International Agency for Research on Cancer – IARCPosted 7 years ago under Uncategorized
The IARC is an intergovernmental agency formed 50 years ago that is part of the World Health Organization (WHO) which is part of the United Nations, with main offices based in France. Their first members included Germany, France, Italy, Australia, UK, Soviet Union and the United States. Today there are more than two dozen member countries. Their role is to conduct research into cancer-causing agents like formaldehyde, asbestos, glyphosate, tobacco smoke and viruses. IARC also collects and publishes data for cancer statistics worldwide, (2) maintaining monographs on cancer agents, including chemical combinations, such as RoundUp herbicide sold by Monsanto. (3) Not only was the herbicide Roundup implicated in 2015 for containing cancer-causing compound glyphosate, but IARC reported that eating processed meat, bacon, ham, hot dogs and red meat were all linked to certain cancers.
IARC assesses evidence of carcinogenicity and cancer risk from multiple factors
According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer, there are five categories we should all be aware of and filter from our consumption and exposure; those categories include what IS carcinogenic to humans, what is possibly, probably, not carcinogenic, and “probably not” carcinogenic to humans. This is similar to grading chemicals and agents like school papers with A, B, C, D and Fail, except in reverse order, where failing means avoid it at all costs.
The agency has been criticized for this categorization, but for educating the masses about something complicated, it’s good to keep it simple and in laymen’s terms. Critics of IARC also say they are influenced adversely by the “industry” – meaning they could be getting paid off to bury evidence of toxicity of certain products created by Biotech, Big Food or even Big Pharma. (1) Industrial chemicals are of major concern regarding pollution of the air, land, waterways and agriculture especially, and it could be that IARC is “soft pedaling” on certain industrial chemicals, including synthetic pesticides such as herbicides (4), insecticides, fungicides, algaecides, heavy metal toxins (that are not inspected by USDA “Certified” Organic) and more.
2003: Thirty public health scientists draft and sign letter identifying IARC conflicts of interest
Since Wikipedia attempts to deconstruct IARC’s credibility, it is most likely just the opposite, where industry-funded science hacks are trying to hoodwink the public about chemicals they concoct for biotech and agri-business, which makes them small fortunes, especially patenting GMO seeds for corn, soy, canola, cottonseed, sugar beets and the herbicides sold that GM crops are immune to because they contain the same carcinogens. Issues with transparency have also cropped up for IARC, but those too may be credibility “attacks” from industry insiders. The IARC is rather up front and open about prominent human carcinogens, identifying arsenic, acetaldehyde, bisphenol A, ionizing radiation, Epstein–Barr virus, Hepatitis B & C, and HPV-Human Papilloma virus (the only contagious form of cancer known to man).
Watch for Wikipedia lies: Under neoplasms and cancer, Wikipedia gets tricky listing IARC information:
On the same page in Wiki under their definition of IARC, they list tumor suppressing information, tumor markers, neoplasms and cancer symptoms and signs, and then just under that they list for treatment–chemotherapeutics, among other options; however, chemo has only proven to work for an average of 2.3% of the cancer victims who are diagnosed it, and those are miserable odds compared to organic food regimens, hemp seed oil, cannibas oil, alkalizing the body, medicinal mushrooms, juicing, oxygen therapy, and so many other natural cures. This is where the masses are completely mislead and think that chemotherapy chemicals are a viable option for curing cancer or even delaying death, not knowing that chemotherapy often kills cancer patients itself, by causing other cancers in the body to develop, other than the cancer being treated.
Rare Sexually Transmitted HPV cancer scam perpetuated by IARC
Hardly a human dies from human papilloma virus, so why all the fuss? Most people who get it beat it within a couple years by natural immunity, so again, why all the fuss? HPV is a virus and the only communicable form of cancer, and it’s mostly sexually transmitted, still, after all of those facts, the vaccine industry is the US is so powerful and corrupt that they push it on nine year old girls, many of whom haven’t even entered puberty nor sexual activity and shouldn’t even have to get injected with neurotoxins for a rather harmless form of cancer the body beats naturally, if they ever even get it at all anyway.
