To Vaccinate or Not To Vaccinate?

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate? That is the question. Is it nobler to follow your own doctor’s or pediatrician’s advice? Is it noble to believe the slings and arrows of media gatekeepers hyping measles or Zika hysteria to promote vaccination? Or is it nobler to study the science for one’s self, to think for one’s self, to decide for one’s self whether vaccination is a good thing or not?

We live in a world where it is possible to “phone it in,” to virtually phone in our lives. Many do two or three things at once, perhaps none of them well, at that clip, and this is precisely the point. If we read on the home computer, say, while talking to a friend on the phone, while petting the cat, we can’t be wholly engaged in any one activity. We can’t do one thing well or study it properly in a distracted way.

The problem with learning about vaccination is that we don’t have the luxury of phoning it in. Learning about vaccination is not something we can do while trying to do other things at the same time. It is a very complex subject, one rife with dark emotional arguments, knee-jerk name calling and, of course, fear. This is not an atmosphere that encourages the shining light of learning.

It’s All About FEAR
Every salesman knows that inspiring fear in the mark (or customer) is about short-circuiting Reason. Runaway fear derails Reason, stimulates the fight or flight response, and makes frightened people respond. This includes most of the population, probably most people in the history of the world. Wars, which usually make no sense except for anyone save arms merchants and politicians acting to pad their friends’ business coffers, are typically started in this manner. (Remember the “Weapons of Mass Deception.”) Throughout history, people have been triggered to act out of fear, and to demonize as the “other” all those who haven’t jumped aboard the fear train to drink the Kool-Aide.

Death & Disease Fears for Both Sides
It’s all about fear for those selling vaccination, but it’s also (at least partly) about fear for those opposed to it. The difference in the two sides is that the former rely primarily on fear. They typically try to shame and bully and use name calling fallacies (Anti vaxxer!) to undermine any real discussion of the facts. The latter (those damn ‘anti vaxxers’) use fear too, but they rely more on Reason and Science. The rubber hits the road right there. It’s always easier to get people to act on an emotional response rather than on a reasonable one, even to turn people against their own neighbors, friends, families, with an emotional argument. Even if that argument is completely unbacked by Logic or Reason.

Stubborn Facts
Vaccination facts are something else again, and they are not alternative facts. There are factual reasons that can tell us why it makes sense not to vaccinate, to avoid vaccination altogether. Dr. Suzanne Humphries gives you those facts in her book, “Dissolving Illusions.” But it’s a long book, full of history and science and boring old Reason, so many will likely not bother to read it. (You can’t read and engage with a good book while doing 2-3 other things.)

Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist

Sarah, the Healthy Home Economist, gives a more condensed version of the argument against vaccination. Her essay, “Six Reasons To Say NO to Vaccination,” lays out incontrovertible facts which show vaccination as a pretty insane choice.

Sarah’s Six Reasons to Just Say No

1. Pharmaceutical companies can’t be trusted
Remember HRT? Vioxx? How about 35 other FDA-approved drugs from Big Pharma pulled from the market in the last 30 years or so? Merck, maker of MMR vaccine, the Zostavax Shingles vaccine (which doesn’t work but could make you blind), Gardasil, and other dangerous vaccines, is embroiled in at least two whistleblower lawsuits. Former Merck scientists claim the company faked vaccine data in order to keep lucrative government contracts in the billions of dollars.

2. ALL vaccines are Loaded with Chemicals and Heavy Metals
MSG, antifreeze, phenol, formaldehyde (cancer causing), aluminum (Alzheimer’s, seizures, etc.), glycerin (toxic to kidney, liver, lungs, etc.), lead, cadmium, sulfates, antibiotics, acetone (nail polish remover), neomycin, streptomycin. And THIMERISOL, more toxic than mercury.

A January 2017 study found that ALL vaccines tested were contaminated with heavy metals NOT DECLARED ON THE INGREDIENTS. Any questions?

3. Vaccinated Children Unhealthiest, Most Chronically Sick
Surveys of 12,000 children in the U.S. and Europe revealed the truth of the vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children debate. The great vaxxed are more chronically ill than the great unvaxxed. The VAXXED have higher rates for autism, ear infections, ADHD, asthma, allergies (some 30% higher than unvaxxed) and other health problems.

Vaccination Linked with Mental Illness
Yale and Penn State research has demonstrated a strong link between vaccination and mental illness in children. Some 95,000 children analyzed by the Dept. of Public Health Services at Penn State University College of Medicine and Yale University showed the awful truth of vaccination injuries. Vaccinated children showed a strong association with development of brain-related autoimmune and inflammatory disorders: ADHD, OCD, depression, bipolar, anorexia, chronic tic disorder.

4. Other Countries Waking Up to Vaccine Dangers
No country vaccinates more children per capita than the U.S., which stands a woeful #33 in infant mortality rate. How is vaccination helping us again? Japan formerly also had a terrible infant mortality rate, but when it raised its minimum vax age to 2, Japan’s infant mortality rate jumped to No. 3 in the world. Sudden Infant Death Syndrome – SIDS – is most likely caused by vaccination, as poor parents who have experienced it already know. Australia suspended the flu vaccine for children under 5 in 2010 after a huge number were being raced to emergency rooms with febrile convulsions and other vaccine reactions within hours of the jab.

The shingles vaccine doesn’t work, which is likely why the UK continues to not offer it to children, and it triggers the risk of shingles epidemic for adults.

5. Many Troublesome Vaccines have already been removed from market
in 2002, GlaxoSmithKline removed the Lyme Disease vaccine from the market after several vaccinated victims reported symptoms worse than the disease itself. The Rotavirus was removed in 1999 due to life-threatening bowel obstruction or twisting of the bowl. (The label change warning came too late for many, in 2007)

Gardasil, another unnecessary vaccine for a problem that is seldom life-threatening, is a nightmare that has sadly killed or crippled hundreds of young people.

