Invokana Dangers seen Early

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

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

Vulcan Banned in Homes

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

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

Vulcan Sickens Farm Workers

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

Chlorpyrifos was scheduled to be banned

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

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

Vulcan (Chloripyrifos) for All

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

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

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

EPA run by Pruitt allows Banned Pesticide

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

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

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

Unsafe for People, but not for Farmers?

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

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

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

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

RELATED

 

Share

Vaccines All Contaminated with Cancer-Causing Toxins – New Study

Vaccines are all contaminated with cancer-causing, immune-system-wrecking toxins not disclosed on the labels. That is the finding of a new study released in May 2017.  No future discussion of vaccination – forced or otherwise – can be conducted without first addressing this alarming, glaring problem. How can vaccinations be “safe and effective” if they give you cancer or autoimmune disease? (One is reminded of the American Major who explained his methods in Vietnam: “We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”  Vaccine makers destroy the child in order to save it.)

Editor’s Note re: Fake Vaccine News
Drug companies that make vaccines spend $5 billion a year on advertising, so you won’t see this story in mainstream “news.” You will, of course, see nationwide coverage of the next measles “outbreak” to help sell vaccination. Those in the business of selling “news” call this “complementary copy.” News outlets create “news” that complements (helps sell) the advertiser’s products. Stories like this one that threaten product sales are strictly verboten, or banished to the back pages. Mainstream media would not be the moneymaker it is otherwise.

Vaccines All Contaminated with Cancer-Causing Toxins – New Study
The new study found that every human vaccine tested was contaminated with unsafe levels of metals and debris linked to cancer and autoimmune disease. It was published May 2017 in the International Journal of Vaccines and Vaccination. The research was led by Antonietta Gatti of the National Council of Research of Italy and the Scientific Director of Nanodiagnostics. Researchers examined 44 samples of 30 different vaccines. They found that all the human vaccines tested showed “the presence of micro- and nano-sized particulate matter composed of inorganic elements in vaccine samples” not declared in the vaccine’s ingredients’ lists. One vaccine for cats was the only one tested that was relatively clean.

Dangerous Contaminants Not Disclosed
Researchers found lead particles in a flu vaccine, in Gardasil and Cervarix (cervical cancer vaccines), and in a meningitis C vaccine.

An infant vaccine for diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, poliomyelitis and haemophilus influenzae type B was found to contain undeclared stainless steel, tungsten, and a gold-zinc aggregate. Made by GlaxoSmithKline, the infant “vaccine” is called Infarix Hexa.

Metal Contaminants Undisclosed
Writer Celeste McGovern reported other metal contaminants included platinum, silver, bismuth, iron, chromium. She wrote that, “Chromium (alone or in alloy with iron and nickel) was found in 25 of the human vaccines from Italy and France. (If you think vaccines are “cleaner” in the U.S., think again. Many U.S. vaccines are made in China and elsewhere with little to no CDC oversight. Monsanto’s carcinogenic glyphosate has been found in vaccines here.)

Leukemia-Causing Vaccine?
GSK’s Fluarix vaccine for children three years and older contained 11 metals and aggregates of metals. Similar aggregates to those identified in the vaccines have been shown to be prevalent in cases of leukemia, the researchers noted.

Many of the vaccines contained iron and iron alloys which, the researchers wrote, “can corrode and the corrosion products exert a toxicity affecting the tissues.”

Undesirable Elements Impact Children
The study shows how these foreign contaminants injected into children may explain a litany of apparently unrelated adverse events associated with vaccination. These contaminants may explain everything from headaches and seizures to fatigue, muscle pain, paralysis and sudden infant death syndrome. More likely than not, the researchers surmise, vaccine contaminants will “have a more serious impact on very small organisms like those of children.”

The Dark History of Vaccination
The CDC has admitted to injecting a live cancer virus into 98 million Americans. That virus, SV40, was just one of 40 viruses identified in a polio vaccine that may have been a primary culprit in the epidemic of cancer that has exploded upon us since. Any adults considering the latest advertised vaccination for themselves – like the shingles vaccine – might first be wise to do some research regarding the dark history of vaccination. The life you save may be your own, or your child’s.

RELATED
•   Dirty Vaccines: New Study Reveals Contaminants
•   Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit
•   Vaccine Hysteria Reigns
•   Vaccines All Contaminated with Cancer-Causing Toxins – New Study

Share

Vaccine Injured Families receive Billions from Secret Court

Vaccine injured families have received billions of dollars from a Secret Court. The U.S. government has quietly paid, in the last 30 years, more than $3 billion to vaccine-injured children and their families. So far in 20017, the government has paid $142 million to 337 vaccine-injured families. All had filed claims with the so-called Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VCIP). Have you heard anything of these payments from the mainstream media?

