The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children

“The Lottery” is Vaccine Pushersa powerful short story written by Shirley Jackson. The people of an unnamed town meet somewhere on its outskirts. Dramatic tension builds as we are not told the meeting’s purpose.  (Spoiler Alert: ‘The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children’ is not a feel good story.)

The children play as children will, but the adults in the tableaux are uneasy. Some huddle in small groups and whisper quietly among themselves. Anxiety pervades the air, a sense of doom made worse by our total uncertainty of  what will happen next. A certain weird optimism runs through some people, while others seem more and more unsettled.

A beat-up black box soon appears, and the people are told their family names will be called alphabetically. One by one, each called person draws out a single small piece of paper. Each in turn holds up the paper to the eyes of the crowd, then joyfully proclaims and shows the drawn little piece of paper is blank. Each person who draws a blank is overcome with joy. Some scream and cry with pleasure and apparent relief at their good fortune. (Or what the reader comes to think is their good fortune.)

And then one person finds her piece of paper is marked with a black spot. She screams, but her scream is horrible, terrifying. She pleads with the crowd, “It isn’t fair! It isn’t right!”

The mob of townspeople quickly fan out into a circle around the woman. They have each gathered a small pile of rocks. And then they are upon her.

The Meaning of The Lottery

Forced to read the story in school, some apparently dense students have no idea what it means and don’t care to find out or discuss it. They just think the whole thing is crazy; but maybe they’re not that dense, as it clearly IS crazy. Other students like to guess at the meaning or discuss the possible meanings of this parable. One thing is certain: The woman is killed senselessly, horribly, unfeelingly by the people around her.  Even her own family joins in on her stoning.

Some point to the story as dramatizing a ritual dating back to the Druids and other tribes, cabals, or other primitive peoples who believed sacrificing one of their own to the Gods was necessary, in order to bring them abundant crops, deliverance from their sins, fecundity for their race, or whatever else they valued and believed they had to pay the Gods in blood for.

Sacrifice and Superstition

Some primitive societies flung children into fiery pits or bogs. Others selected full-grown adults or even their own Kings or other leaders, who, according to The Golden Bough, were oftentimes honored to be sacrificed and went willingly to their deaths. Merck’s dubious Shingles vaccine gives some older folks the same chance at sacrifice they may have missed as children, when the autism rate was one in 10,000, compared to 1/50 today, as Big Pharma and its government minions have  turned kids into cash-cow pin cushions for every conceivable vaccination.

Sacrifice and Superstition ruled the days then just as they do now. More than $3 billion of our tax dollars have been spent on vaccine-related injuries, including deaths from vaccines; so there is no argument that vaccines cause harm, or that they can kill people outright. Vaccines can cause harm, up to and including death; end of story, but the arguments, of course, continue.

Forced Vaccination for All

The argument for forced vaccination for all (which is already here) can only be that, sure, a few people are killed or maimed by vaccines; that’s an indisputable fact.  A few people draw the black mark, so we have no choice but to sacrifice them.  Our vaccination programs are for the good of the whole tribe. We can’t be concerned about the injuries or deaths of a few with the existence of the whole society at stake. So let’s just go ahead and accept the injuries or deaths of these unlucky people who draw the mark.

The Vaccine Lottery – Sacrifice the Children
The problem, of course, is maybe you don’t want you or one of yours to draw the mark. Or maybe you don’t want to think about this subject at all unless and until you or one of yours draws the mark?

Meanwhile, current vaccine discussions mostly miss this eerie parallel, that our vaccination policy today – especially for children who are forced to take as many jabs as the CDC, Merck, vaccine-profiteer Paul Offit and their lackeys in Congress decide to give them – would likely shock even Shirley Jackson. Ms. Jackson seemed to be making a pretty compelling comment regarding our human capacity for superstition and cruelty. The groupmind, as Edward Bernays reveals in his 1928 Opus Propaganda, is different from the individual one, and must be manipulated in a different way.

How many more children and others should be sacrificed via vaccination to satisfy our alleged insurance policy of artificial immunity?

So Long

Line up for the vaccine lottery and keep your mouth shut. Sacrificing some citizens for the benefit of all is a tried and true method practiced for centuries. Why should our current age be any different? Why should we stop and think about things when our superstitions have served us so well for so long?



EPA claims Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer

The U.S. EPAmonsanto-logo1 now claims glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans. The agency didn’t bother to evaluate the product that much of the world uses – Roundup, which has been linked to kidney and liver damage in numerous studies.  EPA chose only to examine one active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate.

