Is Monsanto Killing Oceans, Too?

Not satisfied with simply poisoning Mother Earth and its inhabitants with cancer-causing glyphosate, Monsanto may also be killing off ocean life. Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) appears to be implicated in some very recent research into mass ocean die-off. Monsanto now appears to be killing off ocean life as efficiently as it kills off plant life. It sounds crazy, but this is happening right under our noses as the company continually moves to monopolize seeds and control all food life as we know it. If you think this is hyperbole, you don’t know Monsanto and you haven’t seen the latest scientific research.

Scientists who have studied the undersea horrors unleashed by Monsanto’s poisoning of the worlds’ oceans have determined that Roundup runoff into the oceans is killing them.

Related: Monsanto isn’t Feeding the World. It’s Killing our Children

Roundup Pollution Kills Great Barrier Reef
Dr. Kathi Forti has seen firsthand how Roundup pollution is killing Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. While snorkeling off Port Douglas in 2013, she found few coral areas that weren’t completely dead. Most were entirely bleached of life. Her boat captain blamed pollution. Neither of them knew then what they know now, that glyphosate runoff into the oceans was the “pollution” that was killing ocean life.

Look at these pictures of the Great Barrier Reef, before and after glyphosate poisoning.

Global Warming caused by Monsanto?
Dr. Forti says that today we have a much clearer picture of what is killing the oceans and also warming Mother Earth. We have been programmed to believe that fossil fuels, CO2 emissions, are the main culprit in global warming, she says. We may need to reconsider that hypothesis. Dr. Forti writes: “According to research by the Marine Pollution Bulletin and others, we can add glyphosate, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide, to the top of the list.”

Killing Plankton Kills Oceans
All ocean life depends on phytoplankton for its sole food source. That life includes whales, reefs, sponges, coral, and everything else in the great waters. Some fishes have their phytoplankton needs met by eating other fish. Those other fish feed off the plankton. Phytoplankton is as at the very top of the ocean food chain. ALL life is connected to it, dependent upon it. If all the phytoplankton dies, then so does everything else. The Pacific Ocean, for one, is suffering huge fish die offs: whales, dolphins, seals, and many thousands of fish are now washing up dead almost daily somewhere in the world, at ever increasing rates. One man who recently sailed thousands of miles across it was unable to catch a single fish to eat. Everything was dead.

Phytoplankton, a photosynthetic plant, is essentially ocean algae. Its biological processes parallel those of land-based plants. Dr. Forti points out that, “Ocean and coral reef death can be traced to phytoplankton die-off, which has accelerated by 40 percent since the 1950’s. It wasn’t long before some researchers started asking: What new substance was introduced in the last 40 years that kills virtually all land-based plants? The answer: Glyphosate.”

Glyphosate kills EVERYTHING
Coral reefs are primarily plant life. Glyphosate is made to kill plants. It is designed to kill all life, except that which has been genetically altered to withstand it. Run-off from agricultural spraying of glyphosate runs into our rivers, which run into the ocean, in less than 40 days. Dr. Forti says glyphosate maintains about 80% of its killing capacity, more than enough to kill phytoplankton.

Glyphosate kills Phytoplankton
According to research by the Marine Pollution Bulletin and others, the most notable phytoplankton declines are seen in waters near both poles, in the tropics, and in the open ocean. In short, everywhere. Conventional science says phytoplankton die-off is due to warmer waters from climate change. So why is the die-off also happening in the colder waters of the Arctic poles? The answer is that temperature is not the decisive factor. This kills the global warming explanation for phytoplankton die-off.

Ocean Acidification
Phytoplankton die-off triggers ocean acidification. Recent studies show ocean acidification may have a climate effect of its own. (Everything is always connected.) While climate change and ocean acidification are parallel phenomena, they also interact. Rising temperatures and changing seawater chemistry are known to impact marine life. Some of those impacts can, in turn, cause rising air and sea temperatures. It’s all one system. Affecting one thing change everything else.

Massive Fish Die-Offs
As phytoplankton is dying, so is the Earth’s once-rich marine life. Pacific salmon are disappearing at a staggering rate. Scientists believe they are starving to death. Plankton pastures that once flourished have morphed into lifeless deserts. This will continue to contribute to our already tragic increases in large-scale whale beachings and fish deaths.

Glyphosate – the Gift that Keeps on Killing
Dr. Forti explains that glyphosate’s half-life – the rate at which it breaks down – lasts much longer in the ocean than in fresh water. Glyphosate is a salt, and in the presence of ocean salts it acts as a preservative. Worse still, it gathers strength over time. This leads to massive plankton and aquatic die-off. Sadly, criminally, this news is not being reported in the mainstream “news.”

Is Monsanto Killing Oceans, Too?
The real fake news the mainstream “news” outlets carp about is delivered by them every day. The continued, wretched failure of mainstream news outlets to report important stories such as this one is as fake as fake news can get. The mainstream newsfakers fail to report on mass ocean die-offs and the probable causes of those die-offs. Instead we get 24-hour reports on the latest sports event or “movie star” scandal. Those distractions are the real fake news, while Monsanto continues to poison the world with criminal backing from the U.S. Government.