FACT: If these vaccines have problems, all of them likely have problems, as vaccine makers follow the same basic formula when they come up with each new witch’s brew of a shot.

6. You can Always get Vaccinated; You can Never Unvaccinate.
‘First, do no harm,’ is the golden rule for doctors. That’s not how the vaccination works for the thousands of people it has injured or killed. The whole idea of pumping toxins directly into the bloodstream is questionable at best; just plain absurd, or criminal, at worst, especially for children. To assault a newborn with these toxic chemicals is tantamount to insanity, to cruel and unusual punishment, like the absurd practice of circumcision, another dirty little secret, unnecessary and dangerous for defenseless babies, but profitable for their “professional” handlers.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto, Roundup Face New Safety Doubts

Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) weed killer took a hit March 13, 2017. On that day, a federal court unsealed documents that raise questions not only about Roundup’s safety, but also about Monsanto’s research practices.

Roundup Poison Everywhere

Roundup is used around the world on everything from corporate farm crops to home gardens. Roundup is Monsanto’s flagship product, the cornerstone of its whole operation. Science funded by Monsanto and other Ag-industry corporations has found Roundup to be relatively safe. Independent science, by contrast, including the World Health Organization, has found glyphosate to be likely carcinogenic. Monsanto consequently faces Roundup cancer lawsuits across the country.

Roundup Lymphoma Link
Independent research reviews have found that Roundup exposure increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), hairy cell leukemia (HCL),  multiple myeloma, and chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

Monsanto’s Damning Emails with Regulators
A federal case against Monsanto for Roundup has been filed in San Francisco. Court documents include Monsanto’s internal emails, as well as ethically troubling emails between Monsanto officials and federal regulators. The records suggest Monsanto had ghostwritten research later attributed to academics. A senior EPA official had worked to quash a review of Roundup’s main ingredient. A study on glyphosate was supposed to have been conducted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That study was never done. The documents also show internal E.P.A. disagreement over glyphosate safety assessments.

Judge Unseals Secret Monsanto Files
The files were unsealed by Judge Vince Chabria. He is presiding over a lawsuit brought by people who say they developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from glyphosate exposure. The litigation stems from a determination made in 2015 that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen. The International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, cited research linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Monsanto Insider with EPA
Court records show Monsanto was alerted to the damning determination months earlier by a deputy division director at the E.P.A., Jess Rowland. That EPA/Monsanto insider gave the biotech bully a head start to prepare a public relations assault on the finding before its publication. Monsanto executives’ internal emails said Mr. Rowland had promised to fight Department of Health and Human Services’ efforts to conduct independent review. He appears to have been successful.

EPA Official Works For Monsanto to Defend Glyphosate
Dan Jenkins, a Monsanto executive, wrote in a 2015 email that Mr. Rowland had told him, “If I can kill this [his agency’s review], I should get a medal.” Mr. Rowland should have gotten his Monsanto medal, because the review never happened. Mr. Jenkins noted in another email to a colleague that Mr. Rowland was planning to retire. The Monsanto man said Mr. Rowland “could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”

Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate
Glyphosate has never been proven safe by any objective review of the science. Several agencies, including the European Food Safety Agency and the E.P.A., have disagreed with the international cancer agency that plays down concerns of a cancer risk. Monsanto has always aggressively defended glyphosate through million-dollar PR campaigns, advertising money that also buys friendly copy, and political contributions. Monsanto has also leaned on its minions in the EPA (like Jess Rowland), the judiciary (like former Monsanto lawyer and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas), in the White House (like former first lady and former lawyer for Monsanto, Hilary Clinton), and the House of Congress (2016 total to Democrats: $89,500; to Republicans: $267,000).

But the court records also reveal a level of debate within the E.P.A. The agency’s Office of Research and Development raised concerns about the robustness of an assessment carried out by the agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs. There, Jess Rowland was then a senior official. He had recommended in December 2015 that EPA take steps to “strengthen” its “human health assessment”on glyphosate.

Monsanto:  “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen”

Monsanto said in a statement: “Glyphosate is not a carcinogen.” The company added: “The allegation that glyphosate can cause cancer in humans is inconsistent with decades of comprehensive safety reviews by the leading regulatory authorities around the world. The plaintiffs have submitted isolated documents that are taken out of context.”

The New York Times reported that the E.P.A. had no immediate comment to the judge’s March 13 ruling. The paper said it could not immediately reach Mr. Rowland for comment.

Monsanto through Both Sides of Its Corporate Mouth
Monsanto also refuted suggestions that the disclosures the judge forced it to make highlighted concerns that the academic research it underwrites is compromised. The problem, of course, is that Monsanto always cites such vested-interest research to back up its Roundup pesticide-safety claims.

Monsanto Ghostwrites its own Research, Hides Authorship
In one email unsealed last month, Monsanto executive William Heydens told other Monsanto employees that they could ghostwrite research on glyphosate by hiring academics to put their names on papers that were actually written by Monsanto.

Mr. Heydens wrote: “We would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.” He said the company had done so previously, citing a previous case.

When questioned about the exchange, Monsanto said in another statement that its “scientists did not ghostwrite the paper” referred to or previous work, adding that a paper that eventually appeared “underwent the journal’s rigorous peer review process before it was published.”

Roundup Cancer Link – Rat Study

We have also seen an instance where Monsanto hired its own friendly editor and then had him pull peer reviewed research paper pulled from publication, because it showed glyphosate as a probable carcinogen. That was the Giles Seralini rat study, in which rats developed hideous tumors that gave the lie to Monsanto’s proclamation of glyphosate safety.

