Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked – Studies

While Monsanto continues to claim (publicly) that Roundup is not carcinogenic, several studies have shown Roundup exposure raises one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Recently released Monsanto documents also show Monsanto executives were told by their own lead scientist that no studies have proved Roundup safe.

Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked – Studies

Non-Hodgkin lymphoma cases have increased significantly in the last 30 years, according to a scientific review published in 2014.  The study suggests chemical pesticides and herbicides – especially glyphosate from Roundup – are a major contributing factor to that increase.

The 2014 Roundup cancer study is titled, “Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma and Occupational Exposure to Agricultural Pesticide Chemical Groups and Active Ingredients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.”  It was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. The paper focused on reviews and meta-analyses of nearly 30 years worth of epidemiological research on pesticides. It examined the link between non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to 80 active pesticide ingredients and 21 chemical groups. The study notes pesticides are often grouped according to the type of pests that they control. It noted the difference between fungicides, insecticides, and herbicides – respectively used to kill fungi; insects; weeds and plants.

Glyphosate Doubles Lymphoma Risk
Authors of the 2014 glyphosate cancer study tried to reconcile a trend among farm workers with low mortality but high cancer rates.  Researchers believe Roundup exposure best explains this (apparent) contradiction.  The Roundup cancer study found glyphosate exposure doubled one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Glyphosate, B-Cell Lymphoma Link
Besides showing occupational pesticide exposure in agriculture as a risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma, the study also found glyphosate exposure linked to a common non-Hodgkin lymphoma subtype, B-cell lymphoma.

More Studies Show Roundup Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma Link
Several older Roundup cancer studies also researched occupational glyphosate exposure in Sweden, the U.S. and Canada. They also found increased incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, even after adjustments which considered other pesticides.

  • In 2008, the International Journal of Cancer published a Swedish study which found glyphosate exposure doubled one’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma within 10 years.
  • In 2003, Occupational and Environmental Medicine published a U.S. study that examined thousands of Midwestern farm workers. The workers had increased incidences of non-Hodgkin lymphoma which the study authors linked with glyphosate exposure.
  • In 2001, Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention published Canadian research that found a dose response relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Farming Communities Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma
Leukemia and Lymphoma Society reported a higher incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in farming communities.  Several studies (including those above) have suggested certain herbicide and pesticide ingredients are linked to lymphoma.  The true number of lymphoma cases caused by these herbicide and pesticide exposures is not yet known.  Consequently, there is an urgent need for more glyphosate exposure research.

Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma Victims File Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
Several farmers and others working in agriculture have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, the maker of Roundup.  The plaintiffs allege their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by Roundup (glyphosate) exposure.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits Filed

March 2016 – The family of California farmer Jack McCall filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto.  Their petition alleges Roundup exposure caused Mr. McCall’s cancer.  He was diagnosed with a rare form of non-Hodgkin lymphoma after using Roundup for nearly 30 years. According to the lawsuit petition, Mr. McCall used Roundup liberally on his 20-acre fruit and vegetable farm in Cambria.  He died in December of 2015 after suffering a massive stroke due to complications from cancer.

February 2016 – James and Brenda Huerta filed a Roundup cancer lawsuit in California against Monsanto. The couple claim glyphosate exposure caused Brenda to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The Roundup cancer lawsuit claims both were exposed to Roundup while living on a sod farm sprayed with glyphosate from 2004 to 2008.

November 2015 – Christine Sheppard worked on a coffee farm she owned in Hawaii from 1995 to 2004. For roughly eight years, Ms. Sheppard sprayed Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate)] to kill weeds. She alleges her Roundup exposure caused her non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Her Roundup lawsuit petition claims Monsanto failed to warn the public and her about the dangers of glyphosate.

October 2015 – Joselin Barrera and Elias de la Garza of Texas filed Roundup cancer lawsuits. Their petition claims their non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses are related to glyphosate exposure. Joselin Barrera is the child of farm workers. Elias de la Garza is a former farm worker and landscaper.

Monsanto’s Own Documents show Roundup not proven safe

Monsanto continues to claim publicly that Roundup (glyphosate) is not a carcinogen, despite the pronouncement of the World Health Organization in 2015 that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.”  Behind company doors, however, recently released Monsanto emails and documents  show the company never performed adequate studies to settle the safety question.  Lead Monsanto toxicologist Donna Farmer told Monsanto management wrote in an internal email:  “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen.  (We) have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

The studies above did the “necessary testing,” as did the WHO.  They have found that Roundup looks more and more like a carcinogen.  Meanwhile, Monsanto looks more and more guilty of, at the very least, failing to properly test its herbicide/pesticide, as new evidence comes to light in the Discovery phase of Roundup Cancer Litigation.

RELATED

Share

DNC, HRC destroy Democratic Party

– By Richard Matthews

Full disclosure: I’ve voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since Jimmy Carter in 1976. Count me among those annoying folks who argue that only those who are card-carrying members of their party, gender, sexual persuasion, race, creed, family, religion or whatever are the only ones who have a right to criticize that group or its members.  Count me a part of that group of War-hating, Union-loving, Teacher-celebrating, Peace-symbol-wearing, bleeding-heart-liberal weirdos whose heart aches whenever he sees a dead squirrel in the street.  That’s who I’m stuck being.  (Who are you, really?)

