Women Want To Centralize NJ Taxotere Hair Loss Suits

(April 19, 2018) – Hundreds of women want to centralize their New Jersey state court hair loss lawsuits.  The cases allege that Sanofi-Aventis and other drug companies failed to adequately warn about the risk of permanent hair loss for those who use Taxotere, a breast cancer drug used with chemotherapy.

In a notice published April 18, the New Jersey state judiciary said its state Supreme Court has received an application to designate the lawsuits – against Sanofi U.S. Services Inc., Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sandoz Inc. and Actavis LLC – as multicounty litigation.  The application also requested that Superior Court Judge James F. Hyland in Middlesex County be assigned the cases, because most of the Taxotere suits have been filed in his jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs File Request to Marry Cases
Lawyers for plaintiffs in approximately 353 such cases pending across New Jersey filed the application with judiciary officials in March 2018.  In arguing for court consolidation, they cited the large number of involved parties and common issues underlying the claims.

Related:  Taxotere Whistle blower Lawsuit Proceeds

The application read, in part: “Centralized management will conserve judicial resources and provide all parties with the benefits of coordinated discovery.”

It further stated: “Given the large number of parties, witnesses, and counsel, the cases would benefit from centralized management.  Centralized management will also minimize duplicative practice and inconsistent discovery rulings.”

The application stated that centralization would also help facilitate coordination with multidistrict litigation over the use of Taxotere in Louisiana federal court.

Roughly 333 of the New Jersey state lawsuits are pending in Middlesex County.  The remaining suits are filed in Camden, Union, Essex and Hudson counties, according to the application.  The plaintiffs live not only in New Jersey, but also in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio and Connecticut.

The application says, “The parties submit that this geographical diversity makes centralized management necessary for the efficient handling of this litigation.”

Plaintiffs allege wrongful conduct by Taxotere Maker
The plaintiffs allege in the application that they suffered injuries because of the defendants’ wrongful conduct in designing, manufacturing, distributing, labeling, advertising, marketing, promoting, and selling Taxotere, a chemotherapy drug.

Taxotere – Permanent Hair Loss
Each of the lawsuits alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that Taxotere “causes and contributes to permanent disfigurement and hair loss,” yet failed to adequately warn of such risks. The application declares, “Further, all of the actions proposed for designation allege substantially similar violations of law and are based upon the same or substantially similar underlying claims surrounding the safety profile of Taxotere (docetaxel).”

The plaintiffs’ lawyers argued that the matters should be assigned to Judge Hyland because the vast majority of the cases are pending in his Middlesex County jurisdiction.  But the application also included the caveat that following pretrial proceedings in the MCL, New Jersey-based plaintiffs should be given the option of having their respective cases tried in their chosen counties.

The application argues: “A contrary decision would severely prejudice a New Jersey plaintiff who does not reside in or near the county to which centralized litigation is assigned, potentially requiring the plaintiff to live away from home, at great inconvenience and expense, due to the happenstance that there are multiple other related cases pending.”
states.

“Allowing the MCL judge to transfer the cases for trial to the plaintiff’s chosen county will protect the plaintiff’s rights, while promoting the primary goal of centralization – efficiency and consistent management and orders through the discovery process,” says the application.

Women Want To Centralize NJ Taxotere Hair Loss Suit

The choice of court venue is always a contentious issue between plaintiffs and defense in drug cases like Taxotere. Plaintiffs’ attorneys always want to give their clients the best chance of a fair trial, while defense lawyers always want a venue which they feel will be the most advantageous for their corporate clients. Judges in these cases are expected to weigh all the legal issues involved, as well as issues of convenience for plaintiffs, court costs, and court time (which is also money) and make the fairest possible determination regarding the most optimal venue for trial. Venue is so important that a case can sometimes be close to won or lost simply by being assigned a certain venue.

Related

Share

California Bill to Stifle Free Speech

(April 9, 2018)  A California senator who led the charge to kill informed consent for vaccinations in California just introduced a bill to stifle free speech in the state.

Jon Rappoport, in his ‘No More Fake News’ web site, reported the story, which is flying under the radar, by design, of course.  California Senator Richard Pan, the Merck Pharmaceuticals beneficiary behind the infamous 2015 law mandating vaccinations (which Merck makes with fraudulent data) for schoolchildren (the infamous SB277), now seeks to end free speech in California.  Mr. Pan’s draconian bill has dangerously far-reaching implications (if you believe in the 1st amendment); for it threatens to reach far beyond the state’s poorly secured borders.

The California senator’s new bill would clamp down on criticism of any Official Story.  If it passes, when a government agency – such as the hopelessly corrupt CDC, drug-industry compromised FDA, politically-compromised FBI, or honesty-challenged CIA – puts out an “official story,” any blog or comment which veers from that script will be subject to censorship, or “warnings.”  The end point for Mr. Pan and his corporate sponsors is to make readers swallow any official story without questioning its methods, motives, or dirty money trail.  Mr. Pan’s slippery financial ties to drug companies like Merck make it in his best interests to stifle the truth.

The bill to censor the free flow of information is titled “SB1424 Internet: social media: false information: strategic plan.”  SB1424 ostensibly targets social media based in California, but, as Mr. Rappoport writes, “as you read the bill, you see it appears to define social media as any Internet blog, website, or communication.”

Mr. Rappoport has recorded the whole brief bill for us. Here it is:

SB1424
This bill would require any person who operates a social media, as defined, Internet Web site with a physical presence in California to develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Web site. The bill would require the plan to include, among other things, a plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories, the utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories, providing outreach to social media users, and placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(a) Any person who operates a social media Internet Web site with physical presence in California shall develop a strategic plan to verify news stories shared on its Internet Web site.

(b) The strategic plan shall include, but is not limited to, all of the following:

(1) A plan to mitigate the spread of false information through news stories.

(2) The utilization of fact-checkers to verify news stories.

(3) Providing outreach to social media users regarding news stories containing false information.

(4) Placing a warning on a news story containing false information.

(c) As used in this section, “social media” means an electronic service or account, or electronic content, including, but not limited to, videos, still photographs, blogs, video blogs, podcasts, instant and text messages, email, online services or accounts, or Internet Web site profiles or locations.

