Monsanto has known about the link between glyphosate and cancer for 35 years

[GuyGadebois]

How Monsanto cheated to get glyphosate studies published
A survey of "The World" reveals that the studies, signed by scientific experts, were in fact written by employees of the company.

.....


A World survey published this Wednesday October 4 (2017) reveals one of the techniques used by the agrochemical giant to counterbalance the bad publicity of which its products - and more precisely glyphosate - are currently the subject: "ghostwriting", or "ghost writing".

.....

Frequent in literature (in France, one speaks then of "literary negro"), the process of "ghostwriting" is simple: in this case, Company employees write the study to be published. The text is then signed by scientists and experts unrelated to the company (but handsomely paid by it), in order to avoid (in theory) any accusation of conflict of interest. This practice is of course illegal, and considered a serious scientific fraud.

.....

For Monsanto, the objective is simple: to restore the image of glyphosate, considerably tarnished by the thousands of complaints (3500 in the United States) and especially by the study of the WHO Cancer Research Center (IARC) , which classified the substance as "probable carcinogen". Logically, all the studies published "by the firm" therefore conclude that glyphosate is not.

Once the studies have been done, they still need to be disseminated. And Monsanto has seen the big picture, and has targeted both mainstream media and scientific journals. So the biologist Henry Miller, in favor of the use of pesticides, pro-GMO and member of the Hoover Institution attached to the prestigious Stanford University, signed his name several forums in Forbes magazine (they have been withdrawn since), in which he concluded that glyphosate was non-toxic.

Problem: The emails between Monsanto and Henry Miller, published by Le Monde, show that he is not the author. Contacted by the firm at the time of the publication of the IARC study in March 2015, the biologist indeed agreed to write on the subject, "on condition of starting from a high quality draft". This was obviously the case, since the text "will be published on March 20, almost without modification on the Forbes site", indicates Le Monde.

The firm uses the same process in scientific journals. In September 2016, five theses were thus published in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology: all conclude that glyphosate is not carcinogenic. These articles are signed by several researchers, mandated by Monsanto through a consultancy firm. As Le Monde indicates, they will have a considerable impact in the scientific community.

But before the experts sign, the texts have been reviewed and corrected by Monsanto employees. "I went through the whole document and indicated what I think should remain, what can be deleted and also did a bit of editing. I also added some text. One of Monsanto employees said about one of the articles in an email exchange to the consulting firm.

https://www.huffingtonpost.fr/2017/10/0 ... _23232180/

It's very simple, glyphosate: We can drink it! To the dregs?

[Janic]

and as luck would have it, this is exactly how large pharmaceutical companies (large users of synthetic products and GMOs) use their drugs and vaccines. White cap, white cap! as usual!

[GuyGadebois]

and as luck would have it, this is exactly how large pharmaceutical companies (large users of synthetic products and GMOs) use their drugs and vaccines. White cap, white cap! as usual!

Above all, there is garbage that works with poisoners! And it's not about to disappear. This is why we got there: Corruption, lies, manipulation, perversion of ideals at all levels of society.

[izentrop]

This study published in Mutation Research showed that the link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was stronger than what had been previously announced. Looking at the data from those most exposed to glyphosate, the authors found that exposure to glyphosate increased the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41%.
https://www.futura-sciences.com/sante/a ... ers-69297/

And you jump with your feet together as usual.

It is not a study but a meta-analysis with a drastic selection of studies chosen. The most exposed and preferably Americans who use much larger quantities of pesticides than here.

Besides, it's been known for a long time that they can cause NHL, but it's far from being the main cause. https://www.cancer.ca/fr-ca/cancer-info ... ?region=on.

And then 41% is an increase in the incidence of 5 cases per 100000, far from being as significant as 41%

[GuyGadebois]

And then 41% is an increase in the incidence of 5 cases per 100000, far from being as significant as 41%

Well done bad faith! You can make the numbers speak your way, you. You should work for these bitches, unless that is already the case ...

[izentrop]

Not at all, the normal incidence is 13/100000, it rose to 18/100000 in these heavy users of pesticides, it is in the study.