The Clinton “Foundation:”   Greed & Deception

That said, for a litany of reasons – principal among them her collusion with the DNC and major media (all sadly well documented by Wikileaks) to subvert Democracy itself and destroy Bernie Sanders and the progressive moment he inspired; her murderous campaign to decimate Libya (after which she laughed in recounting her orchestrated slaughter of Muammar Gaddafi, who had made the desert bloom for HIS people); her murderous machinations in Syria and the consequent turmoil those actions have caused (mass migration of bleeding, fleeing peoples creating mass havoc all over the world); her bear-baiting Russia with the neocons, which has helped bring us to the brink of nuclear Armageddon (make no mistake; look it up); her Clinton Foundation’s colluding with criminal Haitian leaders and others to profit from peoples’ unspeakable suffering; and finally her pathetically disingenuous glass ceiling play on people’s emotions.

The Glass Ceiling?

Of all the arguments we heard as to why HRC “should” be elected President, that we should elect her because she is a woman – and gee, we’ve never had a woman President before – may be the most insufferable.  Sadly, even in HRC’s finest moment in public life, in her surprisingly gracious concession speech, she struck a disingenuous note, pointing to the glass ceiling as a principal reason why she was not elected.  Did HRC bump her well-coiffed head against the glass ceiling?  Is that what stopped her? (Read Greg Palast.  The election was, in fact, stolen from her and other Dem candidates, but not by the red herring Russian connection.  The fraud was much closer to home, in the electronic ballot box and the “caging” of voters expected to vote Democrat, primarily Black folks.)

Did the millions of women who voted against Hillary do so because they hate their own kind and wanted to keep down one of their own?  Did the millions of men who voted against her do so because they are misogynist deplorables?

The “glass ceiling” never stopped Hillary Rodham Clinton from doing anything.  The “glass ceiling” never stopped HRC from rising to a more prominent position of political and financial power than 99.9% of men of any stripe ever reach.  It certainly never stopped her or her supporters from disingenuously playing the gender card every chance they got.  Was there ever any doubt that she was a woman?  Did we need reminding from her friends at CNN and all the other network agents that met secretly (again sadly and meticulously documented by Wikileaks) with her campaign manager (and frightening pervert) John Podesta and DNC staff at her behest to discredit Sanders as a viable candidate?  Was there every any doubt that the entire country was aware that no woman had ever before attained the Presidency of the United States?

Diversity?
Why are so many on the Right so tired of hearing about “Diversity”?  Are we doing something to alienate non-believers when we speak of “Diversity” as a virtue?  Is it so deplorable to question the whole concept of Diversity as virtue, in and of itself?

Diversity itself is not a virtue and it has no inherent value, at least so far as politics is concerned, especially when it is used in disingenuous fashion.  Diversity is an entirely subjective term, as slippery as an eel, as completely devoid of meaning as a campaign promise, except insofar as it can be easily manipulated by anyone to mean anything.  Diversity holds no inherent value, nor does being a woman, or being a man, or a hyphenated “diverse” American of any flavor. To hell with diversity.  Let’s talk about what matters

What Does and Does Not Matter
Let’s start a new conversation, one begun by Bernie Sanders. What matters? Morality matters. Ideas matter.  Beliefs matter.  Honesty matters. Separating fact from fiction matters. Whether or not one supports NAFTA, or this or that international trade agreement, matters. Whether or not one supports a one-world government matters.   Whether or not we need paper ballots to certify our elections matters.  Whether or not we allow our votes to be counted by easily-hacked software matters.

Whether or not Sanders could have beaten Trump where Clinton did not does not matter.  Not anymore.  What matters is that the DNC and HRC’s backers colluded to subvert Democracy.  There was rank criminality in the DNC.  That is what matters. That is a crime that disenfranchised millions of voters.

Trump’s “Virtue”?

Say what you will of Trump, he has, at least, one “virtue”:  He openly disdains Democracy and the rule of law, along with the “Free Press.”  The DNC does its dirty work entirely in the dark.

If Democrats and the DNC ever want to be taken seriously again, they need to start by cleaning house ENTIRELY.  No more cronyism, DNC, and no more cynicism.  Let Democracy have its day or go f*** yourselves.

One Honest He/She/It to Start
Here’s an idea: Start with ONE honest man, or ONE honest woman, or ONE honest transsexual, pantheistic, homosexual, Asian-African-Native-Caucasian-Hyphenated, cross-dressing, trans-bathroom-using human being.  I don’t care one whit about what he/she/it looks or sounds like, and I don’t think one single person in this country does either, just so long as that honest person is capable of at least three things: the ability to love, listen, and learn.

And I think we need somebody who doesn’t think it’s a good idea to demonize and murder other peoples’ leaders and scatter their people hither and yon in order to create chaos toward the goal of maximizing profits and hiring cheap labor for the 1%.  That tact, as old as anything in our broken world, does not seem to be working so well, does it, DNC?

RELATED

 

Share

Herbicide, Pesticide: What’s the Difference?

Question:  What’s the difference between an herbicide and a pesticide?

Answer:  The EPA classifies herbicides as pesticides; so for all practical purposes, there is no significant difference between an herbicide and a pesticide.

Euphemism Lies

The word herbicide is a euphemism for pesticide.   A euphemism is a “lesser substitute,” according to Webster’s Dictionary.  A euphemism is used to massage the truth, or make it more palatable.  (The Nazis couldn’t say, “Let’s kill all the Jews,” so they trotted out “The Final Solution” for maximum marketability and subterfuge.)  The truth, the reality of a thing, doesn’t change because one pastes a different name on it.   An herbicide may be designed to target plants (hence, “herb”) and a pesticide may be designed to target “pests,” but they both kill or cause indiscriminate harm.  An herbicide IS a pesticide, a poison hostile to living things.