Researcher denies Ghostwritten Work
David Kirkland, one of the scientists mentioned in the email, said in an interview, “I would not publish a document that had been written by someone else.” He added, “We had no interaction with Monsanto at all during the process of reviewing the data and writing the papers.”

Integrity of Academic Research Questioned
The disclosures are the latest to raise concerns about the integrity of academic research financed by agrochemical companies. A review by The New York Times in 2016 showed how the industry can manipulate academic research or misstate findings. Declarations of interest included in a Monsanto-financed paper on glyphosate that appeared in the journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology said panel members were recruited by a consulting firm. Email traffic made public shows Monsanto officials discussed and debated scientists who should be considered, and shaped the project.

Monsanto, Roundup Face New Safety Doubts

Most of Monsanto’s glyphosate research is highly questionable, given the many conflicts of interest that often come to light only after a lawsuit is filed,” said attorney David Matthews, whose law firm is handling Monsanto and Roundup cancer lawsuits.

Roundup Weedkiller Everywhere
In the last 20 years, Monsanto has genetically re-engineered corn, soybeans and cotton. Some 220 million pounds of glyphosate were used in 2015 in the United States.

RELATED

 

Share

Scientists say Glyphosate Needs Safety Review

Scientific experts say Monsanto’s  glyphosate weedkiller chemical needs an urgent safety review. New evidence suggests the safety standards for glyphosate (Roundup) may be failing to protect the public and environment. Health experts just published that conclusion in the Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health.

Monsanto’s out-of-date Science
Current standards that assess glyphosate dangers are based on out-of-date science, say the researchers. That old “science” (also performed only by those with vested interest in its outcomes) may not be able to address the full complement of health hazards associated with pesticide exposure. The experts call for an urgent review of these outdated “standards.”

Monsanto has Us Covered
Glyphosate use has increased rapidly in the U.S. over the past twenty years. Today it is the most widely used weed-killer in the nation and the world. Global estimates suggest that in 2014 enough glyphosate was used to spray nearly 0.5 kg on every hectare of farmable land across the entire earth.

Glyphosate is used to kill off weeds (and, incidentally, bees, insects, and birds) before crops are planted. Then it is further used to control weed growth. Then it is also used to speed up the natural drying of seeds before harvest. Pesticide residues have been found in soybeans, wheat, barley, and many other crops and foods, the researchers say.

Peer Review Science Absent
Most of the science used to support the safety standards applied in the US was carried out more than 30 years ago. Relatively little of it was subject to peer review. Since then, more than 1500 glyphosate studies have been published, hundreds in just the past decade, many in peer-reviewed journals that set the standard for law.

The experts say, “It is incongruous that safety assessments of the most widely-used herbicide on the planet rely largely on fewer than 300 unpublished, non-peer reviewed studies while excluding the vast modern literature on glyphosate effects.”

Despite the rapid increase in glyphosate being sprayed everywhere, there is no systematic monitoring system for tracking levels in human tissue. Few studies have researched potential harm to humans.

Glyphosate Damage to Liver, Kidney, Eye, Cardio Systems
Recent animal studies, however, have suggested glyphosate at doses lower than those used to assess risk, may be linked to heightened risks of liver, kidney, eye, and cardiovascular system damage.

Monsanto avoids Public Scrutiny
Weed-killers which combine glyphosate with other ‘so-called inert ingredients,’ may be even more potent, say the experts. The problem is like the voting machine owners hiding behind “proprietary interests” to keep us from counting our votes. Monsanto and other ag businesses hide behind their own corporate shield. Monsanto and others argue that these pesticide mixtures are “commercially sensitive” and therefore need to be made unavailable to the public.  (Editorial comment alert: So, you see, you can’t know what is in your food or how it is made – that is for corporate eyes only, because some other corporation could steal the secret of poisoning the world, killing off bees birds, animals, humans, and also profit from the devastation.)

The researchers are far from alone in claiming that glyphosate is associated with a heightened risk of cancer and has the potential to disrupt hormone function. Monsanto, of course, begs to differ.

The researchers call for several sensible measures:

  • improved surveillance of the levels of glyphosate and its metabolites in people
  • the latest state of the art tests and technology to be applied to risk assessments of these chemicals and other combination weed-killers
  • further research to track occupational exposures in agricultural workers, manufacturers, and other vulnerable groups, such as pregnant women and their children
  • evaluations of commercial combination weed-killers containing glyphosate.

Scientists say Glyphosate Needs Safety Review

The researchers wrote: “After a review of all evaluations, we conclude that the current safety standards are outdated and may fail to protect public health and the environment.” (BMJ)

Journal Reference:

Laura N Vandenberg, Bruce Blumberg, Michael N Antoniou, Charles M Benbrook, Lynn Carroll, Theo Colborn, Lorne G Everett, Michael Hansen, Philip J Landrigan, Bruce P Lanphear, Robin Mesnage, Frederick S vom Saal, Wade V Welshons, John Peterson Myers. Is it time to reassess current safety standards for glyphosate-based herbicides? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 2017; jech-2016-208463 DOI: 10.1136/jech-2016-208463

BMJ. “Weedkiller chemical (glyphosate) safety standards need urgent review: Emerging evidence suggests they may be failing to protect public/environmental health.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 23 March 2017. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/03/170323125427.htm>.

Top Ten GMO Foods to Avoid

1. Corn – as much as 80% of the corn produced in the US is GMO.

2. Soy – Monsanto has about 90 percent of the soy market. In 2006, some 96.7 million pounds of glyphosate was sprayed on soybeans alone.

3. Sugar – According to NaturalNews, genetically-modified sugar beets were introduced to the U.S. market in 2009. Like others, they’ve been modified by Monsanto to resist herbicides.

