climate science fraud, 
using computer models,
that consistently make
wrong climate predictions ! )

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

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

The IARC has issued
cancer risk warnings 
for more than 
1,000 products 
and activities, including 
hot beverages, aloe, red meat 
and working the night shift. 

French International Agency 
for Research on Cancer (IARC) 
received over $48 million 
from America’s National 
Institutes of Health (NIH),
as of a few years ago.

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.

IARC colluded with
anti-chemical activists
and class action lawyers.

IARC manipulated 
scientific reports.

IARC deliberately withheld 
other studies concluding 
glyphosate was safe.

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

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




DR.  CHRISTOPHER  PORTIER
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.

Christopher Portier
began accepting pay 
from Lundy, Lundy, 
Soileau & South, 
a firm known for
its cancer class-action 
lawsuits. 

Mr. Portier now appears 
as a witness for plaintiffs 
in the Roundup litigation.

He is making a lot of money !

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




IARC reviewers 
told US congressmen,
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 ?

Big companies 
don’t deserve 
to be looted, 
especially based 
on science fraud.