Who will be able to afford to hire “fact checkers”?  Not the alternative web sites you depend on to clarify the fake news so often put out by CNN or The New York Times.  Those and other MSM outlets were  responsible for repeating ad nauseam the fake news regarding a non-existent WMD threat from Iraq.   Those MSM lies launched the 17-year-long war and occupation which has now claimed more than a million lives.  And even if independent news outlets could afford “fact checkers,” they would need to be officially sanctioned, no doubt.  And nothing could prevent Pan’s corporate friends from banning or placing warnings all over any videos they deemed “inappropriate” for whatever reason they might choose.

Only the very large news outlets that dominate the mainstream media – Fox Noise, CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, USA Today – and a select few others in print and online will be able to stay in business.  Only the publications that never tell us anything useful will be able to have their stories “fact checked.”   The idea is to bury all truth about dangerous vaccines, (MMR, Shingles, Gardasil. . . ) Monsanto’s Roundup cancer herbicide, harmful GM foods, toxic chemical farming, the aerial poisoning of the entire country, water fluoridation and other water problems, nanobots, Black-Ops, EMF dangers, banking crimes, endless undeclared war, unchecked immigration, our growing fascist police state, and many other corporatocracy crimes and subterfuges.

Under the guise of protecting children, Mr. Pan forced parents to give up their parental rights and turn them over to the government.  California law now says the children must submit to whatever vaccinations the government – along with Merck and the government’s other corporate partners – declare that they “need.”

Under the guise of combating “fake news,” Mr. Pan now leads the charge to wipe out all mainstream news competition.  He wants to be sure that MSM newsfakers are the only ones to which we will have unfettered access, to better keep all his dirty work and dirty money in the dark.

Speech Criminals
Mr. Rappoport explains that if this bill passes, agencies of the California government will develop numerous regulations for enforcement, including penalties for “speech criminals.”

This bill would not violate the 1st Amendment so much as wipe it out altogether.

Anything which Mr. Pan and his cronies would label a “conspiracy theory” – a term which the CIA put out in its infamous internal 1967 memo that sought to silence all criticism of the fact-challenged Warren Commission report that most of the country knew was full of lies – will be censored.  Warnings on any blog, comment or story not officially sanctioned will make most people turn away, if not run.  The idea is to make people afraid of their own shadow, like the CNN newsfaker Chris Cuomo telling us last year that only CNN was allowed to read Wikileaks leaked emails, that it was illegal for the rest of us to do so.

CNN Liar Tries to Scare Americans

Related:   Facebook Censorship and the Execrable Snopes

We Need a Tsunami of Protest in California

Mr. Rappoport calls for a “relentless tsunami of protest in California over this Orwellian bill.”  Anything less than that could turn these hounds of hell loose on all news not sanctioned by Richard Pan and the dysfunctional state he leads into one bad law after another.

Jon Rappoport explains:
“In case you believe there are too many websites and blogs based in California to enforce a new draconian law, let me explain how the game works. Behind closed doors, the state government would decide to focus on a few big issues. For example, gun control, vaccines, and immigration. Enforcement agencies would go after the biggest Internet operations expressing politically unacceptable points of view on those subjects. At first. A spread of smaller operations would feel the heat later.

So-called fact checkers would come from government supported groups who agree with Official Positions. In other words, they wouldn’t be fact checkers at all. They would be prime news fakers.”

When it comes to vaccines, for one example (like the awful shingles vaccine), they would cite the notoriously biased “experts” at the Centers for Disease Control, never mentioning that CDC buys and sells $4 billion of vaccines a year, and is hopelessly corrupt, partnering with Big Pharma and industry rather than regulating them.

California Bill to Stifle Free Speech

If we can’t crush this bill, we may not be able to hang on to what little is left of our ever-vanishing democracy.  Expect all the mainstream news whores and fakers to stand solidly behind it, because they are working for outlets which will be protected by it, as it seeks to wipe out their independent competition across the world.  Everyone knows by now that many, many non-mainstream, independent news outlets are way better, and more honest, than the MSM at reporting actual news that matters.  And way better at giving us the truth that the MSM so studiously avoids disclosing, so as not to displease their corporate sponsors and masters.

It’s a dirty world, but we could clean it up, if we can first identify the main sleaze bags doing the dirty work for Empire, people like California Senator Richard Pan.

Related

Share

YouTube Censorship Threatens Democracy

Wake up! Americans! What will you do when there’s no one left to speak for you?

YouTube censorship threatens our democracy. There are no two ways about it. If we allow YouTube to censor non-profane, non-obscene speech for political or social or any other reasons, we are allowing our democracy to slip away. And if you can’t stand up for another’s right to free speech despite not agreeing with that person’s speech, then you’re not for free speech. You’re a fascist, a stooge, a shill, or a fool. These are lean times for speech. Apparently they don’t teach civics to the young folks anymore. Be that as it may, all adults need to stand up and pay attention or our liberties will continue to slip away.

Update:  Shooting at YouTube over its Censorship

YouTube has now become one of the gravest threats to free speech that we’ve seen in our country in a long, long while. For just one egregious example, YouTube “disappeared” 1,700 Natural News videos, along with his 350,000 followers.  The owner of the web site, Mike Adams, posts many stories which question our political landscape. He also writes a lot of pieces that uncover fake or misleading news in mainstream media, Monsanto’s poisoning of the world, Big Pharma’s deathgrip on the healthcare “industry,” the dangers of vaccination covered up entirely by all major media. Mr. Adams writes and makes video about natural cures, home remedies, gardening, the raising of goats, urban survival, and many other subject potentially relevant to us all.

Mr. Adams and his staff and guest writers often question the “official story” of various events. In short, he does all the things our mainstream media fail to do anymore (if they ever did). He asks questions and he looks for answers. He doesn’t believe the first thing he sees or the first soundbite released by a politician or an official government spokesman. You know. He does what used to be called “Journalism.” The kind we rarely see, except in so-called “alternative” web sites. Since every choice anyone makes for her news source is an alternative, it’s absurd and demeaning and misleading to call sites “alternative.” (This is just one more way language has been perverted and twisted to twist our minds into mush and manipulate us.)