RELATED

Share

First Multi-Plaintiff Talc Cancer Trial underway in Missouri

The first multi-plaintiff talc cancer trial is underway. A Missouri state court jury in St. Louis heard opening statements June 9, 2017 in a trial involving claims from the families of three dead women. All had, for decades, used talc-based products like Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. The trial is the first of its kind against J&J to involve more than one dead plaintiff.

Related: Talc Powder Cancer Attorney

$300 Million in Talc-Cancer Verdicts
Overall, this is the sixth talc-related trial in St. Louis, where thousands of similar cases are pending. All previous talc cancer trials in St. Louis involved individual plaintiffs. All but one resulted in huge verdicts against J&J. The most recent trial, in May 2017, ended with a $110 million jury verdict. Three earlier verdicts resulted in juries awarding nearly $200 million.

Thousands of Talc Cancer Lawsuits against J&J
Thousands of talc cancer lawsuits have joined consolidated dockets in Missouri, California and New Jersey state courts. There is also a recently established federal multidistrict litigation court (MDL) based in New Jersey. The trial that began last week will be watched closely, as attorneys consider pushing future multi-plaintiff trials, in order to have more cases heard before a jury.

Each initial bellwether trial in any litigation can play a key role in shaping any eventual settlement for large numbers of people.

Attorneys accuse J&J of Failure to Warn
Attorneys representing the families of Shawn Blaes, 50, Angela Dawn Hershman, 46, and Eron Evans, 41, accuse J&J of continuing to sell dangerous products like Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The plaintiffs’ attorneys allege that J&J knew about numerous scientific studies that showed a conclusive link between talc and ovarian cancer, yet sold the product to the women anyway. According to the attorneys, this exposure occurs when talc is applied to the genitals; talc and asbestos particles then travel up the fallopian tubes into the ovaries.

J&J accused of Marketing to Minority Women
The lawsuit also charges that J&J marketed talc products specifically to African-American women, despite knowing scientific evidence showed them more susceptible to ovarian cancer than other parts of the population.

30+ Years of Talc Use
All three women used talcum powder for more than 30 years. Ms. Blaes was a Missouri resident, while Ms. Hershman and Ms. Evans lived in Virginia and Texas. Missouri’s joinder rules allow non-resident plaintiffs to file lawsuits in the state’s courts, which has made St. Louis a popular venue for mass tort cases. However, this situation could change depending on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing out-of-state plaintiffs’ rights.

Defendants J&J and Imerys Talc America
J&J and its talc supplier and co-defendant Imerys Talc America maintain talc is not a carcinogen. Their lawyers argue that studies plaintiffs highlight are outdated and full of flawed methodology. The companies compare talc to products like alcohol or red meat. They argue that no government regulatory agency has called for a cancer warning label on talc-based products. That theme may have played a major role in J&J’s lone trial win in a talc cancer case earlier this year.

Corporate Image Trumps Safety?
An attorney for the women plaintiffs said in his opening statement Friday: “This case is about corporations placing their corporate image over the life of their customers and the safety of their customers, pure and simple.”

J&J Lawyer Responds
J&J has used several different powerhouse law firms in the talc litigation. The company’s lawyer for this trial told the jury: “Because it’s not toxic, and because it’s not a carcinogen, and because it doesn’t cause ovarian cancer, it’s not a hazard and therefore no warning is required.”

California Bellwether Talc Trial
Another upcoming bellwether talc trial is also set to begin this summer, on July 10 in California state court. That date was set by a Los Angeles judge for the first trial in his state.

Before that July trial, on June 26 the same judge will convene a 5-day hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. Expert testimony on the alleged link between talc and ovarian cancer is crucial in these trials. A New Jersey state court judge (named Johnson) last fall arbitrarily ruled to exclude witnesses who have been permitted to testify for plaintiffs in Missouri. That decision ended a bellwether trial just days before it was to begin.

More Talc Cancer Trials
Besides the California hearing and trial set for the coming weeks, another multi-plaintiff talc trial is scheduled in July before St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rex Burlison. He has presided all of the previous talc trials.

First Multi-Plaintiff Talc Cancer Trial underway in Missouri
The consolidated case is named Swann, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1422-CC09326-01, in Missouri’s 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis.

RELATED

Share

Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

Vaccines are, unfortunately, not as safe as advertised. More than $3 billion in injury compensation and legal fees have been paid by the U.S. government for vaccine injuries from 1989 – 2015. That money has gone to the parents of children killed by vaccines, or for lifetime care needed for vaccine-injured children. It has also gone to lawyers who have been brave enough to face a so-called “vaccine court” decidedly stacked against people injured or killed by vaccines. (Read further for the five most dangerous vaccines.)

Secret Vaccine Court

The secret vaccine court allows no legal Discovery, no chance for plaintiffs to compare a vaccinated group with an unvaccinated one. That gold-standard exercise in safety and efficacy would decidedly prove which group is healthier and which is more likely to suffer disease or death. A control group comparison would show the real dangers and the failure of vaccination to perform as advertised. Mass vaccination promoted by the CDC, and billions of dollars in vaccine profits made by Merck Pharmaceuticals –  which makes the MMR and the highly dubious shingles vaccine – would be gravely threatened in the face of scientific evidence. No vaccine has ever been shown to be safe and effective in any legitimate epidemiological analysis. Robert Kennedy and Robert De Niro just offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove any vaccine safe.

Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

All vaccinations come with potentially grave risks – especially for the 98 million Americans shot with SV40, a live cancer virus that the CDC fears has contributed to the current cancer epidemic. The CDC fears it enough to have removed that information from its web site. Just because someone doesn’t drop dead after “vaccination” doesn’t mean she hasn’t been harmed, yet. (See Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm )

Though all vaccines produce harm, some vaccines have been reported to be more harmful than others. Here are the top five most dangerous vaccines by filed injury reports as of 2015. Multiply each of these by at least a factor of ten. The CDC acknowledges, and it is common knowledge, that less than 10% of these types of injuries get reported, especially when potential reporters are well aware of the hostility the vaccine court holds toward claimants:

  1. DTP – 3,982 Complaints, 696 Deaths
  2. Influenza (Flu) – 1,788 Complaints
  3. MMR – 947 Complaints
  4. Hepatitis B – 672 Complaints
  5. DtaP – 454 Complaints

Only 1,270 of the DTP cases were awarded compensation. Only 985 flu cases received compensation. The so-called “vaccine court” is entirely unaccountable, set up outside our legal system. No jury ever gets to hear the very limited evidence plaintiffs are allowed to present.

Flu Shots Loaded with Toxic Poisons

Most of the flu vaccine formulations on the market contain  toxic ingredients: squalene-based adjuvants (linked with Gulf War Syndrome), formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate, thimerosal. Thimerosal (containing mercury) is used both as a preservative and a processing agent in several vaccines, according to the FDA. The FDA itself admits that some vaccines contain up to 24.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

While world health authorities claim thimerosal is not harmful, that claim is ludicrous.  The World Health Organization acknowledges that studies of infant macaques monkeys and rats have found that there is indeed evidence of harm caused by clinically relevant amounts of thimerosal.  As the WHO summarizes, “preliminary evidence of behavioral neurotoxicity in infant macaques following a single dose of HBV containing a clinically relevant dose of thimerosal on day of birth.”

The same document also states “Half-life of ethylmercury in blood has been shown to be similar in human and macaque infants.” (Connect the dots, anyone?) Yet, this evidence is dismissed because of “limitations” that necessitate replication, according to the WHO. The CDC has openly admitted before Congress that they never have evaluated the toxicity of mercury in vaccines. How can it be that known neurotoxinis taint vaccinations which are increasingly forced on the public?

Thimerosal is just one of many troubling vaccine ingredients. Aluminum salts are also often used to help “stoke” the immune system into action. Aluminum is a known neurotoxic metal. It is linked with Alzheimer’s and dementia and other neurological diseases. Is a little mercury or aluminum good for us? The answer is a resounding NO; but people get right in line for their shots and continue to poison their children with them.

The society and its people are harmed by vaccinations everyday in both incremental and sometimes catastrophic ways. One would do well to study some history of vaccination to see where we’ve come from to help determine where we are headed with forced vaccination.

RELATED

Share

Wisconsin Explosion Kills Four

A fourth man has died from a massive explosion that occurred May 31, 2017 at a Cambria, Wisconsin corn mill. His name was not yet  released as of June 5, pending notification of his kin. The cause of the deadly blast at the Didion Milling Plant has not yet been determined.

The Dead

The third man found dead was identified last week as Pawel Tordoff, 21, a packing machine operator. Didion officials said the company had located his body beneath the ruins on Wednesday, but were not able to recover it until early Sunday, June 4. Mr. Tordoff was married, with a 3-month-old son. A GoFundMe page has been set up for his surviving family.

The explosion also killed 27-year-old Duelle Block, a mill operator, and 53-year-old Robert Goodenow, a forklift driver.

Related:  Explosion Lawsuit Attorney

Sixteen men were working at the mill when it exploded. Eleven had been taken to hospitals, according to Didion’s vice president of operations Derrick Clark.

Didion Milling Violations

Didion Milling has been cited for several “serious” violations in the last 10 years, violations that posed potential for serious injury or death. In 2013, Didion was fined $3,456 for failing to control potentially exploding dust. In 2010, it was fined $3,640 when a wooden support broke and caused a worker to fall and suffer a brain injury and broken bones. Details of violations that led to several other fines weren’t readily available, according to Wisconsin State Journal writer Steven Verberg. None of the violations fell in the “willful” category, which includes indifference to safety.

The Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and the local fire department assisted in recovering the dead in Cambria, which is located about an hour north of Madison, the Wisconsin state capital.

Wisconsin Explosion Deaths

Mr. Verberg reports that Wisconsin workplace fires or explosions killed 104 workers, including 10 in farm, fishing or forestry jobs from 2011-2014.  Three of the deaths were caused by explosions.

U.S. Explosion Deaths

More than 500 grain dust explosions have been reported in the U.S. in the last 35 years, killing more than 180 people and injuring more than 675.

Worker Protections?

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is entrusted to enforce workplace safety standards. In grain handling facilities such as Didion, standards address controlling the highly flammable dust and sources of excess heat, flames and sparks. OSHA compliance officers usually conduct inspections only in response to complaints or reported injury accidents. OSHA does not perform regularly scheduled inspections, though it does schedule inspections in high-risk industries based on several factors. It focuses on companies with repeated violations of the highest severity.