The EPA announced on September 16, 2016 that it did a scientific review of glyphosate. The Environmental Protection Agency claimed it compiled the available scientific studies on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate. The agency concluded that the most suitable classification it could assign would be “‘not likely to be carcinogenic to humans’ at doses relevant to human health risk assessment.”

Doses Relevant to Human Health Risk?

The larger question, of course, is exactly what glyphosate doses did the Monsanto-friendly agency decided to assess? And more importantly, did EPA assess the entire chemical makeup of Roundup, which is the real “dose” that people and their food get. Glyphosate is only the main active ingredient in Roundup. No toxicology or cancer study could be relevant without assessing the entire chemical batch now sprayed on most of the country’s corn and soybeans. So finding that glyhphosate is unlikely to cause cancer is essentially a non issue, though it may help Monsanto throw up a smoke screen to ward off litigation in Roundup Cancer Lawsuits. Glyphosate alone was never the problem. The problem is the entire formulation of Roundup, and the EPA knows that as well as Monsanto does.

EPA claims Glyphosate Unlikely To Cause Cancer

EPA conducted the review as glyphosate undergoes its mandated 15-year review under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. EPA’s proposed conclusions are now up for review by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel, which will meet in October 2016 to review the EPA findings.

The agency wrote: “Overall, animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were remarkably consistent and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and outcomes of interest related to carcinogenic potential.”

The EPA charged the advisory panel with commenting on the EPA’s review and analysis of the studies. After giving the panel a chance to make any necessary changes, the regulator will open the panel’s findings up to a 60-day public comment period.

Cancer Risk Analysis Only

The risk analysis published Sept. 16, 2016 by the EPA studies only the herbicide’s cancer potential. The agency said a full review of the risks to humans, which will also include non-cancer risks, should come out in 2017. (Probably just in time to dispute another pronouncement from some other agency – such as the WHO, which famously announced last year that glyphosate was “probably carcinogenic” to humans).

Glyphosate a Probably Carcinogen – WHO

The EPA did note, however – dutifully reported Law 360 – that other agencies have reached conflicting conclusions on a glyphosate cancer link, including a “probable carcinogen” designation in 2015 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of the World Health Organization, along with the California EPA’s designation of Roundup as a “probable carcinogen.”

Monsanto is currently facing lawsuits by people who claim glyphosate caused their cancer.

Last week, a Delaware state judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit brought by three people who claim they were hurt by exposure to Roundup while employed as migrant workers. They also lived in migrant worker housing, or were employed by a horticultural products company.

Monsanto is also fighting a federal lawsuit brought by a California consumer claiming the use of Roundup lawn spray gave her non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Gluyphosate Non-Hodgkin’s Lymophoma Link Inconclusive

In its report Friday, the EPA noted that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was one area where the data was inconclusive. Authors of the EPA study dispatched this quote re: NHL:

“In epidemiological studies, there was no evidence of an association between glyphosate exposure and numerous cancer outcomes; however, due to conflicting results and various limitations identified in studies investigating [non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma], a conclusion regarding the association between glyphosate exposure and risk of NHL cannot be determined based on the available data.”

World Overloaded with Glyphosate Poison

The EPA’s study also indicated that the total use of glyphosate in the country has grown enormous, from 1.4 million pounds in 1974 when it was first registered, to almost 300 million pounds in 2014.

EPA Dissapears 1980s Glyphosate Cancer Comment
When glyphosate use was exploding in the mid-80s, the EPA classified it as a “possible human carcinogen.” Since then, glyphosate was recommended to be classified as Group D in 1986 (not enough data to tell if it’s a carcinogen or not) and then by magic moved by EPA to Group E in 1991 (evidence of non-carcinogenicity in humans).

Elephant in the Room

The elephant in the room in the EPA’s proclamation is that glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Roundup, and the so-called inert ingredients are not inert. Taken together, Roundup packs a powerful poison punch that can kill not only insects but people. Many Indian farmers have killed themselves by drinking it after their  Monsanto GMO cotton crops have failed and left them in impossible debt. Nearly 300,000 Indian farmers have committed suicide after being “helped” by Monsanto. A Japanese study from 2016 has also shown just how lethal glyphosate can be. People have suffered organ failure and died from glyphosate exposure.

To be continued. . .



Viagra Melanoma Risks Not Disclosed, says Lawsuit

Viagra melanomaviagra2 risks were not disclosed by Pfizer, says a lawsuit brought in California. The Big Pharma giant failed to warn men that using the erection enhancement drug could substantially raise their risk of developing the potentially deadly cancer.

The lawsuit filed September 9, 2016 charges that Pfizer knew of the melanoma risks of Viagra, yet failed to disclose them. The company’s motivation, says the petition, was to increase profits, despite the dangers to men’s health. The lawsuit charges Pfizer with aggressively promoting Viagra without admitting that the company’s own research had linked it to an increased risk of developing melanoma.