EPA Glyphosate Promotion
The EPA’s web site reads like an advertisement for glyphosate.  It simply ignores glyphosate’s hugely controversial reality.   EPA says, “Glyphosate is a widely used herbicide that controls broadleaf weeds and grasses.  Glyphosate has been used as a pesticide since the 1970s.  Glyphosate acid and several related glyphosate salt compounds are also registered pesticides.”

The EPA clearly promotes glyphosate, saying, “[P]roducts can be safely used by following label directions.”   It also claims, “glyphosate has low toxicity for humans.”  (At what levels?  Where’s the research not done by Monsanto, which shows all kinds of glyphosate safety problems.)

EPA also claims on its web site: “Glyphosate is no more than slightly toxic to birds and is practically nontoxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, and honeybees.”  (What, exactly, does “slightly toxic” mean?   Ever see a red winged blackbird in a cornfield anymore?  Twenty years ago one could see dozens or hundreds of such birds in every cornfield all over the country.)

EPA Liars or Illiterates?
It is now established as a well-known fact that pesticides are largely responsible for massive bee die-offs in the last 20 years. So is the EPA lying, or are the people running the agency illiterate?  (Trump is famous for not reading anything, so perhaps his appointees also fail to read relevant material?)  Or is the EPA simply so captured by industry that it doesn’t have time to do anything but promote industry?  In the Trump administration, a longtime hater of the EPA, former Okla. Attorney General Scott Pruitt, is now head of the EPA.  Similarly, a man who wanted to abolish the Dept. of Energy is now the head of that department – former Texas governor (and TV dancer) Rick Perry.  For education, a person who has promoted charter schools to the detriment of public ones for decades, Betsy DeVos, has been appointed Secretary of Education.  Fox have now completely taken over the hen house.

The EPA does tepidly admit on its website that “Glyphosate and the related acid and salt compounds are currently undergoing registration review, a program that re-evaluates all pesticides on a 15-year cycle.”  (Don’t hold our breath for the agency to do the right thing.  Its incestuous ties with Monsanto are well documented. )

Agent Orange “Herbicide” Injured People
American soldiers who served in Vietnam during the U.S. occupation of that country were indiscriminately sprayed with an “herbicide” called Agent Orange. It may not have been designed to harm them, but harm them it did. Many thousands of former soldiers have since received compensation from the U.S. government for nerve damage, painful debilitating rashes, and other health problems caused by Agent Orange.  The targeted Vietnamese were not as lucky. Vietnamese peoples have seen at least three generations of birth defects from the tons of Agent Orange dumped on them, their rice patties and jungles during America’s unconscionable attacks on their lands and ways of life.

Where have all the bees and songbirds gone?
Bees and songbirds have been disappearing at a staggering rate over the last 20 years, directly in proportion to the poisoning of the air, ground, and water by Monsanto and other pesticide profiteers.  Roundup and other herbicide pesticides have been dumped indiscriminately all over the world, winding up in rivers, streams and ocean basins.  (Florida has seen parts of its tourism industry severely damaged by glyphosate’s destruction of coral reefs and oceanfront property.)  Pliant “regulatory” agencies like the EPA and FDA, along with top-level judges and politicians, have been captured or compromised by former Monsanto employees and lawyers (like Monsanto/FDA revolving door puppet Michael Taylor, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and former Monsanto lawyer Hillary Clinton, to name just a few.)

Why are Americans so Fat Today?
Why are Americans now chronically obese compared to past generations? More than half of us weren’t morbidly obese just 25 years ago, which is the case today. Part of the blame for obesity, and the rising healthcare costs it triggers, can be placed squarely on Monsanto’s broad chemically-enhanced shoulders. High fructose corn syrup, courtesy of Monsanto’s GMO corn, helps make Americans fatter. GMO foods also strip (or chelate, which is what glyphosate is designed to do) the flora from a healthy person’s stomach, making foods less bio-available and causing the stomach to falter in its most natural function – to digest food, uptake nutrients from it, and provide needed energy to the brain and body.

Monsanto Crimes Against Humanity
Monsanto has been tried for crimes against humanity in the Hague. The company was found guilty.

RELATED

Share

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

Ben and Jerry may need to add “Glyphosate” to their long list of popular flavors.  The probable carcinogen made by Monsanto and sprayed all over the world was recently found to taint ten of 11 samples of Ben and Jerry’s ice cream.

Monsanto apologists immediately said the amounts found were very small, and that it would take thousands of helpings to develop ill health effects.  But like all things regarding Monsanto, the truth is not so simple or clear cut.  Several other recent studies have shown that chronic exposure to Glyphosate at levels far below those sanctioned by the EPA maybe be hazardous to kidney and liver function.  Studies have shown that even tiny amounts of chronic glyphosate exposure can raise one’s risk of liver and kidney problems.  In addition, there is evidence of EPA officials colluding with Monsanto to conceal the very real problems of glyphosate.  So who’s to say what levels of the pesticide are “safe”?

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

Organic Consumers Association
Since the FDA doesn’t test for the probable carcinogen glyphosate, private groups have been forced to take action. The Organic Consumers Association tested 11 samples of Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. They reported that ten contained traces of glyphosate or a related chemical.

Glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup.  Also known as AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid), it can appear in soils poisoned with Roundup.

The OCA called for Ben & Jerry’s to either begin transitioning to organic ingredients or face a national and international consumer boycott. The group also called on stores to drop Ben & Jerry’s unless the company complies.

Poisoned Environment, Pesticided Foods
OCA director Ronnie Cummins blasted dairy farmers and Ben & Jerry’s.  He said company profits “are built on the back of an industrial dairy system that poisons the environment and produces pesticide-contaminated food products.”

An independent lab tested all flavors, the group said.  ‘Cherry Garcia’ was the sole flavor that tested negative for glyphosate.

Ben & Jerry’s prides itself on its environmental and social impacts, so these findings are especially concerning.  Ben & Jerry’s touts “fair trade” policies and support for GMO labeling.  The company has claimed glyphosate traces could be due to “add-ins” such as peanut butter or cookie dough. (But does it matter how the ice cream is tainted?)

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

A Ben & Jerry’s spokeswoman responded to a request for comment July 26 from The Republican:

“While we have not yet seen the results, we can confirm all Ben & Jerry’s products are safe to consume,” wrote Laura Peterson. “Even if the reported results are accurate, as the laboratory that conducted the test stated, a person would have to consume 145,000 eight-ounce servings PER DAY to reach the limit set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Glyphosate Probable Carcinogen

While the World Health Organization in 2015 classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic,” the European Food Safety Authority determined it is unlikely it causes cancer. The Environmental Protection Agency recently determined glyphosate is not carcinogenic, but cozy EPA relations between Monsanto executives and a key EPA researcher have made it clear there is at least the appearance of impropriety if not outright collusion.

Glyphosate also has a checkered past. Back in the 1990s the agency rubber stamped the poison over the objections of two of its senior scientists, who made it clear they did not agree that it had been proven safe.

Glyphosate Probably Carcinogenic
In June 2017, California added glyphosate to a list of chemicals “known to cause cancer.” Monsanto vowed to fight the designation, but a judge determined Monsanto can’t force the state to violate its own laws regarding the designation of cancerous substances.

Science for Sale
Virtually all studies paid for by Monsanto – mostly short-term and cleverly designed to clear Roundup of any health issues – have deemed glyphosate safe. Many studies not financed by Monsanto have found the opposite is true. Gyphosate mixed into the toxic killer Roundup has been shown to cause liver and kidney damage, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Multiple Myeloma, and other life-threatening problems.

Monsanto has, beyond any doubt, paid for science findings sensitive to company profits. Any careful review of the research proves that. Monsanto-connected scientists routinely criticize and attempt to dismiss any science or scientists who find Roundup problems. Monsanto mouthpieces try to tattoo any Monsanto questioners as “activists.  In a straight case of the pot calling the kettle black, Monsanto shills routinely shrill that any person or persons who find Roundup cancerous are politicized and guilty of shoddy “advocacy science.”

Monsanto Shoots the Messenger
That ad hominem fallacy of attacking its critics may fail Monsanto in the courts, however. The undisputed pesticide king is facing several lawsuits from people who claim their non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma was caused by Roundup.

Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream Tainted with Glyphosate

Glyphosate, no matter how you cut it (literally) with several adjuvants to make carcinogenic Roundup, is not as safe or as innocuous as advertised by Monsanto. So you may want to ask Ben & Jerry to hold the glyphosate on your next ice cream order.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto Sued again for Roundup Labeling

Monsanto is being sued again for its Roundup labeling. The latest lawsuit calls the label “misleading.”  It is the second lawsuit filed against Monsanto for misleading people with its Roundup label. The first was filed in California.

Monsanto “Intentionally Mislabels”
In the latest Monsanto lawsuit petition, two nonprofit groups charge that Monsanto intentionally mislabels Roundup. They call foul on Monsanto’s claim that Roundup “target[s] an enzyme found in plants but not in people or pets.”  The lawsuit charges that Monsanto’s statement is “false, deceptive and misleading.” The enzyme targeted by glyphosate is, in fact, also found in people and pets.

Beyond Pesticides and the Organic Consumers Association filed the lawsuit in Washington, DC, court on July 14, 2017. It was filed under the District of Columbia’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen

The petition states: “Monsanto aggressively markets Roundup as safe for humans and animals, despite newer studies indicating (glyphosate) may be carcinogenic. [It may] affect human and animal cardiovascular, endocrine, nervous and reproductive systems.”

The complaint further says that “consumers must and do rely on Monsanto to report honestly Roundup’s effects on humans and animals and whether the enzyme it targets is found in people and pets. No reasonable consumer seeing these representations would expect that Roundup targets a bacterial enzyme that is found in humans and animals and that affects their immune health.”

Monsanto profits from Falsehood
The plaintiffs claim Monsanto knows its Roundup representations are false, and it profits from the falsehood.

The Shikimate Pathway
The lawsuit complaint further states: “Monsanto is aware of how glyphosate works on the shikimate pathway. (Monsanto) is aware of studies showing that the shikimate pathway is present in bacteria integral to the digestive systems of people and pets. Monsanto therefore knows that glyphosate targets an enzyme present not only in plants, but also in people and pets.

“By deceiving consumers about the nature and effects of Roundup, Monsanto is able to sell a greater volume of Roundup, and to command a higher price for Roundup.”