4. Aspartame – Aspartame is a toxic additive used in numerous food products, and should be avoided for numerous reasons, including the fact that it is created with genetically modified bacteria.

5. Papayas – Bad surprise for tropical-fruit lovers. GMO papayas have been grown in Hawaii since 1999. They can’t be sold to countries in the European Union, but US regulators can’t wait for you to buy and eat them.

6. Canola – Canola is a great con. It is one of the most chemically altered foods in the U.S.

7. Cotton – More sprayed with pesticides than any other product in the U.S. Buy organic cotton if you can.

8. Dairy – Dairy products may contain growth hormones. As many as 20% of all dairy cows in the US are pumped with these harmful hormones. Monasnto’s health-hazardous rBGH has been banned in 27 countries, but US regulators give the company a free pass.

9. and 10. – Zucchini and Yellow Squash are often genetically modified.

The FDA simply gave Monsanto and other biotech bullies free reign to unleash these GMOs on us. Monsanto claims they’re safe. Independent labs and smart consumers beg to differ.

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

Government removes Informed Consent for Drugs, Vaccinations

It is indeed a government of wolves, as John Whitehead has written. In one of its latest ploys to partner with corporations to Lord it over us all, the U.S. government has removed informed consent for drugs and vaccinations. The so-called ‘21st Century Cures Act’ contains a sneak attack on informed consent potentially affecting every citizen of the U.S. The new law includes language that allows the government to experiment on any of us. If the government decides it “needs” to experiment on you or your children, it has now been written into law that it may do so.

Nazi Parallel
As Hitler rose to power in Nazi Germany, he steadily eroded citizens’ rights using pliant politicians, corrupted judges and the thin veneer of “law.”  The very same thing is now happening in our country. If this sounds alarmist, so be it. This is happening right now while the country sleepwalks through another tirade from the Tweeter in Chief or watches the latest game.

The new law, the so-called 21St Century Cures Act, passed by the Obama administration, contains this Draconian language:

Section 3024
“Informed consent waiver or alteration for clinical investigations.
* Amends the FD&C Act to add an exemption from informed consent requirements for clinical trials that pose no more than minimal risk and where appropriate safeguards protecting the rights, safety, and welfare of subjects are in place.”

Orwellian Doublespeake
How ludicrous can Orwellian Doublespeak get?  The law simply removes any right you thought you had to informed consent. Who gets to decide what ‘minimal risk’ is? Pharmaceutical companies making the vaccines or the drugs for the experiment on you? The same government that tells you drinking fluoridated water is good for you, lies to you about the vaccine dangers (virtually none, if you believe your government), stops funding for schools that don’t comply with Big Pharma-driven vaccine mandates?

“I have certain rules I live by. My first rule: I don’t believe anything the government tells me. Nothing. Zero.” – George Carlin

Drug Experiments on You
Section 3024 further contains this language:
“(b) Drugs – Section 505 (;) (4) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355 (I) (4) is amended by striking ‘except where it is not feasible or it is contrary to the best interests of human beings’ and inserting ‘except where it is not feasible, it is contrary to the best interests of such human beings, or the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to such human beings and included appropriate safeguards as prescribed to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of such human beings.’”

Minimal Risk and You
So no more informed consent for American citizens for vaccines and drugs. Any citizen can now be part of a “clinical trial” if a drug rep, Big Pharma executive,  lobbyist or corporate drug lawyer who helped write this lovely section – or some other shill for drug and vaccine profits – decides.  That person or persons will decide what “minimal risk” is acceptable for you. Never mind your own education, physical or immunological limitations, or anything else. You no longer have the right to decide, or even to consider for yourself what ‘minimal risk’ might be for you or your children.

The Herd
Thanks to this “Act,” you now have no more rights where the “greater good” is concerned. Your rights will now be determined by whomever is in charge of determining what “minimal risk” is for “the herd.”  And in case you haven’t “heard,” Herd Animal, “herd immunity” is a giant, unsupportable fallacy. So you can take whatever you think you know about vaccination, that crap you’ve heard second or third hand from the mealy mouth of some multi-million dollar vaccine profiteer like Paul Offit, or some other goon, and do a little research for yourself. Learn something. Save yourself and your children and the rest of humanity from the flying monkeys endlessly sent by Big Pharma to do what they will to us.

The Media Circus of Flying Monkeys
The very same media that sold you on all these now obvious lies – the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the connection of Saddam Hussein and Sept. 11, the wonders of poisoning your water and leaching lead from your water pipes with fluoride, the joy of making your kid autistic with vaccination, the safety of genetically modified food, the not-so-bad pollution (that kills at least 100,000 people outright every year) – those same flying monkeys who try to tell you what is and what is not fake news, those flying monkeys, have failed completely to bring you this story of your vanishing rights to informed consent. This is nothing less than the end of democracy as we once knew it. If there were any real news outlets in the mainstream liars club, this story would be the lead every day until people paid attention and rose up and the law were reversed to reflect the will of the people to govern themselves.

Medical Devices cleared of Informed Consent

The so-called 21St Century Cures Act also gives medical device makers possible exemptions from informed consent.  If those devices are deemed by someone (not you) to be of “minimal risk,” of course. Never mind that the FDA-cleared disasters of transvaginal mesh or hernia mesh, both of which dramatically harmed tens of thousands of people, were considered by ‘the deciders’ to be of “minimal risk.”

With no informed consent, how does anyone know whether they are part of an experiment? We were never informed by government or anyone else that those others could now waive our informed consent.

Minimal Risk FDA-Approved Drugs pulled from Market
Thirty five (35) FDA-approved drugs have been pulled from the market since the 1970’s. The government said every one of these drugs was “minimal risk.” One “minimal risk” drug, Vioxx, is thought to have killed some 250,000 people. (Thank God Vioxx was only a “minimal risk” drug.)

