Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

A Missouri court will convene its sixth talcum powder trial on October 16, 2017. A September 18 hearing in the 22nd Circuit Court for St. Louis set the date.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed was brought by a Missouri man on behalf of his deceased wife. Michael Blaes claims that his wife’s death from ovarian cancer was a direct result of her using Johnson & Johnson’s talcum powder products.  Mrs. Blaes used J&J talc products for decades as part of her feminine hygiene routine.

Related: Talcum Powder Cancer Attorney

Mrs. Blaes’ case was one of three that went before a Missouri jury in July 2017.  The judge in that action declared a mistrial after five days of testimony.  The legal move came in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California. That case held (in an 8-1 vote) that state courts lack jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants when plaintiffs allege injuries which did not occur in the state.

Mrs. Blaes was the only Missouri resident in that aborted trial.  During the Sept. 18 hearing, the Court indicated Mr. Blaes’ case would proceed to trial October 16th; but the judge has yet to rule on certain jurisdictional issues that could affect the trial setting.

5,000 Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Lawsuits
Johnson & Johnson faces nearly 5,000 talcum powder ovarian cancer lawsuits nationwide. Plaintiffs pursuing these claims cite numerous studies dating back to the 1970s. The studies suggest the regular and repeated application of talc-based powders to a woman’s genitals may increase her risk of developing ovarian cancer. They also highlight internal documents that show Johnson company executives had prior knowledge of this research, but placed profits over safety. The lawsuits charge that J&J selfishly decided against adding warning labels to its Baby Powder or Shower-to-Shower talcum powder products.

Missouri Verdicts top $400 Million
Missouri has already concluded five talcum powder ovarian cancer trials. Four juries awarded plaintiffs compensatory and punitive damages that ranged from $55 million to $100 million. Only one of five Missouri juries has returned a verdict for Johnson & Johnson.

California Talc Cancer Verdict – $417 Million
At least 300 similar cases are pending against Johnson & Johnson in California’s Los Angeles Superior Court. In August 2017, a jury that heard evidence in the state’s first talcum powder trial ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $417 million to a woman diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer. That verdict included $300 million in punitive damages. That trial included much of the evidence presented during earlier talcum powder trials in Missouri. It also marked the first time a jury saw evidence that some of Johnson’s competitors were now including ovarian cancer warnings on their talcum powder labels.

Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

Besides the sixth talcum powder trial set in Missouri, talcum powder litigation involving J&J  products is also underway in New Jersey and Delaware state courts, as well as in New Jersey federal court.

RELATED

Share

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly, says latest science

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly people, says the latest science.   Tracey Watson reported on Sept. 19, 2017 that there has been a total media blackout over this news.  One can only wonder why.  Don’t the elderly deserve to know this information?  There has also been a near total  blackout on the troubling shingles vaccine that fails 98-99% of the elderly.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),  decides the national vaccination schedule “recommended” for children.  The CDC notes that those most at risk of complications from the flu virus are children younger than 5, and especially those under 2; pregnant women; people in nursing homes; and adults over 65.  The elderly are therefore among the most vulnerable members of society to influenza. The problem is that the flu shot last year was again determined to be ineffective for the elderly.

Public Health England (PHE) released a recent report that says, even though the flu shot seems to have been slightly more effective at preventing influenza among children than in the past, last year’s flu shot was totally ineffective for the elderly.

Flu Vaccine fails to thwart most common Strain

Vaccine “experts” believe the shot was ineffective because it failed to protect against the H3 strain, the most common circulating flu strain.  The flu shot is at best a game of chance each year.  “Experts” must attempt to predict which of three strains of the flu virus will be in circulation the next winter.  Even in a good year, their strike rate is a woeful 50 percent.

But that doesn’t mean CDC officials ever admit when a vaccine is ineffective or even useless.  In the case of the elderly, vaccine health professionals blame the elderly themselves.  A representative of PHE told BBC News: “As people age, their immune systems are often weaker and therefore their bodies may not respond as well to a vaccine as younger people’s bodies.”

Doubling Down on a Failed Flu Vaccine
Instead of admitting defeat, then, and encouraging seniors to pursue proven natural flu prevention paths, health officials just continue to push the flu shot.  Yes, despite the flu vaccine’s failure to help the elderly, vaccine “experts” still recommend older people take the flu jab again and again.