The consumer groups seek equitable relief on behalf of the general public. They want all profits earned by Monsanto Roundup sales in DC to be deposited into a charitable fund that would be used for raising consumer awareness of Roundup’s health effects.

Glyphosate Makes California Cancer List
Glyphosate was recently added to California’s Proposition 65 list of cancer-causing agents. In another Roundup lawsuit, court documents suggest Monsanto may have ghostwritten research later attributed to academics. This research was used to cover up glyphosate’s cancer risks. The documents further suggest that a senior U.S. EPA official may have worked secretly for Monsanto to quash glyphosate reviews.

Glyphosate Contamination Everywhere
Independent studies have detected glyphosate residues in popular processed foods such as cookies, crackers, popular cold cereals, chips. Another study found trace amounts of glyphosate in cat and dog foods, including Purina, Friskies, Iams, 9 Lives, Kibbles ‘n Bits, Rachael Ray.  Glyphosate has also been found to contaminate California wines, and virtually all vaccines (which are all heavily contaminated already).

Monsanto denies Cancer Link     

Monsanto spokesmodels all adamantly deny that Roundup causes cancer.

Beyond Pesticides
Meanwhile, the executive director of Beyond Pesticides, Jay Feldman, said “Monsanto is falsely telling the public that its product cannot hurt them.”

Organic Consumers Association
Ronnie Cummins, the Organic Consumers Association’s international director, said, “For decades, Monsanto has used false labeling claims to dupe consumers into believing that they can spray Roundup on their yards and in their gardens, without risk to themselves, their children or their pets. It’s time for the courts to step in.”

Monsanto Sued for False Roundup Labeling
The case is Beyond Pesticides et al v Monsanto Co. et al.

RELATED

Share

Latest Takata Recall: 2.7 million more air bag inflators

Ford, Nissan, Takata admits Airbags Defectiveand Mazda auto owners will want to heed the latest Takata air bag recall. On July 10, 2017, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said new testing is prompting Takata Corp. to declare more air bag inflators defective in Ford Motor Co., Nissan Motor Co., and Mazda Motor Corp. vehicles.  The latest Takata recall will involve 2.7 million more air bag inflators

Takata Air Bags Linked to 17 Deaths
Takata air bag inflators have been linked to 17 deaths and more than 180 injuries. The recalls will eventually involve roughly 125 million inflators. The NHTSA said new testing is prompting the recall of some driver-side air bags made from 2012–2015.

Nissan Versa Recall
Nissan said that “out of an abundance of caution,” it will recall 627,000 Versa cars from 2007-2012, including 515,000 in the U.S.. Nissan will notify Versa owners within 60 days.

Ford Recall
Ford spokesman John Cangany said the issue covers roughly 2.2 million Ford vehicles. Ford has five days to respond to the Takata filing. Mr. Cangany said Ford is “aware of Takata’s submission, and we have been in regular contact with the agency on the issue. Importantly, we aren’t aware of any incidents, and test data doesn’t suggest any issues.”

Mada Recall
Mazda said the new recall impacts just 6,000 B-series trucks.

Largest-Ever Auto Safety Recall

More than 65 percent of 46.2 million previously recalled Takata air bag inflators in the U.S. have not yet been fixed. The issue, which involves 17 automakers, is the largest ever auto safety recall. It pushed Takata into filing for bankruptcy protection in June 2017.

High Humidity Raises Rupture Risk
NHTSA has said that Takata inflator ruptures occur after long-term exposure to high humidity.

Earlier Takata recalls have involved air bag inflators without a drying agent. The latest 2.7 million air bag inflators being recalled involve a drying agent, but Takata said testing showed ruptures could still happen.

Air Bag Death #11 in U.S.
Honda Motor C. reported on July 10 that it had confirmed an 11th U.S. death related to one of its vehicles outfitted with a faulty Takata air bag inflator.

By 2019, Takata expects to have recalled 125 million vehicles worldwide, more than 60 million of them in the U.S., according to a June statement from Scott Caudill, chief operating officer of TK Holdings, Takata’s U.S. unit.

Latest Takata Recall: 2.7 million more air bag inflators

Anyone who even suspects their vehicle is outfitted with a Takata air bag would be wise to check the full list of every Takata air bag recall, to see if their vehicle is listed.

RELATED

Share

Glyphosate Poison’s History

Monsanto’s glyphosate is poison. That’s the first thing to understand about it. It is toxic. It kills. Glyphosate is a pesticide. Monsanto likes to call it an herbicide, a euphemism for a weed killer, and a euphemism for a pesticide. All weed killer herbicides are also classified as pesticides. Roundup, with glyphosate, is a pesticide. There’s a good reason Monsanto is being dragged to court in Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

EPA: Herbicide is Pesticide

The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s definition of a pesticide includes the designation that an herbicide (or weed killer) IS a pesticide. The EPA is the federal agency that regulates (or pretends to regulate) and registers all pesticide products in the U.S. All (US) applicators apply pesticides under regulation of the EPA and their state, territorial, or tribal pesticide regulatory authorities.

EPA defines a pesticide as “any substance or mixture of substances intended for:
•  preventing,
•  destroying,
•  repelling, or
•  mitigating any pest.”

Though often misunderstood to refer only to insecticides, the term pesticide also applies to herbicides (like Roundup), fungicides, and various other substances used to control pests.

Under United States law, a pesticide is also any “substance or mixture of substances intended for use as a plant (growth) regulator, defoliant, or desiccant.”