“MINIMAL RISK drugs, kill at least 100,000 a year. Minimal risk drugs, anyone?

Now this government is spraying the skies with Naled (for the ludicrously overhyped Zika virus scare) and Dibrom (a cute little reversible anagram for “Morbid”) and other poisons to “help” us. Many people paying attention are protesting their forced poisoning, and the poisoning of their pets and gardens. The so-called 21St Century Cures Act is a fig leaf of cover for these insane experiments. In each case the cure is worse than the “disease,” which, of course, is virtually always brought about by environmental causes – immune systems weakened by dirty radiated water, filthy air, vaccines loaded with toxic adjuvants (including mercury and Nagalese), genetically modified “food,” poisoned public discourse, toxic politics, toxified people.

Purge Needed
It is time to purge the system of these toxins. These politicians must be brought to do the bidding of those of us who have to drink the poisoned water, eat the lousy food, read and listen to the phoney news. We know who the real newsfakers are. All we need do is turn on our television sets. The news that passes for reality is about as real as the so-called “reality” shows.

RELATED

Share

Merck Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit Filed

Merck is being sued for its alleged shingles vaccine. A Nevada woman filed a Merck shingles vaccine lawsuit against Merck on February 23, 2017. The woman said she suffered several injuries as a result of Merck’s Zostavax Shingles Vaccine. Her petition said she suffered an eye injury, high blood pressure, and other personal indignities from Merck & Co.’s Zostavax.  Law 360 reported that this lawsuit appears to be the first filed over Merck’s artificial immunity shot for shingles. The case was filed in Philadelphia’s Court of Common Pleas.

Failure to Warn
Plaintiff Jorja Bentley said in her petition that the Zostavax vaccine’s patient information sheet and label and prescribing information failed to warn of the risk of viral infection. Her complaint referenced several reports that followed the vaccine’s introduction in 2006. The reports linked Zostavax to viral infections leading to disease of the central nervous system.

Shingles Warning Label Added

Merck added a warning to Zostavax’ label in August 2014, which said the vaccine could raise one’s risk of getting shingles, but that warning never reached Ms. Bentley, according to the petition. There can typically be lag time between the announcement of a label change and any label changes actually taking effect; so  legal arguments in the case will at least partly concern whether that label change ever reached the Plaintiff.

Ms. Bentley said in her petition: “Despite this information and the potential correlation between being administered the Zostavax vaccine and developing an infection within a relatively short period of time, leading to the development of shingles or varicella-zoster virus pneumonia, Merck failed to properly address and provide this information both to patients and the medical providers prescribing the vaccine.”

Shingles Vaccine approved by FDA

The shingles vaccination is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the prevention of shingles in people 60 and older. Ms. Bentley received the shot in November 2014, according to her petition. Shortly afterwards, she said she developed a headache, dizziness, blurred vision. Her complaint said she continues to suffer from injuries to her right eye, elevated blood pressure, headaches, and dizziness. She said the only warnings she received with documentation that accompanied the vaccine indicated the possibility of rash and itching at the injection site.

Vaccine Safety Questioned in Scientific, Medical Journals
Ms. Bentley, in her petition, blames Merck & Co. for making and marketing the vaccine when it was aware of the infection risks. She referenced several scientific and medical journals that have questioned the vaccine’s safety.

Merck Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit Filed
The complaint includes claims for negligence, design defect, failure to warn, breaches of express and implied warranties, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment. Ms. Bentley also seeks punitive damages.

Shingles Vaccine Attorney

Ms. Bentley’s attorney said, “We’ve been looking at this potential case for sometime, and we believe it is highly meritorious. (We) believe the vaccine is at best 50 percent effective. Either it is not effective, or it has caused shingles and other issues, like in this case, where it has caused a serious opthamological complication.”

Shingles Vaccine from Jacked-up Chickenpox Vaccine

The shingles vaccine shot for artificial immunity is primarily a more potent version of Merck’s chickenpox vaccine, Varivax.  Zostavax came from Merck’s European joint vaccine venture with Sanofi.  Merck and Sanofi disbanded in 2016.

The case is Bentley v. Merck & Co. Inc. et al, case number 161004102 in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.

RELATED

Share

98 Million Americans get Live Cancer Virus in Vaccine

Anyone considering the latest vaccine should first learn some history about vaccine promotion by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Merck’s dubious Zostovax Shingles Vaccine, Gardasil, or the flu vaccine – all  promoted by the CDC – may be less safe and effective than advertised. The CDC is the government agency most responsible for promoting mass vaccination for artificial immunity (vastly inferior to natural immunity). The CDC has worked closely with Big Pharma for decades to spread fear and promote mass vaccination for all, even if that means forcing it on Americans. Forced vaccination is already happening in nanny states like California, which last year eliminated informed consent for children, a gross human rights violation. The problem with trusting such an agency with one’s life is that the CDC has a checkered history fraught with both basic competence and credibility problems.

CDC Admits 98 Million Americans given Live Cancer Virus 
The CDC has admitted that it shot a live cancer virus into the blood of 98 million Americans, from 1955-1963. Those 98 million (and there may have been millions more, as the cancer-tainted polio vaccine was never pulled from some supplies) were given a cancer-causing virus known as SV40, a Simian Vacuolating virus. The CDC quickly removed its Mea Culpa from its web site, then claimed that no evidence exists to prove SV40 could jump from monkeys to humans. Now, unless you were born on the moon, you might note that there are a few similarities between “us” and “them.”  It is, of course, the vast similarities between “the hairy ape” and “the naked ape” (Desmond Morris) which condemns so many poor monkeys to a life of vaccine experiment torture and death for our “benefit” in the first place.