OSHA Fines for Violations

OSHA increased fine amounts in 2016 to $12,600 for serious violations, $126,000 for willful or repeated violations.

RELATED

Share

Vaccines Ineffective, Unsafe – 2017 Study

Vaccines are ineffective and unsafe, according to the latest research. The vaccine hoax has just been unveiled by a rigorous scientific study. Completed in May 2017, the study found NO reduction in measles, mumps, rubella, influenza or rotavirus among vaccinated children. The same study of 650 kids also found the vaccinated to be less healthy than the unvaccinated. This study’s results are also consistent with recent meta-analysis of the shingles vaccination for adults. Like the other so-called “vaccines,” Merck’s Zostavax also fails to provide any level of protection which might justify or offset its considerable “side effects.”

Study shows Vaccines may cause diseases

The study was published in the Journal of Translational Science by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University. In addition to finding no disease reductions among vaccinated children, the scientists — led by renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson — concluded that vaccines may be the culprit in the dramatic rise of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and chronic illnesses such as allergies, autism, ADHD.

Vaccinated Kids trade possible outcomes for guaranteed illnesses

The Jackson State scientists analyzed data from Homeschool organizations in four states. They compared the incidence of a broad range of diseases in more than 650 children, 39 percent of whom were unvaccinated.

Vaccines Ineffective, Unsafe – 2017 Study

Vaccinated kids had an increased risk of autism (4.2 times), ADHD (4.2 times), learning disabilities (5.2 times), eczema (2.9 times), and allergic rhinitis (30 times). The vaccinated did have a lower likelihood of two (apparently) vaccine-preventable illnesses (chicken pox and pertussis); however, researchers found NO reduction of other (potentially) vaccine-preventable illnesses such as hepatitis A or B, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, meningitis, or rotavirus.

Furthermore, the researchers noted that preterm birth itself is not associated with NDDs. When preterm birth is combined with vaccination, however, they found a 6.6-fold increased risk of NDDs. The study authors note that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox and pertussis) for chronic illnesses and NDDs such as ADHD and autism.

CDC Fails to Act

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., writing for the World Mercury Project, explained that despite the numerous requests from parents and vaccine safety advocates for  honest research regarding vaccines, the U.S. CDC has failed to act. The Jackson State scientists are therefore calling for more trustworthy scientific studies to help explain and clarify their findings.

Dr. Mawson’s findings terrify the wildly profitable vaccine industry, so vicious push back will come from mainstream media minions for Big Pharma and CDC policy. Shortly after the publication, Dr. Mawson’s study was targeted by so-called ‘Retraction Watch’ — an industry-backed disinformation outlet — to keep the study out of the eye of the public, according to GreenMedInfo. Retraction Watch is an online blog for the Center for Scientific Integrity, which receives funding from The MacArthur Foundation and other pro-business operations.

MMR Vaccine Disinformation Campaign

The MMR – measles, mumps, and rubella – vaccine controversy began with the 1998 publication of a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet. A British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and his team found that virtually all of the autistic children in their care were suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. Dr. Wakefield did not claim then, nor has he ever, that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. What he did say was that his study suggested more research should be done on a possible link. He was widely misquoted and discredited in the mainstream press (controlled by vaccine profiteers) as claiming that there was a vaccine-autism link (There is such a link, as the latest study again shows, though Dr. Wakefield never said so). His book “Callous Disregard” covers the autism cases and his press lynching. Dr. Wakefield filed a lawsuit for defamation against a hack British journalist and a newspaper that led the charge to misrepresent, misquote, and destroy him in order to discredit his research. He has been entirely exonerated along with his fellow researcher Dr. John Walker Smith.

Vaccine Profits Drive Mainstream Coverage

Dr. Wakefield is, of course, far from alone, as the billion-dollar profits of “vaccination” forever drive mainstream press coverage on the subject. Virtually every mainstream press outlet promotes mass vaccination with disease-outbreak scare stories and other tactics, while attacking anyone who questions the party line.

Anti-Vaxxer Buzz Word promotes Vaccination Superstition

“Anti-vaxxer” is the preferred buzz word meant to dismiss scientific arguments against vaccination superstition. This rhetorical fallacy (name calling) works just as “conspiracy theorist” has since it was introduced in a secret CIA memo. In 1967, the agency instructed its media shills to tattoo that term onto critics of the ludicrous findings of the Warren Commission. These tiresome terms are always employed in an attempt to humiliate people and silence meaningful dissent and discussion. They are employed to destroy civil discourse and critical thinking. Name calling is only a rank schoolyard bully ploy that should only work on one with the mind of a tapeworm. It doesn’t work on you, does it?

RELATED

 

Share

Invokana Dangers seen Early

Invokana dangers were seen early on by researchers. FDA reviewers were divided over the safety and effectiveness of Invokana before approving it for the market in 2013. At that time, the agency acted against the advice of prominent physicians and researchers in approving the drug for the treatment of Type-2 Diabetes. Since then, Invokana label warnings have been adjusted twice, so far, to reflect Invokana’s dangers.

