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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+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

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Film blows Whistle on Vaccine Fraud

When Merck’s vaxxedMMR vaccine was shown to raise the risk of autism for African American males, the CDC did not inform parents or their doctors. The CDC moved instead to cover up the problem. We may never have learned the truth at all, except that a former CDC scientist, Dr. William Thompson, blew the whistle on the CDC’s rank corruption. Dr. Thompson applied for whistleblower status and then filed a whistleblower lawsuit. Congress has not been moved to act, but the episode has lead to a film which also blows the whistle on vaccine fraud: VAXXED: From Coverup to Catastrophe.

Related: Shingles Vaccine? Really?

Government Derailed
The government has since done nothing to correct the fraud, though the Obama administration granted whistleblower status to Dr. William Thompson in 2014. A senior epidemiologist at the CDC, Dr. Thompson co-authored and published research on the MMR vaccine for the CDC in 2004. As an official whistleblower, he would be immune to prosecution for his testimony to Congress. So why has he not been called? Why has nothing been done? Why has vaccination fraud been allowed to stand, while rates of forced vaccination increase?

Dr. Julie Gerberding works CDC-Merck Revolving Door
Dr. Julie Gerberding was CDC director when the falsified study was published. Dr. Gerberding then left the CDC to become president of Merck’s vaccine division. She is now an executive vice president for Merck, which is now the sole maker of the measles vaccine. The revolving door she walked through between regulation and industry is the portal of corruption.  Another name for it is regulatory capture. (Michael R. Taylor has performed the same duplicitous function for Monsanto.)

Government fails US
The U.S. government’s vaccine-epidemicresponse has been a complete failure to act on this damning information. But even a lack of action can be telling. The government and the CDC have thus proven beyond any doubt that any information not consistent with existing vaccine policy will not be shared, or even tolerated. We see clearly that the profits of vaccine manufacturers and vaccine policy are valued over human lives.

CDC: Big Pharma Cheerleader
This shameful episode should prove to anyone with a pulse that the CDC works not for Americans but for international drug companies. For Big Pharma, the CDC religiously functions as a vaccination cheerleader, always spreading the gospel to penitents. The CDC without fail promotes and defends vaccine policy, which is mostly written by Big Pharma lobbyists, those ‘tight’ with people like Julie Gerberding.

Film blows Whistle on Vaccine Fraud
The whole sordid story is captured and explored in the film VAXXED: From Catastrophe to Coverup. That’s why this film is so dangerous. That’s why it has been so roundly attacked by the Corpocracy, the unholy government-business alliance which determines vaccine policy, and lets people like Gerberding regulate themselves.

Big Pharma Press Minions Attack Vaccine Safety Film
Big Pharma (Merck, Johnson & Johnson, GlaxoSmithKline, AstraZeneca, etc.) and their mainstream press minions sensed a threat to vaccine profits of some $52 billion per year. The “free press” moved quickly to neutralize the film, to censor it, to destroy it and anyone associated with it. International drug companies and their mainstream media minions all know Big Pharma is the world’s single biggest source of advertising revenue. Broadcasters and “journalists” who don’t understand that don’t have a job in major media.

Trump for Truth?
Say what you will about Donald Trump, he has been the only Presidential candidate of the last 50 years to question the enormous load of vaccines now pumped into tiny babies to allegedly grant them lifelong immunity from countless diseases, including those for which they are not at risk, like hepatitis B, a sexually transmitted disease.

How the World Works, or Doesn’t
If we’ve learned nothing else from the acrid political environment in our age of anger, perhaps we’ve learned this: Name calling is not the answer. The truth is not served by calling anyone a ‘vaccine profiteer’ (however the shoe may fit) or an ‘anti-vaxxer’ or any other name. One does need to do some research of one’s own to discover some basic truths. All must at least begin with some basic understanding of how the world works, or doesn’t.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Texas IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed

A Texas man hasCook IVC Filter Attorney filed an IVC Filter Lawsuit in Houston’s Harris County courthouse.  Jeffrey Alan Pavlock has filed a case naming the implanting doctor and Cook Incorporated, a/k/a Cook Medical, LLC.

