Are they so stupid they think plants are little people? Or that humans carry the same pathway that the chemical acts on in weeds? Sure, but environmental trial lawyers hoping to get even richer also have an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) monograph on their side. In 2015, the French group of epidemiologists declared it a possible carcinogen, even though every scientific body had found that was not the case.
They call it science, but it isn't. It is only epidemiology.
How is that possible? It is was made possible in two ways. First, IARC does not have any scientists, so biologists, toxicologists, and chemists are not allowed. It is only epidemiologists, and starting in 2009 when progressive activists Chis Wild was placed in charge, they only took activists from politically allied groups, like the US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Ramazzini Institute, and schools like Harvard. To make sure they controlled the message, they banned any epidemiologist who had ever consulted for "industry" - but not those currently working for environmental groups.
Even if those environmental groups were campaigning against products that IARC decided to review - thanks to insiders on the committee who were being paid by groups wanting to sue over a product.
Did the IARC classification change anything? Not really. Like when activist Berkeley biologist Tyrone Hayes manufactured claims that the weedkiller atrazine 'turned frogs gay', in his parlance, the claim set off a new review, but in both cases it led to nothing.- 18 regulatory and risk agencies reassessed it to see if epidemiologists had found something the entire world of science had missed and came up with nothing.
Credit: Genetic Literacy Project
Not even in ban-happy Europe, where environmental groups get government funding to lobby government to ban science.
Worse, a Reuters investigation into the bizarre conclusion exposed that the agency was going to be forced to declare it non-carcinogenic for only the second time in its history - IARC generally only exists to link things to a cancer hazard but then put out press releases talking about risk - until discredited activist Chris Portier intervened. It was later revealed in discovery that he had signed a contract to help a lawfirm sue over glyphosate before the IARC review was completed.
Anti-science activists always push alternatives to what works - solar power instead of natural gas, which they once insisted was better than coal, toxic organic certified copper sulfate instead of less environmentally strenuous modern products - but only Sri Lanka was misguided enough to actually believe rich white environmentalists. And their whole country nearly collapsed within three months of implementing their ban on science.
Sri Lanka declared 'organic only' and soon government soldiers were kicking in the doors of homes of people they believed were hoarding food, black market sales were rampant, and the poorest were starving, which led to riots.
IARC is corrupt and when Chris Wild was forced to step down they had the opportunity to reset by bringing in someone from outside the anti-science cabal - instead, they chose someone literally as Old Guard as it s gets; the wife of a long-time activist in their ranks. Unfortunately, states like California are forced to obey IARC claims. It is why the state is forced to carry 'cancer warning' labels on nearly 100,000 products - something so bizarre even European tourists think the state is inhabited by the world's stupidest people.
Europe recently had the same trauma. Russia counted on the fact that Europe would not stand up to them in Ukraine because Europe pivoted to solar power and organic food - all while sending giant amounts of money to Russia for food and conventional energy - and it worked. All Europe has been willing to do is send ambulances. Germany even steamrolled environmental laws and approved a pipeline that went around Ukraine, straight from Russia, before international outcry at their double-dealing called it off.
Anti-science activists don't care about people or the environment. They only care about new ways to generate wealth and bans on products they oppose. When it comes to GMOs, natural gas, hydroelectric, and ethanol, they will even lobby for them until they are approved - and then want to ban them.
Comments