This is the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU... Its b

This is the complaint: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-pJR4cGo9ckUU1OQjJjcVQ4aUU... Its basically a motion to compel an EPA guy to go under oath and sounds like the complainant had some run ins with Rowland. The complainant, Marion, makes some claims about the effects of glyphosate without really citing any scientific evidence. Marion also claims there is a lot of evidence to back it up, but if so why not cite it? "Your trivial MS degree from 1971 Nebraska is far outdated, thus CARC science is 10 years behind the literature in mechanisms." So we have to take her word that Rowland didn't keep up to date with the literature? I find that hard to believe that someone would still be in a position that requires constant learning to keep their job. Not really a smoking gun, if this is all there is