Related: Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

Pro-Vaxxers vs. Anti-Vaxxers
Why do we hear only stories of so-called measles “outbreaks” and the dangers of “anti-vaxxers”? Why are people attacked by their neighbors or “bloggers” (many hired by Big Pharma) who think they have the right to decide whether or not to subject themselves and their children to the wonders of vaccination? Why is there never any sort of balanced discussion in the mainstream media of the history, safety, and efficacy record of vaccination?

Parents vs. Parents
Why are loving parents pitted against loving parents? Why does our society seem incapable of rational discussion regarding vaccination? Is there some sort of plan to turn this subject into an emotional quagmire that leaves people unwilling to examine the real science of vaccination? Who would it benefit to turn parent against parent? Who does it benefit to enlist pro-vaxxer parents or professional bloggers to bully, intimidate or attack anti-vaxxer parents? Even if bullying and berating could work on others, how could that be good for the whole society? What’s wrong with this picture?

Secret Vaccine Court perverts Democracy, Free Choice
Meanwhile, the arcane, secret court which runs the VCIP is overseen by unaccountable, un-elected bureaucrats. The vaccine “court” does not allow families legal “Discovery.” That means they don’t get access to the vaccine makers’ hidden evidence, which constitutes the real story of a drug or device. Every drug and medical device case turns on Discovery. A solid case simply cannot be made without it. Yet even with this enormous, undemocratic, Draconian handicap of not being allowed Discovery, vaccine-injured families have been able to collect billions for their vaccine-injured children. The lack of Discovery, however, also means that a tiny fraction of those who are really injured by vaccination actually get the compensation they deserve. If Discovery were allowed, every bad vaccine batch could potentially be uncovered, vaccine makers in China and elsewhere could be held to account, thousands of children could be saved from vaccine injuries, billions more dollars could be awarded to vaccine-injured families who deserve compensation.

Vaccine Whistleblower Lawsuit
Because vaccine makers are vaccinated by Congress from liability, they have virtually no liability or incentive to make safe or effective vaccines. Merck’s MMR vaccine simply doesn’t work for mumps, yet the company continues to reap billions of dollars from our government, from us, for that vaccine. Merck now faces a whistleblower lawsuit from a former employee who has exposed that the company’s MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism for black boy babies. How come we don’t hear about that in the news? Autism is a catastrophic disease, yet we haven’t heard a peep in the mainstream media how it raises the risk of autism. What’s wrong with this picture.

Advertising Dollars Rule Vaccination Coverage
Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock has noted that all major media figures are under enormous pressure from the billions of marketing dollars spent by Big Pharma. Anyone who works in media knows the story they are supposed to tell, and the stories they are not supposed to cover. It’s an open secret that pharmaceutical companies spend more on advertising than any other industry. Is it insane to suggest that all that money doesn’t buy some “friendly copy” for vaccination cheerleaders? Is that any different than suggesting politicians are corrupted by money into acting against the interests of citizens?

Follow the Money
Follow the money. Who benefits when mainstream media fail to report on vaccine injuries? Who benefits when mainstream media hysterically trumpets the latest measles “outbreak” and completely fails to tell the whole story of vaccination? Who benefits when Big Pharma-captured congressman like Richard Pan of California and other career politicians vote to remove informed consent from parents and force vaccination on schoolchildren?

The Science on Vaccination
Retired neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock has noted, “There’s compelling scientific evidence that vaccines are not as safe as they’re being proposed. In fact, there [can be] significant, serious problems, including death, seizures, encephalitis and severe brain damage. This is well documented in medical literature.”

Vaccine Injured Families receive Billions from Secret Court
Children up to 15 months old now receive 27 doses of 11 different vaccinations. All are approved and recommended by the Center for Disease Control (CDC). The CDC has proven itself to now be a partner with Big Pharma for promoting vaccination. Its policy has been to push more and more vaccinations and to cover up, downplay, or deny anything that does not coincide with that policy. These baby vaccines include Rotavirus (RV), Hepatitis B (for the sexually promiscuous baby?), Influenza, Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR), Tetanus, diphtheria & acellular pertussis (Tdap). All these vaccines that most pediatrician push introduce foreign and toxic substances into the new baby’s bloodstream. They often cause brain swelling and, in the long term, unknown damage. Vaccine ingredients are a cornucopia of toxic horrors that would land someone in jail if they were given by anyone but your doctor. What’s wrong with this picture?

