In article , (Bill Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
paghat wrote:
In article , (Bill
Oliver) wrote:

In article ,
Henry Kuska wrote:
billo said: In fact, there are protocols
for making the inference that "Henry" claims; under *those* protocols,
Roundup was shown to be not dangerous when used as directed.


billo

H. Kuska reply: Please provide the references

Henry Kuska, retired

http://home.neo.rr.com/kuska/

See Henry, wha'd I tell ya. His favorite article from Ian Munro, a hired
gun who has been caught in the past promoting studies known to have been
fraudulant...


Yeah, and the stupid World Health Organization, National Institutes
of Health, Environmental Protection Agency, National Cancer
Institute, etc. All part of that great Monsanto Conspiracy.


billo

Touchy touchy. When you make a decision to be as wrong as you enjoy being,
you should just keep repeating the same three or four basic lies you're so
enamored of, & keep citing & re-citing Monsanto's man Ian Munro as the
only "good" science. But when you reduce yourself to calling your betters
"stupid" over statements you yourself cooked up from scratch, well,
you'll barely even convince your personal choir if you keep that up.

You list in your alleged "conspiracy" FOR Monsanto some of the same
organizations you've previously deplored for releasing non-peer-reviewed
warnings against Monsanto products, but now suddenly you dream up new
positions for all of them! Although Monsanto still distributes a 1994
W.H.O. statement that glyphosate is not a proven carcinogenic, WHO has
published warnings against RoundUp for other reasons, & are not even any
longer repeating that it is not a carcinogen, leaving that open due to the
most recent evidence. You (like Monsanto) may LOVE what WHO said ten years
ago, but have to overlook what they've said since. And what WHO presently
says is that acrylamide & polyacrylamide neurotoxic pollution of the food
chain is already a very real health hazard (Weis, Science 27, 2002). These
pollutants are reaching the environment almost exclusively from additives
in RoundUp that are supposed to reduce the also-serious problem of "drift"
(such as has killed century-old hedges along the English countryside).
These pollutants are finding their way into tubrous vegatables & in
fruits, further assisted by the RoundUp surficant in penetrating plant
cells [Smith, Ecotoxicol. Env.35, 1996; 37, 1997; Leonard, J.
Chromatographic Sci 37, 1999]. Now it is true that WHO in their first
published article felt it political expedient to not mention Monsanto by
name when warning against the Monsanto chemicals in RoundUp, & this
"oversight" was spun out into a scandal by people annoyed that they
skipped that chance to point the finger in the only direction feasible. It
remains, WHO is now spreading warnings against the use of chemicals
dispersed into the environment in the Monsanto product, & they are calling
it a dangerous neurotoxin.

RoundUp additives as deadly neurotoxins in the foodchain pretty much
outweighs WHO's studies that showed nothing more than this: if people &
animals eat a lot of glyphosate-tolerant GM crops, they won't drop dead --
that's what Monsanto likes to hear, but it's not much of an endorsement.
What WHO is saying more clearly about RoundUp Ready crops is that they do
indeed result in super-weeds, & almost every month WHO's profound
scepticism about RoundUp Ready crops increases over the bases of
neurotoxic additives reaching the foodchain & weeds becoming superweeds.
WHO have furthermore blasted Monsanto very confrontationally about the
milk-modifying products -- both for Monsanto lying about the amount of
hormone still in the milk, & the beef & milk being in general unsafe. WHO
has even implicated Monsanto's rBGH in Mad Cow Disease because of hormone
injections increasing cattle susceptibility. In the very near future the
USA may be the ONLY country left that does not warn consumers about rBGH
contaminating beef & milk -- & WHO is really ****ing off Monsanto for
having come down on the right side of this issue. So while WHO has done a
few things that got them a bit of backlash & embarrassment for walking
"too carefully" around Monsanto's justly hurt feelings, overall, no, WHO
is NOT your personal Monsanto-lovin' buddy.

And EPA's in on your alleged conspiracy to assist Monsanto? Their
recurring investigations & chastisements of Monsanto for inventing
statistics & fabricating studies doesn't make EPA Monsanto's best buddy
either, though hiring people out of EPA into giant-salery jobs, & buying
off Congress to restrict EPA from action, doesn't make EPA quite the
watchdog they should be until we get out from under the current Republican
big-corporation preferences. So again, you may selectively find EPA
letting Monsanto get away with murder (literally) here & there, but in
total, many at the EPA deplore the harm Monsanto persists in doing, & do
not trust Monsanto to provide research findings that isn't phony.

But oh yes, the National Cancer Institute -- I notice you don't say
National Cancer Society which is independent of Monsanto. I still think
your allegation of "Conspiracy" doesn't apply when Monsanto is so proud &
publicity-happy about their take-over of the NCI. They built NCI's City
of Hope institute then placed it under the control their own Monsanto
employee, Michael Friedman (senior Vice President of Clinical Affairs for
Monsanto, as well as National Cancer Institute chief of clinical
investigation), assisted by another Monsanto vice-president, Philip
Needleman -- all to make sure NCI research remains "Monsanto-appropriate"
So yes, you can find NCI claiming the decaying byproduct of RoundUp,
formeldehyde, does not cause cancer no matter how great the evidence that
it is, & other Monsanto-serving nonsense generated in a Monsanto-built lab
run by Monsanto-appointed researchers & officers. Oh yes, Friedman is a
piece of work, & you're quite right to charge him with serving exclusively
Monsanto/Searl/Merkh/Dupont interests, but it's not a Conspiracy because
that implies secrecity, & NCI is very up-front about serving Monsanto &
Merkh foremost. But what happened back when it was NCI that first
publicized the fact that Monsanto is directly responsible for the increase
of non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma in America? Oh right, that was before Monsanto
built the new lab & put their own man in charge -- back when NCI told
Congress that non-Hodgson lymphoma was six times higher in Anniston than
nationally, thanks entirely to Monsanto, which has done nothng to this day
to correct the Anniston problem except tell the people not to go outside
in their own yards.

Even now though, we can look to the National Cancer SOCIETY for a bit more
independence. NCS has been warning against glyphosate-contaminated
chicken, cattle, hog, & goat meats, plus eggs & soybean products, since
1996. They have warned since 1992 that Monsanto pesticide & herbicide
(including trimethylsulfonium salt of glyphosate) has been implicated in
non-Hodgson's lymphoma.

You can call the facts a "conspiracy theory" until the cows come home, but
the truth is the truth. Glyphosate & other Monsanto products get a clean
bill of health when Monsanto pays for or personally orchestrates the study
-- that's self-interest, not conspiracy. Studies independent of Monsanto,
devoid of self-interest, provide a much more mixed picture, one that
generally warns of sundry dangers ranging from probable to definite. And
what they have to say about Monsanto's milk-contaminating hormones really
ain't pritty.

So keep on bleeting "Ecofundies!" and "Conspiracy theories!" -- that may
indeed, in the end, be your only possible tactic, having by now run your
favorite Ian Munro bullshit "science" further than it ever reached.

-paghat the ratgirl

--
"Of what are you afraid, my child?" inquired the kindly teacher.
"Oh, sir! The flowers, they are wild," replied the timid creature.
-from Peter Newell's "Wild Flowers"
See the Garden of Paghat the Ratgirl: http://www.paghat.com/