One RT article I can agree with.

Rockstar · 05-08-17, 09:46 AM

https://www.rt.com/usa/386858-monsan...-trolls-court/

Biotech giant Monsanto is being accused of hiring, through third parties, an army of Internet trolls to counter negative comments, while citing positive “ghost-written” pseudo-scientific reports which downplay the potential risks of their products.
The documents emerged during pre-trials on 50 lawsuits against Monsanto which were pending in the US District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs allege that exposure to the biotech giant’s flagship product, the herbicide Roundup, caused them or their relatives to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, while Monsanto concealed the potential risks.

In March, a judge ruled, despite Monsanto’s objections, that the documents obtained by the plaintiffs could be released. The court papers are being gathered at the website of food-safety whistleblower organization US Right to Know.

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...mono112-09.pdf

6.1 Cancer in humans
There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diazinon. A positive association has been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, and cancer of the lung.
6.2 Cancer in experimental animals
ere is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of diazinon.
6.3 Overall evaluation
Diazinon is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A).

In layman's terms they're saying:

1. The epidemiological evidence, limited as it is (by system-imposed funding constraints, I might add), indicates glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans.

2. Lab tests on mammals sufficiently establish that it does cause cancer in mammals.

Combining (1) and (2), and in light of the fact that it’s not ethically possible to perform a lab test on human subjects, they conclude that within the limits of science, the evidence is that glyphosate “probably” (a term of art) causes cancer in humans. The lab evidence is already sufficient, and they’re confident that better epidemiological study would reinforce and confirm the existing “limited” evidence.

Same company that brought you Agent Orange and said there was nothing to worry about.

05-08-17, 09:46 AM	#1
Rockstar In the Brig Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Zendia Bar & Grill Posts: 12,614 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	One RT article I can agree with. https://www.rt.com/usa/386858-monsan...-trolls-court/ Biotech giant Monsanto is being accused of hiring, through third parties, an army of Internet trolls to counter negative comments, while citing positive “ghost-written” pseudo-scientific reports which downplay the potential risks of their products. The documents emerged during pre-trials on 50 lawsuits against Monsanto which were pending in the US District Court in San Francisco. The plaintiffs allege that exposure to the biotech giant’s flagship product, the herbicide Roundup, caused them or their relatives to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma, while Monsanto concealed the potential risks. In March, a judge ruled, despite Monsanto’s objections, that the documents obtained by the plaintiffs could be released. The court papers are being gathered at the website of food-safety whistleblower organization US Right to Know. http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monogr...mono112-09.pdf 6.1 Cancer in humans There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of diazinon. A positive association has been observed for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, leukaemia, and cancer of the lung. 6.2 Cancer in experimental animals ere is limited evidence in experimental animals for the carcinogenicity of diazinon. 6.3 Overall evaluation Diazinon is probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A). In layman's terms they're saying: 1. The epidemiological evidence, limited as it is (by system-imposed funding constraints, I might add), indicates glyphosate probably causes cancer in humans. 2. Lab tests on mammals sufficiently establish that it does cause cancer in mammals. Combining (1) and (2), and in light of the fact that it’s not ethically possible to perform a lab test on human subjects, they conclude that within the limits of science, the evidence is that glyphosate “probably” (a term of art) causes cancer in humans. The lab evidence is already sufficient, and they’re confident that better epidemiological study would reinforce and confirm the existing “limited” evidence. Same company that brought you Agent Orange and said there was nothing to worry about.