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

Monsanto Hid Roundup Cancer Evidence

Recent Monsanto studies wrestled from the EPA show Monsanto hid Roundup Cancer evidence. It’s another blow to Monsanto, which has been struggling to discredit the World Health Organization. In March 2015, the WHO classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen.” Glyphosate is known as the “active” ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup (as if all the others were irrelevant). That bad news for Monsanto unleashed a firestorm of protest pushed by Monsanto minions in the mainstream press. This latest cancer-link revelation adds to evidence that Roundup causes cancer and ought to be banned.

More Evidence against Monsanto, Glyphosate
Monsanto and its friends in government (FDA, USDA EPA, Congress, etc.) and other high places have flooded the “news” with the usual wearisome attacks on Science and Truth. Monsanto has claimed the WHO is out of step with science. The latest problem for Monsanto’s attacks on WHO comes from a new paper in a glyphosate series authored by Anthony Samsel and Stephanie Seneff. The two show Monsanto is flat wrong, that glyphosate is cancerous, that Roundup is disastrous. Dr. Samsel and Dr. Seneff show Monsanto’s own studies revealed clear links between glyphosate and cancer 30 years ago.

Glyphosate Pathways to Modern Diseases – via FOIA
The paper is titled, “Glyphosate, pathways to modern diseases IV: cancer and related pathologies.”  Its authors use the data from Monsanto’s own studies, which, for inexplicable reasons, had been sealed by the EPA. Dr. Samsel’s freedom of information requests finally brought them to light. Those files are a bombshell. They show glyphosate fed to rats produced tumors and cancers throughout their organs and glands.

Cancer Increases with Monsanto’s Success
Many types of cancers – thyroid, liver, bladder, pancreatic, kidney, myeloid leukemia, etc. – have risen among Americans in proportion with increased exposure to glyphosate. Glyphosate poisoning of the food crops and environment has exploded since the mid-1990s. Glyphosate has fattened Monsanto’s bank accounts as it has fattened and sickened Americans.

GMO Corn, Soy, Canola
Putting pesticides into genetically modified (GM) Roundup Ready corn, soy and canola in the US meant Americans began eating large amounts of poison for the first time in history. It was the first time so-called “herbicide” was sprayed directly on conventional crops.

Herbicide Pesticide

Monsanto calls Roundup an “herbicide.”  Roundup’s label claims that it targets an enzyme found only in plants but not in people or animals. This claim is a bald-faced lie. The very same enzyme that Roundup attacks in plants is also found in people and pets. This is why Roundup destroys human gut flora and triggers a litany of health problems. Monsanto is being sued in the state of California for false advertising in peddling this lie.

Superweeds
The heavy use of glyphosate on GM crops has caused weeds to wildly evolve. “Superweeds” are now everywhere, taking over fields. Monsanto’s answer,  of course, has been to spray more and more poison. This “solution” only exacerbates all the superweed problems, which in turn deepens the poisoning of our food supply, soil, ground water, and our public discourse, controlled as so much of it is by Monsanto money that neuters the mainstream media.

Farmers also began to use glyphosate as a drying and ripening agent just before harvesting wheat, sugarcane, peas, beans, lentils, and many other crops, greatly adding to the toxic burden on the food, soil, and themselves. Many farmers are filing Monsanto lawsuits which allege that Roundup exposure has caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma,  Hairy Cell Leukemia, or Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia.

250 Studies show Glyphosate Dangers
Citing almost 250 studies, Dr. Samsel and Dr. Seneff explain the biochemistry that shows exactly how glyphosate can trigger the rise in cancers. Glyphosate makes all-important trace minerals like manganese unavailable. The herbicide poison cuts off key metabolic pathways that rely on the (previously) absorbable minerals to function. Glyphosate is also an ill-advised antibiotic. It kills off beneficial gut bacteria like lactobacillus and bifidobacterium. Monsanto has been sued for lying about this problem. The body needs these and other bacterial casualties of glyphosate in order to produce other key components for many complex reactions. Glyphosate also damages the mitochondria. Glyphosate also derails the delicate balance of the hormonal systems.