There was no one left to speak for me
Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) was a Protestant pastor who spoke against Hitler. He spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. He left us with a pretty good example of what happens when we put up with censorship and demonizing of the “other,” the person whom we imagine is not like us, so that we can imagine ourselves safe, insulated from the evils of silencing others. Mr. Niemöller is best remembered for his famous poem:

“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”

It Can’t Happen Here?  Don’t Kid Yourself.  It’s happening now.

Millions of people were “disappeared” in old Russia when she was a communist dictatorship. Nazis also disappeared people by the millions. Both regimes began with heavy censorship programs. If YouTube is allowed to censor Mike Adams and Natural News and any other people or opinions it doesn’t like, where does that stop? Censorship’s intended goal is to get people to self censor, which begins by censoring one’s own thoughts. Orwell called that “thought control.” His dystopian nightmare novel, 1984, featured visits from the Thought Police when people were suspected of not thinking correctly. With YouTube’s actions, we are taking the first step down that terrifying road. There’s no sugarcoating it. You either get on board for freedom of speech and defend it with your words and your freedom of thought, or you write your ticket to fascism, or something even worse.

Good Americans would be wise to visit this link, read this story, and become part of a Twitter tweetstorm to stop YouTube from ushering in a nightmare society of frightened people who don’t have the guts to protect their democracy.

For convenience, I’m also pasting Mr. Adams announcement here below:

“Join the #RestoreTheHealthRanger tweetstorm to demand an end to YouTube censorship of intelligent speech

(Natural News) Today we’re announcing a tweetstorm activism effort to reach out to YouTube’s twitter accounts with demands to #RestoreTheHealthRanger channel.

Several weeks ago, YouTube terminated the entire Health Ranger video channel without warning, wiping out over 1,700 videos and 350,000+ subscribers. This was done as a politically motivated censorship action to silence intelligent voices that dare to question the power monopolies of the status quo.

All this week, join Health Ranger / Natural News fans in tweeting out the reasons why you enjoy Health Ranger video content and demand a restoration of “TheHealthRanger” channel. Direct your tweets to these YouTube accounts on Twitter:

@YouTube
@TeamYouTube
@YTCreators

Be polite, of course, but let YouTube know why you value Health Ranger videos and intelligent commentary. Watch my video for more details — or click here to view it on Vimeo — and read YouTubeCensorship.com to stay up to date on the latest censorship schemes by Google and YouTube.”

Related

Natural News: Demand YouTube Restore the Health Ranger Channel

Shooting at YiouTube over its Censorship

 

Share

Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

(March 15, 2018) While Monsanto attorneys argue in California federal court this week that those attacking Roundup for causing cancer are using junk science to do so, more science has found that Roundup attacks and destroys vital bacteria in the human gut.

Gut bacteria has gained a lot of attention lately as being crucial for every facet of human health: mental, physical, and spiritual.  (The Holy Bible and other religious tracts are full of stories about Jesus and others fasting in spiritual purification rituals.)  Recent studies have found that poor gut health can lead to heart disease, or to Alzheimer’s, and a host of other tragic maladies. Several studies have found gut health to be indispensable for sound mental functioning. Children with autism are routinely found to have terrible gut health.  One prominent researcher has recently offered evidence to implicate Monsanto’s glyphosate in autism spectrum disorder.

Related:  Glyphosate Unsafe on Any Plate

Gut bacteria, beyond any doubt, profoundly influences immune function, digestion, brain function, virtually every job tasked to the human body and mind.  A trove of recent research has repeatedly shown the power of healthy gut bacteria as well as the dangers of an unhealthy gut.

The good news is we now KNOW the importance of gut health.  The bad news is that our human guts are all under attack by a ubiquitous chemical which has been show to destroy gut microbes. Monsanto’s glyphosate, which was first used to strip metal off of pipes, now strips healthy flora and fauna from our own guts.

Glyphosate Glyphosate Everywhere

Every glyphosate exposure study done has shown that most of us have become contaminated with the toxic chemical, whether we eat GMO foods directly, or whether we adhere strictly to a non-GMO diet and do all we can to steer clear of Monsanto’s most lucrative poison.  At this moment, we cannot escape this toxic soup.  Glyphosate is everywhere in our environment, in the air, water, and in most of our food, if not directly, then through simple drift across neighboring fields.

Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Glyphosate is already at the center of hundreds of Roundup cancer lawsuits, filed by people stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after they were exposed to Roundup.  A judge overseeing the litigation in California federal court is showing signs of buying Monsanto’s claim that no hard evidence links glyphosate to cancer.  Regardless of any trial outcomes, glyphosate will continue to poison the world for a very long time, killing plants, bees, and people.

Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

Medical problems linked to an imbalance of gut bacteria include:

•  colorectal cancer

•  diabetes

•  liver disease

•  cardiovascular disease

•  asthma

•  inflammatory bowel disease

•  autism

•  obesity

Glyphosate Gut Damage Regardless of Exposure Levels

The latest study over glyphosate and gut microbes was led by Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen.  The study team examined rats’ fecal samples and assessed their gut microbiomes.  Female rats exposed to glyphosate experienced significant changes regardless of their dose. As an added horror, glyphosate also damages the microbial activity of soil, so it’s the poison that keeps on poisoning.

The researchers suggest glyphosate could be linked with the recent spike in gut disease in industrialized nations that genetic reasons alone can’t explain.

Because glyphosate is only one active ingredient in Roundup, experts see a need to repeat the study using a bigger group of animals to compare the effects of glyphosate alone as well as to Roundup.  Other ingredients in Roundup, called adjuvants, could be making any effect much more pronounced.

Sadly, even criminally, in regulatory evaluations of pesticides, only glyphosate alone is tested for long-term safety, which means calculations of safe levels are obviously inaccurate.

Professor Seralini believes the full toxic effects of Roundup on us could easily be 1,000X more awful than glyphosate alone. He believes the glyphosate levels allowed in our food and drinks are at least 1,000X too high.  He said: “The acceptable levels of glyphosate residues in food and drinks should be divided immediately by a factor of at least 1,000 because of these hidden poisons.”