Invokana Warnings
The Invokana label was most recently updated on May 16, 2017 to reflect Invokana’s raising the risk of amputations. The label was first updated in 2015 to reflect Invokana’s propensity to increase the risk of ketoacidosis and possibly heart attacks.

What is (Diabetic) Ketoacidosis?
Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a dangerous rise in blood acidity. This life-threatening condition develops when the body’s cells can’t get the sugar (glucose) they need for energy due to insulin shortage. When sugar can’t enter cells, it stays in the blood. The kidneys filter some of the sugar from the blood and remove it from the body through urine. When cells cannot receive sugar for energy, the body starts to break down fat and muscle for it. This process causes ketones – or fatty acids – to form and enter the bloodstream. This triggers a chemical imbalance (metabolic acidosis) called diabetic ketoacidosis, which can cause coma and even death.

Invokana Heart Attack Links
Another apparent problem with Invokana is its link to heart attacks (myocardial infarction) of which both the drug’s maker – Janssen (of Johnson & Johnson) – and the FDA were aware.

FDA Invokana Fail
A January 2013 meeting occurred between the FDA Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee (EMDA) and representatives of Janssen Pharmaceuticals (drug maker Mitsubishi Tanabe’s U.S. marketing partner). Janssen gave several presentations on the growth of Type 2 diabetes among the population and pushed the need for effective treatments (of the patent medicine, chemical kind, of course). The drug maker also promoted the wonders of its latest product, Invokana. During the question-and-answer session which followed, Dr. Sidney Wolfe – co-founder and director of Public Citizen’s Health Research Group – raised several questions. He pointed out that Janssen’s request for FDA approval was “based solely on surrogate efficacy of HbA1c lowering.” This is a measure of how well a patient’s blood sugar is controlled.

Invokana Dangers seen Early
Dr. Sidney Wolfe said that as with all recently approved Type 2 diabetic drugs, there was no evidence of any improved clinical outcomes, contrary to an older diabetes drug such as metformin. He said that this “surrogate efficacy needs to be balanced against a number of serious safety signals” seen in the clinical trials.

Dr. Wolfe’s primary concern was “thrombotic events” (blood clots) that could lead to heart attacks. He pointed out that in the studies presented, thirteen people on Invokana suffered “cardiovascular events.” Using available data from a related drug of the gliflozin class, Farxiga (dapagliflozin), Dr. Wolfe demonstrated that the risks for Invokana heart attack would be significantly greater: He said, “There is much more of an increase in hematocrit in the people getting canagliflozin [Invokana], 1.5 times as much as the dapa [gliflozin] group.”

Hematocrit refers to the concentration of red blood cells, which is increased by gliflozin drug’s mechanism of action. Normal concentration is 40% for women and 45% for men. Levels higher than that increase the likelihood that a person will develop a blood clot, causing a stroke or heart attack. According to Dr. Wolfe, at least 25% of patients on Invokana would wind up with a red blood cell concentration of 47%, which he described as “a very dangerous range.”

Additionally, FDA Reviewer Dr. Hyon Kwon testified at the committee hearing that there was “an imbalance in early cardiovascular events” observed in the CANVAS trial, a 4,300-subject study assessing the cardiovascular effects of Invokana. When FDA Biostatistician Dr. Mat Soukop testified, it became apparent how profound this “imbalance” is. Dr. Soukop testified that, in the first 30 days of use, Invokana had a cardiovascular events “Hazard Ratio” of 6.9; that is, patients who were taking Invokana had a 690% higher likelihood of suffering a cardiovascular event than the patients who were taking a placebo.

With Dr. Wolfe’s expert testimony and the FDA’s own biostatistical analysis, one might assume Janssen and Mitsubishi Tanabe would have been ordered to conduct more studies before FDA would approve the drug to be administered to patients in the United States. The FDA, by contrast, gave approval for sales of Invokana, on the condition that Janssen monitor it for adverse events. The company was also ordered to conduct a “post-market” double-blind study to determine how many patients actually experienced Invokana heart attacks. The FDA gave Johnson & Johnson’s subsidiary four years to do so.

FDA Ignores Physician/Researcher’s Analysis
The official position of the FDA is that such decisions are based on analyses of risks versus benefits. But FDA simply ignored the advice of prominent physicians and researchers who clearly showed that Invokana offered “no evidence of any improved clinical outcomes.”

RELATED
•   Invokana Amputation Warning
•   Invokana Lawsuit Attorney
•   Invokana Dangers seen Early

Share

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

President Trump’s EPA just moved to green light a pesticide that sickens people, lowers IQ, and is banned in American households. Prior to Trump’s reign, the EPA was scheduled to ban Vulcan for farm use. Vulcan is the brand name of a chemical pesticide (chlorpyrifos) linked to lower IQ and developmental problems in children. Vulcan recently sickened 47 California farm workers.

Vulcan Banned in Homes

Vulcan has long been banned in homes, and it was finally scheduled to be banned on farms, before the Tweeter in Charge took over.