Mr. Watson points out that this is like saying, “The flu shot is useless for you and we know it, but you need to have it anyway.”  The so-called medical “experts” have even decided to double down on the insanity.  They have introduced “high-dose jabs that work to boost the body’s immune response to receiving the vaccine.”

Doubly Useless Flu Shots for Elderly
It’s hard to follow the logic, because there’s no logic to follow.  This is like saying, “The flu jab is useless for you and we know it, so we’re going to make it twice as useless.  Just keep quiet and take the jab.”  Meanwhile, thanks in part to the levels of mercury and/or aluminum and other “adjuvants” in flu shots, one’s risk of suffering from Alzheimer’s tends to rise with the number of flu shots one has taken over the years.

Flu vaccines don’t work for elderly, says latest science

Tracy Watson does offer some helpful news, “at least four easy, natural and effective ways to work with your body to build up your immune system and prevent the flu”: 1.) sunlight (Vitamin D3); 2.) Astragalus (a staple of ancient Ayurvedic and Chinese medicine); 3.) Echinacea and golden seal (powerful immune boosters); 4.) lifestyle and dietary changes (exercise, clean water, good sleep, controlled stress, fresh, organic fruits and vegetables).

RELATED

Share

20 Vaccine Documentaries that show the Big Picture

Scientists, doctors, researchers, writers and parents have produced at least 20 vaccine documentaries that show the big picture of this troubling controversy.  More and more parents are starting to figure out the anomalies and the contradictions and the outright lies of vaccination promoters as they watch their vaccinated children descend into chronic sickness. Recent studies show unvaccinated children are healthier than vaccinated ones; but you won’t find that story in mainstream “news.”

Related:  Vaccine Lottery:  Sacrifice the Children

More and more people who take the time to study the issue are figuring out that the CDC has lied to them. They have figured out that many of their doctors have unwittingly lied to them, mostly because their doctors don’t know anything about the history of vaccination or what is actually contained IN the vaccinations.  Talking television heads have lied to them.  Local newscasters have lied to them.

Vaccines are not the panacea they’ve been painted to be in the mainstream press controlled by drug company profits. The only way anyone can find the truth about vaccines is to see the injuries in their own children, which thousands and thousands of parents have done.  Or else they can research the web, study the history of vaccination, and look to see if anyone has ever done a legitimate double-blind study that proves the safety and effectiveness of even one single vaccine.

Related:  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

The vaccination blitz may not have begun as a cash cow making test monkeys out of most of its citizens.  The initial putsch for vaccination seems to have started with good intentions.  But do good intentions translate to positive results?  If only it were so!

“Most of the evil in this world is done by people with good intentions.” ― T.S. Eliot

Drug company executives extorted Congress back in the 1980s to give vaccine makers immunity from criminal prosecution or civil liability when they make vaccines that injure or kill children. Congress blinked and gave the vaccine profiteers virtual blanket immunity from liability, passing the so-called 1986 National Childhood Immunization Act.  Like the infamous “Citizen’s United,” or the notorious “Clean Skies” initiative, or “Operation Iraqi Freedom” (changed from the too-coy “Operation Iraqi Liberation” or OIL), the nomenclature is a duplicitous shield hiding a more troubling agenda.

Related:  Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

The so-called National Childhood Immunization Act shields drug companies from liability when their vaccines injure or kill children forced to take vaccines.  One dollar of profit from every vaccine goes into a fund, supposedly to help the children injured by vaccines.  This already creates an immediate problem for vaccine pushers an profiteers like Paul Offit, who endlessy tell us vaccines are completely safe and that autism is not caused by vaccines.  This big lie obtains today despite the fact that more than $3 billion has been paid from this fund to vaccine-injured children and their families.  Sadly, the fund recompenses only a tiny percentage of  parents and children injured or killed by vaccines.  The government realized early on that the fund didn’t collect enough money to compensate all the vaccine victims ; so it quickly moved to disallow Legal Discovery in vaccine cases and to simply deny some 80% of the claims in the secret and demonstrably undemocratic “Vaccine Court.”