Related

•  Montanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked

•  Roundup attacks vital gut bacteria

 

Share

Invokana Drug Amputations drive Lawsuit Filings

(March 5, 2018) – Invokana drug amputations have prompted two new lawsuit filings. Lawsuits were filed last month in New Jersey for two people who lost a leg below the knee after using Invokana.  The suits came after the FDA concluded in 2016 that the drug made by Johnson & Johnson, Co. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor diabetes treatment – can cause an increased risk of toe, feet, and leg amputations.  The FDA warning applies to Invokana, Invokamet, and Invokamet XR.

In addition, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also warned about a potentially increased risk of amputations for anyone taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

Related: Invokana Lawsuit

The two lawsuits were filed last month in New Jersey State Court – the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Middlesex County.  Defendants named in the suits are Johnson & Johnson, Co. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The plaintiffs are two men who each lost a limb which they allege was a result of their use of Invokana.

One plaintiff is an Alabama resident, Robert E. Shook.  His lawsuit petition sstates that he began treatment with Invokana in January 2015.  Mr. Shook lost his left foot and part of his leg below the knee on or about December 15, 2015 and January 15, 2016.

The second Invokana lawsuit was filed for Michael A. Wilkinson. The 53-year-old Iowa man alleges that after he began taking Invokana in April 2015, he suffered a below the right knee amputation on or about December 14, 2015

Both lawsuits contend Johnson & Johnson and Janssen concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of Invokana’s unreasonably dangerous risks of lower limb amputations. The lawsuits also allege the defective nature of Invokana can cause other problems.  Besides the tragic amputations suffered by Mr. Shook and Mr. Wilkinson, the suits allege people who were prescribed and took Invokana risked or suffered additional severe and permanent personal injuries, including amputations, kidney failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, stroke, and heart attack.

Invokana Approved in 2013
The U.S. FDA approved Invokana (canagliflozin) in March 2013 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) allowed Invokana sales in the European Union in November 2013.  Despite its frightening risks, Invokana has been one of Janssen and Johnson & Johnson’s top selling drugs.  J&J reported worldwide Invokana sales of $1.31 billion in 2015 and $1.41 billion in 2016.

Invokana Amputation Risk Warning from Europe
On February 24, 2017, the EMA issued information “about a potential increased risk of lower limb amputation (mostly affecting the toes) in people taking the SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin [Invokana], dapagliflozin [Farxiga] and empagliflozin [Jardiance].” The EMA review of SGLT2 inhibitors was triggered by an increase in lower limb amputations reported for patients taking canagliflozin (Invokana) in two large clinical trials, CANVAS and CANVAS-R, even though the final results of those trials had not yet been made public. The EMA wrote: “[A]n increase in lower limb amputations has not been seen in studies with other medicines in the same class, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin.  However, data available to date are limited and the risk may also apply to these other medicines.”

FDA Warning of Invokana Amputation Risk
On May 16, 2017, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication that confirmed an “increased risk of leg and foot amputations with the diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR).”  The Drug Safety Communication noted: “[B]ased on new data from two large clinical trials, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that the type 2 diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR) causes an increased risk of leg and foot amputations.”

Clinical Trials Out Invokana
The two clinical trials the FDA relied on in requiring new Invokana label warnings were the  CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) and CANVAS-R (A Study of the Effects of Canagliflozin on Renal Endpoints in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus).

The FDA also announced in the May 16, 2017 Drug Safety Communication that it was “requiring new warnings, including our most prominent Boxed Warning, to be added to the canagliflozin drug labels to describe this risk.”  The “Boxed Warning,” also known as a “Black Box Warning,” was added in the United States to the Invokana label/package insert on July 25, 2017.  It states:

WARNING: LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION
See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at risk for CVD, INVOKANA has been associated with lower limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot; some also involved the leg (5.1)
Before initiating, consider factors that may increase the risk of amputation. Monitor patients receiving INVOKANA for infections or ulcers of the lower limbs, and discontinue if these occur. (5.1)

The EMA commendably notified people promptly about the potential for an increased risk of lower limb amputations with the use of any SGLT2 inhibitor before the final CANVAS and CANVAS-R study results were published. The FDA also acted swiftly in requiring a label change after the publication of the final results from the two clinical trials that “showed that leg and foot amputations occurred about twice as often in patients treated with canagliflozin compared to patients treated with placebo, which is an inactive treatment.”

The FDA also noted that the risk of leg and foot amputations may be even higher for some people, “including those who have peripheral vascular disease, neuropathy (nerve damage), or diabetic foot ulcers (sores), or who have a history of prior amputation.”

Invokana / Invokamet Lawsuit
Invokana and Invokamet appear to double the risk of lower limb amputations.  Anyone suffering the tragic loss of toes or a foot or limb as the result of using a dangerous drug is deserving of financial compensation, in our view.  Our law firm exists to seek justice for those injured by dangerous drugs and medical devices.  If you or someone you love lost a limb following use of Invokana, Invokamet or some other SGLT2 inhibitor used for type 2 diabetes, contact us for a free legal consultation in a potential lawsuit.

Related

Share

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded to delay Glyphosate Review

New evidence shows Monsanto and EPA colluded to delay a glyphosate review that was potentially damning for Monsanto.  The documents show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials didn’t worry about protecting anyone but Monsanto, and perhaps their own jobs.  Emails show EPA officials genuflecting to the chemical giant in an effort to help Monsanto continue selling Roundup without a hitch while taxpayers awaited a fair safety review after previous studies showed Roundup was a probable human carcinogen.

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

It took a Freedom of Information Act request to uncover the damning documents. The emails reveal Monsanto’s influence over the EPA and show just how far the biotech bully goes to spin science for profit. The communications show EPA officials working closely with Monsanto to delay a toxicology review on glyphosate that was supposed to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  The ATSDR is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but the emails show it to be a subsidiary of Monsanto.

Roundup Carcinogenicity Clear since 1985

EPA collusion with Monsanto stretches back to at least 1993, when the agency reversed its 1985 ruling that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  See: EPA’s 1985 Roundup Cancer Ruling.  We didn’t then have the benefit of emails to prove the collusion, but now we do.

The latest Monsanto-EPA collusion began in early 2015, when glyphosate was finally red-flagged by the World Health Organization (which is normally a corporate lapdog).  In 2015, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.”  That finding made Monsanto executives apoplectic.  Monsanto had poisoned so many people and their lands with Roundup for so many years, what could the company do then but what it did – feign moral outrage?

Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuits
With Roundup lawsuits reigning down on them after the IARC ruling, Monsanto senior officials knew that something had to be done, and fast.  Monsanto needed to discredit the IARC,  or “neutralize” it, as corporations say.  Monsanto needed to make glyphosate appear safe again in the public eye, because appearance, not reality, is the ALL.  Monsanto’s immediate fear was that ATSDR might make a similar ruling about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.  If ATSDR followed IARC’s lead, it could spell the death knell for Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling poison.  Monsanto promptly kicked into gear and used its EPA connections to halt the toxicological review.

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded  to delay Glyphosate Review
The emails show how EPA officials worked closely with Monsanto executives, updating the company on their progress to keep the ATSDR’s from completing a toxicological review. The emails detail Monsanto’s M.O.: its naked attempts to squelch or manipulate real scientific reviews of the company’s chemical poisons.  The emails vindicate Monsanto lawsuits.  The emails show how Monsanto tried – successfully, in this case – to cover up glyphosate’s deadly links with cancer.

Roundup Lawsuits
Make no mistake.  Roundup is a prominent pillar in Monsanto’s whole toxic business model.  The genetically modified seeds it sells are called “Roundup Ready.” The Roundup-Ready corn and soy and other genetically-perverted seeds Monsanto patents and sells – as it attempts to monopolize the seed industry – are chemically engineered to resist Roundup’s toxic assault.  Roundup kills everything not genetically modified to withstand it.  Any threat to Roundup – whose only listed active ingredient is glyphosate – is a direct threat to Monsanto’s whole business model.

Related:  Roundup more toxic than glyophosate

Because glyphosate plays such an outsized role in U.S. agriculture and lawn care, and Roundup is Monsanto’s best selling killer, the company could not let the IARC classification that it was a probable carcinogen go unpunished, or unanswered.  Monsanto could not let the IARC ruling  stand.  Because desperate times call for desperate measures, Monsanto employees got sloppy with their normally quieter collusion with EPA.

After the IARC ruling, it was absolutely essential for Monsanto that ATSDR publish a positive safety review to refute the IARC.  Monsanto’s collusion with EPA worked just as Monsanto knew it could – they seamlessly follow the golden rule; whoever has the gold rules.

EPA Stifles Glyphosate Review for Monsanto
In February 2015, the ATSDR promised a toxicology review on glyphosate by October 2015, but Monsanto’s EPA collusion got it halted. No toxicological profile from ATSDR has been published as of February 2017.  We now know why.  Monsanto’s emails to EPA worked just as the company hoped they would.

Jess Rowland, Monsanto’s EPA Insider
Jess Rowland, former deputy division director in the health effects division of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), retired in 2016 with a giant black mark on her career. Emails between her and Monsanto showed Ms. Rowland telling the biotech bully that she hoped to kill the ATSDR review.  And according to the email dump courtesy of FOIA, she was not the only high level EPA official working with Monsanto to stop the toxicology review.

Monsanto EPA Collusion Systemic
At the behest of Monsanto, a collection of (colluding) EPA officials aggressively pressured the ATSDR and HHS for Monsanto. The “officials” claimed a toxicology review on glyphosate would be unnecessarily “duplicative” because the EPA was putting its own review together.  Lo and behold, the EPA’s assessment in 2016 refuted IARC’s scientific proof that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  Its evidence was scant, fictional, or non-existent; but so is lots of “evidence” that finds its way into “scientific studies.” That review also failed the public entirely because it focused only on glyphosate – Roundup’s only named active ingredient – which is never applied alone but becomes at least 1,000 more toxic when mixed into a Roundup concoction.

In addition, in sharp contrast with EPA, the IARC looked only at glypohosate studies independent of industry, while EPA takes Monsanto at its word (as it did when it unleashed Roundup on the world) and allows Monsanto-funded studies the same weight as independent ones.

Gov’t Official: ATSDR Study not Duplicative
OPP Director Jack Housenger genuflects to Monsanto repeatedly through the recent FOIA-released email communications.  In his ultimately successful efforts to suppress the ATSDR review, Housenger bowed to Monsanto pressure, wondering “whether this is a good use of government resources.” (Millions and millions of gallons of Roundup have been dumped on us all, but Housenger is worried over OPP expenses in examining the most-used poison of our time ?)  At first, officials with the ATSDR review didn’t bend.  ATSDR division director James Stephens wrote back. He said their review overlaps the EPA’s review “but isn’t totally duplicative…”

Monsanto Muscle at Work
Monsanto’s chief “scientist” William Heydens forcefully convinced EPA officials to bury any ATSDR review.  ATSDR officials said their review was distinguishable and not duplicative, which contradicted the EPA’s opinion. But ATSDR finally agreed with Housenger not to say anything about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. When our government regulator – OPP Director Housenger – confirmed to Monsanto that the ATSDR was backing off the glyphosate review, Monsanto’s William Heydens snapped, “Distinguishable and not duplicative’? Seriously? And I will believe the not ‘making a call on cancer’ part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid…”

Indeed, government agencies have kowtowed to corporate bullies like Monsanto for so long that many have learned to look over their shoulders for people like Heydens. If Monsanto complains enough to the right Senators or congressional reps whose campaigns, junkets and pork barrel projects they help fund, could they have not only a review but also a troublesome reviewer removed?  We now see how easily they can remove a review.  How else are we to take Heydens’ thinly-veiled threat?

Heydens sheds light on the fact that our government of wolves is controlled by corporate wolves. Meanwhile, Monsanto continues to poison us all with relative impunity.

Related

 

Share

CDC Director caught buying Merck Shares Quits

The CDC director has been caught buying shares of vaccine maker Merck, as well as stock in cigarette and junk food companies.  Last week, CDC Director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign as a result.  This is the latest scandal in an agency which has been found time and again to collude with the very companies it is supposed to regulate.

Shame on you, Dr. Fitzgerald!  But perhaps we should also thank you for showing the world once again how the CDC unashamedly promotes dangerous drugs and vaccines to boost both corporate and personal profits.  This scandal makes it abundantly clear that rather than regulate the drug industry, the CDC is in bed with it. This latest CDC collusion scandal should be a clarion call for regulatory reform.  Closer to home, it should make any thinking person question the CDC’s methods, motives, and history.

