[dmix]

It’s not a paper of original research but a meta analysis of various other scientist’s research which they selectively edited out the papers and science that didn’t support the agenda they had pre-determined. This was the description of the report that was originally given:

>> A Working Group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) on 3-10 March 2015 to review the available published scientific evidence and evaluate the carcinogenicity of five organophosphate insecticides and herbicides: diazinon, glyphosate, malathion, parathion, and tetrachlorvinphos.

https://www.iarc.fr/featured-news/media-centre-iarc-news-gly...

The article said they added their own statistical analysis that wasn’t supported by the data they originally included:

> In one instance, a fresh statistical analysis was inserted - effectively reversing the original finding of a study being reviewed by IARC.

[dzhiurgis]

PSA: IARC haven’t found a single thing thats is definitely not carcinogenic and lists shit like radio waves or tumble driers as possibly carcinogenic.

IARC are bunch of lunatics.

[sampo]

Caprolactam used to be the the only chemical IARC had ever classified in their group 4 "probably not carcinogenic to humans" [1] but in 2019 they moved it to group 3 [2].

[1] https://publications.iarc.fr/_publications/media/download/22...

[2] https://monographs.iarc.fr/list-of-classifications/

[wang_li]

It's a different kind of regulatory capture. Same thing has happened to the EPA.

[wizzwizz4]

It wasn't supported by the conclusions they originally included. That doesn't mean the data didn't support it (although that might also be true – I don't know).

[modmans2nd]

Sounds like the most garbage meta analysis in the history of science.