Author Topic: Bad Precedent  (Read 449 times)

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63286
  • Gender: Male
Bad Precedent
« on: September 07, 2018, 05:56:18 AM »
This should be against the law, this is not science.

Carcinogenic junk science is finding its way into the courtroom

When jurors hear cases, they reasonably expect that they are presented only with reliable scientific information to support their deliberations. Regrettably, this is often not the case. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that one of the worst examples of “junk science” that finds its way into our courts is being funded by American taxpayers.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer, or IARC, supported by the National Institutes of Health, issued a report concluding that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is carcinogenic. That report became the basis for a San Francisco jury entering a $289 million jury award against Monsanto. And the essential evidence in this case – the IARC report – contradicts more than 800 scientific studies, including analyses by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the NIH.

Closer scrutiny of the IARC process reveals advisement by an “invited specialist,” Christopher Portier, in its work on glyphosate. At the same time Portier worked for the agency, he was paid by the Environmental Defense Fund, an anti-pesticide group. Moreover, Portier received $160,000 from law firms suing over glyphosate. When asked about this potential conflict of interest, Portier claimed to be advising the law firms on other IARC-related lawsuits, not the glyphosate litigation from which they stood to benefit. He then later acknowledged his statement was wrong. It is also worth noting that Portier had no experience with glyphosate prior to his work for IARC.

The U.S. House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, which has stated the IARC finding on glyphosate is an “affront to scientific integrity that bred distrust and confusion,” requested that (now former) IARC Director Christopher Wild appear before the Committee. Wild refused to testify, and his successor, Elizabete Weiderpass, has not responded.

American taxpayers expect that entities receiving federal funding are accountable to Congress. If IARC responds to Congress, it would be worth exploring how Portier, with no glyphosate experience, was chosen by IARC as a specialist on the substance.

The problem of junk science in litigation is not confined to IARC. In Minnesota, 3M disposed of perfluorocarbons, or PFC, as allowable under state law. Minnesota’s Attorney General Lori Swanson, however, sued the company for groundwater contamination, even though the state Health Department had declared that “there are no unusual occurrences of adverse birth outcomes or cancer occurrences that could plausibly be related to PFC exposure.”

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/op-eds/carcinogenic-junk-science-is-finding-its-way-into-the-courtroom
#WWG1WGA

Offline T Hunt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 504
  • I love Conservative Political Forum!
Re: Bad Precedent
« Reply #1 on: September 07, 2018, 10:55:32 AM »
The entire enviromental movement is based on junk science

Online Solar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63286
  • Gender: Male
Re: Bad Precedent
« Reply #2 on: September 07, 2018, 11:04:53 AM »
The entire enviromental movement is based on junk science
Exactly! And now they're advertising for victims to come forward for a cash reward?
What next, linking sugar to autism? That should pull in the bucks. These people Suck!
#WWG1WGA

Offline Rotwang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 833
Re: Bad Precedent
« Reply #3 on: September 07, 2018, 06:05:38 PM »
The entire enviromental movement is based on junk science


BUT - think of the CHILDREN !

 

Powered by EzPortal