CDC Heads’ History of Corruption

As for Dr. Fitzgerald, don’t worry about her.  She will likely land on her feet in some well-paying job with Merck, as one of her predecessors did after being outed as a corporate shill masquerading as a public servant.  Dr. Julie Gerberding has set the bar quite low for former CDC heads who sold out to Merck, but Dr. Fitz can probably take it lower.  While head of the CDC, the infamous Dr. Gerberding helped cover up Merck’s knowledge of the MMR Vaccine-Autism link, then resigned in shame to take a $2 million windfall and head up Merck’s vaccine division.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
“False in one, false in all” is the Latin saying.  Or, as Nietzsche said, “It doesn’t bother me that you lied to me. What bothers me is that I can no longer believe you now.”  The CDC has deceived us so many times, it’s a wonder that the agency still gets to use our tax dollars to work against us.

RelatedShingles Vaccine Lawsuit

The CDC’s Great Swine Flu Massacre
CDC collusion with drug and vaccine makers was probably never so clear as when the CDC launched the great swine flu massacre on us all in 1976.  Money, as usual, not our health, was the driving force.  Drug companies had produced a vaccine which suspicious pig farmers had refused to use on their own swine.  Because when they did, their pigs collapsed and died. When the swine flu “vaccine” makers (which included Merck, which now makes a shingles vaccine, the horrendous Gardasil HPV Vaccine, and a dubious flu vaccine) failed to secure the $80 million the company had counted on getting from the swine breeders, some bright folks working in government and industry decided to use the vaccine on people instead.  But first they had to convince us the swine flu threat was real.  It wasn’t, so they turned to then President Gerald Ford to sell the disease to the people. (As George Merck once told TIME magazine:  you don’t sell the drug, you sell the disease. The CDC knows that as well as anyone.)

The impetus for the whole swinish project came from the Disease Control Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Out of Atlanta came the CDC plan for a national campaign against “swine flu.” That there was not a single independently confirmed case of swine flu in the U.S. did not deter the CDC.* They had vaccine to sell.  (Theirs was not to question why.)

Smart Pig Farmers, Bad Pigs in Government and Industry
The agency helped get top dollar for Merck and other “swine flu” vaccine makers.  Our government paid $135 million for the same swine flu vaccine which Merck and others had failed to sell to smart pig farmers for $80 million.

*The main problem then was that Dr. Anthony Morris, director of the Virus Bureau at the FDA, declared that no authentic swine flu vaccine could exist, because there had never been any cases of swine flu on which to test it.  The agency promptly fired the whistleblowing doctor (some things never change); but the truth had leaked out – as the truth tends to do.

Faced with the insurmountable problem that there was no swine flu, much less an epidemic – except in the money-green heads of those wishing to sell the vaccine – President Ford and Walter Cronkite (at CBS) combined their bully pulpits in a last-ditch effort to sell the swine flu “vaccine” to the people. (There was money to be made, by God; so somebody needed to promote the shot, if only to justify the $135 million paid to the swinish flu vaccine makers.)

Death by Injection

Eustace Mullins in his amazingly-researched Death by Injection points out that CBS failed then and later to air any scientific analysis of the swine flu vaccine, “which was identified elsewhere as containing many toxic poisons, including alien viral protein particles, formaldehyde, residues of chicken and egg embryo substances, sucrose, theimorosal (a derivative of poisonous mercury), polysorbate and some 80 other substances.”  (Some things never change.)

Dr. Anthony Morris erased from Swine Flu History
“Our” medical watchdogs, meanwhile, cleaned out Dr. Anthony Morris’ labs, where he had been hard at work investigating the swine flu vaccine for three years. They killed all his animals and burned all his records.  Mr. Mullins writes: “They did not go so far as to sow salt throughout the area, because they believed their job was done.”

(Some things never change: the CDC has also been recently accused by whistleblower William Thompson of destroying records that show the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism.  See the film Vaxxed, which prompted Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to offer a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove that any vaccine is safe and effective.)

A Free Vaccine for the People (sound familiar?)
On April 15, 1976, Congress passed Public Law 94-266, which provided $135 million in taxpayer monies to pay for a national swine flu inoculation campaign. That way, they could offer the vaccine for free (as they are offering the 2018 flu vaccine for free).  Insurance companies quickly warned Merck and other drug companies that they would not insure them against possible lawsuits, because no studies had been carried out which could predict the vaccine’s effects. (Some things never change; no independent safety testing has ever been done on any vaccine since). Gerald Ford was trotted out to repair the PR damage done by insurance companies. The president appealed directly to 250 million Americans on national television.  He proudly told the public the shot was free.  (And who doesn’t like the sound of that?)

$1.3 Billion Fallout
The big swine flu campaign had barely been completed when casualty reports began to flow in. Claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis. (That total easily dwarfed the $135 million paid to the vaccine makers for the “free” vaccine, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain). The medical “authorities” leaped to the defense of the vaccine makers, labeling the new epidemic “Guillain-Barre Syndrome.”

Within two months of the shots that began Oct. 1976, at least 500 people were paralyzed.  More than 30 people had died.  Amid a rising uproar and growing public reluctance to risk the shot, federal officials abruptly canceled the program on Dec. 16, 1976.

In the end, 40 million Americans submitted to the shot. There was no swine flu epidemic. The only recorded fatality from swine flu itself was a private at Fort Dix, who a military doctor claimed had been diagnosed with swine flu.  The CDC verified that finding.  Given how the agency handled the whistleblowing of Dr. Anthony Morris, and how the agency has tried to bury the whistleblowing of senior scientist William Thompson, one can fairly wonder today if even the one person whom the agency claims died of Swine flu actually succumbed to that malady.

The CDC, meanwhile, continues its cozy relationship with Merck Pharmaceuticals and other vaccine manufacturers.  The CDC itself owns more than 50 vaccine patents. It is in the business of both profiting from and promoting vaccines while it also is entrusted to being a regulator.  Can this agency be a fair arbiter of the truth when its vaccine patent ownership gives it clear conflicts of interest, and when time and again it has shown itself to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies like Merck and others?

