Home
Mr. Acker.
Your accusations that I am on some sort of payroll for reading and posting the news are well off the mark and lands you squarely in the corner of conspiracy.
I am merely pointing out the actual facts surrounding the science of glyphosate as reported by not only Reuters, but other credible sources as well.
The information they present is true and accurate.
One has to wonder why you reject these reports for the sole reason of keeping your conspiracy in tact.
Again, the only entity that is continuing to make this cancer claim is the IARC. Their results failed to take into account the AHS study done on over 89,000 people who had direct interaction with glyphosate in the workplace. That study was not on rats. It was on humans and it is conclusive.
It is the study that the State of California took into consideration when it was deciding the labeling thing.
I have wonder also if you are objective enough to read what the journalists at Reuters have uncovered. It seems like deep down you just want to believe what you believe in the face of the facts that go against your conspiracy. It seems like you are very unwilling to objectively look at the facts. Like a hard core creationist, apparently there is no evidence that will change your mind. That is an unhealthy way to think.
No other organization has concluded what the IARC has. None.
Add to that, the IARC conclusion that glyphosate has the same cancer risk as such things as coffee and working the night shift is so flimsy that when placed into the correct context, there isn’t a risk at all.
Then there is the endless blurring of this topic by introducing Agent Orange and the rest.
Those things have nothing to do with glyphosate. Doing that is nothing but an attempt to smear this molecule based on other molecules. That isn’t a very honest, scientific or objective way to go about understanding things nor does it support any of the data surrounding glyphosate in the slightest.
But let me try and understand what your claim really is.
Apparently, Monsanto has the resources to buy off EVERY organization charged with studying this around the globe including the Japanese, the Germans and are paying ’shills’ like mad? Think that through a bit. Does it make any sense? Nope. If any of that were true, those entities would have spoken up about it by now.
The good science will always win out over the bad eventually. In this case, the decades of testing and studies have demonstrated the unlikely risk of glyphosate causing cancer. Only the IARC clings to that claim via the most flimsy rat studies. As Reuters has pointed out, their conclusions would have been different had the AHS data been taken into account.
The State of California had that data and reached the proper conclusion based on that large human study when it made its conclusion that a cancer warning label is not needed.
One last thing. I find it astonishing that you call me out as some sort of paid shill while failing to note the $160,000 payment to some of the IARC participants from law firms trying to sue Monsanto.
I guess that bit isn’t a concern when it should be. If actual corruption is important to you, then this should be something you should take into account. The article linked below explains in detail how this is a problem for the IARC and its findings if you are willing to take an honest look.
https://risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/
In the end, I can only point to the pertinent facts and hope that reason can prevail despite the conspiracies and bogus data.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-glyphosate-scandal/
"The episode lifts the lid on a questionable network of activist scientists, NGOs, and financiers, not to mention useful-idiot politicians. Scientists raise a scare, lawyers sue on the back of it, bureaucrats give themselves work, all profit. Cancer victims are misled, consumers deceived, farmers’ livelihoods destroyed and environmental benefits undone. But who cares if there is money to be made?
Note: I have never been paid by Monsanto.”
And for further reference, I offer you this piece with the reference data linked within including the AHS study.
http://guests.blogactiv.eu/2017/11/14/glyphosate-the-scandal-deepens/
"An inquiry is necessary
Each European citizen is entitled to receive answers to the following questions.
Why was the scientific publication of the AHS study so delayed? Why was its draft not taken into account by the IARC when at least one member of its glyphosate working group knew about its results?
Why does the IARC refuse to publish its internal documents related to its meetings on glyphosate?
What are the levels of complicity within the IARC with the lawsuit business that emerged after its glyphosate classification? Was such a business already triggered by previous IARC classifications?"
Your accusations that I am on some sort of payroll for reading and posting the news are well off the mark and lands you squarely in the corner of conspiracy.
I am merely pointing out the actual facts surrounding the science of glyphosate as reported by not only Reuters, but other credible sources as well.
The information they present is true and accurate.
One has to wonder why you reject these reports for the sole reason of keeping your conspiracy in tact.
Again, the only entity that is continuing to make this cancer claim is the IARC. Their results failed to take into account the AHS study done on over 89,000 people who had direct interaction with glyphosate in the workplace. That study was not on rats. It was on humans and it is conclusive.
It is the study that the State of California took into consideration when it was deciding the labeling thing.
I have wonder also if you are objective enough to read what the journalists at Reuters have uncovered. It seems like deep down you just want to believe what you believe in the face of the facts that go against your conspiracy. It seems like you are very unwilling to objectively look at the facts. Like a hard core creationist, apparently there is no evidence that will change your mind. That is an unhealthy way to think.
No other organization has concluded what the IARC has. None.
Add to that, the IARC conclusion that glyphosate has the same cancer risk as such things as coffee and working the night shift is so flimsy that when placed into the correct context, there isn’t a risk at all.
Then there is the endless blurring of this topic by introducing Agent Orange and the rest.
Those things have nothing to do with glyphosate. Doing that is nothing but an attempt to smear this molecule based on other molecules. That isn’t a very honest, scientific or objective way to go about understanding things nor does it support any of the data surrounding glyphosate in the slightest.
But let me try and understand what your claim really is.
Apparently, Monsanto has the resources to buy off EVERY organization charged with studying this around the globe including the Japanese, the Germans and are paying ’shills’ like mad? Think that through a bit. Does it make any sense? Nope. If any of that were true, those entities would have spoken up about it by now.
The good science will always win out over the bad eventually. In this case, the decades of testing and studies have demonstrated the unlikely risk of glyphosate causing cancer. Only the IARC clings to that claim via the most flimsy rat studies. As Reuters has pointed out, their conclusions would have been different had the AHS data been taken into account.
The State of California had that data and reached the proper conclusion based on that large human study when it made its conclusion that a cancer warning label is not needed.
One last thing. I find it astonishing that you call me out as some sort of paid shill while failing to note the $160,000 payment to some of the IARC participants from law firms trying to sue Monsanto.
I guess that bit isn’t a concern when it should be. If actual corruption is important to you, then this should be something you should take into account. The article linked below explains in detail how this is a problem for the IARC and its findings if you are willing to take an honest look.
https://risk-monger.com/2017/10/13/greed-lies-and-glyphosate-the-portier-papers/
In the end, I can only point to the pertinent facts and hope that reason can prevail despite the conspiracies and bogus data.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-glyphosate-scandal/
"The episode lifts the lid on a questionable network of activist scientists, NGOs, and financiers, not to mention useful-idiot politicians. Scientists raise a scare, lawyers sue on the back of it, bureaucrats give themselves work, all profit. Cancer victims are misled, consumers deceived, farmers’ livelihoods destroyed and environmental benefits undone. But who cares if there is money to be made?
Note: I have never been paid by Monsanto.”
And for further reference, I offer you this piece with the reference data linked within including the AHS study.
http://guests.blogactiv.eu/2017/11/14/glyphosate-the-scandal-deepens/
"An inquiry is necessary
Each European citizen is entitled to receive answers to the following questions.
Why was the scientific publication of the AHS study so delayed? Why was its draft not taken into account by the IARC when at least one member of its glyphosate working group knew about its results?
Why does the IARC refuse to publish its internal documents related to its meetings on glyphosate?
What are the levels of complicity within the IARC with the lawsuit business that emerged after its glyphosate classification? Was such a business already triggered by previous IARC classifications?"