Connecting the Glyphosate Cancer Dots
As the study authors connect the many glyphosate cancer dots, they also demonstrate how the same disruptions are likely contributing to a whole host of other diseases. Glyphosate is also likely linked with autism, diabetes, kidney disease, fatty liver disease. These and other maladies are highlighted in the previous three papers in this series by Dr. Samsel and Dr. Seneff. A videotaped interview of Dr. Seneff shows the links between glyphosate and more than a dozen diseases. A second interview discussing the second paper in the series focuses on gluten sensitivity and kidney failure as outcomes of glyphosate exposure.

Monsanto Manipulates the Low Dose Card for Hormone Disruption
In the current cancer paper, the doctor authors explain at least two ways Monsanto tries to explain away the serious health issues suffered by unfortunate laboratory animals. First, Monsanto simply ignores the low dose effects. It is well known that a certain class of chemicals called endocrine disruptors have an inexplicable counter-intuitive property. Their greatest damage to the hormonal system comes in tiny doses. In point of fact, as these chemicals increase, the hormonal effects decrease. Monsanto disingenuously tries to confuse this issue.

‘The Dose Makes the Poison’ – another Lie
In Monsanto’s studies, it was often the low dose of glyphosate that had the biggest impact on the gland, organ, or tumor prevalence. Therefore, Monsanto decided to hide behind the false concept that “The dose makes the poison.” Monsanto researchers flatly ignored findings where a lower dose had a larger effect than a higher one. Some chemical industry shills may defend Monsanto by claiming low dose endocrine effects were not understood in the 1970s and 80s. Many of these findings were first reported then, but that defense won’t wash. The low dose endocrine disruption effect has now been widely known for nearly 15 years.

The low dose endocrine disruption has been well understood by every member of the scientific community who doesn’t work for companies like Monsanto. Sadly, stupidly, unconscionably – the dose fallacy is also conveniently ignored by government regulators who are often shameless Monsanto shills or former employees. The government stooges don’t require Monsanto and similar chemical poisoning companies to even test for this effect. They may fear that doing so could mark them as “activists.” That could keep them from going back through the revolving door and working for Monsanto or some other chemical industry giant. The U.S. EPA and Europe’s EFSA let chemicals like glyphosate onto the market without evaluating whether they are fouling our sex hormones, thyroid hormones, or any of the other vital hormones we need for good health.

Low Dose Worse than High Dose, so Monsanto no Longer Compares
Once Monsanto scientists, lawyers, and executives saw the low dose effects of glyphosate (Roundup) on tortured lab animals, they simply stopped testing the low dosage in subsequent trials.

Monsanto’s Improper Testing – No Control Groups
Another research ploy from Monsanto has been to avoid using a control group altogether. With no control group, there is simply no way to assess anything meaningful about the pesticide at hand. Monsanto has instead used something absurd called “historical controls.” This is an unscientific method Monsanto has used to pretend one can ignore even serious evidence of harm.

Real Science, Monsanto Science
Real science says you design an experiment to compare an experimental group with a control group under the same conditions. A legitimate scientist, for example, raises rats on the same food, same water, same environmental conditions, and even selects the same type of rat for both groups. In this manner, one can isolate the variable one wants to test. Monsanto, however, only varied the amount of glyphosate it fed the rats. The controls got zero, and various experimental groups got one of several dosage levels.

Monsanto Hid Roundup Cancer Evidence

According to the Samsel/Seneff paper, the animals who received the doses of glyphosate had a far greater number of lymph node and thyroid cancerous tumors than the controls. The results were clearly statistically significant.

In an effort to make these damaging findings vanish, Monsanto directed its research staff to cherry pick other, totally unrelated animal studies. The goal was to find cases where the control groups also had a high level of cancers (or other disorders). Then they claimed that because some other group of rats in a lab – with completely different conditions and diets – showed a similar number of problems as the group of animals fed glyphosate, one could simply ignore the findings altogether.

Junk Science = Monsanto Science
Real scientists condemn this Monsanto practice as illegitimate. Many studies have shown controls subject to contaminated diets or other environmental conditions that make their maladies far from normal. It mocks the scientific method to perform an experiment which demands careful attention to keeping the conditions the same for the experimental group and the controls, if one simply throws out the results by finding rats in other studies with which to compare results.