Cancer Virus affects Generations
Doctors and scientists have found SV40 not only in the blood of those human beings directly shot with contaminated vaccine batches, but also in the children of those unwitting victims and even in their grandchildren. SV40 is, apparently, the gift that never stops giving.

Cancer Epidemic
The CDC secretly worried – back when they discovered the cancer-contaminated vaccines – that a soft tissue cancer epidemic would develop in 30-40 years among the population shot with SV40. A cancer epidemic, of course, is exactly what has occurred. Lung cancer, breast cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, bladder cancer, colon cancer – all exploded in the next decades. Just because one does not develop cancer in a day or a week or a year after vaccination with a cancer-contaminated vaccine does not mean one was not harmed, perhaps fatally. (Or perhaps not, according to the CDC. As Fox says: “We report, you decide.”)

Secret Cancer Vaccine Studies
Dr. Alton Ochsner, the first president of the American Cancer Society, began in the 1950’s – with the shocking discovery of the SV40 cancer contamination of the polio vaccine – to conduct secret cancer vaccine experiments. The New Orleans doctor, famous (or infamous, depending on your perspective) became part of a secret government-sponsored project to produce a cancer vaccine to battle the anticipated (and current) cancer epidemic. On the way, the good doctor and his secret crew also learned to weaponize cancer, creating the most virulent strains of it that the world had ever seen, typically killing a person in less than 30 days. (But that’s all another story. Or is it? Could one make all this stuff up? Read Dr. Mary’s Monkey and Me and Lee and decide for yourself.)

Conspiracy Theory or Patriotic Endeavor?
The CIA introduced the term “conspiracy theorist” in the late 1960s in a top secret agency memo – sent to its media assets throughout the world  – as one means of denigrating and dismissing anyone who questioned the impossible “magic bullet” theory of the Warren Commission. The group’s ludicrous “magic bullet” theory (see Cyril Wecht, among many others) was the only way the Commission could “prove” President John Kennedy was shot from behind by a single gunman on November 22, 1963. Now the CDC might like to denigrate anyone who mentions the 98 million injected with a live cancer vaccine as a “conspiracy theorist.” The problem is that the agency itself posted the information on its web site, then quickly took it down.

98 Million Americans get Live Cancer Virus in Vaccine
The CDC’s problem now is that it can’t rewrite history. Several people around the world cached the CDC’s confession of incompetence before the agency then took the information down. The information is everywhere. The question for you is, what are you doing to do with it? Who are you going to believe when it comes time to trust someone with your life as they bring the needle to your arm, or the arm of your child?

RELATED

Share

Monsanto Must Give Docs In Syngenta MDL

Monsanto may soon need to add some provision in its employment contracts to keep former employees from testifying in other GMO matters. A former Monsanto lawyer is giving the company something else to think about as he has testified as a GMO expert in a matter that didn’t even concern Monsanto directly in the first place.

In its endless quest to hide its poison programs and the way it does business, Monsanto had refused to let its former company lawyer hand over documents in a recent multi-district litigation action. Two judges responded by saying the former Monsanto attorney must give up some of the questionable documents in the Syngenta MDL.

On March 24, 2017, a Kansas federal court partially granted a demand from a group of corn producers to force a former Monsanto in-house lawyer to hand over Monsanto documents. Plaintiffs argued that the Monsanto lawyer could be holding relevant information in what the plaintiffs called Syngenta’s false promotion of genetically modified corn.

Two Judges say Monsanto must hand over docs
Former Monsanto Associate General Counsel J. Thomas Carrato, one of Syngenta’s designated experts, was ordered by U.S. Magistrate Judge James P. O’Hara and Minnesota Special Master John B. Van de North to produce documents related to industry standards for commercialization of new genetically modified (GMO) crops. Mr. Carrato has opined that Syngenta acted in a manner consistent with those standards.

Privileged & Confidential?
Law360 reported that Monsanto tried in two actions to quash subpoenas from the corn producers. The poison giant had argued that complying would require Mr. Carrato to produce privileged and confidential documents which came to him while he was on Monsanto’s payroll. The corn producers had filed in each of the two actions a cross-motion to compel Mr. Carrato to produce documents from his personal files. They argued the documents would let them assess and challenge Mr.  Carrato’s opinions.

Monsanto can withhold some documents
Judge O’Hara and Special Master Van de North jointly granted in part and denied in part Monsanto’s motion to quash and granted in part and denied in part the corn producers’ motion to compel.

“Mr. Carrato and Monsanto assert that Mr. Carrato should not be required to produce documents subject to the confidentiality agreements between them,” the joint order said. “Mr. Carrato cites Snowden v. Connaught Labs Inc., in which the court held that the defendants were not required to produce documents in violation of a confidentiality agreement with a third party. The undersigned respectfully decline to follow the Snowden result, which is not supported in the opinion by any reasoning or caselaw.”

On Jan. 19, 2017, the U.S. magistrate partly granted Monsanto’s emergency request to intervene in the MDL to seek a protective order relating to Mr. Carrato’s deposition. The barrister was Monsanto’s in-house counsel for nearly 22 years and then a Monsanto consultant until 2016.

The U.S. magistrate refused what he termed Monsanto’s “implied request” to exclude Mr. Carrato from serving as a witness. The judge held that the deposition would go forward, but said Monsanto could send lawyers to advise Mr. Carrato.

Syngenta sued for $1 Billion
In September 2016, U.S. District Judge John W. Lungstrum granted certification to a nationwide group of corn producers who had brought Lanham Act claims in the multidistrict litigation. The MDL court plaintiffs allege that Syngenta’s promotion of genetically modified corn cost them at least $1 billion.

Judge Lungstrum certified a nationwide class of corn producers who priced any corn for sale after Nov. 18, 2013, and have brought claims under the Lanham Act. He excluded those who bought Syngenta GMO seed strains Viptera and Duracade, and also excluded statewide classes from Arkansas, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, South Dakota.