Glyphosate Poison’s History
Glyphosate poison’s history begins in 1964. That’s the year glyphosate was originally patented to clean pipes, like Drano, another famous poison you’d be wise not to drink or breathe in. The Stauffer Chemical Company of Westport, Connecticut patented glyphosate to remove unwanted mineral deposits from pipes. Yes, just like Drano removes deposits from pipes, so does glyphosate.

Monsanto’s John E. Franz found that glyphosate also killed plants. Consequently, Monsanto brought glyphosate to market, in 1974, to do some killing. Glyphosate works as a non-selective, water-soluble pesticide with a specific mechanism of action. It directly interrupts plant development, killing plants by metabolically poisoning them. When something is unable to process nutrients for its health, it dies. People also die in this fashion. People die in many ways, but in the main, people die when their bodies can no longer process food for nutritional value needed to boost the immune system and sustain life.

How Glyphosate Kills Living Things

As with the pipe-cleaning patent, glyphosate binds (chelates) vital nutrients such as iron, manganese, zine, and boron in the soil. By binding these nutrients, glyphosate prevents plants from absorbing them.  Likewise, humans, farm animals, pets who consume Roundup Ready crops are also (likely) nutritionally starved. GMO soy plants (glyphosated) have lower levels of essential nutrients compared with non-GMO soy.  Depleted nutrient uptake may also account for GMO soy’s higher susceptibility to disease. An unhealthy plant can’t protect itself as well as a healthy (non genetically modified) one.

Cows Poisoned with Glyphosate
A German Egyptian research team found all cows tested from Danish dairy farms excreted glyphosate in their urine and had low levels of manganese and cobalt. This again could be a direct result of glyphosate’s chelation powers, designed for killing, for stripping away a living thing’s nutrient absorption abilities.

Glyphosate Anti-biotic Resistance
Monsanto was also “awarded” a patent (in 2010) to use glyphosate as a potential antibiotic. Glyphosate has antimicrobial activity by “virtue” of its ability to chelate, to strip living things of their ability to uptake minerals. So, on top of glyphosate’s other “virtues,” it may also be “helping” to unleash superbugs impervious to anti-biotics because of the overuse of antibiotics. Got glyphosate yourself?  You can bet that you do. You would be nearly insane to bet against it. Even if you think you avoid glyphosate as best you can, it’s found in most rain water, it’s found in many popular foods, in California wine (including organic wine), even in most vaccines.

People poisoned with Glyphosate
Virtually every man, woman and child in the U.S. is contaminated with glyphosate. Evidence from independent researchers is showing glyphosate can alter human and animal intestinal flora, leading to a harmful imbalance in the stomach’s microbiome, thus stripping away (chelating) beneficial (and necessary) gut bacteria and increasing more toxic or harmful bacteria, just as it does in the soil.

RELATED

Share

Roundup Cancerous: Court rules Monsanto can’t stop Calif. from saying so

On Monday, June 26, 2017, the California Supreme Court rejected Monsanto’s efforts to stop the state from listing glyphosate as a cancer-causing chemical. Roundup is cancerous, and the court ruled that Monsanto can’t stop California from saying so. Roundup poison’s main active ingredient will henceforth remain on California’s  carcinogen list. Monsanto’s play to overturn the state’s regulations was also rejected by a lower appeals court.

Glyphosate Causes Cancer

Meanwhile, Monsanto’s appeal is still pending in California’s Fifth District. The state Supreme Court nevertheless rejected Monsanto’s request that the ruling in question be delayed while the appeal is sorted out. That ruling sends glyphosate to a list of chemicals determined by the state to be cancer-causing agents. A ballot initiative called Proposition 65 requires that glyphosate be listed as a probable carcinogen, said the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment in a statement Monday. Glyphosate is the main active ingredient in Roundup, and it’s a well-known fact that Roundup is much more toxic than glyphosate itself.

Monsanto Fails to Override California Law
“Monsanto’s challenge was unsuccessful in the trial court,” said OEHHA in its statement. “Although the case has been appealed, no stay of the listing has been granted. Therefore, glyphosate is being added to the Proposition 65 list on July 7, 2017.”

Glyphosate Probable Human Carcinogen
On June 15, 2017, the appellate court rejected Monsanto’s request to stay a decision from the lower court, public documents show. The lower court’s decision, reached in March, rejected the chemical company’s claims that OEHHA violated the state constitution by delegating its authority to the International Agency for Research on Cancer. OEHHA relied on the IARC assessment that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen.

People say it’s Poison, Corporations say it’s Safe
Several environmental groups sided with the state and several agricultural industry groups supported Monsanto in the case.

Proposition 65 requires Glyphosate Cancer Listing
Proposition 65 was a California state ballot initiative approved in 1986. It requires the state to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects or other reproductive harm.

Judge Rejects Monsanto Free Speech Claim
In the lower court’s March 2017 ruling, the judge rejected Monsanto’s claim that listing glyphosate would violate its right to free speech under the state and federal constitutions. The judge also rejected Monsanto’s argument that a listing would force it to include a warning label regarding the possible cancerous effects of glyphosate. Monsanto attorneys ludicrously argued that such a warning would be false and misleading, and would not advance any legitimate or substantial government interest.