All Test Groups Poisoned with GMOs, Metals, Toxins
A study by Robin Mesnage entitled “Laboratory Rodent Diets Contain Toxic Levels of Environmental Contaminants: Implications for Regulatory Tests” discovered that the normal diets of lab animals, both control and experimental, are contaminated with GMOs, glyphosate, heavy metals, and other toxins. All the animal studies being conducted are potentially and even likely biased, as a result. How does one test GMOs and glyphosate contamination against GMOs and glyphosate contamination?

Ah, Science, we hardly knew ya’ before Monsanto blew your brains out.

RELATED

Share

De Niro, Kennedy challenge Vaccine Safety

Roberts De Niro de-niroand Kennedy, Jr. have challenged vaccine safety pronouncements. They have challenged the world’s entire vaccine paradigm. The two have offered a $100,000 reward for anyone who can prove vaccines are as safe and effective as they are advertised by vaccine makers and their not-so-silent partners at the Centers for Disease Control. For so many years, vaccine makers and the CDC have trumpeted the wonders of vaccines for the herd, while cruelly ignoring the many thousands of deaths and injuries that have resulted from vaccination.

Vaccine Questioners Attacked
Anyone who has questioned the safety of vaccines over the years has been roundly attacked as an anti-vaxxer in every mainstream media outlet in the United States. Each of these outlets has taken millions of dollars of advertising money from vaccine makers. That includes all the outlets with which most of us are familiar – whether Democratic mouthpieces like MSNBC and the New York Times, or Republican cheerleaders like Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, and everything in between.

Press Conference announces Safety Challenge
Into the breach has stepped Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in Washington, D.C. on Feb. 15, to hold a press conference about vaccine safety.

The two want to see proof that vaccines are safe. They have teamed up to offer $100,000 to anyone who can provide such safety information.

De Niro participated in a panel discussion which challenged the prevailing wisdom that vaccination has no connection to autism, and that mercury in immunizations is especially harmful to the developing brains of children.

Related: Vaccine Fraud at CDC: film Vaxxed: “It’s ‘something people should see.”

Government defies all Logic and Common Sense
“On one hand, the government is telling pregnant women which mercury-laced fish to avoid so that they don’t harm their fetuses, and on the other, the CDC supports injecting mercury-containing vaccines into pregnant women, infants and children,” Mr. Kennedy said at the joint press conference Feb. 15. “This defies all logic and common sense.”

“Shots have caused Autism Epidemic”
The son of former kennedy-jrNew York Senator Robert F. Kennedy – a civil rights hero whose murder was disgracefully covered up by the Los Angeles police department and others – Robert Jr. insisted that journalists and the government have been colluding to cover up the truth about vaccine safety and that the “shots have caused the autism epidemic.”

Mr. De Niro and his African-American wife have an autistic son. CDC scientist turned whistleblower William Thompson, featured in the film Vaxxed, has revealed that he and his CDC colleagues destroyed documents which proved that taking the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism for black boy babies. Both Mr. De Niro and Mr. Kennedy called out the use of thimerosal, which is a mercury-based preservative.

$100,000 Cash Challenge
The pair’s $100,000 cash challenge is offered through Mr. Kennedy’s World Mercury Project for anyone “who can find a peer-reviewed scientific study demonstrating that thimerosal is safe in the amounts contained in vaccines currently being administered to American children and pregnant women.”

A 1999 FDA study alleged that thimerosal used as a vaccine preservative posed no harm except for what the agency termed “hypersensitivity.” Pity if your child were “hypersensitive” and failed to tolerate the mercury. Rep. Dan Burton asked CDC representatives point blank if the agency had ever studied the safety of mercury in vaccines. The answer was, “No.”

The FDA phased the preservative out of many vaccines for children and it hasn’t been used since 2001, with the exception of an inactivated flu vaccine, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

De Niro, Kennedy challenge Vaccine Safety

In 2016, De Niro pulled the movie Vaxxed from the Tribeca Film Festival lineup after receiving an avalanche of protests to not let people see the movie. He later appeared on the Today show and spoke about the film.

“I think the movie is something that people should see,” Mr. De Niro said. “There’s a lot of information about things that are happening with the CDC, the pharmaceutical companies, there’s a lot of things that are not said. I, as a parent of a child who has autism, I’m concerned. And I want to know the truth. I’m not anti-vaccine. I want safe vaccines.”