Vaccine injuries are wiping out more and more families, crippling them emotionally and financially by autism and other vaccine-related injuries.  But those unfortunates do have one advantage over many.  They have seen the light.  They KNOW what caused their children’s injuries. Their eyes have been opened to how the world works (or doesn’t).  The rest of us need to open our own eyes before it’s too late for us and for our children, or our neighbor’s children.  We will all continue to pay as the rate of autism and vaccine injuries increases exponentially every year, in direct proportion to CDC mandates that require more and more childhood vaccinations be forced into our pin-cushion kids.  Rather than work as a watchdog for taxpayers, the CDC works as a partner with vaccine makers to promote vaccine policy and continue to raise the number of vaccines it requires children to take.

At least 20 must-see vaccine documentaries have been noted by Natural News, a web site that  Google and Facebook are trying to silence as Fake News.  Wise people will decide for themselves what fake news is, instead of getting censored search engine results.

20 Vaccine Documentaries that show the Big Picture

Please watch these documentaries and decide for yourself.

1. Vaccination – The Silent Epidemic

2. The Greater Good

3. Shots In The Dark

4. Vaccination The Hidden Truth

5. Vaccine Nation

6. Vaccination – The Truth About Vaccines

7. Lethal Injection

8. Bought

9. Deadly Immunity – Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

10. Autism – Made in the USA

11. Beyond Treason

12. Trace Amounts

13. Why We Don’t Vaccinate

14. Autism Yesterday

15. Denmark Documentary on HPV Vaccine

16. Vaxxed

17. Man Made Epidemic

18. 50 Cents A Dose

19. Direct Orders

20. Dtap – Vaccine Roulette

21. Truthstream News: About All Those Vaccines

RELATED

Share

Fake Vaccine News, Fake Studies, Fake Advocates

Fake vaccine news, fake studies, fake advocates dominate so-called real news.  First and most pointedly, in California.  The golden state is ground zero for the mandatory (Read: forced) vaccination of schoolchildren.  The state was the first to kill informed consent for parents and their children.  Led by Merck Pharmaceutical darling Senator Richard Pan, the state decided to do away with the first rule of medicine.  This is more than a little ironic, seeing as how Mr. Pan is also a medical doctor.  Unless one can afford to home school one’s children in California, they are, for all intents and purposes, forced to take a huge dose of vaccinations, of whatever type and dose the state – as directed by drug companies and the CDC – decide that they “need.”

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

It is easy to spot pro-vaccine politicians and how they got that way.  All one needs do is look at their campaign contributions. Even in the insane age of Citizen’s United, one can still follow the money trail, most of the time.

Follow the Money Trail

It can be harder to follow the money for vaccine advocates working in academia.  Sometimes they  write such prolific trash supporting drug companies, it is almost impossible NOT to spot them.  When an academic like Dorit Reiss of UC Hastings College of Law and Kaiser Permanente, posts 1,000 (or so) blogs to attack parents of children injured by vaccines and promotes mass vaccination, it is not so difficult.  She repeats, ad nauseam, that thousands of vaccine safety studies have been done to prove vaccine safety and efficacy, and it simply is not true.  Who or what is paying Ms. Reiss to support industry and attack vaccine-injured children’s parents and other critical thinkers?  How does she possibly find the time if she has a real job?  In this case, one need look no further than her stated employers, and the money behind UC Hastings and Kaiser.

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Monsanto Money earns UW-Madison Seal of Approval

It is also instructive to learn just how industry captures some academic institutions in order to do its bidding.  The University of Wisconsin, for one example, fairly rolled over for Monsanto when the company “donated” a $10 million commercial biotech plant laboratory that helped develop genetically modified plants.  That “donation” has made UW-Madison “the hub of a new crop research center,” gushed the Wisconsin State Journal on Jan. 31, 2017.  Gee, I wonder if the UW will continue to support GMO foods as they have so dutifully in the past after receiving multi-milllon-dollar “gifts” from Monsanto.  Is the UW aware that hundreds of Roundup Lymphoma lawsuits are being filed against its great benefactor, Monsanto?  (Maybe all that dough will buy some helpful studies “proving” the safety of Roundup.)

The UW-Madison also got nicely behind Monsanto’s  awful bovine growth hormone (rBST) after Monsanto donated a couple million to the UW just as it also gifted the world with rBST.  Not to pick on the Badger state’s flagship school.  Most land-grand universities are hot for donations, and  will do almost anything to keep them coming.

Sometimes the payments for those supporting corporate profits at the expense of people are harder to spot, at least until one looks closer.