China Refused GMO Strains
The producers charge that they lost an enormous amount of money when the presence of the unapproved GMO strains in U.S. exports all but shut down the Chinese market to U.S. corn.

The parties filed dueling summary judgment motions on Feb. 6, 2017. The plaintiffs asked for partial summary judgment on several of Syngenta’s affirmative defenses. Syngenta asked for a quick win on the nationwide Lanham Act class claims, as well as the Kansas state class’ negligence claims.

Court filings show that the trial on those claims is scheduled for June, 2017. Judge Lungstrum said in January that the non-Kansas certified class actions will also be tried in the present court. He told plaintiffs to file a consolidation motion after he rules on the summary judgment requests.

Many of the motions in the case are sealed at the request of Syngenta and Monsanto; so it’s difficult to get many helpful details.

Bellwether Cases for Corn Producers
Bellwether cases had been set in August 2017 for corn producers and nonproducers in the MDL. Court records show that each side has selected one nonproducer and two producer plaintiffs for a total of six indicator trials. Farmers from four states will serve as the four producer bellwether cases. Trans Coastal Supply Co. Inc. and Rail Transfer Inc. will serve as the two nonproducer bellwethers.

Monsanto told Law360 through a spokesman that during Mr. Carrato’s time as a consultant from 2014 to 2016, he had confidentiality agreements with Monsanto, and also legal ethical obligations that govern the client-lawyer relationship.

The Monsanto mouthpiece said: “Monsanto’s sole objective in intervening into the Syngenta litigation is to prevent the disclosure of Monsanto confidential information or any information that may be subject to the attorney client privilege or attorney work product doctrine.”

Law360 said reported that representatives for the corn producers and Syngenta did not immediately respond to requests for comment on March 24.

Monsanto Must Give Docs In Syngenta MDL
The case is In re: Syngenta AG MIR 162 Corn Litigation, case number 2:14-md-02591, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto, U.S. Regulators Poison World

Two new reportsrats show how chemical companies like Monsanto and U.S. regulators poison the world. On March 17, 2017, Alternet detailed the reports which prove once for all that growing food with poisons is a very bad idea. (Who’d have thunk it? Only anybody who doesn’t work for Monsanto, and anybody capable of thinking.) There’s good reason why most of the civilized world outside the U.S. fights Monsanto to keep the company from further poisoning the world’s food supply and people.

Monsanto’s cozy Relationship with Regulators

Writer Katherine Paul has detailed how two new reports just published add to the already huge body of convincing evidence — from more than 50 years of research —  that pesticides and other toxic chemicals used in agriculture are poisoning us all.

Both reports issue scathing indictments of the cozy relationships between U.S. and global regulatory systems and chemical companies. Together they work to hide the truth in order to increase industry profits at the expense of our health and Mother Earth (one and the same).

Pollution, Pesticides Killing Children
The World Health Organization report focused on a range of environmental risks. It found the cost of a polluted, pesticided environment leads to the deaths of some 1.7 million children each year.

A Myth that Kills
The Special Rapporteur on the right to food presented a report to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The report focused on agricultural chemicals. That report states unequivocally that Monsanto’s story line about feeding the world by using pesticides is completely false. Monsanto is not feeding the world nutritious food, despite all the company’s shameless propaganda; and the need for pesticides is a myth that kills.

Both reports made headlines in a handful of mainstream outlets like the Washington Post and the Guardian, but far more exposure is needed for people to wake up to to prevent their own undoing.

Silent Spring
In the early 1960’s, Rachel Carson eloquently outlined the insanity of poisoning our environment in her book Silent Spring. But since that time, U.S. regulators bought and paid for by Monsanto and other biotech bullies have paid little heed to that insanity. We seldom follow the reasonable, precautionary principle when it comes to allowing poisons to be unleashed on us all.

More Poisons assured as Trump guts EPA
President Trump now wants to gut the EPA and further “deregulate” our protections from corporate insanity, greed, cruelty, stupidity. The most corporate-friendly administration in history is doing everything possible to dismantle what little remains of the U.S. government’s power to stop the runaway poisoning of our land, food, water, air, wildlife.

The Environment Card

Calling the world we live in our “environment” is misleading. The environment is not separate from us. It IS us, where we live. We swim in it from cradle to grave, like fish in a tank. Our very lives depend on it; but life is cheap in this political climate. Those with money or working for Monsanto apparently think they breathe different air than the rest of us, drink different water, eat different food. They are partly right, (if the reports we hear of Monsanto’s HQ serving only organic food are right), but in the larger sense they are not right at all. Nobody can entirely escape the poisoned world, the “environment,” anymore than we can.

EPA Captured by Industry
While Trump is working to gut the EPA with a $2.6 billion budget cut, it is instructive to note that even before the combover king decided to de-fang the agency, it was already captured and compromised by industry. E. G. Vallianatos worked for the EPA for 25 years, then wrote a book called Poison Spring: The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA.

Mr. Vallianatos wrote:

“It is simply not possible to understand why the EPA behaves the way it does without appreciating the enormous power of American’s industrial farmers and their allies in the chemical pesticide industries, which currently do about $40 billion per in year business. For decades, industry lobbyists have preached the gospel of unregulated capitalism, and Americans have bought it. Today, it seems the entire government is at the service of the private interests of America’s corporate class.”

That was written in 2014. Now it is much worse. Though public opinion has shifted against poisoning our food with toxic chemicals, U.S. public health and safety officials appear more determined than ever to uphold the “rights” of corporations to poison us all, and everything else they can.