The consumers’ complaint alleges Pfizer knew or should have known about health risks associated with Viagra and Revatio. The latter is the same substance as Viagra, though Revatio, used for treating a lung condition, is sold under a different name. Pfizer failed to disclose this information on its labels or in its advertisements, says the petition.

Melanoma can be deadly
Melanoma – the most dangerous lethal form of skin cancer, according to – kills an estimated 10,130 people in the US yearly. It is a tumor of melanin-forming cells, typically a malignant tumor associated with skin cancer. Melanoma(s) can appear anywhere on the body.

Melanomas are cancerous growths that can develop when unrepaired DNA damage to skin cells (usually caused by ultraviolet radiation from the sun or tanning beds) triggers mutations. These mutations are genetic defects that can lead the skin cells to rapidly multiply and form malignant tumors, which originate in the pigment-producing melanocytes in the basal layer of the skin (epidermis).

Melanomas can resemble moles, and some moles develop into melanomas. While most melanomas are black or brown, they can also appear skin-colored, pink, red, purple, blue, or white.

Melanoma is caused mainly by intense, occasional UV exposure (frequently leading to sunburn), especially in people genetically predisposed.

Melanoma is nearly always curable when it is recognized and treated early. If undetected, the cancer can mutate and spread to other parts of the body, where it becomes harder to treat. Left untreated, it can be fatal. In 2016, an estimated 76,380 of diagnosed melanomas will be invasive, affecting some 46,870 men and 29,510 women.

Viagra Marketing Deceptive

Viagra marketing was deceptive, says the lawsuit. The master complaint reads, in part:
“Pfizer purposefully downplayed, understated and outright ignored the melanoma-related health hazards and risks associated with using Viagra. Pfizer also deceived potential Viagra users by relaying positive information through the press, including testimonials from retired, popular United States politicians, while downplaying known adverse and serious health effects.”

Melanoma victims dropped from studies

The master complaint charge that Pfizer should have known by the late 1990s of the connection between Viagra and melanoma. Pfizer knew as early as 1998 that people taking Viagra had dropped out of clinical studies because they had developed cancers that started in the skin or in the tissue lining organs. The complaint cites a Center for Drug Evaluation and Research joint clinical review.

Several Studies show Viagra Melanoma Risks

The master complaint also says that several studies have since found links between the manner in which Viagra works and the development of melanoma cells.

Viagra inhibits the secretion of a specific enzyme that can prevent erection, says the complaint; however, studies over the last few years have found that blocking this enzyme can also trigger the creation of melanoma cells.

84% Increased Risk of Melanoma

A 2014 study, for example, reported that those of the nearly 25,850 participants who had recently used the medication showed an 84 percent increase in the risk of developing or worsening melanoma. That risk was even higher for those who had used Viagra at any time in the past, says the complaint.

Pfizer nevertheless has engaged in a “continuous, expensive and aggressive” advertising campaign – charges the complaint – to promote Viagra since the FDA approved it in 1998. The company made more than $1.8 billion from Viagra sales in 2013, according to the company’s annual report.

The master complaint reads: “As a direct, proximate and legal result of Pfizer’s negligence and wrongful conduct, and the unreasonably dangerous and defective characteristics of the drug Viagra, individual plaintiffs suffered severe and permanent physical and emotional injuries. (These) physical injuries have included melanoma as well as the resulting treatment and surgeries necessitated by the skin cancer diagnosis.”

The master complaint also makes several other allegations that include negligence, unfair and deceptive trade practices, strict liability, breach of express and implied warranty, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation and concealment.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated several Viagra lawsuits that bring similar claims.

The suit is In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, suit number 3:16-md-02691, in the U.S. District Court for the California Northern District.



Ovarian Cancer Screening not reliable – FDA

FDA recommends Pelvic Mesh not approved by FDA – The 510(k) Bluesagainst using screening tests for ovarian cancer

While power morcellators can spread undetected uterine cancer when used for fibroid removal or hysterectomies, word comes from the FDA that current ovarian cancer screening is not reliable. Morcellators can spread undetected cancer during hysterectomy or fibroid removal and lead to more serious forms of uterine and ovarian cancer.

FDA issued a safety communication September 7, 2016 to women and physicians, including those working in Primary Care, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Oncology, Gynecologic Oncology, and Genetic Counseling.

Morcellator Safety Questions Abound
The FDA said it was especially concerned about delaying preventive treatments for symptomless women at increased risk of ovarian cancer. But at the same time, the FDA recommends against using currently offered ovarian cancer screening tests.