Professor Dorit Reiss of Hastings Law School in San Francisco seems to have gotten her start in the blogging business after Katie Couric had the temerity to question the safety of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine.  It seems several girls were dying after their Gardasil injections, or catching auto-immune diseases; so Ms. Couric investigated.  Ms. Reiss was then keen to demonstrate her loyalties to her state’s Draconian vaccination policy, and to her university and its Big Pharma backers.  She even had the gall to write in defense of the “advantages” of a school’s being captured by industry, or a regulatory agency’s working closely and “cooperatively” with industry.  (You can’t make this stuff up.)  The word “capture,” she wrote, has negative connotations, and therefore should not be used.  Put lipstick on a pig, she might have added, and it might look beautiful, at least to Ms. Reiss.

With Professor Reiss’ considerable help, Katie Couric was wildly attacked when she ran a nationally televised story covering Gardasil dangers.  Robert De Niro – the father of an autistic son whose Black mother says he was made that way by vaccination – was likewise savaged for questioning American children’s massive vaccination schedule.  Jim Carey (who said he was not anti vaccine) was also attacked, as was Jenny McCarthy, Rob Schneider, and anyone else who has had the temerity to question America’s increasingly heavy childhood vaccine schedule, and the forced vaccination of school children.

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Vaccine Comedy Dutifully Promotes Vaccination

Comedy Central’s John Oliver has devoted more and more of his time to savaging anyone who questions the “prevailing wisdom” of vaccination.  Mr. Oliver’s audience guffaws as dutifully as a laugh track as he pretends to have all the answers, to know that all vaccinations are safe and effective and necessary.  His dismissive views are oddly solidly backed by the likes of strange bedfellows, Republican stalwarts such as The Wall Street Journal and Forbes.   This is quite curious, considering that Mr. Oliver’s show is decidedly slanted to the liberal side of the aisle.  (One might be wise to pay special attention when the entire mainstream media is all behind something, or all uniformly against it.)

Why is no adult discussion about vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

The fact that President Donald Trump has questioned the prevailing wisdom of shooting as many vaccines into children as Merck and the CDC say they need is used to further marginalize vaccine skeptics.  The fact that Mr. Trump is (by many critical accounts from close observers) a sociopathic narcissist, is used by mandatory vaccine supporters as one more reason that ALL and ANY discussion of vaccination should not even be allowed.  What if Mr. Trump were right about something?  Is it possible?

Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?  What gives?

Fake Vaccine News, Fake Studies, Fake Advocates

Do those who so viciously attack “anti-vaxxers” really think or believe that every vaccine is safe and effective, and that every vaccine should be used any time Merck or the CDC say so?  What if they are wrong?  What if every vaccine is not safe and effective?  What if every vaccination batch needs a careful inventory of chemical components and a field trial?  What if they should all be monitored for safety and effectiveness?  What if that vaccine they want to put directly into your kid’s bloodstream, bypassing her immune system, is made in China, where the FDA is not allowed inside the plants to investigate?  What if the shingles vaccine has blinded several people and given them repeat cases of shingles?  Is that something you would like to know? What if the flu vaccine doesn’t work this year, or isn’t worth the risk?  What if more people died of the flu after taking the flu shot last year than unvaccinated people who got the flu?  Is that something you’d like to know? What if vaccine makers don’t lose sleep over safety issues because they know that the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act protects them from liability; so that they have very little incentive to make safe vaccines?  Why do vaccine makers or their shills – like Professor Dorit Reiss of Hastings Law School in San Francisco, or Comedy Central’s John Oliver, or vaccine-profiteer Paul Offit (aptly named) – think the 1986 Act was necessary if vaccine injuries don’t occur?

What gives? Why is no adult discussion of vaccines allowed in the mainstream media?

All one needs do is follow the money.

RELATED

Share

More Monsanto Fake News

More Monsanto fake news is hiding in plain sight. Reuters recently printed an article attacking the International Agency for Cancer Research.  In 2015, the IARC ruled that glyphosate – in Roundup and other Monsanto poisons – is a “probable carcinogen.”  The Reuters writer has been revealed to be a Monsanto shill funded by the company.

Ethan Huff reported August 28, 2017 that Reuters is now in bed with Monsanto.  Mr. Huff says Reuters is “committing journalistic fraud to cover up evidence of harm from toxic agricultural poisons.”