Some things never change, but we can change them. It’s possible. We can learn to think for ourselves, and not roll over every time “our” compromised CDC tells us to do something, or claims to be a legitimate watchdog.  The CDC tries to destroy real watchdogs, while promoting to the top of its food chain its most industry-compromised individuals, the likes of Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald.  We, the American people, deserve better, a lot better than what the old confederate General Robert E. Lee called “those people.”

Related

 

Share

Second trial to test J&J Baby Powder Mesothelioma Link

A Middlesex County courtroom heard the opening statements Jan. 29, 2018 in a lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson. The petition alleges that J&J’s talc products caused an Essex County man’s cancer.

Stephen Lanzo, III, 46, of Verona, says the Johnson’s Baby Powder he used throughout his life exposed him to asbestos. His lawsuit petition says that powder led to his developing mesothelioma, a deadly cancer that affects lungs and abdomen tissue.

Related:  FDA on Talc

"Cosmetic companies have a legal responsibility for the safety and labeling of their products and ingredients, but the law does not require them to share their safety information with FDA."

The lawsuit petition filed in 2016 reads that Mr. Lanzo and his wife Kendra seek monetary damages after “Lanzo regularly and frequently used and was exposed to asbestos-containing Johnson & Johnson talc powder products.”

Mr. Lanzo’s is the first case to be tried at the Middlesex County Courthouse, which is less than a mile from Johnson & Johnson headquarters in New Brunswick. He is the second person to allege that J&J’s talc products have caused a user to develop mesothelioma cancer.

Related:  California Jury awards $22 Million in Talc Asbestos Trial

Hundreds of J&J Talc Cancer Cases
Several other cases filed across the country have claimed J&J’s talc powder products have caused women’s ovarian cancer. Hundreds of plaintiffs in other suits claim Johnson’s talc powder caused their cancer.

Opening Statements

The Lanzos’ lawsuit claims J&J knew its products contained asbestos, but failed to properly warn its consumers.  In opening statement, Mr. Lanzo’s lawyer said, “It’s true, we don’t know how many Johnson & Johnson users have mesothelioma.  (The) fact is that the defendants have never studied that.”

J&J’s lawyers argued in opening statement that the company’s talc products never contained asbestos, and that the plaintiffs used faulty test methods to prove otherwise.

Second trial to test J&J Baby Powder Mesothelioma Link

Defendants in the case also include Imerys Talc America and Cyprus Amax Minerals Co.
The case is being presided over by Judge Ana Viscomi. It is expected to last through February 2018.

Related

Share

Limbrel Capsules withdrawn from the Market

Limbrel capsules were withdrawn from the market in Jan. 2018.  Primus Pharmaceuticals Inc., Scottsdale, AZ withdrew its osteoarthritis capsule Limbrel this month following a strong recommendation from the FDA.  The agency said in Nov. 2017 that Limbrel may cause drug-induced liver injury, as well as a lung condition called hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

The FDA sent a letter to James D. Weir, president and chief executive officer of Primus in Scottsdale, AZ.  The letter demanded that Primus cease distribution and immediately recall specific Limbrel lots, which include:

•  Limbrel (flavocoxid) 250 mg capsules
•  Limbrel250 (250 mg flavocoxid with 50 mg citrated zinc bisglycinate) capsules
•  Limbrel (flavocoxid) 500 mg capsules
•  Limbrel500 (500 mg flavocoxid with 50 mg citrated zinc bisglycinate) capsules

FDA Letter to Primus
The agency wrote in its letter to Mr. Weir at Primus: “The FDA has determined that these Limbrel products are unapproved new drugs and represent a serious health hazard.  Between January 1, 2007, and November 9, 2017, FDA received 194 adverse event reports associated with the use of Limbrel products.”

Primus Liver Injury & Hypersentsitivity Pneumonitis (HP)
The FDA letter further stated that adverse event reports it had received “identified a close relationship between the use of Limbrel and adverse events involving the development of drug-induced liver injury (DILI), pancreatitis, and hypersensitivity pneumonitis (HP).” Those health problems can present varying degrees of severity, ranging from mild to life-threatening.

FDA: Limbrel Products Unapproved
The FDA further wrote: “In addition, your Limbrel products are unapproved new drugs distributed in violation of sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) [21 U.S.C. § 331(d) and 355(a)].”  The agency letter added that the claims on the product labeling establish that the Limbrel products are drugs because they are intended for use in the cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease.   FDA said the label claims establish that the product is a drug because of such language as “clinical dietary management of the metabolic processes of osteoarthritis.”

Primus Response
On its Limbrel website, Primus pushed back at the FDA, appearing to blame the agency for the withdrawal.  Primus said the action to withdraw the Limbrel products from the market was “in response to repeated aggressive press releases from the FDA” and the letter it received from the FDA on December 19.

Unwarranted Pressure from FDA?
The Primus statement on its web site read in part: “Primus Pharmaceuticals, in response to unwarranted pressure from the FDA, has voluntarily suspended promotion and sale of Limbrel, an important and in many cases the only medical option for people suffering from osteoarthritis, pending Primus receiving requested safety data held by the FDA and meeting with the FDA as requested.”

Limbrel: Medical Food or Drug?
The company further questioned the FDA’s determination that Primus had marketed Limbrel as a drug, rather than a food.  Through its Washington law firm, Primus’ formal response to FDA included this statement: “For nearly 14 years, Limbrel has been marketed as a medical food dispensed by prescription and under physician supervision, with over 2 million packages sold and sampled in that time to an estimated 450,000 patients.”

In their response dated Dec. 20, Primus’ lawyers claimed Limbrel does meet the statutory definition of a medical food as set forth in the Orphan Drug Act.  “In fact, Limbrel has been referenced as such in many peer-reviewed nutritional, regulatory, clinical, and scientific peer-reviewed articles.”

Primus’ response also countered FDA’s adverse-event claim.  Primus said that historically, “both FDA and Primus have received very low numbers of reports of acute hypersensitivity pneumonitis (AHP) and elevated liver function tests (LFTs).”  The company added that the reactions have been temporary and medically reversible.

Primus has reportedly requested further meetings with FDA to lobby that Limbrel is safe and should be considered a medical food.  If that effort fails, Primus indicated it might pursue a reclassification of the product as a nutritional supplement, according to a Jan. 2018 report in The Arizona Republic.