That announcement begs the question of whether it is safe or reasonable to use a morcellator for any woman’s hysterectomy or fibroid removal procedure. Though morcellators appear to be a safe option for women who do not have cancerous fibroids or ovarian cancer, if ovarian cancer screening is not reliable, how can it be considered safe to use a morcellator on any woman?

Ovarian Cancer Genesis
The National Cancer Institute estimates that more than 22,000 women will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2016. Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer-related deaths among American women.

Abnormal cells in or near the ovaries can grow into a malignant tumor that can turn cancerous. Women who have reached menopause or who have a family history of ovarian cancer, and women with the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutations are most at risk for developing ovarian cancer.

Summary of Problem and Scope

Despite research and published studies, no current ovarian cancer screening tests are sensitive enough to “reliably screen for ovarian cancer without a high number of inaccurate results,” wrote the FDA. That dearth of results comes despite several companies marketing tests which claim to screen for ovarian cancer and detect it.

Abcodia Incorporated
The FDA referenced Abcodia Incorporated in its safety alert. That company began marketing its Risk of Ovarian Cancer Algorithm (ROCA) test in the United States. It claimed ROCA could screen for and detect ovarian cancer before symptoms appeared. The company claimed its test could increase the chance for survival. But the data failed to support the company’s claims.

Women and Doctors misled by False Claims

FDA voiced its concern that women and their physicians could be misled by claims of ovarian cancer screeners that can’t reliably screen. The agency said it doesn’t want women to “rely on inaccurate results to make treatment decisions.”

FDA wrote:
“Based on the FDA’s review of available clinical data from ovarian cancer screening trials and recommendations from healthcare professional societies and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, available data do not demonstrate that currently available ovarian cancer screening tests are accurate and reliable in screening asymptomatic women for early ovarian cancer.”

False Positive, False Negative

FDA also said some ovarian screening tests could present a false positive reading. Such women might undergo more medical tests and even unnecessary surgery. They might then experience complications related to both. In addition, test results might not show ovarian cancer even though cancer is present (a false-negative). That could lead women to delay or not seek surgery or other treatments for ovarian cancer.

“At this time (Sept. 7, 2016), the FDA is not aware of any valid scientific data to support the use of any test, including using a test cleared or approved by FDA for other uses, as a screening tool for ovarian cancer.”

Morcellator Use Questionable at Best

With such a powerful statement from the FDA, it is fair to ask whether power morcellators for hysterectomy should be used on any woman at this time.  When power morcellators are used on undetected cancer tissue, they can spread the disease and even make it much more lethal.



Forced Vaccination for You

In an unprecedented docmanpower grab that would effectively end democracy and the rule of law as we know it, the CDC has proposed a law that will remove whatever vestiges are left of our inalienable human rights. See it here and comment to take action. Forced vaccination is no longer just a dream of the future for pharmaceutical companies and the military police state that increasingly runs the country. Forced vaccination for you is here now.

Send Comments to CDC

The same agency which has committed fraud to deny parents compensation for vaccine-related injuries, the same agency that helps perpetuate the Zika Virus Misinfo Campaign, is giving us all until October 15, 2016  to comment on its little proposal to take “extra-Constitutional” powers. This thing is beyond breathtaking in its sweep and scope.  They don’t even do this in China or Russia. If the government has its way, anyone judged to be at a “precommunicable” stage can be apprehended, detained indefinitely, and injected with whatever little gift the CDC chooses to give them.

Syphilis, Anyone?

Yes, forced vaccination will be the new normal if the CDC has its way. The Centers for Disease Control, the same outfit that helped murder black men in the Tuskegee Airmen Syphilis “Experiment,” now proposes that the federal government give it the right to vaccinate anyone, at any time, for any reason, with anything it likes. It’s a dream law for pharmaceutical companies who continue to reap billions in profits from untested, unproven vaccines like the shingles vaccine, gardasil vaccine (nightmare) and many others.

Whether you believe everything the government tells you or not doesn’t matter. Whether you believe vaccination in whatever form for whatever reason is good for you doesn’t matter. This new law would take all the thinking and decision making about vaccination and your own health choices out of your hands.

“Precommunicable”:  Unchecked, Unconstitutional Powers

This law would give CDC thugs the power to stop anyone, anytime, anywhere, for any reason, and detain them indefinitely for “quarantine” purposes.

CDC defines precommunicable stage to mean the stage beginning upon an individual’s earliest opportunity for exposure to an infectious agent.”

Note:  CDC does NOT need to give a medical exam to declare you or your city “precommunicable”.