RELATED

Share

Invokana Amputation Warning

An Invokana amputation warning will be added to the Invokana label. On May 16, 2017, the U.S. FDA confirmed that this black-box warning must be included in the Invokana label. The revised label will state that Invokana raises the risk of people needing to have their legs or feet amputated.  A black box warning is the strongest label warning in the FDA’s rusty tool box.(It habitually comes too late for many. How do dangerous drugs like this ever get FDA approval in the first place? Could the agency be compromised by the drug industry with which it works so closely?)

Related: Invokana Lawsuit

The FDA first sent out an alert May 18, 2016, which said patients in Invokana clinical trials were twice as likely to need amputations as those on a placebo. On May 16, 2017, the FDA issued the final results from those two clinical trials. Those dire results triggered the new warning label.

Invokana / Invokamet / Canagliflozin
Invokana, Invokamet and Invokamet XR are brand names for canagliflozin, which is used to treat Type 2 diabetes. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of baby-powder-beleaguered Johnson & Johnson, makes and markets Invokana (Canagliflozin).

Invokana Clinical Trials show Double Risk of Amputations
In the first clinical trial – CANVAS – 5.9 of 1,000 patients on the drug needed an amputation in a year, vs. the placebo totals of 2.8 of 1,000. In the second trial – CANVAS-R – 7.5 of 1,000 patients needed amputation compared with 4.2 of 1,000 on the placebo.

Most of the amputations were of the foot or a toe, said FDA, while others lost legs. Some patients needed more than one amputation.

FDA Safety Communication
The FDA said in a safety communication: “Patients taking canagliflozin should notify your health care professionals right away if you develop new pain or tenderness, sores or ulcers, or infections in your legs or feet. Talk to your healthcare professional if you have questions or concerns.”

FDA also cautioned Invokana users not to stop taking the medication without first speaking with a “health care professional.”

Janssen Speaks
A Janssen spokesmodel, William Foster, said, “At Janssen, patient safety is our highest priority. (We) are working with FDA to include (this) in the prescribing information for canagliflozin and look forward to the presentation of the full CANVAS Program results at the American Diabetes Association Scientific Sessions in June.”

Invokana Amputation Warning

Invokana (canagliflozin) was approved despite concerns about cardiovascular health and bone safety. The FDA has since updated the drug’s labels to reflect risks of bone fractures, blood disorders, and urinary tract infections.

SGLT2 Inhibitors
Other drug makers and drugs in Invokana’s class of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (or SGLT2) inhibitors include:

•  AstraZeneca PLC – Farxiga and Xigduo XR

•  Boehringer Ingelheim – GmbH

•  Eli Lilly and Co. – Jardiance and Glyxambi

RELATED

 

Share

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

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

Related: Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

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

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

Monsanto knows Glyphosate-Cancer Linked

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

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

RELATED

Share

IVC Filter Lawsuit filed in Dallas

A Cook IVC filter lawsuit has been filed in Dallas by the law firms of Matthews & Associates and Freese & Goss. The two firms jointly represent the plaintiff, a Texas resident.

The plaintiff was implanted with the Cook Gunther Tulip IVC filter April 19, 2016, according to his lawsuit petition. Just three days later, on April 22, the implanting surgeon attempted to remove the temporary filter. The surgeon attempted removal through the jugular vein and also the right common femoral vein.

IVC Filter stuck in Patient
The surgeon, who is named a party in the lawsuit, was unable to remove the Cook Gunther Tulip filter. In his first attempts, he noted that it had migrated from the inferior vena cava and was lodged in the right ventricle of  the man’s heart.

The petition reads: “During the numerous attempts to retrieve (the filter), Plaintiff’s heart rate slowed on a number of occasions and Plaintiff suffered from severe episodes of bradycardia, pericardial effusion, and symptomatic pericardial tamponade requiring urgent pericardiocentesis and pericardial catheter placement.”

The filter could not be retrieved intravascularly; it was stuck . This situation led to emergency bypass surgery. There was no other way to remove the filter from the right ventricle of the man’s heart, according to the petition. The surgery required the opening of his sternum and pericardium and led to his cardiopulmonary bypass. Surgeons found the filter in the right ventricle of the heart “with the tip pointed toward the right ventricular apex and the legs of the filter entwined with the chordae tendinae of the tricuspid valve preventing the closure of the tricuspid leaflets.”

Cook IVC Filter Lawsuit Petition

The plaintiff’s lawyers allege in the petition that because of the open heart surgery caused by the filter’s migration and embedment in his heart ventricle, the man “suffered injury and pain and suffering, and currently suffers from and will continue to suffer from numerous health risks for the remainder of his lifetime, including increase risk of heart failure, kidney damage, and increased risk of death.” They also allege that he will also require ongoing medical care and monitoring for the rest of his life and may ultimately require additional surgeries.