State Jurisdiction

Cook Medical is headquartered in Indiana, but the implanting doctor practices in Texas; so Mr. Pavlock has exercised his right to demand a jury trial in Harris County. The plaintiff’s claims in the action were also brought solely under state law. The petition states that the “Plaintiff does not herein bring, assert, or allege, either expressly or impliedly, any causes of action arising under any federal law, statute, regulation, or provision.  Thus,” it argues, “there is no federal jurisdiction in this action on the basis of a federal question under 28 U.S.C. section 1331.”

Mr. Pavlock, 33, was surgically implanted with an IVC filter on or about March 3, 2015, by Dr. Adrian A. Wong, a specialist in Interventional Radiology. Dr. Wong implanted a Cook Celect Inferior Vena Cava Filter in Mr. Pavlock.

Failed Removal Attempts
Seven weeks later, on or about April 23, 2015, surgeons attempted to remove the Celect IVC filter but were unable to remove it. According to the petition, the filter had tilted and imbedded into the wall of Mr. Pavlock’s vena cava.  Another removal attempt was made June 2015, but was also unsuccessful. A leg or strut of the IVC filter had protruded through the man’s vena cava wall and lodged in a position adjacent to his aorta, according to the petition.

Mr. Pavlock, by trade a professional firefighter and first-responder, is now at risk for future migrations, perforations, and/or fractures from the irremovable filter, charges the petition. He also faces numerous health risks from the retained filter, including increased risk of blood clots and the risk of death. He will require ongoing medical care and monitoring for the rest of his life and may ultimately require more surgery in further attempts to remove the filter.

The Doctor’s Responsibility Alleged
The petition further alleges that the doctor knew or should have known, inter alia, that only certain patients were proper candidates for an IVC filter, and the doctor also should have known that:

  • the longer a Celect IVC remains in the body, the higher the risk of device fracture or failure
  • the Celect IVC filter is not effective to prevent clots and/or increases the risks of clots
  • safer alternatives to the Celect IVC filter existed
  • Celect filters frequently tilt, migrate, perforate, fracture, and thus involve a high increasing degree of risk to a patient implanted

Lack of Clinical Testing, Contraindications

The petition further claims Cook failed to conduct any clinical testing, such as animal studies; that Cook knew or should have known the Celect filter had a high rate of fracture, migration, and excessive tilting and perforation of the vena cava wall once implanted. It further claims that Cook knew or should have known such failures exposed patients to serious injuries that include death, hemorrhage, cardiac/pericardial tamponade, cardiac arrhythmia, and other symptoms similar to myocardial infarction – severe and persistent pain, perforations of tissue, vessels, and organs; and inability to remove the device. Cook also knew or should have known certain conditions or post-implant procedures such as morbid obesity or open abdominal procedure could affect the safety and integrity of the Celect IVC Filter.

The petition also claims Cook should have known these risks for the Celect were and are substantially higher than other similar devices. The petition also alleges that Cook failed to issue a recall of the Celect Filter and failed to notify customers that a safer device was available.

Texas IVC Filter Case Filed

The case is No. 201703885 in Harris County District Court, Jeffrey Alan Pavlock v. Adrian A. Wong, M.D.; Cook Incorporated; a/k/a Cook Medical, (LLC).  Attorney David Matthews of Matthews & Associates Law Firm represents the plaintiff.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Americans forcefed Glyphosate

Rats with ratsgiant tumors are not the only ones being forcefed Monsanto’s glyphosate. Americans are all being exposed daily to varying levels of Roundup and glyphosate, even those “health nuts” who avoid processed foods like cereals, breads and crackers – organic or not.

Got Glyphosate?

Cheerios, Wheaties, Trix, Kellogg’s Corn Flakes, Raisin Bran, Special K, Frosted Flakes, Cheese It, Ritz Crackers, Triscuit, Oreos, Stacy’s Simply Naked Pita Chips (Frito-Lay), Doritos, Fritos, Goldfish crackers (Pepperidge Farm), Little Debbies Oatmeal Cream Pies, 365 Organic Golden Round Crackers, Back to Nature Crispy Cheddar Crackers – all these popular foods have been found contaminated with Monsanto’s glyphosate. That is the only active ingredient listed in Roundup. There are plenty more where that came from, but Monsanto doesn’t list them as active, so they remain unaccounted for, undetected. Glyphosate has also been found in premium German beer and expensive California wine, even in organic wine.