Did you get that?  It means that anyone suspected of being precommunicable is subject to indefinite detention. No need to arrest you for thought crime, as in Orwell’s 1984; they can now “detain” you for being “precommunicable,” and “vaccinate” and educate you accordingly.

Real Target not “Those People”

Defenders of this monstrosity will point to swarthy foreigners whom they imagine – with the help of mainstream media whores and traitors – coming to pollute the homeland with all manner of infectious diseases.  But the real target is not “those people” (as General Robert E. Lee famously called the Yankee invaders).  Make no mistake: The real targets are you and yours, and your constitutional rights.  All you need do is just lie down and take it, and pretend you never had any human rights at all.

Red Flag News

Red flag news breaks this story that you won’t find on any mainstream outlet anywhere. Recent propaganda movies about killer virus outbreaks and measles outbreaks and endless mainstream media attacks against “anti-vaxxers” have helped usher in this monster. Read it and weep. It’s your life.

Forced Vaccination for You

In further maneuvers to set us up for this draconian move, Big Pharma shills in California politics like Democrat Senator Richard Pan and others have helped pass legislation to destroy informed consent for vaccinations. Similar moves are afoot in several other states.

Pay attention. Protect yourself. Call your representative if you care about informed consent, if you care about making your own health choices, if you think you have the right to do so. Remember, this law is not about “others,” regardless of how they trot it out to make it seem not only palatable but like a good and necessary idea.

This law is about you and yours, and it is a matter of life and death. I mean, raise your hand if you think this government is acting with your best interests in mind.



FDA Invokana Reviewers’ Tepid Approval

FDA reviewers  Invokana Lawsuitexpressed concern over the safety and efficacy of Invokana before voting to approve it for sale. In fact, just 67% of them decided that letting Invokana hit the market was a good thing. An FDA committee met on January 10, 2013 to assess Invokana and determine whether it made sense to let Johnson & Johnson’s Jannsen Pharmaceuticals market it for help with diabetes.

FDA Reviewers Vote 8-7 and 10-5

An FDA committee of 15 people discussed new drug application (NDA) 204042 for canagliflozin tablets, or Invokana. It was submitted by Janssen Research and Development, LLC. A member of the sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors, Canagliflozin was, said FDA, developed to improve glycemic control in adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

The FDA report of the January 10, 2013 meeting says, “The committee members generally agreed that the benefit-risk profile of canagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and moderate renal impairment should be considered differently from the general population. The committee members expressed concern about usage in these patients, owing to a decreased efficacy, especially when combined with an increased incidence of side effects. The committee members further discussed a discomfort with the relatively small volume of data to support use in this population (emphasis ours). (One) committee member also mentioned a concern over the cardiovascular risks of the drug, given an existing elevated cardiovascular risk in patients with renal impairment.”

The 15 committee members were asked to vote on two important questions to determine whether Invokana were worthy of market approval.

Tiny Approval Margin

The first question J&J fails its Credo with Pelvic Meshput before the committee was: “Based on the data submitted and considering the points of discussion in question 3 [which involved Invokana cardiovascular risk], do you have any concern regarding a conclusion that a risk margin of 1.8 has been excluded for canagliflozin?”

The 15 members voted 8-7 to say that the drug passed an acceptable risk measure. That razor-thin margin can hardly be called a vote of confidence in the drug’s safety profile.

The next question put before the committee was all important: “Based on the information included in the briefing materials and presentations today, has the applicant provided sufficient efficacy and safety data to support marketing of canagliflozin for the treatment of Type 2 diabetes mellitus? The committee voted 10-5 on that question, better than 8-7 but once again hardly a ringing vote of confidence in the new drug.

Unknown Cardiovascular Risks
The FDA reviewer taking the minutes of the meeting cautioned that, “The committee members who voted ‘no’ cited similar concerns over unknown cardiovascular risk and usage in moderate renal impairment, which were frequently stated as overriding concerns (emphasis ours). One committee member who voted ‘no’ expressed comfort with the benefit-risk profile in combination therapy, but described a lack of comfort with usage as monotherapy since the drug had not been compared against metformin, which is the standard initial therapy in Type 2 diabetes. An additional committee member voiced concerns over the potential for renal damage, (emphasis ours) and suggested a possibility of prolonging hypoglycemia in the elderly.”

FDA Invokana Reviewers’ Tepid Approval

With such tepid Janssen_logo-JnJapproval, and now with the risk of ketoacidosis made much more clear with strengthened FDA Warnings for Invokana and Ketoacidosis, it is difficult to see why such a drug ever made it to the market in the first place. Not surprisingly, problems with Invokana and its link with ketoacidosis began to show up almost immediately after the drug’s approval.