[GuyGadebois]

In 2019, a scandal broke out in Germany concerning the LPT-Hamburg laboratory, of which former employees testified of fraud in regulatory toxicological studies. A criminal investigation was opened against this laboratory. At least 14% of the new studies provided as part of the renewal of glyphosate in 2017 come from this laboratory, which highlights the unreliability of the system: the industry itself produces the studies that make it possible to evaluate its products .

Dead animals replaced by living animals under study, tumors reported as simple inflammations, here are the laboratory's practices in order to promote the interests of the sponsors of the studies.

Following the update of frauds within the LPT-Hamburg laboratory by a survey of the German public television ARD, the NGOs PAN Germany, Global2000 and Corporate Europe Observatory wished to determine the level of implication of this laboratory in the re- glyphosate evaluation in 2017. At least one new study in 7 provided by Monsanto came from this laboratory. LPT-Hamburg is a laboratory with GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) certification, which is seen by the authorities as a guarantee of probity and reliability.
Martin Dermine, of Pesticide Action Network Europe indicates: "If glyphosate has been recognized as" probable carcinogen "by the WHO but not by the European and Belgian authorities, it is because the academic studies demonstrating its toxicity are not certified GLP . Only industry studies have this expensive and mandatory certification and, strangely, they do not demonstrate toxicity. "

For many years, NGOs have been fighting for academic studies to be systematically taken into account because they highlight a toxicity that regulatory tests do not demonstrate.

Martin Dermine added: “The European and Belgian authorities are promoting the interests of the pesticide industry to the detriment of the health of citizens through this certification system. Just look at the fytoweb site, the SPF promotes the GLP certification as being a system guaranteeing "transparency and quality" while the survey by ARD and our colleagues clearly shows that should not leave it to industry to produce its own regulatory studies. The system is not reliable. "
https://www.natpro.be/en-2017-le-glypho ... de-fraude/

[GuyGadebois]

Not at all, the normal incidence is 13/100000, it rose to 18/100000 in these heavy users of pesticides, it is in the study.

It is only for you that it is unimportant, negligible and that it does not incriminate glyphosate in any way.

"This prospective study, called the Agricultural Health Study, began in the 1990s and followed a cohort of 54.251 farmers and spreaders from Iowa and North Carolina (United States); about 83% of them ( 44.932 people) were using glyphosate. Result: 5.779 cancer cases were detected during the study period. The latter was funded by American institutions such as the National Cancer Institute, and not by industrialists. "
It appears that the use of glyphosate was not associated with overall cancer risk. However, those who used the most glyphosate over twenty years had a much higher risk of acute myeloid leukemia: compared to those who had not used glyphosate, their risk was increased by a factor of 2,4. "

But Izy you don't care, it's negligible when you look at the numbers. The problem is that behind the numbers are deaths, human dramas, tragedies, suicides, ruins and beautiful still lifes. Ah, liberalism is beautiful, since as your alter-ego Tryphon thinks, from which you differ just by your position on entropic global warming: "There's no alternative".

[izentrop]

You also have a risk of taking a tile on your head when you leave your home ... No, I put things in perspective. Please stop your nonsense

[izentrop]

Too much to seek the little beast, we forget to look at the big one?

What on my plate do not see any irregularity in the study https://quoidansmonassiette.fr/analyse- ... dgkiniens/

Selection of studies and inclusion (crucial step !!)

The inclusion or exclusion of studies has an impact on the quality of studies and meta-analysis, on heterogeneity and results.

For this, they searched for all types of studies with the terms (translated) (Glyphosate, pesticide, herbicide) AND (non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, lymphoma, non-Hodgkin's) AND (occupational exposure, farmers, agricultural workers, users, workers) in the study base published in PubMed until August 2018. They obtained 866.

These people have a ton to deal with and don't just use glyphosate, focusing is impossible.

Until then, potentially carcinogenic substances such as organochlorines had been detected. Many substances have been banned and usage precautions have been implemented ... Result