Today Show parrots Mainstream Line

When Today host Willie Geist predictably parroted the party line for his corporate masters, claiming that there is lots of scientific evidence to prove vaccines don’t cause autism, Mr. De Niro replied that “It’s not that simple, and that he thinks everyone should see the movie Vaxxed and decide for themselves.

Imagine that. An American who recommends people see something for themselves and decide for themselves what the truth is. No wonder the powers that control the information and nearly every narrative want him dismissed entirely.

RELATED

Share

Talc causes Ovarian Cancer, says Expert

An expert witness Talc Powder Lawsuitfor the plaintiff testified Feb. 15, 2016 that talc causes ovarian cancer. Washington University’s Dr. Graham Colditz was on the witness stand all day at the fourth Johnson & Johnson talcum powder cancer trial in St. Louis.

Dr. Colditz discussed the body of epidemiological research comparing the cancer rates of talc and non-talc users. The plaintiff is Nora Daniels, a longtime talcum powder user who blames Johnson & Johnson talc for the cancerous tumor she developed and had removed in 2013.

Defense lawyers for J&J objected almost continuously all day as Dr. Colditz testified in regard to studies that found a higher likelihood of ovarian cancer in talc users, and medical agencies that have red flagged talc as a risk.

Talc causes Ovarian Cancer
“What opinion are you here to give today to this jury?” Ms. Daniels’ lawyer asked. Dr. Colditz responded: “At the bottom line, that talc causes ovarian cancer, based on the review of all the evidence.”

Dr. Colditz’ own epidemiology group at Washington University in St. Louis and the Siteman Cancer Center added talc to a website they run which allows people to assess their personal risk levels for certain diseases. He said they did so based on an accumulation of studies.

Misclassification of Talc
The plaintiff’s expert also showed the Nurses’ Health Study, which asked tens of thousands of RNs one question about talc use in 1982, then never mentioned it again in later data collections. Since the data were not accurately and cleanly traced over time, said Dr. Colditz, it was natural that the effect shown by the 1982 data would decay over time due to a known phenomenon in epidemiology called misclassification.

Over time, talc users could have stopped using, and nonusers could have started, but they would remain classified as they were in 1982 for lack of follow-up. However, the study researchers did continue to count the number of cancers contracted in the entire pool over the decades. Therefore, Colditz testified, the baseline cancer rates of users and nonusers would come to appear closer than they actually are over time as more and more people jumped classifications.

Direct examination also showed a July 12, 2006 letter from J&J’s supplier, Imerys Talc America – then known as Luzenac and owned by Rio Tinto – to Mark Ellis, president of the Industrial Minerals Association, in Washington, D.C. The letter revealed that Luzenac decided to abandon funding its own study, which had been set up by a scientific researcher at Crowell & Moring.

This study proposal was first brought to Luzenac’s attention in early 2005 primarily due to the diligent efforts of Bob Glenn,” a Luzenac employee wrote to Ellis. “Luzenac has engaged the consulting services of Bob (through Crowell & Moring) for several years now. Luzenac was prepared to proceed with the study primarily because there was an excellent chance that the study could be completed and a paper written [before] the IARC review in February 2006. We felt that the injection of new data into the talc/ovarian cancer debate was essential.”

But the project was beset by delays, and after it was clear it couldn’t be finished in time to influence IARC, an agency of the World Health Organization, Luzenac abandoned the initiative. IARC ended up classifying perineal talc as a possible carcinogen.

Cross Examination
On cross examination, J&J lawyers showed Colditz one study by the Ovarian Cancer Association Consortium, a survey looking at many studies that altogether included 8,525 cases of the cancer and 9,859 controls with no cancer. It found a “modest increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer”– the type Ms. Daniels had – but expressed doubts regarding the trend across decades or a lifetime.

J&J attorneys hit Colditz with documents that included recent website printouts from the National Cancer Institute and the National Toxicology Program. According to Law 360, J&J counsel fought to leave the impression that the tide of science is turning against a link.

J&J’s counsel also compared talc to other products: Aloe vera, which IARC also classifies as a possible carcinogen, as well as coffee, which was delisted from that category only recently. Then, J&J brought up the subject of two well-known carcinogens, alcohol and red meat.

No Cancer Warnings for Red Meat or Liquor?
“There’s no cancer warning for alcohol that you might buy at the store, right?” J&J attorneys asked Colditz. “You’ve never seen a warning on red meat, a cancer warning on red meat at the store, have you?”