Still, the IARC thinks because they threw up so many red flags about tobacco use and its health detriment (several decades after doctors and scientists already knew), that they can “reduce” cancer virus cases by injecting young teenage girls (and boys too) that are not even sexually active with known CARCINOGENS that can cause other cancers to develop in the body. Ingredients of the deadly HPV jab called “Gardasil” made by Merck, include: Polysorbate 80, sodium chloride, aluminum, and a “denatured” – fragmented and weakened form of the virus. (5)
Plus, sodium chloride raises blood pressure and inhibits muscle contraction and growth, and aluminum phosphate greatly increases toxicity of mercury, so caution about minimum mercury tolerance is therefore severely underestimated, like when getting flu shots. CDC scientists and all doctors are well aware of this. Why doesn’t the IARC warn about getting a flu shot anytime before getting the HPV vaccine? This is another area where the IARC functions in direct contradiction to its own bragging rights for being “science-based” and “evidence-based” and true “medical science.” (10) (11)
Hypocrisy: Article published in February, 2015 on IARC website promoting multiple doses of toxic HPV vaccines
Though the IARC mission statement says that the IARC Ethics Committee “…has a duty to show leadership in ensuring that its studies are beyond ethical reproach” and that the “… IARC Ethics Committee meets every two months to evaluate IARC project proposals and ensure that the ethics process is respected,” they may need to consider that though the HPV vaccine may help a few people, it is proving to do much more harm than good, so what good is it at all? Vaccine violence has quickly come to the forefront of the medical communities across the US as CDC head scientist whistleblowers talk about the MMR vaccine leading to autism, and now the HPV vaccine has made mass media headlines more than a few times when teenage girls who get the HPV immediately go into anaphylactic shock, have seizures, go blind, fall into comas, and some die after that. (8)
Here is the summary of the published study that led the IARC to promote multiple doses of the toxic HPV: Interim results collected from researchers in national institutions in Germany and India concluded that one dose of HPV vaccine safeguards against “persistent infection” and lends support to the WHO recommendation of TWO DOSES, just six months apart, for the “vaccination of young girls.” Again, the IARC is propagandizing the value of the vaccine for STDs (7) that include aluminum and sodium chloride and weakened forms of the live virus injected into muscle tissue of girls as young as nine, ten, eleven years old. This is absurd. This is vaccine violence and is not just “soft pedaling” by the IARC and the WHO, it’s more like the right arm of Big Pharma posing as an “ethical” agency that supposedly goes “beyond ethics” to help fight and prevent disease, according to their mission statement. They pushed as many as THREE doses of quadrivalent HPV on little girls in India, where the oral/nasal polio vaccine spreads polio cases like a pandemic. That was all published in the The Lancet Oncology, in December of 2015. (6) (9)
HPV vaccine violence promoted by IARC while they expose glyphosate as “Probably Carcinogenic to Humans”
The IARC monographs show environmental factors that increase risk of humans developing cancer, and they expose certain chemical complex mixtures, occupational exposures, biological agents, along with lifestyle factors. National health agencies rely on this type of cataloguing to help them with literature for preventing exposure to potential carcinogens, and this is good. Over the past 45 years, more than 900 agents have been evaluated, and more than 400 of those agents have been identified as carcinogenic, probably carcinogenic, or possibly carcinogenic to humans. Again, this means these listed toxins help cancer cells develop in the body. The world’s most widely used weed killer, found in over 80% of the world’s GM crops, glyphosate, has now reached the category of a “probable human carcinogen.”
How does an international agency warn the world about the most popular toxic herbicide, on the one hand, and then on the other, promote the world’s most dangerous and deadly vaccine? Though the IARC has no regulatory role, its decision can easily lead to bans and restrictions, so their findings are monumental in some cases. The glyphosate toxicity “decision” was based on the synthesis of research by 17 experts from 11 countries around the world, who all met in France to assess the carcinogenicity of five different organophosphate pesticides. It was all published in The Lancet Oncology. Still, much of Europe and the United States simply don’t read or listen, at all, to this monumental research, that could be exposing the NUMBER ONE cause of cancer right now.
April of 2015: Dr. Oz airs his show exposing Glyphosate, Roundup and Monsanto for selling Americans and the world cancer-causing herbicides–per IARC research
Mike Adams, Editor of Natural News, writes:
“Dr. Oz should be given a Congressional medal of some kind for his willingness to expose the truth about glyphosate on national television. In a recent episode that went viral, Dr. Oz discussed the toxicity of the biotech industry’s favorite pesticide “glyphosate” — a dangerous chemical that even the World Health Organization now admits likely causes cancer. In response to this episode, the so-called “Monsanto Mafia” went berserk with all their usual character assassination tactics, and now they’ve come up with a contrived plot — a campaign of intimidation and character smearing — to try to silence Dr. Oz by destroying his credibility. A letter signed by ten doctors — all of whom have financial ties to industry — calls for Columbia University to force Dr. Oz to resign from the university’s Department of Surgery. This letter is a tremendously educational exhibit of the mafia tactics used by the biotech industry, as it essentially claims Dr. Oz has lost his mind and is now endangering the public. “Whatever the nature of his pathology, members of the public are being misled and endangered, which makes Dr. Oz’s presence on the faculty of a prestigious medical institution unacceptable,” the letter reads.”
IARC is the “specialized” cancer agency of the World Health Organization
Even in their admission that glyphosate (main ingredient of Roundup herbicide sold by Monsanto) “probably” causes cancer in humans, they had to insert the word “probably,” which creates that shadow of a doubt for consumers worldwide. This summation of research that obviously revealed the toxic herbicide causes cancer is still a form of soft pedaling because they don’t just come out and say it, and they DO know. Though the objective of the IARC is to promote “international collaboration” for cancer research, they will tell you that most cancers are linked to “environmental factors” when in reality most are linked to toxic food consumption, fluoridated water consumption, toxic medicine use as with chemical pharmaceuticals, genetically modified food (since mid-1980s), hydrogenated GM oils, and artificial sweeteners such as aspartame, sucralose and sorbitol.
Environmental and lifestyle risk factors of course come into play, as does genetics, but when it comes to carcinogenicity of specific exposures, heavy metal toxins and synthetic chemical pesticides are “doing people in” faster than anything ever before. Even early cancer detection devices and technology are causing new problems for patients who seek regular, invasive, radiation, surgical and chemotherapy based treatments, not to mention false positives of mammograms (nick named scammo-grams). When will the truth all come out?