Corporations vs. Citizens – Guess who Wins?
Just as Trump’s first act in office was to take away a potential $500-$900 in savings per year for people forced to buy private mortgage insurance, Trump’s EPA is removing restrictions on harmful pesticides. The theme is at least abundantly clear:  in corporation vs. citizen  battles, Trump and his cronies always toe the corporate line. Trump’s pick to head the EPA, Scott Pruitt, sued the agency more than a dozen times as Oklahoma Attorney General. Mr. Pruitt is a climate science denier who has reportedly accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars from the oil industry.

Vulcan Sickens Farm Workers

Vulcan recently sprayed on an orchard southwest of Bakersfield drifted to a neighboring property operated by Dan Andrews Farms.  Forty seven farm workers harvesting cabbage smelled something terrible. Several became nauseous and vomited. One worker was hospitalized, and four others soon visited doctors.

Chlorpyrifos was scheduled to be banned

Glenn Fankhauser, agricultural commissioner of Kern County, said cabbage and the workers’ clothing were taken to a state lab for lab testing. Vulcan’s main ingredient is chlorpyrifos, a toxic pesticide that was set to be banned by the Obama administration before Trump’s new EPA decided against the ban in March 2017.

Dan Andrews said he has never used chlorpyrifos. He believes his workers were sickened from it being blown in from the neighboring farm. With sick workers, his harvest had to be shut down. Andrews thinks chlorpyrifos should be banned. The poison also has a history of incidents similar to what happened to his workers.

Vulcan (Chloripyrifos) for All

Widely used on U.S. corporate farms, chlorpyrifos is sprayed on corn, wheat, and citrus crops. Growing evidence of its impact on human health led the EPA to agree with the chemical industry more than 10 years ago that it should not be used indoors for bugs.

Besides child developmental problems and lowered IQ, chlorpyrifos-related health issues include lower birth weight and attention disorders. Large doses of it can also cause convulsions and even death. People can be exposed through spray drift, residues on food, as well as water contamination.

Made by Dow Chemicals, chlorpyrifos could still be used for agriculture, but following a legal challenge by environmental groups, EPA scientists said the pesticide was not safe for any use and proposed a full ban.

EPA run by Pruitt allows Banned Pesticide

Trump’s EPA run by Mr. Pruitt rejected the proposed ban on chlorpyrifos.  In tortured Orwellian language, Pruitt said he wanted to provide “regulatory certainty to the thousands of American farms that rely on chlorpyrifos”.  The EPA he runs now claims there were “serious scientific concerns and substantive process gaps” in the plan to banish chlorpyrifos.  Poison now, examine the consequences later, has usually been the EPA’s M.O. Witness the agency’s colossal failure to oversee Monsanto’s mass poisoning of the country with the carcinogenic glyphosate. One must ask if the EPA is colluding with Monsanto, given the latest shenanigans we’ve seen from a former EPA scientist who told a Monsanto executive he should get a medal for helping quiet regulatory concerns over glyphosate.

The next review of chlorpyrifos isn’t scheduled until 2022.

EPA too close to Dow, Monsanto
Farmworker Justice, a group that advocates for farm workers (the poor folks who put food on our tables), said the EPA has become too close to chemical giants like Dow and Monsanto.

Unsafe for People, but not for Farmers?

The idea that something demonstrably poisonous should be banned in homes but not banned on farms is especially absurd coming from Trumps’ EPA head, Pruitt. the former Oklahoma AG wanted to abolish the EPA before Trump made him the head of it.  Mr. Pruitt now claims he wants to help American farmers and give them “regulatory certainty”? What sort of ‘regulatory certainty’ bans something in the home while letting it poison the farm and farmer? Low levels of any pesticide exposure can still be very harmful to children.

No chemical pesticide has ever been proven safe for people to breathe or eat. Organic farming uses no chemical pesticides. That’s why more and more people are waking up and eating it and avoiding chemically poisoned foods as best they can.

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

Ariana Marisol, a contributing staff writer for REALfarmacy.com, broke this story.  She graduated from Evergreen State College with an undergraduate degree focusing on Sustainable Design and Environmental Science. Keep up the good work, Adriana. Keep an eye on these clowns poisoning the world for profit.

RELATED

 

Share

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

Is there Monsanto EPA collusion? Even before industry was invited to regulate itself by Donald Trump’s billionaire businessmen appointments, multi-national corporations have long enjoyed cozy relationships with American “regulators.” Monsanto, of course, is no exception. Everyone knows Monsanto and the FDA have enjoyed revolving-door relations for years, but recent discoveries now show possible collusion between between Monsanto and the EPA.

Related: Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

Roundup / Glyophosate Cancer Link
Glyphosate – the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and other herbicides – is the most widely used agricultural chemical in the world. Testing shows a huge portion of the global population is contaminated with glyphosate, which several  organizations not aligned with Monsanto have termed “probably carcinogenic.”

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.”

Monsanto knows Glyphosate-Cancer Linked

Research scientist Anthony Samsel has reported evidence shows Monsanto has known since 1981 that glyphosate promotes cancer.

Monsanto has insisted publicly that glyphosate is harmless to both environmental and human health. However, recent revelations are starting to show the chemical company’s carefully orchestrated plan to deceive the public. Newly uncovered evidence suggests the U.S. EPA has colluded with Monsanto to protect corporate interests. Monsanto and the EPA have manipulated and prevented key investigations into the glyphosate cancer link. It appears the EPA has used taxpayer money to help keep us in the dark about Roundup health risks, shield companies from liability, obstruct people’s ability to prove damages in Monsanto Lawsuits.

Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto

After the IARC classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) also declared glyphosate a carcinogen, under Proposition 65. That means all products containing glyphosate must carry a cancer warning. Monsanto tried to overturn the OEHHA’s decision; however, Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Kapetan ruled against Monsanto.

non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Cancer Link
More than 700 plaintiffs are now suing Monsanto for a glyphosate cancer link. All claim Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Some of the plaintiffs are dead from lymphoma. Some have lost sensation in their fingers and jaws due to nerve damage.

EPA / Monsanto Man Jess Rowland
Monsanto has defended Roundup’s safety in court. The company leans heavily on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic.” At that time, Jess Rowland was associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division. Mr. Rowland was a key author of that report; his participation is especially troubling for Monsanto defenders.

Mr. Rowland was in charge of evaluating the cancer risk of Monsanto’s Roundup. He allegedly bragged to a company executive that he deserved a medal if he could kill another government agency’s investigation into Roundup’s key chemical, glyphosate.

Mr. Rowland made his boast in an April 2015 phone call, according to farmers and others who say they’ve been sickened by Roundup. After leaving his job as a manager in the EPA’s pesticide division last year, Jess Rowland will likelyh become a central figure in the more than 700 Monsanto lawsuits now filed in the U.S. All the Roundup lawsuits accuse Monsanto of failing to warn consumers and regulators that glyphosate-based herbicide can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Monsanto, EPA Cozy Relationships
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” the EPA’s Mr. Rowland told a Monsanto regulatory affairs manager who recounted the conversation in an email to colleagues. That’s according to a court filing made public last month. Monsanto sought Mr. Rowland’s help in stopping an investigation of glyphosate by a separate office, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. That agency is part of the U.S. Health and Human Service Department.

Highly Suspicious Relationship
A federal judge overseeing the glyphosate litigation in San Francisco said last month that he’s inclined to order Mr. Rowland to submit to questioning by lawyers for the plaintiffs. They contend he had a “highly suspicious” relationship with Monsanto. Mr. Rowland oversaw a committee that found insufficient evidence to conclude glyphosate causes cancer. He quit last year shortly after his report was leaked to the press.

The EPA’s conclusion, which exonerates glyphosate and contradicts the IARC’s determination, met with so much criticism that a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the EPA’s decision. According to some panel members, the EPA appears to have violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.

Glyphosate Causes Cancer, says EPA Scientist
Attorneys for people suing Monsanto also found email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Mr. Rowland. Those emails suggested he may have colluded with Monsanto to falsely declare glyphosate non-carcinogenic. In one email, Ms. Copley cites evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals. She wrote: “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.” She then accuses Mr. Rowland of playing “political conniving games with the science” to help Monsanto and other pesticide makers.

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

Court records also show that Mr. Rowland warned Monsanto of the IARC’s determination months before it was made public. That gave Monsanto time to plan its defense strategy and its ongoing disinformation campaign.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

The world is waking up to Monsanto. The biotech bully from Missouri was recently found guilty of crimes against humanity by the International Monsanto Tribunal at The Hague. Millions of thinking people now know just what this company represents and why. It recently came to light that the world’s most despised company has been colluding with the EPA to lie about the risks of glyphosate. Now Monsanto stands accused of another misdeed, and evidence backs up the charge. Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, court documents show.

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

Recently obtained court documents reveal that Monsanto has been secretly feeding money to “think tanks,” such as the infamous ‘Genetic Literacy Project.’ A lawsuit filed against Monsanto in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California has begun to spill the beans on the company.

The lawsuit petition charges that Monsanto quietly funnels money to “think tanks” such as the “Genetic Literacy Project” and the “American Council on Science and Health.” Such organizations are used by corporations like Monsanto in an attempt to influence (Read: bully) scientists and promote (mis)information flattering to Monsanto and other chemical companies.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen
After the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced last year that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, Monsanto has sought to discredit the agency. Monsanto has used proxies such as the so-called ‘American Council on Science and Health’ and the so-called ‘Genetic Literacy Project,’ to do the dirty work.

The American Council on Science and Health (tied to Monsanto through hidden means) recently published articles accusing the IARC of ignoring the “science” on glyphosate. Natural News reports that the Genetic Literacy Project, led by former Forbes.com writer/wife beater Jon Entine, has also published pieces calling for the IARC to be abolished. The phony ‘Project,’ an Astroturf organization, has even accused the US of “unwittingly funding” conspiracies against Monsanto. (“Conspiracy Theory” was first trotted out in a memo to staffers that CIA – Murder, Inc. – used to discredit anyone researching JFK’s murder in Dallas.)

These allegations against Monsanto are backed up by a string of emails submitted in court as evidence. Some of these exchanges involve Monsanto executives suggesting that their staff “ghost write” material on Monsanto products and then have some “independent scientists” sign their names to save on costs. One such exchange occurred between Monsanto’s William Heydens and his colleagues:

Mr. Heydens wrote: “A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections. An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams Kroes & Munro, 2000.”

