Robert Tarone

Mathematical statistician. Conservative. Skeptical. Vietnam veteran (Army medic). Emigrated from California over 5 decades ago. Terribly strange to be 70.

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@simonmaechling Case in point.

https://t.co/lJvDIwhewA

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@FUDHelpdesk @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury https://t.co/GWwKxxxM7u

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@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.

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@FUDHelpdesk @ACSHorg @Rep_Stansbury What IARC did was not science.

https://t.co/1e4EdR5xpO

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@ACSHorg @FUDHelpdesk @Rep_Stansbury https://t.co/1e4EdR5xpO

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@EddieRDMD @_atanas_ https://t.co/lJvDIwhewA

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@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.

https://t.co/1e4EdR5xpO

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

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

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

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

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

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

[The Risk-Monger @zaruk]

The film, "Monsanto", will likely be a tragic comedy showing how the US litigation industry is full of vain creatures willing to pay to produce films they themselves (or their family members) wrote about things they did almost a decade ago.
Sad...

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@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.

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@simonmaechling @zaruk https://t.co/vH9OGm64Ws

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@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.

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

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

[THE FIREBREAK @the_firebreak]

Nathan Schachtman's publication, #IARCsPrecautionaryScience puts the cancer agency under the microscope.
@zaruk reviews the book, the failed science, special interests, non-transparency and links to the US litigation industry.
Conclusion: Shut IARC down.
https://t.co/SvdjvJd19T

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

Superb post by @zaruk. Hazard versus Risk explains many of IARC’s gifts to US predatorts, but glyphosate does not satisfy the IARC criteria for a cancer hazard. As the ECHA hazard assessment (more comprehensive and open than IARC’s) concluded, glyphosate is not a cancer hazard.

[The Risk-Monger @zaruk]

Why have I been getting so involved in the tobacco harm reduction debate? Have I given up on glyphosate, chemicals and plastics?
Far from it.
My latest piece shows how these issues are about the same things: zealots, poor science and bad risk management.
https://t.co/9ztVTnWIP7

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@zaruk Nailed it as usual David. If the IARC Monographs Program was a scientific enterprise both the glyphosate and the talc classifications would be retracted. The fact that this corrupt agency has oversized influence on US litigation is disgraceful.

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@simonmaechling Like Zaruk, Nathan Schachtman has been writing about the corrupt IARC Monographs Program for some time. His latest is superb and comprehensive.

https://t.co/dZ4xzRMt6N

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

IARC’s Precautionary Science:  How the WHO Cancer Research Agency Misinforms Regulation and Litigation https://t.co/dZ4xzRMt6N

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

On the incongruous exemption of the predatort litigation industry from activist concerns about industrial conflicts of interest.

[The Risk-Monger @zaruk]

Behind many high profile academic paper retractions, we find the litigation industry pulling the strings.
What if the papers supporting Predatort interests were retracted following the same standards.
My latest explains why such integrity isn't possible.
https://t.co/FKRJ1Jxups

[Robert Tarone @RobertTarone]

@cremieuxrecueil @camjenglish Even at insane high doses the rodent studies can only be misinterpreted to claim apparent glyphosate carcinogenicity by using inappropriate approximate statistical methods and by excluding exculpatory evidence.

Any plans to publish NHANES results in a scientific journal?