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

Monsanto Shill:  Congressman Trey Gowdy

Meanwhile, House Republicans are using the journalistic fraud to defend Monsanto.  The biotech bully from St. Louis is having a hard time maintaining any credibility in the public eye after the IARC, as well as several studies, have revealed glyphosate causes cancer in humans.

In an effort to turn the facts around, Monsanto has apparently co-opted the services of a Reuters journalist who recently published an article claiming Monsanto’s Roundup is safe.  House Oversight Committee Chairman Trey Gowdy is now using the planted, slanted Reuters article as some sort of scientific fact.  It would all be laughable, except that glypohosate causes cancer, and the Reuters piece is simply regurgitated Monsanto PR.

Reports say Gowdy is demanding answers about “possibly withheld information” which he says “could change” the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s (IARC) landmark designation of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Gowdy wrote a letter pointing to a June 14, 2017 Reuters article by Kate Kelland. Mr. Gowdy claims that Ms. Kelland shows glyphosate is not all that bad and should not be labeled carcinogenic.

Closer inspection shows Ms. Kelland’s article deeply flawed, loaded with unsubstantiated Monsanto talking points and PR spin.  Mr. Gowdy may have noticed if he wasn’t so quick to support Monsanto company profits. The wayward congressman has decided to promote Ms. Kelland’s article as if it were gospel evidence that Monsanto has somehow been treated unfairly. (Poor Monsanto!)

Stacy Malkan points out in a piece for AlterNet that Ms. Kelland has been writing all sorts of pro-Monsanto articles for quite a while. And Reuters has been publishing her Monsanto PR without question. This latest piece follows the same tired narrative that Monsanto has been pushing for its ongoing war on science, on independent researchers (like Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini), on truth.

Reuters’ Kate Kelland’s ties to Industry PR Group Science Media Centre
Mr. Malkan’s rebuttal shows Ms. Kelland shrouding the truth about the IARC report. The IARC gathered and evaluated many years’ worth of published and peer-reviewed research on glyphosate before reaching its conclusion. Rebutting Ms. Kelland’s straw-man claims, the glyphosate research reached deeply into past studies. It wasn’t simply limited to Professor Gilles-Eric Seralini’s research paper, which was pulled from publication by an editor later found to be put in place by Monsanto, then re-published after scientists worldwide protested Monsanto’s blatant attack on science and truth.

Ms. Kelland’s so-called evidence backing glyphosate is also flawed on other grounds. As Mr. Malkan points out, nearly all of her Monsanto defense pieces are simply pro-industry propaganda. She cites papers by researchers who were obviously working in tandem with Monsanto, researchers further impugned by their abject failure to disclose their industry and financial connections. Much of what Ms. Kelland has presented is also cherry-picked and deliberately taken out of context.

Monsanto Writer with Obvious Ties to Industry
Ms. Kelland has undisclosed ties to the industry as well, ties that Mr. Malkan uncovered as centering around the Science Media Centre, a “nonprofit” public relations firm that connects industry scientists with reporters. The Science Media Centre is also funded by industry groups like Monsanto with an agenda to push.

Science Media Centre Subterfuge

The Science Media Centre was launched for the very purpose of rebutting news stories drawing attention to environmental and human health risks of poison chemical cocktails like Monsanto’s Roundup. By downplaying or attacking these stories, the Science Media Centre functions as the sneaky PR arm of Monsanto and other corporations trying to clean up their tarnished images.

Mr. Malkan writes: “Kelland’s bias in favor of SMC is evident; she appears in the PR agency’s promotional video and promotional report, regularly attends SMC briefings, speaks at SMC workshops and attended meetings in India to discuss setting up an SMC office there.”

SMC, we know what you are and who pays you to keep publishing your industry-promoting PR. And now the world knows. Time to figure out some sneakier way to try pulling the wool over the public’s eyes.

More Monsanto Fake News

Mr. Gowdy, the world is watching you, too, and figuring out where your loyalties lie. Black-box voting be damned, the people will vote you out anyway, you little corporate shill.

RELATED

 

Share

Johnson & Johnson loses $417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict

A Los Angeles jury ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay a California woman $417 million this week, for failing to warn her that its talc products are cancerous.

On August 21, 2017, the Los Angeles jury issued the largest verdict yet in a series of trials which J&J has mostly lost. The drug and medical device giant has now lost 5 of 6 talc cancer verdicts.

