In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#2Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#3This is sort of off-topic, but I've been getting strange ads about glyphosate not causing cancer disguised as news articles from Twitter and Reddit, presumably sponsored by Monsanto. (I don't have a strong stance of glyphosate at all).
Searching around, looks like other people have encountered this as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/8giwc1/why_ar...
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#4I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry:
> IARC did not respond to questions about the alterations. It said the draft was “confidential” and “deliberative in nature.” After Reuters asked about the changes, the agency posted a statement on its website advising the scientists who participate in its working groups “not to feel pressured to discuss their deliberations” outside the confines of IARC.
I would like to know which scientists are involved here and putting their name on such work.
If glyposphate is actually bad this will only help Monsanto in denials and help them discredit their adversaries. Which means these manipulations is the report will completely backfire for the activists instead of helping the cause.
Edit: I see this is from 2017, I wonder what has happened since.
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#5I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: >…
I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here.
My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#6I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: >…
I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here. My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...
I’m sure there are plenty of environmental people who want to get rid of glyphosate and other massively popular chemicals used in industrial farming. But you’re right it could be some competitor or monetary influence - besides maybe the incentives within WHO and IARC themselves getting a whole lot of attention and influence from presenting a very damaging report instead of a mixed one.
Maybe it allowed some of them to become “expert witnesses” at major multi million dollar trials and compensated well by the law firms, who knows.
Or it could be as insignificant as some people trying to make their job seemingly important and justified sort of thing. An inconclusive report doesn’t get headlines.
Either way the organization owes the world a better explanation.
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#7(2017)
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#8Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.
Many of the studies were likely funded by Monsanto, so it's predictable that they would be biased. So doing independent analysis would be wise. But then, it's also possible that some of the WHO staff or consultants were biased.
Someone would need to look at the original studies and work done for the WHO report. That'd be a lot of work. And it'd be hard to find anyone that both sides would trust.
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#9Re-analysing the data, it's conceivable that they genuinely found a link, and that the papers' original authors were fudging the stats. But I don't know how to find out whether this is true.
It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the description of the report that was originally given:
>> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos.
https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly...
The article said they added their own statistical analysis that wasn’t supported by the data they originally included:
> In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.
Re: In glyphosate review, WHO agency edited out “non-carcinogenic” findings (2017)
#10I’m guessing some internal activists changed it because they predetermined it was going to be a bad anti-round up report and didn’t want to muddy the conclusion with evidence contradicting it. Politics seemingly trumped science at the org, that’s a really bad look for WHO and their response is total insufficient to explain these anomalies considering the massive implications it’s having in court rooms and industry: >…
I'm not too sure I buy your use of the word "obviously" here. My normal spider-sense of "follow the money" seems to find no obvious path. Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this. I'd like to know who benefits and why...
> Internal activists is a fairly novel concept - at least activists with the power to make changes like this.
There's nothing novel about activism in organisations like the WHO, nor in the media which report on the activities of these organisations. It is actually quite hard to find truly objective studies which are not tainted by people-with-a-cause (political or otherwise) on the one side, people-with-financial-interests on the other.