Monsanto Roundup deadly to humans - Glyphosate

[izentrop]

Ah, this dear sect of pseudo science and its mania to truncate, distort, the reality of the facts to satisfy the ego of its readers.

What Catherine Hill says is not in contradiction with the WHO or AFIS, on the other hand Belpomme is a malicious storyteller, like those who revere this kind of character.

how would a science-led society be positive

Science gives the keys for leaders to make fair decisions, we must distinguish roles.

Here we have a product that has never failed since it was put on the market in 1974. The scientific consensus has never changed about it. The only "problem" came from adjuvants which were quickly withdrawn from the market.

The sling only comes from ideology. For the IARC, the only "scientific" organism finding a "probable carcinogenesis" is the case, it is clear.

[Janic]

izentrop wrote:

janic wrote: Ah, this dear sect of pseudo science and its mania to truncate, distort, the reality of the facts to satisfy the ego of its readers.

What Catherine Hill says is not in contradiction with the WHO or AFIS, on the other hand Belpomme is a malicious storyteller, like those who revere this kind of character.

There are those who revere other characters having none of the professional skills of this oncologist and others. However your » immense skills In this area do not even allow you to get to the pin of these professionals to decide whether it is a malicious storyteller (on what criteria other than to worship your sects as pseudo science) or a highly justified whistleblower through independent studies and research and long experience in the field.
As for pseudo science, this sect is well in its role of truncated quotations as their article shows it which it is necessary to be able to read by comparing it with its source which they have, despite everything, indicated.

For the IARC, the only "scientific" organism finding a "probable carcinogenesis" is the case, it is clear.

IARC classification of carcinogens
IARC is a WHO cancer research agency based in Lyon. In English, it is called the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).
Its missions are to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of cancer in humans, on the mechanisms of carcinogenesis and to develop scientific strategies to fight cancer. In this context, it identifies the environmental and professional factors likely to increase the risk of cancer in humans by classifying them.
And you don't see a contradiction between what WHO could say (by whom?) And the IARC whose mission is within WHO, precisely, and who would say the opposite… of WHO? Unless it is only in ideology!



IARC insistence

Euractiv contacted IARC to gather the reaction of specialists on the new study. In response, the research center points out that AHS data are among the main studies taken into account in its own assessment.

This analysis also includes all other published studies on cancer in humans and exposure to glyphosate in different parts of the world.

"Some other studies of human exposure to glyphosate indicate an increase in cancers, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, "says the organization. “In reality, the analysis by the IARC working group and the data from all the studies taken together show a statistically significant association between non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and exposure to glyphosate. "

The AHS study notes elsewhere that there is " proofs an increased risk of acute myeloblastic leukemia in the most exposed group But stresses that this association has no significant statistical weight.

IARC believes that these are "interesting new discoveries". "The new study, however, provides new discoveries interesting on the association between exposure to glyphosate and leukemia, another blood cancer, in the population studied, "said the center.

"It is important to recognize that the classification of the IARC monograph reflects the position of consensus of an independent group of experts, based on a systematic review of all available studies. IARC will therefore not speculate on the potential impact of a study on this expert opinion, ”conclude the members of IARC.

[Ahmed]

Izentrop, you write:

Science gives the keys for leaders to make fair decisions, we must distinguish roles.

You mean enlightened? Because as far as the rest is concerned, ideology prevails (it is not the monopoly of those you denounce).

[izentrop]

Ahmed, I didn't understand.

It is important to recognize that the classification of the IARC monograph reflects the consensus position of an independent group of experts, based on a systematic review of all available studies.

No ! only a selection of those that went in the direction of the desired conclusion. In this case, it is no longer science but militancy

Thus, the IARC working group which concluded that glyphosate may be a carcinogen could have taken into account research and unpublished data provided by the industry. The glyphosate data and research was there and IARC had full rights to use the documents; Straif and Guyton just didn't want to. The evidence contained in these documents (which industry had provided to other institutions seeking data such as EFSA and the BfR) did not support the conclusions that IARC wanted to reach. Instead, they pretended to take over scientifically. It's picking cherries at the worst level ...
'EPA has reviewed the three studies (McDuffie et al., Eriksson et al., And De Roos et al.) Cited by IARC to justify the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), which is smaller than AHS ( Agricultural Health Study). study. This study tested more than 57 registered pesticide applicators and found no link between glyphosate and cancer.