Johnson & Johnson and its lawyers will have a harder time writing this verdict off as the product of an unfair venue, which they have done in the past.  The company lost one verdict in South Dakota, though that one received scant attention because the victim had survived chemotherapy (at least at the time of the trial); so the jurors awarded no damages.  Then J&J lost three high-profile verdicts in St. Louis Missouri.  Consequently, the company and its well-paid lawyers and bloggers have tried to write off those Missouri verdicts as a result of a judicial district unfair to corporate defendants.

Look now for attacks on California jurors, or the state itself, as J&J and its corporate apologists and well-paid trolls of every stripe will try to tattoo the state and its jurors to somehow explain away this one, too.

Could it simply be that the 12 jurors were sane and simply cognizant for the California trial?  Could it be that they heard the science from paid experts on both sides, then determined that it is more likely than not that Eva Echeverria’s ovarian cancer was caused by Johnson & Johnson talcum products?

Johnson & Johnson Failed to Warn
Like four previous juries, the California jury found that Johnson & Johnson failed to warn the 63-year-old woman diagnosed with terminal ovarian cancer about the risks of using J&J talcum products.

The California verdict marks the largest one yet in several suits that claim the company’s talc powder causes ovarian cancer.  More than 300 lawsuits are pending in California.  More than 4,500 talc cancer lawsuits are pending in the rest of the country.  All allege J&J ignored studies which linked its Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower to cancer.

Plaintiff Dying of Ovarian Cancer
The plaintiff, Eva Echeverria, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2007.  A surgeon removed a softball-sized tumor from Ms. Echeverria, but she is now near death.  She was unable to attend the trial.

In video-recorded testimony played for the jury, Ms. Echeverria testified that she used Johnson’s Baby Powder from age 11 until 2016, when she saw a news story about a woman with ovarian cancer who had also used Johnson’s baby powder.

Johnson’s Baby Powder is one of the company’s best-known products. It was once heavily marketed with the catchy jingle, “A sprinkle a day helps keep the odor away.”

Ms. Echeverria testified that if Johnson & Johnson had put a warning on its talc product, she would have stopped using it.

Jury deliberates Two Days
Jurors deliberated for two days, before awarding Ms. Echeverria $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages.  The jury panel found there was a connection between her ovarian cancer and the baby powder.

J&J will appeal Verdict (of course)
Johnson & Johnson immediately announced that it would seek to overturn the verdict.  Company attorneys argued throughout the trial (as they will in their appeal) that science doesn’t back the connection between talc and ovarian cancer.

J&J said in a statement: “We will appeal today’s verdict because we are guided by the science, which supports the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder.”  (Sounds good if you say it fast enough.)

J&J lawyers argued throughout the trial that various scientific studies, as well as federal agencies, including the U.S. FDA, had not found talc products carcinogenic. (The FDA has also approved a couple dozen drugs that were later pulled for serious and sometimes fatal problems, but J&J lawyers didn’t include that information in their appeal to the FDA’s alleged authority.)

Among the studies J&J cited was one in 2000 by researchers at Harvard University that was part of the National Nurses Health Study of more than 121,000 women, 78,630 of whom said they had used talc.  Ovarian cancer eventually struck 307 of them.  The researchers concluded there was “no overall association” between talc use and “epithelial ovarian cancer.”  There was, however, a “modest elevation in risk” for one variety of the disease, invasive serous ovarian cancer, which is the one killing Ms. Echeverria, according to court documents.

Johnson & Johnson loses $417 Million Talc Cancer Verdict

Ms. Echeverria’s attorneys argued that women nationwide trusted Johnson & Johnson not to market an unsafe product.  They learned too late that J&J had known long ago about other research showing a relationship between talc and cancer.

1982 Study showed Talc Increases Cancer Risk
The lawsuit petition cited a 1982 study that shows women who used talc on their genitals were at a 92% increased risk for ovarian cancer.  The lead researcher in that study, Daniel W. Cramer, later advised Johnson & Johnson to put a warning label on the product.  The plaintiff’s lawyers argued that J&J failed to include the warning because it would have seriously cut into their profits, as warned women would not have used Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower talc, or would have used the products much more sparingly.