Country bans Johnson’s Baby Powder

The nation of Qatar Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancerhas moved to ban Johnson’s Baby Powder from grocery store shelves. According to Al Raya, a Qatar newspaper, Johnson’s baby powder was banned from Qatar stores in March 2016 while the country moved to examine the link between talcum powder and ovarian cancer.

Other parts of the world are also paying attention to the shocking verdicts against Johnson & Johnson and its baby powder and shower to shower talc products. In Malaysia April 2016, the Consumer Association of Penang (CAP) warned Malaysians that talc is toxic and can cause tumors.

Talcum Powder raises Ovarian Cancer Risk

Tiny talcum powder particles can embed in the lungs and the ovaries. Studies have shown women who use talcum powder as a drying agent or for feminine hygiene in their genital areas have a greater risk of developing ovarian cancer than those who use no talc. Ovarian cancer is often deadly, largely because it is difficult to detect until it reaches advanced stages.

Qatar Talcum Powder Ban

Qatar’s announcement came in the midst of plaintiffs winning three talcum powder cancer lawsuits in the United States.  Two of those verdicts resulted in large monetary awards for women who used talc and then later developed ovarian cancer and died.

The two large jury awards – $72 million and $55 million – strongly suggest that J&J’s baby powder and shower to shower products have some problems. While the baby powder cancer outcomes in the jury trials do not serve as definitive proof that talcum powder is carcinogenic to women, they do strongly support the notion of a link between baby powder and ovarian cancer. Both juries were shown documents in which it was clear decades ago that Johnson & Johnson officials were concerned about a baby powder ovarian cancer link.

The juries were also shown evidence that J&J targeted Black and Latino women even as it was clear to the company that these women were at greater risk of ovarian cancer through their use of talcum powder.

J&J Found Guilty of Conspiracy, Fraud, Negligence

Both juries which rendered huge awards were presented with extensive talcum powder cancer research. They were also shown several internal company documents which demonstrated that J&J company officials were long aware of a talcum powder cancer link.

The jury which awarded $72 million found J&J guilty of conspiracy, fraud and negligence for failing to warn American consumers of the talcum powder ovarian cancer connection.

Country bans Johnson’s Baby Powder

The Qatari Ministry of Municipality and the Environment issued the ban of talcum powder products on a temporary basis while it examines evidence presented in the baby powder cancer lawsuit. Qatar had convened a governmental committee to examine the safety of baby powder and other talc-based body products prior to the first large verdict, the $72 million award.

J&J Responds

A J&J representative in Qatar insisted Johnson’s baby powder and other talc products are safe for regular use, despite the jury awards.

Qatar continues to test talcum powder for safety. Until the government agency concludes its investigation, Qatar stores will not be permitted to sell Johnson’s baby powder.



Did Tylenol kill Alabama Woman?

A lawsuit that Tylenol Lawsuitclaims Tylenol killed an Alabama woman in 2010 is scheduled to start trial Sept. 19, 2016 in a Pennsylvania federal court. The petition claims acetaminophen in extra strength Tylenol caused  acute liver failure that killed the woman.

Tylenol Bellweather Trial

A federal judge presiding over the woman’s case has designated the lawsuit as a bellweather or test case. This means it could determine the future direction of a few hundred other lawsuits consolidated in his docket. All make similar claims, that Tylenol is linked with liver failure.

Rana Terry, sister of the deceased Denice Hayes, filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the maker of the over-the-counter drug, McNeil Consumer Healthcare, a division of Johnson & Johnson, which is also named as a defendant. The petition alleges the companies are responsible for the death of Ms. Hayes.

The lawsuit alleges Ms. Hayes, 51, died from acute liver after taking Tylenol and Tylenol Extra Strength. The lawsuit petition says Denice Hayes was treated August 23 at Helen Keller Hospital, where she was diagnosed with catastrophic liver damage. She was then transferred to University Hospital in Birmingham, where she died eight days later.

Pennsylvania Federal Court

The lawsuit was originally filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, then transferred to federal court in Pennsylvania. It is one of several lawsuits claiming liver damage from Tylenol at or just above the recommended dosage. The Tylenol cases are consolidated under U.S. District Court Judge Lawrence F. Stengel in Philadelphia.

Judge Stengel summed up the Terry case in a recent order: “This is the first ‘bellwether’ scheduled for trial. (Bellwether) trials should produce representative verdicts and settlements. The parties can use these verdicts and settlements to gauge the strength of the common MDL (Multi District Litigation) claims to determine if a global resolution of the MDL is possible.”

200 Tylenol Cases in MDL

Some 200 other cases are also included in the MDL, in addition to several similar cases filed in New Jersey state court.

