Science So Fake Even Mother Jones Noticed

[Weatherman2020]

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer

A World Health Organization group called RoundUp a “probable carcinogen,” but it didn’t have all the facts.

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer – Mother Jones

I suspected as much.

 

[Freewill]

Interesting, Roundup kills weeds by cancer.

I quit drinking the stuff long ago.

 

[strollingbones]

o lookie who is quoting mother jones......

 

[Missourian]

Was there a hockey stick graph involved? That's a dead giveaway...

 

[MindWars]

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer

A World Health Organization group called RoundUp a “probable carcinogen,” but it didn’t have all the facts.

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer – Mother Jones

I suspected as much.

No surprise there, and no different than the lunatics who can't seem to believe how GMO foods cause tumors the size of grapefruit in rats. Oh it's just a conspiracy. We even have the liberal PHD holders selling this bs.
Either they were taught the lie and believe it or they are part of helping Monsanto sell his cancer bs.

 

[Old Rocks]

Archives of Toxicology

May 2012, Volume 86, Issue 5, pp 805–813

Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells


Abstract
Glyphosate (G) is the largest selling herbicide worldwide; the most common formulations (Roundup, R) contain polyoxyethyleneamine as main surfactant. Recent findings indicate that G exposure may cause DNA damage and cancer in humans. Aim of this investigation was to study the cytotoxic and genotoxic properties of G and R (UltraMax) in a buccal epithelial cell line (TR146), as workers are exposed via inhalation to the herbicide. R induced acute cytotoxic effects at concentrations >40 mg/l after 20 min, which were due to membrane damage and impairment of mitochondrial functions. With G, increased release of extracellular lactate dehydrogenase indicative for membrane damage was observed at doses >80 mg/l. Both G and R induced DNA migration in single-cell gel electrophoresis assays at doses >20 mg/l. Furthermore, an increase of nuclear aberrations that reflect DNA damage was observed. The frequencies of micronuclei and nuclear buds were elevated after 20-min exposure to 10–20 mg/l, while nucleoplasmatic bridges were only enhanced by R at the highest dose (20 mg/l). R was under all conditions more active than its active principle (G). Comparisons with results of earlier studies with lymphocytes and cells from internal organs indicate that epithelial cells are more susceptible to the cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of the herbicide and its formulation. Since we found genotoxic effects after short exposure to concentrations that correspond to a 450-fold dilution of spraying used in agriculture, our findings indicate that inhalation may cause DNA damage in exposed individuals.

Cytotoxic and DNA-damaging properties of glyphosate and Roundup in human-derived buccal epithelial cells

• 
  Explore this journal >

Volume 50, Issue 3
March 2007
Pages 227–233

1. Previous article in issue: Cardiovascular mortality among Swedish pulp and paper mill workers
   
   
   
2. Next article in issue: Re: Hardell et al. Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research
   

View issue TOC
Special Issue:Ethical Considerations and Future Challenges In Occupational and Environmental Health

Article
Secret ties to industry and conflicting interests in cancer research†
Authors

• Lennart Hardell MD, PhD,
  • 
    
• Martin J. Walker MA,
  • 
    
• Bo Walhjalt,
  • 
    
• Lee S. Friedman BA, MSc,
  • 
    
• Elihu D. Richter MD, MPH

• First published: 3 November 2006Full publication history
• DOI: 10.1002/ajim.20357 View/save citation
• Cited by (CrossRef): 31 articlesCheck for updates

• †
  An erratum to this article has been published in American Journal of Industrial Medicine.
  

Abstract
Background
Recently it was reported that a Swedish professor in environmental health has for decades worked as a consultant for Philip Morris without reporting his employment to his academic employer or declaring conflicts of interest in his research. The potential for distorting the epidemiological assessments of hazard and risk through paid consultants, pretending to be independent, is not exclusive to the tobacco industry.

Methods
Documentation is drawn from peer reviewed publications, websites, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency, University reports, Wellcome Library Special Collections and the Washington Post.

Results
Some consulting firms employ university researchers for industry work thereby disguising industry links in the income of large departments. If the industry affiliation is concealed by the scientist, biases from conflicting interests in risk assessments cannot be evaluated and dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is reason to suspect that editors and journal staff may suppress publication of scientific results that are adverse to industry owing to internal conflict of interest between editorial integrity and business needs.

Conclusions
Examples of these problems from Sweden, UK, and USA are presented. The shortfalls cited in this article illustrate the need for improved transparency, regulations that will help curb abuses as well as instruments for control and enforcement against abuses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 50: 227–233, 2007. © 2006 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

One has to be very careful of sources.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Note to poor readers: Nothing I've written below argues one way or the other whether Roundup is carcinogenic. My remarks have to do with the way the matter was handled and reported.