‘UN experts denounce “myth” pesticides are necessary to feed the world’
That Guardian story headline on the report delivered this week to the UN Human Rights Council nicely summed up the mess Monsanto and others have made of our food supply. The Guardian said:

“A new report, being presented to the UN human rights council on Wednesday, is severely critical of the global corporations that manufacture pesticides, accusing them of the ‘systematic denial of harms,’ ‘aggressive, unethical marketing tactics’ and heavy lobbying of governments which has ‘obstructed reforms and paralysed global pesticide restrictions.’”

Pesticides’ Catastrophic Effects

The report says pesticides have “catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole,” including an estimated 200,000 deaths a year from acute poisoning. Its authors said: “It is time to create a global process to transition toward safer and healthier food and agricultural production.”

The UN report was written by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on “toxics.” The report stated that chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders, sterility. Populations most at risk include farmers, agricultural workers, others living near plantations, indigenous communities, pregnant women, and especially children, who require special protections which they seldom get from U.S. regulators.

The Crop Protection Association, a lobbying group representing the $50-billion agri-chemical industry, fired back at the report with its standard propaganda, false on its face, that pesticides “play a key role in ensuring we have access to a healthy, safe, affordable and reliable food supply.”

The Myth that Pesticides are useful and necessary

Mr. Elver told the Guardian:

“ It (the need for pesticides) is a myth. Using more pesticides is nothing to do with getting rid of hunger. According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), we are able to feed 9 billion people today. Production is definitely increasing, but the problem is poverty, inequality and distribution.

Monsanto, U.S. Regulators Poison World

Sustainable Pulse (SP) also reported on the story. SP noted that the report warns that some pesticides can persist in the environment for decades. It remains to be seen whether the rest of us will last for decades given the extent of Monsanto’s poisoning of our bodies, minds, and politics.

RELATED

 

Share

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Court

Glyphosate makes Roundupthe Cancer List, said a California state judge March 13, 2017. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi Culver Kapetan rejected a Monsanto lawsuit which claimed a state agency has no authority to list glyphosate – from Roundup – on a list of cancer-causing chemicals.

Related:  Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

The judge rejected all of Monsanto’s claims. Lawyers for the biotech giant from Missouri had alleged that the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment violated the state’s Constitution by acknowledging that the International Agency for Research on Cancer listed glysophate as a probable human carcinogen. Several environmental groups sided with California, while several chemical agriculture industry front groups funded by Monsanto backed Monsanto.

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Judge

Judge Kapetan cited the California Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Kugler v. Yocum. The judge in that case ruled that a proposed ordinance which would have required one city to match another’s minimum wage for firefighters was not an unconstitutional delegation of its authority.

Judge Kapetan said, “Likewise, in the present case, the … listing mechanism does not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of authority to an outside agency, since the voters and the Legislature have established the basic legislative scheme and made the fundamental policy decision with regard to listing possible carcinogens under Proposition 65, and then allowed the IARC to make the highly technical fact-finding decisions with regard to which specific chemicals would be added to the list.”

Proposition 65 snares Monsanto & Glyphosate
Proposition 65, a state Monsanto eats GMO Studiessafety initiative approved in 1986, requires California to publish a list of chemicals known to cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive damage. Monsanto fears that listing glyphosate as carcinogenic will give away the company’s whole game of poisoning the entire world under the guise of feeding it.  Just ask Seralini’s rats how fed GMO corn poisoned with glyphosate worked for them. Besides causing cancer, Roundup with glyphosate has been linked to kidney and liver damage, and more.

Monsanto loses Quasi-Legislative Act Argument
Monsanto had also alleged that California’s listing mechanism violates due process clauses of both the state and federal constitutions, because Monsanto’s property interest in the Roundup trademark and its reputation will be damaged if glyphosate is listed. Judge Kapetan again disagreed, ruling that the state office’s decision is not subject to due process claims because it’s a quasi-legislative act.

Monsanto argues Free Speech Violation
The judge also denied Monsanto’s claim that listing glyphosate as carcinogenic would violate the company’s right to free speech under the state and federal constitutions. In this failed argument, Monsanto lawyers claimed that a cancer listing would force Monsanto to include a warning label regarding the possible cancerous effects of glyphosate. (Imagine that – a cancer warning on a probable carcinogen.) Monsanto claimed that such a warning would be “false and misleading,” and would not advance any legitimate or substantial government interest. (In this argument, a citizen’s right to avoid carcinogens is, of course,  mute.)

Judge Kapetan agreed with the state office that Monsanto’s First Amendment claim is not ripe for adjudication because the mere listing of glyphosate does not require Monsanto to provide a warning.  Indeed, even with a carcinogenic listing for glyphosate, Monsanto may never be required to give such a warning. (Did you expect any of this to make sense?)

Monsanto gets an Out

The judge also noted that the hazard assessment office has the discretion to determine that glyphosate poses no significant risk of causing cancer even if glyphosate is placed on the Proposition 65 list.

Monsanto spokesman Cole Waggoner argued that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the European Food Safety Authority and the State of California have determined that glyphosate does not cause cancer.

Said Mr. Waggoner: “The agency’s flawed and baseless proposal to list glyphosate under Proposition 65 not only contradicts California’s own scientific assessment, but it also violates the California and U.S. Constitutions. We disagree with the court’s ruling, and we will continue to fight the decision on the basis of sound science and the law.”

Environmentalists and others opposed to glyphosate and Monsanto’s entire chemical poisoning business model point out that all those entities Mr. Waggoner lists are compromised by Monsanto and the biotech industry. Money is, as everyone knows, a highly corrupting influence that can make black appear white and evil good, just so long as somebody is willing to pay the freight to turn truth on its head.

Glyphosate makes Cancer List, says Court

The case is Monsanto Co. v. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment et al., case number 16 CE CG 00183, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Fresno.

RELATED

 

 

Share