CAPHR

The Campaign for Accuracy in Public Health Research is an initiative to promote credible, unbiased & transparent science as the basis of public policy decisions

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

The IARC carcinogenicity classification for Toluene Diisocyanate is based on an unrealistic exposure scenario and is not reflective of scientific consensus: https://t.co/z6NylkA6lF

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC frequently ignores the professional conclusions of well-regarded scientists. Read more: https://t.co/dHp4Mv0gJs

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

World regulatory bodies have evaluated #glyphosate and agree that it is safe. Learn more: https://t.co/cKBPKqyJ5k

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Learn how the latest ruling on coffee shows the widespread impact that IARC’s Monographs have on both policy and American consumers: https://t.co/OIAmAiXSP5

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Relying on a handful of isolated findings is not how scientists consider the “weight of the evidence.” Learn more: https://t.co/VMnexIV1Tj

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Studies of cell phones have consistently demonstrated that radiofrequency does not pose a health risk. Learn more: https://t.co/xn2PQ8Rgrh

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC’s 25 member states each pay between $750,000 and $1.5 million a year. Read more: https://t.co/m9e7vvv5it

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC’s treatment of coffee provides another example of the urgent need to reform both the agency’s Monographs Program and its processes: https://t.co/NCVVvDYGc2

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

There is no convincing scientific evidence that radiofrequency radiation causes any adverse health effects, especially at levels emitted by devices such as cell phones: https://t.co/90zxADh4l4

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Despite IARC’s reclassification of coffee from “probably carcinogenic to humans” to “unclassifiable as to carcinogenicity to humans,” coffee is under fire by CA regulators as a result the organization’s controversial classification system: https://t.co/yHRRDU1TcA

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Though IARC uses the word “risk” in its monograph titles, it does not consider the actual risk of developing cancer based on exposure under real world circumstances: https://t.co/YywlNhvFLA

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC goes to great lengths to keep its Monographs process and the justifications for its conclusions a secret: https://t.co/H3SgTBf3p1

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC has developed a reputation for cherry picking studies when evaluating a potential cancer hazard: https://t.co/TESpPGYvet

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC must make key improvements to its Monographs Program to enhance the credibility and utility of its findings and prevent further public misunderstanding of its conclusions: https://t.co/eaxEtsxU7s

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Monograph participants are required to sign a confidentiality agreement promising not to disclose information about IARC’s deliberations: https://t.co/aIofhoDWyw

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

The IARC carcinogenicity classification for Toluene Diisocyanateis based solely on one conceptually and technically flawed study performed over 30 years ago by the National Toxicology Program: https://t.co/wPJ5azQfI2

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC’s identification of substances as carcinogens must no longer ignore the essential elements of dose and exposure: https://t.co/WME0gtAwcp

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC’s classification of radiofrequency from cell phones as “possibly carcinogenic” is a prime example of the agency’s outdated and faulty process: https://t.co/IGw267HS5S

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

Hazard and risk are often used interchangeably, but there is a significant and meaningful difference between the two terms: https://t.co/Ugt3ZKT8xD

[CAPHR @The_CAPHR]

IARC activities are not funded by WHO, but by regular budget contributions paid by its 25 participating states: https://t.co/keRlBJypt9