Besides the emails and evidence of Monsanto’s collusion with government agencies and “think tanks,” Monsanto also stands accused of hiring “trolls” to defend the company on the web and attack any Monsanto detractors. (Tall order, considering the number of people who hate Monsanto; but Monsanto can afford it.)

Monsanto’s ‘Let Nothing Go’ Program
Evidence presented in the pretrials of Monsanto court cases at the US District Court in San Francisco has shown that in its “Let Nothing Go” program, Monsanto hired bloggers who appeared to have no relation to the company. The people were hired to troll the internet in support of Monsanto. Fake bloggers (‘fake’ because they were paid and they hid their Monsanto ties) were hired to post positive comments about Monsanto and praise the wonders of its toxic chemicals and GMO crops.

Monsanto Facebook
The goal of the Let Nothing Go program was “to leave nothing, not even Facebook comments, unanswered…” Monsanto emails show the plan in court documents. The plaintiffs say Monsanto has, through this program, been targeting all forms of social media and other online materials. Even comments on social networks that merely mention the potential hazards of things like glyphosate or genetically modified crops have been targeted by Monsanto’s trolls, according to the petition.

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, and other anti-GMO activists, have been particularly targeted by Monsanto attacks. Adams was also recently de-listed by Google in a stunning violation of his first amendment rights; so one can also now wonder about ties between Google and Monsanto. Mr. Adams has been a prime target of pro-GMO trolls: The so-called ‘Genetic Literacy Project’ and other corporate front groups have published hit pieces on Mr. Adams and other anti-GMO activists and Monsanto critics.

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

The evidence revealed in these court documents sheds bright light on just how Monsanto works to destroy its critics and destroy or control discourse on GMO’s.  Lie as they may, and collude as they must, Monsanto is still losing this battle, despite its profits. More and more people are waking up to the dawn of a new day, one with fewer pesticides spoiling our air, food, water, and public discourse. The truth will out, and out will go Monsanto.

RELATED

Share

Johnson & Johnson loses $110 Million Talc Powder Verdict

Johnson & Johnson just lost another huge verdict over its talc products. On May 4, 2017, a jury ordered J&J to pay a Virginia woman more than $110 million for failing to warn her that Johnson’s talc powder contains cancer-causing asbestos. The jurors agreed with the plaintiff’s lawyers that asbestos in J&J’s talc powder caused the woman’s ovarian cancer.

Related: Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

The Missouri jury ordered J&J to pay the woman damages. They agreed that she developed ovarian cancer after decades of using J&J talc-based products for feminine hygiene.

Largest Talc Cancer Verdict to date  (May 2017)

The verdict in state court in St. Louis is the largest to date. It stems from one of an estimated 2,400 lawsuits that accuse J&J of failing to adequately warn of cancer risks linked with talc-based products. Johnson’s Baby Powder is, of course, one of the world’s best-known talc products. It is also J&J’s flagship product; so the company is not going gentle into that good night. Its lawyers will continue to vigorously defend J&J, a company spokesman said, despite mounting jury losses.

$197 Million in Jury Verdicts
J&J has faced four prior trials in St. Louis, home to many of the talc cancer lawsuits. Three have resulted in $197 million in verdicts against J&J and a related talc supplier.

The May 4, 2017 verdict came in a talc cancer lawsuit against J&J and talc supplier Imerys Talc. The plaintiff was Virginia resident Lois Slemp. Diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012, she is now undergoing chemotherapy after her cancer returned and spread to her liver.

Ms. Slemp testified that she developed cancer after four decades of using talc-containing products made by J&J. She said she used J&J’s Baby Powder and also its Shower to Shower Powder.

Punitive Damages in $110 Million Verdict
The jury awarded $5.4 million in compensatory damages. They ruled that J&J was 99 percent at fault, while Imerys was one (1) percent to blame. The jury awarded punitive damages of $105 million against J&J, $50,000 against Imerys.

A lawyer for Ms. Slemp said, “[T]hese companies ignored the scientific evidence and continue to deny their responsibilities to the women of America.”

Johnson & Johnson Response
J&J announced in a statement that it “sympathized” with women impacted by ovarian cancer but planned to appeal the verdict. A company spokes model said J&J is “preparing for additional trials this year and will continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”

J&J loses 4 of 5 Trials over Baby Powder
In March 2017, J&J scored its first trial win in the Missouri litigation.  That jury sided with the company in a lawsuit brought by a Tennessee woman who said her ovarian cancer was caused by Johnson’s Baby Powder.

Paintiffs had won all three previous trials against J&J and its talc powders. In February 2017, a jury awarded $72 million to the family of a woman who died from ovarian cancer. In May 2016, a jury awarded $55 million to a woman who said J&J’s talc-powder products caused her ovrian cancer. A third jury hit J&J and Imerys with a $70 million verdict in October 2016.  Plaintiffs also beat J&J in a fourth talcum powder cancer trial in South Dakota, in 2014. However, the jury in that case was told that the woman who sued was in remission from her ovarian cancer. The jury did not award that lucky woman any damages.

The $110 million verdict is Slemp v. Johnson & Johnson, 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri, No. 1422-CC09326-01.

RELATED

Share