Related:  Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate

Glyphosate Glyphosate Everywhere
Widespread glyphosate contamination affects even organic foods. Fencing can’t stop the wind from blowing glyphosate onto everything around it. This is not good news for anyone who appreciates a healthy liver and kidneys.

Roundup causes Liver and Kidney Damage
New research has shown Roundup causes liver and kidney damage in rats at a mere 0.05 parts per billion (ppb) glyphosate equivalent indicating damage. Other studies have shown levels as low as 10 ppb can have toxic effects on the livers of fish and cause significant damage to livers and kidneys of rats at 700 ppb. Alarmingly, 700 ppb is the allowable level of glyphosate found in U.S. drinking water. Cheerios, meanwhile, was found to contain levels as high as 1,125.3 ppb, and many other popular foods were also found to contain hazardous levels of Monsanto’s No. 1 poison.

It’s Raining Glyphosate
Glyphosate contaminates not only many popular foods but also our water. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has found glyphosate in more than 75 percent of rain and rainwater samples across America’s breadbasket, the Midwest. When farmers spray Roundup on the crops Americans eat, the chemicals not only run off into local rivers and streams, they also evaporate into the air, into clouds. Consequently, even people downwind hundreds of miles from the source can also be contaminated.

Monsanto-spawned Superweeds Choke the Land
Monsanto-spawned superweeds now choke the land in all directions. The weeds have evolved as corporate farm workers have sprayed greater and greater amounts of Roundup on the land. The USGS estimates glyphosate accounted for 54% of total agricultural herbicide use in 2009. More than 80 million acres of U.S. farmland are now covered with the glyphosate-resistant superweeds. Monsanto’s answer to that problem has been to use its sweetheart status with the FDA to win approval for additional “herbicides” like 2.4-D and dicamba. The result will expose us all to even greater toxic combinations of pesticides in our food and water.

Americans forcefed Glyphosate
Herbicides need quotation marks because this is a word Monsanto and other biotech giants use as a euphemism. Herbicides are supposed to target only plants but not animals or humans, but research into the actual toxic agents going to work on killing plants is also killing the plant materials in us and in animals, birds, and insects. Monsanto is being sued in California for false advertising for claiming that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants but not in people or pets. This claim has been shown to be demonstrably false. That very same enzyme in plants is also in us, in the (otherwise) healthy flora of the human gut. Monsanto’s Roundup attacks the healthy flora in the human gut just as it attacks plants. The result is an unhealthy gut, as rat studies have shown, and as Monsanto’s 20-year experiment on people has now shown.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits
Some lawyers are fighting back against Monsanto’s toxic onslaught on our environment, on ourselves. Roundup Cancer Lawsuits are being filed for agriculture workers and others who have developed leukemia after being exposed to Roundup. People diagnosed with Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma (NHL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), and Multiple Mylemoa have been filing lawsuits against Monsanto for their loss of health, and in some cases, life.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Women not warned of Permanent Hair Loss – Cancer Drug

American women were taxotere-lawsuitnot warned about the increased risk of permanent hair loss that can result from the cancer drug Taxotere, while doctors and their patients in France and Europe were warned about the added risk of Alopecia several years earlier. The drug’s maker consequently faces Taxotere Lawsuits.

U.S. Women Warned a Decade Late
French drug maker Sanofi-Aventis waited until December 2015 to warn U.S. cancer patients and their doctors about the risk of permanent alopecia from the company’s cancer drug Taxotere. And even at that late date, the company added the warning only after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered it to do so.

