Robert Tarone

@zaruk You have been at the forefront in exposing the corrupt relationship between the IARC Monographs Program and predatory US tort lawyers, so your kind words are much appreciated.

@RobertTarone The scientific world needs more people like you Bob with the courage to stand up to IARC's coordinated onslaughts.

I don't get J&J. They had the Predatorts hanging, with a series of losses and no scientific evidence. They won the talc extortion campaign. They could have bankrupted the bastards given how leveraged they are to the litigation finance loan sharks. Then they settled for $5 billion

@30ASeawitch Also IARC wlf.org/wp-content/upl…

IARC

@30ASeawitch And their Ramazzini friends. open.substack.com/pub/thefirebre…

@zaruk And it will continue to be protected until the fraudulent IARC classification is retracted.

In looking up some details for an article to come out tomorrow, I found research from 6 years ago on the glyphosate extortion racket. The Big Lie, that glyphosate caused the cancer in 100s of thousands of lawsuits, has been protected for 6 years. Stunning! risk-monger.com/2020/01/08/sli…

@nutrition_facts The IARC glyphosate classification differs from other conclusions about glyphosate worldwide because it is scientifically and procedurally flawed. thefirebreak.org/p/flaws-in-iar…

If glyphosate was deemed “probably carcinogenic,” why did regulators still approve its use? see.nf/4n5ps6A

@simonmaechling Case in point. open.substack.com/pub/thefirebre…

Strange how people dismiss regulatory studies because industry paid for them, but rarely ask who funded the academic/NGO study they're citing. One was required by law, conducted under standardized protocols, and reviewed by regulators. The other was whatever the sponsor decided to fund. See the difference?

@FUDHelpdesk @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury wlf.org/wp-content/upl…

Fair point on the IARC criteria. Limited evidence shouldn’t be stretched into “probable carcinogen.” But separate from classification, there’s still a public-risk question: when exposure is widespread and the evidence is unsettled, shouldn’t precaution matter more than industry comfort?

The stakes could not be higher—as the Admin has turned MAHA into a platform for cuts, corruption, and corporate giveaways. The consequences are real. And, Americans are paying the price. ⬇️

@FUDHelpdesk @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury Whether there is even limited evidence of glyphosate’s potential carcinogenicity is arguable, but limited evidence does not meet IARC’s criteria for a probable human carcinogen. The erroneous IARC classification should be retracted.

@RobertTarone @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury I see the critique but that doesn't invalidate the claim that it may cause cancer. Limited evidence is still evidence.

@FUDHelpdesk @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury What IARC did was not science. thefirebreak.org/p/flaws-in-iar…

@ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury This is advocacy dressed up as certainty. The honest statement is: regulators disagree, IARC found a probable carcinogenic hazard, and studies have shown an NHL signal. “Doesn’t cause cancer” is not science.

@ACSHorg @FUDHelpdesk @Rep_Stansbury thefirebreak.org/p/flaws-in-iar…

@FUDHelpdesk @Rep_Stansbury IARC is not a regulator, and its conclusion was based on a distorted analysis of the available data. @RobertTarone has documented this carefully.

@EddieRDMD @_atanas_ open.substack.com/pub/thefirebre…

BMC Journal: ~50% of cancer deaths in glyphosate-exposed rats before age 1 (human equiv. ~35). Caused 6/10 top rat cancers. Glyphosate, in Monsanto's RoundUp, is world's top herbicide. IARC 2A: "probably carcinogenic to humans." Journal: ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11… @_atanas_

@OldTBarRanch @benryanwriter Lots of disinformation online, particularly from anti-GMO and anti-pesticide activists. The IARC classification and California’s Proposition 65 gave rise to the onslaught of frivolous Roundup litigation. thefirebreak.org/p/flaws-in-iar…

@RobertTarone @benryanwriter Ok… time to refresh my knowledge

NEWS: The Supreme Court just gutted the central legal theory behind tens of thousands of Roundup cancer lawsuits. In a 7-2 ruling in Monsanto v. Durnell, the justices held that federal pesticide law preempts state "failure-to-warn" claims, meaning a jury can't punish Bayer-owned Monsanto for selling Roundup without a cancer warning on the label. The reasoning: The EPA has repeatedly found that glyphosate, Roundup's active ingredient, is not likely to cause cancer, and has never required a warning. Because federal law locks in the EPA-approved label, the Court said states can't use tort verdicts to force a different one. The stakes are enormous. The decision unravels the theory underpinning a flood of suits from people who blame Roundup for their non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. John Durnell, who won $1.25 million after two decades of use, loses his verdict. Justice Kavanaugh wrote for the majority, joined by the chief justice, Thomas, Alito, Barrett, and, crossing ideological lines, Sotomayor and Kagan. The dissent scrambled the alignment further: Justice Jackson, joined by the conservative Gorsuch, charged that the majority broke from the near-unanimous view of the lower courts and leaves Durnell "without a remedy for the significant harms he has suffered." It's a landmark victory for Bayer, which has spent years trying to cap its Roundup liability — and a heavy blow to plaintiffs who say the company escaped accountability for a danger they insist regulators got wrong.

@OldTBarRanch @benryanwriter Not disingenuous. US Roundup litigation is all based on the fraudulent IARC classification of glyphosate (alone) as a probable human carcinogen.

@benryanwriter This seems disingenuous. AFAIK the cancer cause isn't glyphosate but the brew of adjuvants that get the glyphosate into the plant. And you absolutely cannot purchase straight glyphosate so there is no choice. Its like selling wholesome orange juice ... but only with vodka.

@simonmaechling As argued in “Getting Risk Right” by @GeoKabat.

If five decades of research can’t prove something is "probably" carcinogenic, it probably isn’t.

Apparently there have not yet been enough documentaries and films celebrating the heroic tort lawyers involved in frivolous Roundup litigation. Zaruk nails it again.

@zaruk Superb analysis as usual. I fear, however, that the problem goes well beyond the IARC-Ramazzini axis. It is shocking that the wider environmental science community has allowed the fraudulent IARC glyphosate classification to stand uncorrected for over 11 years.

For a decade, I've been claiming that IARC is corrupted, uses a bad methodology, not scientific, run by special interests and Predatorts. It often felt like no one listened. Was I the crazy one? This week I learnt I wasn't. But where did IARC finally lose the plot? My assessment.

@simonmaechling @zaruk thefirebreak.org/p/flaws-in-iar…

@RobertTarone @zaruk I wish I knew the answer.

10 years too late but the US government now identifies IARC as a rogue research institution and conclude their monographs have no value They also need to deny public funding to all Ramazzini fellows (next step). I think they read Nathan Schachtman's paper! state.gov/releases/offic…

@simonmaechling @zaruk When are Bayer scientists/lawyers going to seriously challenge the use of the IARC glyphosate classification to justify the frivolous US Roundup litigation? The IARC glyphosate evaluation should fail any rigorous trial within a trial and thus be excluded as evidence of harm.

@zaruk Interesting, thanks

Zaruk’s “Firebreak” and Schachtman’s “Tortini” are must reads for anyone concerned about the current dismal state of environmental science.