Related: Monsanto sued for False Advertising

The lower court agreed with the state office that Monsanto’s First Amendment claim is not ripe for adjudication because the mere listing of glyphosate does not require Monsanto to provide a warning. In fact, the biotech bully from Missouri may never be required to give such a warning. The judge also noted the hazard assessment office has the discretion to determine that glyphosate poses no significant risk of causing cancer even if it is placed on the Proposition 65 list.

Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit
Meanwhile, Monsanto is being sued by hundreds of farmers and other agriculture workers, gardeners and homeowners who used Roundup extensively and developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL), Multiple Myeloma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), or Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL).

The California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment is represented by Laura Julie Zuckerman of the California Office of the Attorney General.

Roundup Cancerous: Court rules Monsanto can’t stop Calif. from saying so

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment et al., case number S242595, in the California Supreme Court.

RELATED

Share

Congress May Destroy Your Rights with H.R. 1215

(June 28, 2017)  The U.S. Congress may destroy your rights with H.R. 1215. Duplicitously named “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017,” this bill does everything BUT protect people. Please call your U.S. Representative this minute. Tell that person to vote NO on this unconstitutional bill. The House is discussing this bill right now and will vote on it tomorrow. Find your rep by clicking this link.

Tort Reform Ruse

Tort reform pushed by the U.S. Congress has always been a ruse. Even a publication as pro-corporation as Forbes has admitted as much. Tort reform has done nothing to lower medical malpractice insurance or the cost of healthcare, and nothing to make healthcare better or safer. The real game has always been to attack lawyers with Ad Populum fallacies in order to disguise the real target: the citizen and the citizen’s inalienable rights. H.R. 1215 is the same animal dressed up as a bill to “protect” a person’s access to healthcare.

Related: Fallacies of MedMal Tort Reform

Duplicity on Parade:  “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017”

What the so-called “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017″ does primarily is prevent peoples’ access to the courtroom.  It also severely limits payments for their injuries, even those caused by corporate negligence or outright criminality. It also virtually wipes out class action lawsuits – whether for credit card fraud committed by a major bank, rank discrimination, negligence or even outright corporate criminality.  It also makes it all but financially impossible for a plaintiff’s law firm to pursue pharmaceutical drug or medical device cases for their injured or dead clients. All of this is done under the guise of saving money, but this bill doesn’t do that, either. Limiting a victim’s ability to collect fair and just compensation not only makes survival more difficult for that person, it also undermines any real accountability of the negligent party.

H.R. 1215 Violates the Constitution
The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees your right to a civil trial by jury. Despite all its phony language about “protecting” people, H.R. 1215 is in direct violation of your Constitutional rights.

What is the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017?
The summary of the bill, H.R. 1215, reads: “To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.” In short, this is a bill designed to take away your rights to a jury trial, and to limit how much compensation an injury victim can collect.

Medical Errors 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country. So how are your rights being “protected” if Congress limits your compensation?  Is your child’s life worth just $250,000?  According to Paul Ryan and other sponsors of this bill, that’s all any life is worth. This bill will not only not “protect” you and your family. It will also destroy any incentive that the medical industry has to actually fix real problems.

Tort Reform Texas Style for the Entire Country

What has happened in Texas with its Draconian “tort reform” will open the door to it happening all over the country. H.R. 1215 will preempt your state’s laws that would formerly protect you from the kinds of things that have happened to Texas patients. Texas’ king-sized ‘tort reform has helped encourage the state’s growing population of criminal doctors like Dr. Christopher Duntsch (known locally as Dr. Death); sexual molester Dr. Donald Okechukwu Ozumbages; drug addict Dr. Peter Crandall; bank robber Dr. John Christian Gunn, so incompetent and surly with patients that only the great “tort reform” state of Texas would have him as a doctor;  fraud and thief Dr. Tariq Mahmood; home healthcare fraud Dr. Noble U. Ezukanma; child porn pediatrician specialist Dr. Dennis Patrick Meehan Hughes; or Texas’ own pedophile Dr. Charles Fischer.

What damage caps will H.R. 1215 put into place?
The new bill places no caps on economic damages, a small silver lining in a black cloud. It will, however, drastically limit the amount of non-economic damages you may be able to collect – and in a sneaky way, too. From the bill (excerpts in bold are ours):

“In any health care lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages, if available, shall not exceed $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury.”

“The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting for any other reduction in damages required by law.”
“In any health care lawsuit, each party shall be liable for that party’s several share of any damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each party shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party’s percentage of responsibility.”

More Problems with H.R. 1215

Damage caps have always been a problem, but we have deeply-rooted concerns about the rest of the bill. H.R. 1215 also stands to:

  • Eliminate the class-action lawsuit
  • Eliminate state laws by making all healthcare claims federal
  • Let insurance companies slow-pay claims, not pay all at once

Soft Targets of H.R. 1215

For soft targets, plaintiff attorneys – those who fight for victims – will have their fees limited, but defense attorneys – those who represent the negligent parties who caused harm – have no such limitations placed on their salaries. In other words, the surgeon who hacked off the wrong leg, or the intern who mislabeled a chart and killed somebody with a drug overdose, or the doctor who missed your cancer diagnosis – their attorneys can charge whatever they want.

Why H.R. 1215 is terrible for victims and their families
This Congressional bill aims to fix a “crisis” that even medical malpractice insurers say does not exist. The Doctors Company, one of the country’s largest medical malpractice insurance providers, says, “Doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance than they did in 2001 – without any inflation adjustment. (And) the rate of claims has dropped by half since 2003.”

