Maybe people have already made up their minds because they are thinking people who do their research. I always wondered how realistic it is to expect a bunch of people to be unbiased in evaluating evidence during a trial, when they have been living in an information vacuum. Makes one wonder if they have any brain cells.
For what it's worth, IMO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is untrustworthy, because it is an arm of an untrustworthy global entity (WHO), which wanted vaccine passports and total control of otherwise sovereign pandemic responses. Decades ago, IARC declared that saccharine was a probable/possible human carcinogen. The non-nutritive sweeteners that replaced it were worse (e.g., aspartame). Later, IARC, wrote "Oops, my bad! Never mind." (words to that effect) and removed saccharine from that "naughty list." As a longtime diet soda drinker who had to give them up after saccharine was no longer allowed, I've thought of IARC as an untrustworthy organization ever since.
I understand why you’d discredit the work of any agency linked to the WHO, for sure. There are many, many other sources that point to the same information, however.
I don’t know if you’ve seen our discussion with Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology? He gives some very compelling correlational evidence comparing the rise in incidence of a variety of diseases alongside the use of glyphosate in major crops.
I can see glyphosate being considered a military asset. We could have a discussion about its suitability for use in day to day agriculture but it would be pretty critical for military use. You have to look at the safety of things in the context of what they replace. It is unquestionably a better solution over things like paraquat, agent orange, and the like that it replaced.
Maybe people have already made up their minds because they are thinking people who do their research. I always wondered how realistic it is to expect a bunch of people to be unbiased in evaluating evidence during a trial, when they have been living in an information vacuum. Makes one wonder if they have any brain cells.
I'll take a look but hopefully, there are links to actual studies. I'd rather read the source material myself. Thanks.
For what it's worth, IMO, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) is untrustworthy, because it is an arm of an untrustworthy global entity (WHO), which wanted vaccine passports and total control of otherwise sovereign pandemic responses. Decades ago, IARC declared that saccharine was a probable/possible human carcinogen. The non-nutritive sweeteners that replaced it were worse (e.g., aspartame). Later, IARC, wrote "Oops, my bad! Never mind." (words to that effect) and removed saccharine from that "naughty list." As a longtime diet soda drinker who had to give them up after saccharine was no longer allowed, I've thought of IARC as an untrustworthy organization ever since.
I understand why you’d discredit the work of any agency linked to the WHO, for sure. There are many, many other sources that point to the same information, however.
I don’t know if you’ve seen our discussion with Jeffrey Smith of the Institute for Responsible Technology? He gives some very compelling correlational evidence comparing the rise in incidence of a variety of diseases alongside the use of glyphosate in major crops.
https://www.collapselife.com/p/jeffrey-smith-gmos-glyphosate-gene-editing
> San Francisco once worshipped tech founders. Now, it convicts them before the trial even begins.
Both of those desires are maladaptive. Where are the healthy views of people and technology?
I can see glyphosate being considered a military asset. We could have a discussion about its suitability for use in day to day agriculture but it would be pretty critical for military use. You have to look at the safety of things in the context of what they replace. It is unquestionably a better solution over things like paraquat, agent orange, and the like that it replaced.
It is really weird…. The whole weird story is weird.