Taxotere Warnings
Sanofi-Aventis began to warn patients in Europe and Canada back in 2005 about permanent hair loss from Taxotere. U.S. doctors and their patients, meanwhile, were at least for a decade unaware that Taxotere raised the risk of permanent alopecia. Americans were also unaware of an alternative chemotherapy drug that is just as effective, and is safer and less expensive – Taxol, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb.  Taxol also comes without Taxotere’s “side effect” of permanent hair loss or complete baldness, which can hardly be called a mere side effect when it represents a permanent condition.

Sanofi-Aventis fined $109 Million in Qui Tam Lawsuit
Sanofi-Aventis’ deceitful, duplicitous marketing of Taxotere comes on the heels of criminal behavior for which the company has been held accountable in the past. Sanofi-Aventis was ordered in 2012 to pay an enormous fine stemming from criminal behavior used to hoodwink the public and boost profits.

Sanofi Agrees to Pay $109 Million Fine for False Claims, Kickbacks
The U.S. Justice Department web site stated Dec.19, 2012 that Sanofi-Aventis U.S. Inc. agreed to pay $109 million to resolve allegations that Sanofi US violated the False Claims Act. The company paid for a scheme in which it used physicians to file false reports which were used to set reimbursement rates that caused government programs to pay inflated amounts for Sanofi products.

The United States alopecia-2contended that Sanofi faced pressure from a lower-priced competitor, so the company trained its sales representatives to manipulate the market. The U.S. Justice Department said, “Sanofi US sales representatives often entered into illegal sampling arrangements with physicians, using the free units as kickbacks and promising to provide negotiated numbers of them in order to lower Hyalgan’s effective price. The government contends that there were numerous such arrangements.”

Taxol, The Safer Alternative
Taxotere Lawsuits brought by women suffering permanent hair loss will all point out that a safer, better, alternative drug was available when the victims were prescribed Taxotere by unwitting medical personnel. Taxol is derived from more natural means than Taxotere, which is twice the strength of Taxol. It is too strong, in fact, as its strength seems to be the mechanism that permanently kills hair follicles, leading to permanent baldness.

Taxotere’s Misleading Promotion 

Taxotere (docetaxel) has been vastly promoted by Sanofi-Aventis as a newer, more effective alternative to Taxol (paclitaxel).  Since its 1992 approval, the older chemotherapy drug Taxol (made by Bristol-Myers Squibb) has been one of the most widely used drugs in the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Taxol has been supported by high-quality evidence in the scientific literature that prove its safety and effectiveness. Comparison between the two medications proved them to be nearly equivalent; however, Sanofi kept claiming docetaxel superior to paclitaxel in early advertising campaigns. The advertising blitz apparently paid off, as Taxol use has progressively fallen in the last ten years, while Taxotere has gained substantial market share, despite its higher price.

Women not warned of Permanent Hair Loss – Cancer Drug

In April 2009, the FDA accused Sanofi of overstating the efficacy of Taxotere by giving the doctors and patients misleading promotional material that included unsubstantiated superiority claims. In its warning letter, FDA highlighted that no clinical experience ever provided substantial evidence about the fact that docetaxel was safer, better or more effective than paclitaxel. Sanofi falsely claimed that Taxotere was associated with significantly higher response rates, longer duration of response, longer median overall survival compared to its competitor, Taxol. Sanofi cited a study in support of these claims that FDA deemed insufficient, ruling that the study failed to demonstrate statistical significance and was never replicated.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Contaminated Devices threaten Heart Surgery Patients

The Centers for sorin-3tDisease Control has acknowledged that contaminated heater-cooler devices used for open chest surgeries threaten heart surgery patients. The CDC is warning healthcare providers and patients about the potential risk of infection from  devices used for open heart surgery. The agency recommends hospitals take action, and it advises patients who suspect infection to seek care.

Infection Symptoms: Sweats, Aches, Weight Loss, Fatigue, Fever
CDC announced on Oct. 13, 2016 that people who had open heart surgery should see a doctor if they experience infection symptoms such as night sweats, muscle aches, weight loss, fatigue, fever.

Stöckert 3T heater-cooler devices
The CDC advice follows reports that some LivaNova PLC (formerly Sorin Group Deutschland GmbH) Stöckert 3T heater-cooler devices, which are used during open heart surgeries, might have been contaminated during their manufacture. That contamination could put patients at risk for life-threatening infections.