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including years of studies, research, data collection and other hard evidence, this Congress continues to perpetuate the lie that limiting the civil justice system, in terms of which kinds of lawsuits you can bring and in how much money a victim can collect, will do anything at all to save money when it comes to health care.

Congress May Destroy Your Rights with H.R. 1215

All so-called “tort reform” has ever done is hurt more people more often. The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 essentially says that it doesn’t matter how severe, how catastrophic, your injuries are. Your life is worth $250,000, end of story. Is that what your life is worth? How about your child’s life? If it costs a plaintiff’s attorney $250,000 to put together a medical malpractice case (and it typically costs at least that much), and the highest possible payout is $250,000, do you think you will be able to find an attorney to represent you?

What is Your Life or Injury Worth?
Is your life is worth just $250,000?  If a surgeon accidentally nicks your wife’s artery during back surgery and kills her, is that worth only $250,000 for you and your surviving children?

If a doctor fails to recommend an emergency C-section because the umbilical cord is wrapped around your unborn baby’s neck, causing permanent brain damage that requires lifetime nursing care, is that worth just $250,000?

If a doctor prescribes the wrong medication to your spouse and it kills him, is that worth only $250,000?

Whether you have ever needed a medical malpractice or a personal injury attorney or not, you would be wise to contact your Representatives today and tell them to vote “No” on H.R. 1215. The only ones who will benefit from this bill are the ones who caused you harm.

Contact your Congressional Rep by clicking this link:

House Government Representatives

Lawyers Working for People

Matthews & Associates will continue to fight against this obscenity of a bill. We have always fought for the rights of individuals to seek redress against the corporation(s) that harmed them. Our law firm’s lawyers work for people, not corporations.

To learn more about our services, contact us any time. Phone us at 888-520-5202 or email us for a free legal consultation.

RELATED

Share

Five Things All Railroad Workers Should Know

FELA has grown and changed over the years, but one thing has not changed. FELA still provides strong support for injured railroad workers who know their rights and how to protect them. Here are five things all railroad workers should know to protect their rights in the event of an injury:

1. FELA differs from Workers’ Compensation

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) helps ensure railroad workers’ rights. The U.S. Congress passed FELA in 1908 for railroad workers and their families. FELA is designed to help protect every type of railroad worker, whether an engineer, brakeman, switch man, dispatcher, or any other railroad employee. FELA law differs from state workers’ compensation laws and state-based negligence laws. One must show negligence to win a case under FELA. Workers’ compensation cases, by contrast, are no-fault.

2. The Railroad is not on the worker’s side

Railroads will aggressively defend themselves against any injury claim. Railroad companies typically employ several hardball tactics to quickly minimize an injured worker’s claim. Company representatives and insurance adjusters often begin preparing their defense against any potential injury claim while an injured worker is still in the emergency room. That is why it’s crucial to understand one’s rights as a railroad employee after a railroad-related injury.

3. A railroad worker is not required to hire a union-designated lawyer.

Anyone injured while working for a railroad has likely heard of “union-designated” lawyers. An injured railroad worker may think it mandatory to hire a union lawyer for legal representation, but this is not the case. There is no “requirement” that an injured railroad worker must hire a union lawyer.

“Union-designated” means only that the lawyer or law firm was selected by the representatives of the union to represent members in cases involving railroads. “Union designated” does not certify a lawyer’s competence, reputation, or success record. It says only that the lawyer has succeeded in getting connected to those who run the union.

Related: Learn how our Railroad Attorneys can help. Give us a call at 888-520-5202. Click here for a free legal consultation.

4. An injured worker can choose a personal doctor

A man (or woman) has the right to choose his own doctor for treatment of railroad injuries, even though one may still have to see a doctor chosen by the railroad. However, one needs to be very careful visiting a railroad’s chosen doctor. Though that railroad doctor may have experience with railroad injury claims, that person may not have the injured worker’s best interests at heart.

Beware the Doctor Who Works for the Railroad

That doctor works for the railroad, not for you. It may be the doctor’s sole job to evaluate employees who have been hurt while working for the railroad. Railroad doctors may not even have a practice outside of company medical exams. They are generally chosen for the job because the railroad trusts them to document findings favorable for the railroad.
The purpose of the exam by the railroad’s doctor is to find evidence that could destroy a worker’s injury claim. The one or two company exams an injured worker may be required to attend are the railroad company’s only chance to build medical evidence against the worker’s claim. It is typical to find that results of the railroad doctor’s exam twist the truth to make it appear that the worker exaggerates personal injuries.

Any railroad worker who must visit a company doctor would be wise to speak with an attorney about how to prepare for an exam to protect his personal rights. Though one should always be honest about any injuries, it is easy to make a tiny mistake or fall into a trap which could make it easier for the railroad to avoid responsibility.

5. Protecting Medical Records is Crucial following a railroad injury

One may not think much about medical privacy when seeing a family doctor for a checkup, but it becomes a major concern if one has been injured at work. In a railroad injury case, it’s important for two reasons:

* The company may try to defend itself against accusations that it was responsible for what happened and for how the worker was injured.
* The insurance company may try to minimize its liability for a personal injury on the job.

Five Things All Railroad Workers Should Know

The railroad and insurance companies’ ability to defend themselves against a railroad worker’s claim often turns on how much information they have on the injured worker’s personal and medical history. A person can control others’ access to personal medical records with a medical release-of-information form. One is wise to limit access to this information as much as possible.

RELATED

Share