Acetaminophen Leading Cause of Liver Failure

Ms. Terry’s lawsuit claims acetaminophen is the leading cause of acute liver failure in the United States.

Prior to her Aug. 31, 2010 death, Ms. Hayes took doses of Tylenol at appropriate times and in appropriate amounts, says the lawsuit.

The petition states that, “Tylenol (was) defectively designed and placed into the stream of commerce by defendants in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.”

Tylenol makers failed to warn, says lawsuit

The lawsuit also claims that McNeil and J&J failed to test and place adequate warnings and instructions on the over-the-counter drug.

The lawsuit also claims that Tylenol’s makers intentionally concealed Tylenol and acetaminophen safety issues in order to dupe doctors into recommending it to patients, including Ms. Hayes.

The lawsuit does not name any specific amount of damages that it seeks.

Though the lawsuit will be tried in Philadelphia, Judge Stengel has ruled that Alabama state law will govern the case.

In November 2015, the judge denied McNeil’s motions for summary judgment on several issues, including a request for dismissal of the punitive damage claims under Alabama’s Wrongful Death Act.

FDA on Acetaminophen

In January 2014, FDA asked health care providers to stop giving patients high doses of acetaminophen over concerns about possible liver damage.

A McNeil spokesperson, Marc Boston, responded by email to regarding the lawsuit’s claims against the OTC medication:

“We are reviewing the rulings and continue to prepare for trial. TYLENOL® (acetaminophen) has more than 50 years of use and over 150 studies to support its safety and efficacy, and, when used as directed, has one of the most favorable safety profiles among over-the-counter (OTC) pain relievers.

Doctors Acetaminophen Warnings

In recent years, some doctors have warned their patients about the risks of acetaminophen.



Shingles Vaccine causes Shingles

People conditioned Zostovaxby years of vaccine propaganda may find it not newsworthy that the shingles vaccine causes shingles. For thinking people, however, this might be a news item. What sense does it make to be “vaccinated” against something when that vaccination gives a person the exact malady it is advertised to resist? In August 2014, the FDA moved to make Merck include on its Zostavax shingles vaccine the “side effect” of “shingles.”

 FDA: add “Shingles” as “Side Effect”

FDA sent a letter to Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. August 28, 2014:

We have approved your request (to) update the Package Insert, Section 6.3 Postmarketing Experience to include “infections and infestations: Herpes zoster (vaccine strain)” and to update the Patient Package Insert to include “Shingles” in the “What are the possible side effects of ZOSTAVAX?” section.

The Magic Bullet: Vaccination

Years of propaganda touting the influenza vaccine every “flu season” have turned many of us into Pavlovian dogs that salivate at the sound of a bell because we’ve been taught to associate it with dinner. We have all been “taught” for decades to associate vaccines with the eradication of some natural malady or other. When we hear the latest vaccine advertising pitch – which cleverly doesn’t sound like advertising – and always leads with the horrors of what is going to happen to us if we don’t vaccinate, we can’t wait to run to Wal-Mart or Walgreen’s or to our own doctors to preempt this terrible scourge with the magic vaccine bullet.

Problem, Reaction, Solution

It is the oldest advertising trick in the book – a riff off the old Hegelian Dialectic: Problem, Reaction, Solution –  and the most effective. In the case of the shingles vaccine, we are shown horrific pictures of people uglified with red skin rashes, and given their horror stories of the terrible pain associated with shingles. Sometimes the pictures are animated reproductions, or something, but we get the idea:  Yikes!  How do I keep this terrible thing from happening to me?  Help!  (Shingles can be a problem, of course, but it’s also a complete non sequitur to imagine this Zostavax vaccine is the answer; let’s stay focused.)

Help is on the way, of course, with the magic of vaccines. Whether you favor left-leaning propaganda from MSNBC, say, or the New York Times, or whether you prefer right-leaning flavor from Fox News or The Wall Street Journal, the answer is the same: Get yourself vaccinated and you can once again sleep the sleep of the righteous.

Shingles Vaccine causes Shingles

The problem is that shingles vaccine, in this case, doesn’t work very well. And just one more small thing, hardly worth a mention, really:  The shingles vaccine can give you the very disease its maker and media pushers claim it will protect you from.

Vaccine Lottery

But forget all that. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain. Just go ahead and play it like the vaccine lottery. Those shingles vaccine “side effects” are so rare, every major media outlet will tell you, and the horrors of shingles so great, that the vaccine is worth the risk.

Just take your marching orders and go get yourself vaccinated.  Don’t make waves. Don’t ask wearisome questions.  Follow the herd.

The End.