250,000 Heart Bypasses Yearly
More than 250,000 heart bypass procedures using heater-cooler devices are performed in the U.S. yearly, some 60 percent of total bypasses in the country. Heater-cooler units are used during surgery to help keep a patient’s circulating blood and organs at a specific temperature. CDC estimates that in affected hospitals, the risk of a patient getting an infection from the bacteria was between 1/100 and 1/1,000. CDC admits these infections can be severe and that some patients have died, but says it is unclear whether the infection caused death.

Valve and Prosthetics Patients at Higher Risk
The CDC has also cautioned that patients with implanted valves or prosthetics are at higher risk of these potentially deadly infections.

October 2016 CDC Health Alert Network Advisory
“It’s important for clinicians and their patients to be aware of this risk so that patients can be evaluated and treated quickly,” said Michael Bell, M.D., deputy director of CDC’s Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion. “Hospitals should check to see which type of heater-coolers are in use, ensure that they’re maintained according to the latest manufacturer instructions, and alert affected patients and the clinicians who care for them.”

CDC and the FDA initially published information and alerts about Stockert 3T heater-cooler device problems in 2015. Then in October 2016, CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report covered recent laboratory tests by CDC and National Jewish Health which show bacteria from 3T heater-cooler devices match bacteria found in patients in several states.

German Manufacturing Problems Revealed
Results of the latest tests add to previous evidence from Europe that suggests bacteria which contaminated these devices came from the device’s manufacturing process in Germany.

Mycobacterium chimaera Bacteria
The bacteria, Mycobacterium chimaera, is a species of nontuberculous mycobacterium (NTM) often found in soil and water. M. chimaera rarely makes healthy people sick in normal circumstances, but patients who have been exposed to it through open-heart surgery can develop general and nonspecific symptoms which can often take months to manifest. Diagnosis of these infections can consequently be missed or delayed for months or years, which adds to treatment difficulties. No test yet exists to determine whether a person has been exposed to the bacteria. Laboratory culture is needed to diagnose infections. The slow growth of the bacteria means it can take months for infection to be ruled out.

Contaminated Devices threaten Heart Surgery Patients

CDC says it will continue to work with the FDA and the clinical community to further evaluate and reduce the risk associated with these devices. The agency recommends that open-heart surgery survivors concerned with any symptoms  contact their healthcare providers.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Shingles Vaccine Troubling Ingredients

Many people Zostovaxwho at least look at a thing and smell it before they eat it think nothing of having a mysterious liquid injected directly into their blood. Many who read food labels for every last ingredient have no idea what they are taking in a vaccine injection. The shingles vaccine, like every other, contains troubling ingredients that should give thinking people pause for reflection.

Some Common Vaccine Ingredients
Procon.org lists vaccine ingredients (found in the final vaccine product), process ingredients (things used to create the vaccine that may or may not appear in the final product), and growth mediums (substances in which vaccines are grown) for vaccines approved by the FDA and recommended by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC.) Controversial products used to make vaccines include African Green Monkey (Vero) cells, aluminum, cow products, Cocker Spaniel cells, formaldehyde, human fetal lung tissue cells, insect products, mouse brains.

Zostovax Shingles Vaccine Ingredients
Merck’s Zostavax shingles vaccine includes monosodium L-glutamate (MSG), aborted fetal cells (MRC-5*), bovine calf serum (blood taken from “domestic” cattle), Neomycin (an antibiotic used to prevent or treat bacterial infections),

Aborted Fetal Cells?
Can human beings who consider themselves “pro-life” take a guilt-free shingles vaccination? Would even those who are immune to moral arguments order anything on any menu anywhere if that ingredient were listed? It’s one thing to eat the veal calf meat of a tortured animal, but imbibing in human fetal tissue would seem beyond the pale for the morally upright.