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer

A World Health Organization group called RoundUp a “probable carcinogen,” but it didn’t have all the facts.

A Scientist Didn’t Disclose Important Data—and Let Everyone Believe a Popular Weedkiller Causes Cancer – Mother Jones

A World Health Organization group called RoundUp a “probable carcinogen,” but it didn’t have all the facts.....I suspected as much.

Dude, you and article's author don't appear capable of reading, understanding and accurately paraphrasing the content in the article you cited. Why should anyone value your suspicions? [1]

From the article:

Aaron Blair, the scientist who led the IARC’s [International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a division of the UN’s World Health Organization (WHO)] review panel on glyphosate, had access to data from a large study that strongly suggested that Roundup did not cause cancer after all—but he withheld that data from the RoundUp review panel. Weirder still: Blair himself was a senior researcher on that study.

...court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing US legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer.

From linked "background" content referenced in the Mother Jones article:

Blair told Reuters the data...was available two years before IARC assessed glyphosate.

The WHO most certainly did have the facts that didn't militate for thinking Roundup is a possible carcinogen. Blair's study didn't need to be published for the other members of the WHO panel that issued the statement about Roundup to have read it and determined that it was a credible study.

The Mother Jones and Reuters articles note that Blair's study hadn't been published at the time of the IARC's decision; so someone apparently that event's non-occurrence is material. I don't think it is, but it's possible that it is. (I don't think there is or was afoot a conspiracy of sorts. I just don't believe that the people on the panel were unaware of Blair's study findings.)

Having occasionally been a member of research groups/panels, I don't believe that the other panel members were unaware of Blair's research. For every analytical panel/group of which I've been a member, the very first thing we do in the very first meeting we have is introduce ourselves, and part of that brief introduction includes each person describing the nature of their expertise and identifying what they most recently and are currently working on outside of the specific work of the panel itself. Moreover, in the course of literally socializing during the panel's tenure, people share information about the nature of their current and past work, most often because another member(s) is simply curious (or more) about it or the individual and asks, be it at lunch or via email, or "at the watercooler," so to speak. I would need to willingly suspend disbelief, as one might while watching a movie, to accept that similar chit chats and what not didn't occur among the IARC panelists considering the carcinogenic properties of glyphosate.

Although lacking is your ability to accurately relay what you (presumably) read in the article you linked is, contextually you are correct to be irked that the WHO, in this instance, failed to exercise the due diligence and general integrity expected of science professionals. At the very least, Blair should and could have given a pre-publication/pre-peer review copy of his paper to the panelists who were, after all, experts in the field more than adequately capable of reading it and determining whether it was adequately rigorous and sound for them to give it credence in arriving at their opinion(s). Even more curiously, the IARC in its announcement of its conclusion states that its members based their conclusion on "evidence in humans [drawn] from studies of exposures, mostly agricultural, in the USA, Canada, and Sweden published since 2001," yet they make explicit reference to only two studies, both done by the EPA, and don't even bother to list in notes or a "references consulted" list the other studies. [2]

It is shameful that even in light of the new information having come to the fore, the WHO has not recanted or retracted its earlier articulated finding regarding the potential cancer-causing properties of glyphosate.


Notes:

1. While I understand why Mother Jones published a sensational headline -- they have revenue needs that depend on "clicks." That doesn't make their beguilingly sensationalizing the story's headline -- a matter that is important and relevant is, if accurately "headlined," duly sensational in its own right -- acceptable in my mind for by doing so, they distort the matter's context and give readers of only the headline the wrong impression.
   
   I don't have a big problem with folks copying and pasting published headlines, provided the headline accurately reflects the content of the corresponding article. When the headline conveys one tone and the article's content doesn't fully match that tone, I have a problem with one's merely parroting the headline. It's bad enough that we find ourselves in a time when non-journalists and non-newsmakers must perform our own "double checks" of the content we receive from those two groups. It's, however, doubly disturbing to see "regular" people perpetuate the disingenuousness by aping those groups' sensationalist approach to information sharing.
2. My objection to the IARC's not citing their referenced works is the same one I have with Trump saying things like "people are saying" or "many people have said." Who the hell said it? "Show" me the document, video, tape, etc that fully and accurately depicts what exactly it is they said. As my signature states:
   
   When pontificating and sharing your analysis, providing citations that point readers to your underlying research will help convince them that you have thought seriously about the matter under discussion.
   - Thomas G. Krattenmaker

 

[skookerasbil]

the level of fake is getting prolific.

The human racists eat it up though.............