The newspaper quoted Mr. Weir as saying, “We don’t understand why this product has been on the market for so long with such consistent feedback and use, and now is an issue.”

FDA Recommends ceasing Limbrel Use
In its Nov. 2017 warning, the FDA also advised health care providers who are aware that their patients are taking Limbrel to tell them to stop using it.

Limbrel Injury Symptoms
Of the 194 adverse event reports regarding Limbrel that the FDA received, 30 gave sufficient information for FDA medical experts to determine that Limbrel was likely associated with these adverse events.  The agency has recently seen a spike in the number of serious, potentially life- threatening health problems associated with Limbrel, including drug-induced liver injury and hypersensitivity pneumonitis.

Various symptoms of drug-induced liver injury may include jaundice, nausea, fatigue, and gastrointestinal discomfort.  Anyone experiencing any of these symptoms is advised to contact a health care provider right away.  Symptoms of hypersensitivity pneumonitis may include fever, chills, headache, cough, chronic bronchitis, shortness of breath or trouble breathing, weight loss, fatigue.  Anyone experiencing any of these symptoms, is also advised to contact a health care provider right away.

Related

Share

Seven Flu Shot Deaths in Santa Barbara

This year’s flu scare shows no signs of slowing. Mainstream media nationwide continue to trumpet the number of flu cases reported.  In lock step “on message,” each story always proposes the same solution – everyone should get a flu shot. Even the many stories of people who have died of the flu after receiving the flu vaccine find a way to promote the vaccine. It’s hard to figure the logic.

Eight Flu Deaths in Santa Barbara County
Eight people died this month in Santa Barbara County of the flu. Seven of the eight had received the flu vaccine.  A Wisconsin newlywed also died last month from flu after taking the flu shot, and a young Australian mother died last month of the flu after also receiving the flu vaccine. (Many flu-shot-death stories can be found on the web, if one can navigate through the endless sea of fear and disinformation.) Where the flu shot is concerned, the proof is decidedly not in the pudding.  The end result of flu shots in reported death cases means nothing to any of the major media talking heads. (They have their marching orders; theirs is not to question why. . . ) It’s incredibly strange but true: Despite the flu deaths of several people who submitted to the flu shot, all the major media stay religiously on message: Get your flu shot!

Related:  Is there a Shingles Vaccine?  Really?

Doublethink for Cirque du Senile
To make any sense of flu shot promotion from a simple logical perspective, one must either take stupid pills or liberally exercise Orwellian “Doublethink.’  In point of fact, anyone backing the flu shot despite its glaring contradictions must deploy Doublethink well enough to perform as a professional acrobat in some nightmare Cirque du Senile show for mouth-breathing half wits. Every anchor and news or talk show “personality” in the country is good at one thing which is paramount for keeping the disinformation flowing.  Every single one of them is able to look at the camera with her hair on fire and say she doesn’t smell smoke.

Tough Sell for Flu Shot Promoters
How does one sell a supposed insurance policy like the flu shot in story after story which shows it to be a spectacular failure?  (The main media method is to lie by omission; avoid mentioning that the person who died of the flu had taken the flu shot.) Would anyone buy home or car insurance from a company which time and time again fails to pay a claim?  (But the insurance analogy ends there; one gets no second chance on a health choice.)  If we believe the flu shot promoters’ story that the shot, if it fails to protect from the flu, at least lessens the severity of symptoms, would the seven in Santa Barbara and the Australian woman be less dead than they are now?  Or are we to believe that they would have suffered less before dying if they had not submitted to the flu shot?

Related: Lies Unravel Flu Shot Scandal

Would the dead have gotten the flu at all if they had not taken the flu shot?  Anybody with a modicum of medical knowledge knows that vaccination, “artificial immunity” (even flu shot backers, disinformation specialists, know nothings and Big Pharma’s paid trolls know that is what vaccination is called), of any kind weakens the natural immune system; so this is a fair question. It is also one that is never asked by the endless sea of wearisome flu shot promoters.

Free Flu Shots!
Because a large segment of the public salivate like Pavlovian dogs when they hear the word free, the medical monopoly running the country’s “healthcare” system (see: ‘Rockefeller Medicine’) has just come out with a new tactic: Free Flu Shots!  We’re sure Homer Simpson would get one, because they’re free, stupid; but does that mean you should?  Does the “free flu shot” come with the caveat that if one contracts the flu after the shot, she will be compensated for any medical or perhaps funereal treatment?

Coin Flip Science
Can anyone say for a fact whether one’s chances of getting the flu decrease or increase with submission to the flu shot? Where’s the science behind the notion that the flu shot works as advertised? Even the CDC – a shockingly compromised organization – admits the flu shot’s effectiveness is woeful (perhaps 10-30%).  And you may want to perform some research before trusting that agency with your life.  Wanted CDC frauds like Paul Thorsen (see: CDC Criminal Fugitive) have faked vaccine research which the agency fraudulently trumpets as proving “vaccine safety.”  Some of CDC’s own top scientists – like Dr. William Thompson – have blown the whistle on CDC coverups and the agency’s rank criminality.  This is not an honorable agency by any stretch. This is an agency that touts the mass poisoning of our public water supplies as one of its greatest achievements. (See The Fluoride Deception by Christopher Bryson.)  The CDC was also part of the hideous Tuskegee Airmen Experiments, which murdered black men with syphilis.

Related: Anti-Corruption Society:  The CDC Exposed

Seven Flu Shot Deaths in Santa Barbara

Back in Santa Barbara, Dr. Charity Dean said the number of patients testing positive for the flu at local hospitals and health clinics was off the charts.  “Our numbers are in line with statewide numbers, and they’re definitely cause for concern,” she said.   She also reported that local emergency rooms were facing a threefold increase in the number of patients reporting flu-like symptoms, and she said she was worried about the situation.

Many are worried, of course, but does that “worry” mean submitting to the flu shot will lessen one’s chances of developing the flu?  Or does taking the flu shot increase the likelihood of one’s contracting the flu?  “Public health officials” and every major media figure in the country schooled in public health crisis medicine have their message to relay regardless.

Related

Share