*According to procon.org, MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) is a common vaccine ingredient “composed of human diploid cells (cells containing two sets of chromosomes) derived from the normal lung tissues of a 14-week-old male fetus aborted for ‘psychiatric reasons’ in 1966 in the United Kingdom, Eagle’s Basal Medium in Earle’s balanced salt solution with bovine serum.”  Even those who might prefer to bend sinister from their lofty moral high ground by accepting the vaccine maker’s dubious implication that it’s ok to abort for ‘psychiatric reasons,’ even those folks may want to consider that being injected with a mentally damaged person’s DNA material may not be the “smartest” move they’ve ever made.

Possible side effects of ZOSTAVAX?
Merck reports no moral repugnance, or even ambivalence, over its shingles Zostavax vaccine. Merck does, however, list “the most common side effects that people in the clinical studies reported after receiving the vaccine.” They include:

•  redness, pain, itching, swelling, hard lump, warmth, or bruising at the shot site
•  headache
•  allergic reactions, which may be serious and may include difficulty in breathing or swallowing. If you have an allergic reaction, call your doctor right away.
•  chickenpox
•  fever
•  hives at the injection site
•  joint pain
•  muscle pain
•  nausea
•  rash
•  rash at the injection site
•  shingles (warned since 2015)
•  swollen glands near the injection site (that may last a few days to a few weeks)

Merck also warns that you should not get ZOSTAVAX if you:

•  are allergic to any of its ingredients.
•  are allergic to gelatin or neomycin.
•  have a weakened immune system (immune deficiency, leukemia, lymphoma, HIV/AIDS).
•  take high doses of steroids by injection or by mouth.
•  are pregnant or plan to get pregnant

Shingles Vaccine Missing Warnings

Merck does not warn – as the company is not required to do so by the FDA – that the “effectiveness” of a vaccine is established not by how well the shot may work for the majority of its recipients. Effectiveness in a vaccine is determined solely by its being able to elicit an antibody response. If antibodies are produced following a vaccine, then that vaccine is determined to be “effective.” The presence of those antibodies, however, has no known causal relationship with whether or not that vaccination will offer protection against infection. If that language were in the “Warnings,” one wonders how many people would take this vaccine, or any other for that matter, without our daily avalanche of vaccine propaganda. It is certainly fair to ask how well this shingles vaccine works. It is fair to ask whether this vaccine is worth the risk of taking it.

RELATED

•  Shingles Vaccine? Really

•  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

•  Vaccines.ProCon.org

•  Vaccines.procon.org/zoster

•  Shingles Vaccine Troubling Ingredients

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

Monsanto wants to add new poison

Monsanto wantsmonsanto-sign to add new poison to its toxic assault on our food. Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) has spawned superweeds which have grown resistant to Roundup. Monsanto’s answer to this problem it has created has been to lobby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to give Monsanto permission to put more and different poisons into our food supply.

Glyphosate contaminates Everything

Glyphosate has been found virtually everywhere contaminating our food and water. As Roundup is being sprayed daily on crops and public areas, we are almost constantly breathing, drinking, and eating it. Testing throughout the world proves our constant exposure, whether in California wineGerman beer, or General Mills Granola bars. The U.S. EPA rolled over on Monsanto’s latest request as it usually does for Monsanto, granting the biotech bully license to further pollute and poison the country, its people, pollinating insects, plants, animals (what else you got?).

Environmental Groups move against Monsanto

To slow this endless onslaught, environmental groups have asked the Ninth Circuit court to strike down the U.S. EPA’s approval of Monsanto’s toxic answer to its self-created problem — a new weed killer aimed at killing the Roundup-resistant weeds. On Jan. 23, 2017, the groups told the court that the new Monsanto poison could lead to “superweeds” resistant to both the older and the newer poisonous products.

According to Law 360, the Center for Food Safety, National Family Farm Coalition, Center for Biological Diversity and Pesticide Action Network North America filed their petition on Jan. 23. It seeks to overturn the FDA’s conditional registration for a new use of dicamba, an herbicide (plant poison) now being sold under the brand name XtendiMax. FDA issued its rubber stamp approval in November 2016. XtendiMax had previously been approved for pre-planting, during planting and as a “pre-emergent.” The latest approval allows it to be sprayed directly on Monsanto’s dicamba-resistant cotton and soybeans.

