"The jury got it wrong" and trial transcript provides likely confirmation.
bbc.com/news/world-us-…
bbc.com/news/world-us-…
Dr. Kuzel, an academic and clinician, testified etiology for Plaintiff's mycosis fugoides is unknown, but they have largely eliminated DNA mutation/disturbance as a causal environmental factor thereby precluding #glyphosate. 
Dr. Kuzel also testified epigenetic changes as a causal factor gaining strength because newer treatments key off of these changes.
Mycosis fungoides lesion has billion cells and requires 30 malignant cell doublings or at least 30 months assuming petri dish linear progression, but times are considerably longer in human body. Very likely Plaintiff's cancer initiated before he started spraying #glyphosate.
Daubert ruling of Federal District Judge Chhabria (#glyphosate federal cases) identified IARC's hazard analysis as clearly inadequate to support a preponderance of evidence civil verdict.
Likelihood more comprehensive, iterative and transparent *non carcinogenic conclusions* of BfR, EFSA, ECHA,WHO/FAO and EPA are not more relevant than *probable carcinogen* IARC's hazard analysis is minimal.
Indication of "runaway jury" is jury deliberation request for specifics of 1983 mouse study, studies which have been replicated many times since then without significant evidence of carcinogenic effect (even without pathologists external to EPA confirming findings).
Difficult to escape conclusion jury relied on arguments of plaintiff's lawyers rather than evidence presented within trial record.
Existing epidemiological studies are irrelevant for this case because of rarity of mycosis fungoides. Dr. Kuzel (and Dr. Mucci indirectly) testified as to difficulty during cross examination.
Small consolation. If case filed in federal court instead of state court, it is likely case would have been thrown out at preliminary stage for lack of specific evidence supporting an mycosis fungoides association with #glyphosate. Excerpt from Judge Chhabria"s Daubert ruling:
Trial transcripts are easy reading because Q&As are intended for jury. Openings and closings are arguments and may not be substantiated with evidence. Focus on direct/ cross examinations of defendant's witnesses for key points of evidence validation or refutation #amateurtip