Shingles Vaccine Deaths Unreported

Shingles vaccine syringedeaths have gone virtually unreported in the mainstream media. Mainstream advertising outlets largely function as propaganda mouthpieces for Big Pharma. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CBS, NBC – all the major newspaper and television stations – rarely see a Big Pharma advertising campaign they don’t like. None have reported how Bill Gates polio vaccine caused 47,000 cases of polio in India.

Nor has any mainstream outlet ever reported that  in 1976, Dr. Jonas Salk testified that the live-virus polio vaccine was the ‘principal if not sole cause’ of all reported polio cases in the U.S. since 1961.

Money doesn’t Talk; it screams

“Money doesn’t talk; it screams,” as John Lennon said, and nothing screams like advertising money.

The vaccine industry, a multi-billion-dollar cash cow, is so well protected by government fiat (the 1986 Vaccines Act) and media advertising cash, that the dark side of it rarely sees the light of day, regardless of the facts, which are largely decided by whoever has the most money to say what they are. There’s nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes teaches, but there are still facts to consider in the hysteria surrounding all the vaccine hype and the endless “anti-vaxxer” name calling fallacy visited on anyone wishing to discuss the facts or the larger picture. Here’s a fact you don’t see reported: people have died from the shingles vaccine. A lot of people. Perhaps as few as 90. Perhaps as many as 9,000. Is that a small price to pay for a “vaccine”? Perhaps, if you believe the vaccine works, and if you or someone you love is not one of the 90, or 9,000 dead.

Nearly 9o Shingles Vaccine Deaths Reported

The National Vaccine Information Center  reports that 89 deaths have been linked with the shingles vaccine. The Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) has received reports on shingles containing vaccines since 1990.

Shingles vaccine promoters will argue that the VAERS system reports adverse events that vaccinated people associate with the shingles vaccine, that those deaths may simply be apriori, or merely incidental to the vaccination. Some, perhaps. But all? And the 90 deaths associated or linked with the shingles vaccine in 15 years may be closer to 900, or even 9,000.  This is well known, and here’s why.

Vaccine Events Wildly Under-reported

It is common knowledge – except for anyone working in mainstream media – that adverse events from vaccines are wildly under-reported. This well known weakness of VAERS skews all the numbers trotted out by vaccine profiteers and their legions of media and medical shills. Further, federal health officials have done little to increase vaccine provider reporting to VAERS since the 1986 passage of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. This act vaccinates vaccine makers against liability with regard to vaccines forced on children, but it also requires that vaccine adverse events be reported. That first part is followed religiously by the courts, that second not so much.

Only 1-10 % Adverse Events Reported

The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) reports that during the meeting of the National Vaccine Advisory, CDC officials reported that only between one to 10 percent of vaccine adverse events are reported to VAERS. Therefore, the VAERS system that receives some 30,0000 adverse event reports annually should be receiving a minimum of 300,000 adverse event reports (if actual events were really reported), or as many as 3 million adverse events related to vaccines. It’s easy to skew numbers, and nobody skews them better than vaccine profiteers.

CDC promotes More Under-reporting

The CDC, sadly, is now proposing that all VAERS reports be submitted online. No more paper forms will be allowed. Much like the new American voting system – a sham if ever there was one (read Mark Crispin Miller and – the paperless trail will be much easier to disappear. Doctors and nurses and others will no longer be able to scribble an adverse vaccine event on paper when they have a moment. They will be forced to go to a computer and jump through all the attendant hoops. This paperless idea from CDC virtually guarantees we will see fewer adverse event reports (all in the name of “Progress,” of course). NVIC therefore opposes the CDC’s proposal to eliminate the option of submitting handwritten reports.

NVIC writes: “The proposed shift to a completely ‘paperless’ system is likely to result in even more underreporting of vaccine adverse events and penalize those who are not computer literate. These changes could also hinder the effective monitoring and detection of unusual vaccine adverse events occurring in the general population by health scientists.”

Reporting Doctors feel Threatened

NVIC further reports that, “CDC officials also stated that doctors viewed language in the current form relating vaccine provider identification as ‘threatening’ and inferred liability. The new language created by CDC officials to address these concerns does more harm than good because it assumes that all Americans are being vaccinated solely by their primary health care provider rather than in pharmacies, grocery and big box stores, senior living facilities, public health clinics, the work place or in school clinics.”

CDC officials apparently live in a different world than the one you and I inhabit.

NVIC says what’s also missing from the CDC’s proposed new VAERS form is information about vaccine reactions in siblings. Why is the CDC always erring on the side that favors Big Pharma and other corporate entities, and why is mainstream media always doing the same thing? Follow the money.