FDA Violated U.S. Law for Monsanto

The environmental groups’ petition said FDA violated the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act when it approved XtendiMax. The agency also violated the Endangered Species Act by failing to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in order to address potential threats to wildlife or critical habitat.

Earthjustice, which represents the environmental groups, said in a Jan. 23 statement that dicamba will only continue the problem of weed resistance started by Monsanto’s Roundup.

Earthjustice Statement

The Earthjustice Statement reads: “The huge increase in dicamba spraying will trigger an outbreak of dicamba resistance in weeds, just as massive use of Roundup on first generation [genetically engineered] crops created an epidemic of weeds immune to glyphosate. (While) Monsanto spins its new dicamba crops as a fix to the current weed resistance problems its own Roundup Ready crop system caused, many scientists, and even the U.S. Department of Agriculture, predict the opposite: the rapid emergence of more superweeds, resistant to both herbicides.”

Monsanto Statement

In a November 2016 statement announcing XtendiMax’ approval, Monsanto said it “is intended to provide farmers with more consistent, flexible control of weeds, especially tough-to-manage and glyphosate resistant weeds, and to help maximize crop yield potential.”

The EPA tepidly addressed the issue of weed resistance in its approval for the pesticide in November. The agency said herbicide resistance has become a “significant issue to growers” and required Monsanto to come up with an Herbicide Resistance Management plan as a condition of the approval.

EPA Statement

In genuflecting to Monsanto as it typically does, the EPA said that if the new product is not working, Monsanto must “investigate the issue.” It is hard to imagine a more toothless, industry friendly stance than this one taken by the  U.S. EPA. You will be hard pressed to find such an agency in all the world as industry friendly as this one entrusted with our food supply. France, for one, has moved to ban glyphosate, acknowledging that Roundup causes liver disease. Roundup has also been found to raise the risk of cancer; it has  triggered Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

The EPA did, however, throw us all a bone, setting the registration to automatically expire in November 2018, unless EPA determines before then that it’s not causing unintended problems. (What about intended problems, which will only trigger more toxic spraying, as Roundup already has, in order to battle the superweeds it has created, along with the cancer?)

Dicamba increases Farmer Cancers

The environmental groups also said in their statement that dicamba has been linked to increased cancer in farmers, though the EPA said in its November 2016 approval that it has classified the chemical as “not likely” to be carcinogenic in humans. The EPA drew that conclusion following the results of Monsanto’s own laboratory studies on mice and rats. Third party studies have found the opposite is true. The EPA also claims glyphosate is safe, while the World Health Organization classifies it as “probably carcinogenic.”

Center for Food Safety Statement

Center for Food Safety attorney George Kimbrell said in a Jan. 23 statement: “Federal regulators have abandoned the interests of farmers, the environment, and public health,”  “We won’t allow our food to be dragged backward into a pesticide-soaked nightmare — not without a hell of a fight.”

A spokeswoman for Monsanto reached for comment by Law 360 defended XtendiMax in an emailed statement: “[F]armers need new tools for weed control, and the EPA approved XtendiMax with VaporGrip Technology for in-crop use after more than seven years of exhaustive scientific review and evaluation. Dicamba-based herbicides have a 40-year history of safe use, and we are confident the government’s exhaustive assessment will prevail.”

Those “40-year history” studies, of course, were virtually all done by employees of Monsanto or by scientists hired by Monsanto. Researchers not working for Monsanto have found kidney and liver damage and tumors in rats, other life-threatening “side effects.” Monsanto has also been sued for false advertising, for a blatant lie which it prints on the Roundup label. It claims glyphosate targets an enzyme found only in plants, but not in people or pets.  The scope of that lie is astonishing, as elementary science  shows that same enzyme Roundup targets also lives in the guts of humans and animals.

Monsanto wants to add new poison

The plaintiffs are represented by George Andreas Kimbrell of the Center for Food Safety and Paul Achitoff of Earthjustice.

The EPA is represented by Jon Michael Lipshultz of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is National Family Farm Coalition, et al v. USEPA, et al, case number 17-70196 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

RELATED

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share