Colditz conceded he had not, although he said they might exist “on websites that talk about causes.”

The case is Swann v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 1422-CC09326-01, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.

RELATED

Share

Talc Lobbyists derailed Carcinogen Classification

Talcum powder baby-powder-lawsuit1makers like Johnson & Johnson lobbied to “derail” efforts to classify talcum powder as a carcinogen. That’s what a Missouri jury heard Friday, Feb. 10, 2017 at a talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuit trial in St. Louis.

Talc Trial Day 1

The first day in court for cancer survivor Nora Daniels began Feb. 9 with opening arguments from her lawyer and J&J defense lawyers. Jurors then watched two hours of deposition testimony from Johnson’s baby products manager Lorena Telofski, as well as testimony from Luzenac America’s Shripal Sharma. A forerunner of co-defendant Imerys Talc America, Luzenac was owned by mining mega-giant Rio Tinto from 1988 – 2011.

Ms. Daniels’ lawyers alleged on day one that Luzenac and the talc lobbying group Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, attacked and derailed regulator’ serious concerns through intense lobbying. According to Law 360, the lobbyists were responding to the National Toxicology Program’s 2000 nomination of talc for inclusion in its carcinogen inventory, the Report on Carcinogens, or RoC.

$10 Million per Year Potential Loss
Talc companies saw the proposed reclassification change as a make-or-break moment, said Ms. Daniels’ lawyer. An internal Luzenac PowerPoint said an NTP listing would cause a $10 million-per-year loss. A CTFA staffer issued an APB to the group’s Talc Task Force on the very day NTP announced its intent to make the talc cancer classification change.

Two NTP scientific groups had already voted overwhelmingly to list talc as a possible carcinogen. A final vote by the NTP’s Board of Scientific Counselors committee was coming in two months, according to an internal presentation by Luzenac health and safety head Steve Jarvis, shown during Sharma’s deposition. By the time that vote came, however, the talc industry had applied enough political muscle to stop the cancer listing change.

Talc Industry’s “Secret Weapon. . . very aggressive”
Mr. Jarvis boasted about “our secret weapon, [to] engage the services of the Washington-based Center for Regulatory Effectiveness,” according to the document.

Talc Companies “Very Aggressive” with Regulators
“We also became very aggressive in our communication with NTP and other federal agencies,” Mr. Jarvis’ speaking notes read. “[We] didn’t let the windows of ‘formal comment periods’ become restrictive. We sent emails, faxes, overnight letters and even telephone calls to key players in this battl. . . right up until hours before the final executive committee meeting. We achieved a very dramatic turnaround,” boasted Mr. Jarvis.  The BSC committee voted 7-3 against listing talc, and the NTP backed off its review.

Talc Companies derail IARC Classification
Meanwhile, during Telofski’s deposition, plaintiffs’ lawyers made much of a Rio Tinto materials safety data sheet that grew out of another crucial moment: the classification of the World Health Organization agency IARC, of perineal (between the legs) talc use as a possible carcinogen.

Talc Powder Product Liability Lawsuit
IARC’s determination of talc as a potential carcinogen set off a scramble in the industry. Luzenac’s product safety director Rich Zazenski revealed in a March 2006 email, as the company was deciding whether to add a warning to its Material Safety Data Sheet, how concerned the companies should be about talc as a possible carcinogen, despite whatever regulatory requirements the lobbying groups could neutralize. Mr. Zazenski said (some might say presciently said), “Just meeting the regulatory requirements is not a sufficient defense in product liability lawsuits.”

Lies from CTFA Lobbyists
In another document shown Feb. 10, Alfred Wehner of the Academy of Toxicological Science, a consultant on retainer to J&J, wrote in a 1997 letter to J&J preclinical toxicology head Michael Chudkowski that two statements by the CTFA were lies.

The CTFA (now known as the Personal Care Products Council) in 1992 put out a release saying talc posed no risk , which was “outright false,” said Mr. Wehner. In addition, he wrote that a 1994 statement calling study results “insufficient to demonstrate any real association” was “also inaccurate, to phrase it euphemistically.”

Talc Lobbyists derailed Carcinogen Classification
The case is Swann v. Johnson & Johnson, case number 1422-CC09326-01, in the 22nd Judicial Circuit of Missouri.

RELATED

Share