The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a non-profit with an agenda to shine “a spotlight on outdated legislation, harmful agricultural practices, and industry loopholes.” Like others in the scientific “scare space,” they believe that BIG government regulations are evil, biased by BIG business; their equally biased special interest regulations are “better.”  Their latest white paper consists of guidelines for radiofrequency radiation, done by their staff, accepted by a peer-reviewed journal based on a study done by the US Dept. of Health and Human Service’s (DHHS) National Toxicology Program. [1]

I have asked two of our scientific advisors Dr. Karam and Susan Goldhaber, to comment on the EWG report, which we will do in a four-part series over the next week. Before I turn the...

The Conversation bills itself as a website designed to “Unlock the knowledge of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.” Their science commentary is generally very good, and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it to anyone—at least I wouldn't have hesitated until I read this article: While debate rages over glyphosate-based herbicides, farmers are spraying them all over the world.

As the title suggests, the authors depicted glyphosate as a potentially deadly weedkiller, wantonly overused by farmers with little oversight...

But what happens if the cancer does not fall into one of the two known causes of cancer, heredity or the environmental/lifestyle factors? Until recently, people were left with no answers; many were racked with guilt over what they could have done differently to prevent cancer.    

Bad Luck Theory

In 2015, the scientific world was shaken by a study based on cutting-edge information on the number of stem cell divisions in human organs. Information only then possible due to knowledge from the Human Genome Project when scientists mapped all of the genes of the human genome. The authors said a third factor explained cancer-causing mutations: random mutations (or mistakes) arising during DNA...

Despite the allegations of greedy trial lawyers and greedy, ideological activist groups, a massive body of peer-reviewed research has confirmed that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Bayer's Roundup weed killer, poses minimal risk to human health and the environment. And the evidence continues to roll in.

The European Union's (EU) Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG) has just released an 11,000-page report yet again showing that the popular herbicide is safe when used as directed. The reviewers considered glyphosate's potential germ cell mutagenicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive toxicity, specific target organ toxicity (STOT), endocrine-disrupting effects, and environmental...

This is not a new issue. In fact, the ACSH has published numerous articles on this over the years, beginning in 2017. [1] Currently, there is no transparent review process for the assessments of the IARC Monographs program, even when there is clear counter-evidence from many other respected organizations.  This resulted in the IARC assessment of glyphosate as the central document in billions of dollars of litigation that ultimately resulted in an $11 billion settlement in 2020 that resolved the bulk of the lawsuits claiming that Roundup (glyphosate) caused cancer.  

I hope that we are finally at a place when a few influential scientists with integrity will have the courage to speak out and demand that the 2015 IARC assessment of glyphosate be retracted or revised....

This will mark the fourth article in a little over a week on ivermectin on our website, and we are not alone. In over 30 years of clinical practice, with the exception of hydroxychloroquine, I have never seen a drug and its current off-label use garner so much attention. I have never seen a drug have its own physician-driven advocacy, the FLCCC – the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance.

What is driving the ivermectin push?

In short, it is the same intent that pushed hydroxychloroquine into the headlines, a place where it does not belong. But before you start writing your comments, I am not speaking about the intent described on the Internet, old-school media and their talking heads, or...

The following is the essence of the controversy:

  • IARC has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”
  • The EPA has classified glyphosate as “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” 

How is it possible that two organizations had the same data available and came to opposite conclusions? 

The Process 

The process used to determine whether or not a chemical causes cancer is to examine four types of studies:

  • Epidemiology (human) studies
  • Studies in laboratory animals
  • Genotoxicity studies – the damage to genetic material
  • Exposure studies - how people are exposed to the chemical

There were fundamental...

New York City Council Member Ben Kallos sure knows how to play the game. In his quest to get glyphosate (Roundup) banned from parks and other public spaces, he uses a tried and true method. Simply include the words "children" and "cancer" in the same sentence and bang - news coverage. Say what you will about Kallos' scientific acuity, but you have to hand it to him – he does scare with a flair:

“I’ll take weeds all day long over cancer. I don't know why this is such a big problem.”

Ben Kallos, New York City Council Member 

Personally I don't know of anyone who would prefer cancer to weeds, so in a...

There are many steps in research that, like making-sausage, are rarely viewed. Specifically, the process of collecting data, cleaning up the inconsistencies, standardizing it in some way all to create a “data set,” that is, in turn, analyzed and then discussed. Creating the dataset involves any number of decisions that are not felt necessary to report in the article’s methodology. Those decisions that shape the dataset also shape the analysis. A new study in economics looks at the reproducibility crisis from that viewpoint. The findings can be generalized to other of those softer sciences.

The researchers identified two published articles from reputable journals, with a clear outcome, based on publicly available data that could be easily found. By various means, they recruited...

By Josh Bloom, PhD; Alex Berezow, PhD; Chuck Dinerstein, MD, MBA; and Thom Golab

ACSH was founded in 1978 by a group of scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner named Norman Borlaug, who were fed up with the misinformation being spread in the media in regard to important scientific and health topics, particularly nutrition, toxicology, and chemistry. In other words, ACSH was fighting “fake news” long before the term was invented.

Whenever you speak the truth, this automatically creates enemies. While people say that they want the truth, when confronted with something that goes against their own beliefs or self-interest, they often (metaphorically) shoot the messenger. Today, the most widely used weapons are defamation, character assassination,...