The petition further charges that the surgeon knew or should have known that only certain patients were proper candidates for an IVC Filter, that the Cook Gunther Tulip had a high rate of device migration and failure, that it is not effective to prevent clots and/or increases the risks of clots, that safer alternatives existed, that IVC filters such as the Cook Gunther Tulip frequently tilt, migrate, perforate or fracture, and thus involve an increasing degree of risk to a patient implanted with one.

The plaintiff’s petition also charges that the Cook Defendants knew or should have known that the device was defective and unreasonably dangerous for six reasons. Cook defendants::

* failed to conduct any clinical testing, such as animal studies

* knew or should have known that the Gunther Tulip had a high rate of fracture, migration, excessive tilting, perforation of the vena cava. Such failures exposed patients to serious injuries including death, hemorrhage, cardiac/pericardial tamponade, cardiac arrhythmia, severe and persistent pain, perforations of tissue, vessels, organs such as the heart, inability to remove the device, and/or extensive surgeries to remove it.

* knew or should have known these risks were substantially higher than other similar devices

* knew or should have known that the Gunther Tulip contained conditions that resulted in the device not performing as safely as the customer would expect

* misprepresented , omitted, and/or failed to provide adequate warnings of these risks or instructions for safe use

* failed to issue a recall or otherwise notify people that a safer device was available

IVC Filter Lawsuit filed in Dallas

The case has been filed in Dallas County. The plaintiff has requested a trial by jury and submitted the appropriate fee.

RELATED

Share

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

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

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto secretly attacks anti-GMO Activists, Court Documents show

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

RELATED

Share

Johnson & Johnson loses $110 Million Talc Powder Verdict

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

Related: Talcum Powder Cancer Lawsuit

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

Largest Talc Cancer Verdict to date  (May 2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED

Share

Taxotere Whistleblower Lawsuit Proceeds

A Taxotere whistleblower lawsuit will proceed,  a judge ruled in January 2017. The Taxotere whistleblower lawsuit accuses Sanofi-Aventis of marketing Taxotere “off-label.” The case will go forward because the judge refused the company’s petition to have it dismissed. The “off-label” marketing accusation says the company illegally marketed the drug to doctors and hospitals.

Illegal Kickbacks for Taxotere Sales

Reuters reported that a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled marketing claims in the case are not protected under the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantees. Court records show a former Sanofi-Aventis employee filed the whistleblower complaint. The petition claims the company paid doctors illegal kickbacks to promote Taxotere for uses outside its FDA-approved indications.

Taxotere Whistleblower Lawsuit
The whistleblower lawsuit charges that Aventis’ fraudulent marketing scheme caused several health care providers to submit claims for reimbursement to governmental medical reimbursement systems. The petition says these claims would not have been paid “had the government reimbursement programs known of Aventis’ fraudulent marketing scheme” for Taxotere.

Sanofi-Aventis fails to have case dismissed
Sanofi-Aventis had sought dismissal of the whistleblower lawsuit on statute of limitations and 1st Amendment grounds. U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rejected those arguments. Judge Stengel ruled marketing claims are not protected speech if they are false and misleading. Whether or not Sanofi-Aventis used false and misleading marketing statements remains a question for a jury, the judge wrote.

The U.S. Department of Justice is supporting the Taxotere whistleblower lawsuit. If successful, the department would collect compensation on behalf of U.S. taxpayers.

What is Taxotere?
Taxotere is a drug used in conjunction with chemotherapy. It was approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 1996 to treat breast cancer. Taxotere is now indicated to treat other malignancies, including head and neck cancer, gastric cancer, prostate cancer and non-small cell lung cancer.

Taxotere Hair Loss Lawsuits

Sanofi-Aventis is also named as a defendant in some 1,000 Taxotere lawsuits filed for women who say they suffer permanent hair loss – or alopecia – related to Taxotere use. While chemotherapy drugs often cause hair loss, Taxotere used with chemotherapy often makes hair fall out and not grow back. Other chemo drugs cause only temporary hair loss. Plaintiffs pursuing Taxotere lawsuits claim Taxotere alopecia is much more likely to be permanent, compared with similar chemo drugs.

Europeans Warned, Americans Not Warned
Plaintiffs point out that Sanofi-Aventis has long provided information regarding the potential for permanent alopecia to individual patients and regulatory agencies overseas. Taxotere’s U.S. label, however, included only generic, vague, insufficient warnings that “hair generally grows back.” That is the crux of this case and most drug cases, that the manufacturer failed to adequately warn of the drug’s actual “side effects,” though it was legally bound to do so.

Federal Taxotere Lawsuits
Taxotere lawsuits filed in federal court have been centralized in multi-district litigation court in the U.S. District Court (MDL) in Eastern District of Louisiana.

RELATED

Share