I pass some and better. This is an automatic translation of this excellent article https://risk-monger.com/2016/09/27/glyp ... -fix-iarc/

[Janic]

janic quoted:It is important to recognize that the classification of the IARC monograph reflects the consensus position of an independent group of experts, based on a systematic review of all available studies.

No ! only a selection of those that went in the direction of the desired conclusion. In this case, it is no longer science but militancy

One more stupidity! Nothing to do with militancy or in this case everything is militancy, Like your pseudo science sect!

More serious:
Why there are differences of scientific opinion ?
The substance studied
Glyphosate can be studied in different ways:
 As an active substance alone
 In commercial formulation
 With adjuvant like surfactant (POEA)
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) especially evaluated glyphosate in commercial formulation while EFSA and other national agencies have looked at glyphosate as a pure active substance.
The choice of inclusion of studies
Differences in analyzes also relate to the inclusion of certain studies. IARC has included all in vitro and in vivo studies including non-mammalian species while other agencies have often restricted themselves in vitro and in vivo mammalian studies and following the OECD / GLP guidelines (sort of international validation). No study with OECD criteria has shown a significant effect of genotoxicity or increased risk of cancer in animals.For carcinogenicity, ECHA has included more studies than IARC (9 vs 5 for rats and 5 vs 2 for mice).
Another major difference is that national and European agencies used unpublished studies (including industry funded) in the risk assessment while the IARC has limited itself to the published public literature. In fact, in the CLP regulation, the manufacturer may be asked for certain experimental toxicity studies for the request for authorization of the chemical substance. The European assessment is also based on experimental studies required by EC Regulation 1107/2009 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. [/ I]
https://quoidansmonassiette.fr/glyphosa ... s-agences/
including an excellent table also on the opinions of different organizations!

[izentrop]

This blogger is right to think what he thinks, but it does not correspond to scientific consensus.

[izentrop]

 With adjuvant like surfactant (POEA)
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) especially evaluated glyphosate in commercial formulation while EFSA and other national agencies have looked at glyphosate as a pure active substance.

If it was POEA the problem, why did they blame glyphosate? moreover, this adjuvant has been withdrawn from authorizations by ANSES.
Like what, once again the CIRC has an unclear approach and conclusions contradicting the rest of the global evaluation agencies.

[Adrien (ex-nico239)]

It seems to me that there was a recent judgment that rocked the Bayer action.

It seems that during the trial the defense lawyer produced documents internal to Monsanto which proved that the company was aware of the harmfulness of its product ...

[izentrop]

Sorry, but it looks like the man the bear saw ...

[Janic]

janic wrote:  With adjuvant like surfactant (POEA)

JE have not written but quoted which only binds the author of the text, not me. How many times will you have to repeat it!

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) mainly evaluated glyphosate in commercial formulation while EFSA and other national agencies have looked at glyphosate as a pure active substance.

If it was POEA the problem, why did they blame glyphosate? moreover, this adjuvant has been withdrawn from authorizations by ANSES.

It is not the POEA which is LE problem, but the chemicals themselves compounded by the adjuvant as it is the same with vaccines, only worse. The fact that this adjuvant was withdrawn LATE calls into question the authorization conditions for marketing authorizations, which are too hasty, for market and business reasons as for many drugs.

https://www.anses.fr/fr/content/retrait ... ate-et-poe
ANSES is today withdrawing 132 permissions products combining the active substance glyphosate with the co-formulation POE-Tallowamine following the review of the marketing authorizations for these products.
It is therefore not the only POEA!

Like what, once again the CIRC has an unclear approach and conclusions contradicting the rest of the global evaluation agencies.

On the contrary, it is the position of the CIRC which is the clearest, since, as indicated, it is the only organization which is on the ground (in commercial formulation) and not in laboratories where, as always indicated, the others only deal with PURS products, chemically pure, used on guinea pigs and for a short time. But we are not laboratory mice, we live in a complex world where situations arise which do not exist in the laboratory… fortunately and the conclusions of the IARC are situated in relation to a real situation…. in the open field, to say the least!

otherwise: "The AHS study notes elsewhere that there is "evidence of an increased risk of acute myeloblastic leukemia within the most exposed group ", but stresses that this association has no significant statistical weight."
It remains to be seen what it is that no significant statistical weight.