According to the National Cancer Institute, ovarian cancer accounts for 1.3% of all new cancer cases in the United States.  It is the eighth most common cancer and the fifth-leading cause of cancer-related death among women.  Fewer than half of all patients survive five years after an ovarian cancer diagnosis.

Other J&J Talc Cancer Verdicts
Johnson & Johnson has prevailed in just one of six trials against the company in the talcum powder cancer litigation. In 2013, a South Dakota jury sided with a woman plaintiff who blamed J&J’s talc powder for her ovarian cancer, and three previous juries in St. Louis sided with plaintiffs, for a total of $197 million in verdicts against the company.  Five juries have now awarded plaintiffs more than $614 million in total verdicts against Johnson & Johnson in the talcum cancer litigation.

RELATED

 

Share

WebMD shills for Monsanto & Big Pharma

WebMD shills for Monsanto, Big Pharma, and other corporate giants.  Natural News has revealed how WebMD has never seen a Monsanto product or a Big Pharma drug or vaccination that it didn’t like.  It promotes them all, without question or critical comment.  Why?

It’s the Advertising Money, Stupid
WebMD takes most of its advertising money from Big Pharma corporations like Merck, maker of the dubious shingles vaccine, the dangerous MMR vaccine, and other troublesome vaccines that are far from as safe or as effective as advertised by Merck and WebMD.  The company known as WebMD is one that clearly knows which industry giants are paying its bills.  WebMD is, in point of fact, little more than a tireless promoter of not only Big Pharma drugs and ethically-challenged Monsanto, but any and all vaccination, regardless of real science (or lack thereof) or circumstances.

Related:  Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

Passive GMO Promotion
Corporate sponsorships taint WebMD’s recommendations and “passive” promotion techniques. WebMD advertisements are often designed to look more like editorials to disguise their real intent, fooling readers into thinking that the advertising they see is actually news of some sort.

Monsanto WebMD Partnership
Monsanto uses WebMD’s influence to serve its own agenda.  Monsanto produces several sponsored “advertorials” that can easily be mistaken for “real” content rather than marketing propaganda.  Monsanto also uses independent third parties to manipulate GMO content on WebMD’s web site. (Monsanto also colludes with the EPA to play down the dangers of Roundup and promote it.)

Web MD Internet’s Most Visited Health Site
WebMD is, unfortunately for the truth, the internet’s most visited health site.  Public perception is that it’s a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  WebMD is a thinly-disguised corporate shill masquerading as a news site.  WebMD uses its influence to shamelessly promote corporate-backed health products and protocols.

WebMD’s Journalistic Subterfuge destroys Credibility
WebMD “Partnerships” destroy any credibility the site may have once had.  Partnerships and sponsorships infect WebMD’s recommendations across the board. “Passive” promotion techniques include advertisements designed to look like editorials.  This is journalistic subterfuge at its worst, and its most sophisticated.

Web MD Rigs Phony Test for Depression
The pharmaceutical drug industry’s capture of WebMD has been clear for a long while and is nearly complete.  In just one egregious example, Dr. Mercola has reported how WebMD’s free online depression test in 2010 was rigged to make any person responding feel like she needed professional help.  The only result a test respondent could receive was that she was at risk for major depression and should discuss her options with a doctor.

That phony “test” was sponsored by Cymbalta maker Eli Lilly.  The test’s intent was obvious – to make a person inquire about antidepressants, and hopefully start taking them, preferably forever.

This advertisement dressed up as a “consumer aid” to make people go from feeling normal to depressed caught the attention of Senator Charles Grassley.  He launched an investigation, but that announcement changed no laws and apparently no perceptions.  WebMD continues to hide advertising business as usual.  Consumer Beware!

Web MD Aids Monsanto
Monsanto is one of the latest multinational corporate giants to use WebMD for its own hidden agenda.  Nearly every WebMD article now includes a Monsanto-sponsored ad that boldly declares: “It’s time for a bigger discussion about food.”  This clever propaganda then links to Monsanto’s corporate take on soil, water, and honey bee-disappearance, with no other contributor’s point of view allowed.

Marketing Strategists Tout “Advertorial Sponsorships”
Marketing strategists say “advertorial sponsorships” are the best way to sell something today.  They are designed to fool consumers, so that they don’t realize they’re being sold something.

Back in the day, before deep-pocketed advertisers called the shots and completely ruled the publishing world, the line between editorial and advertising content was clear.  You knew whether you were reading an advertisement or an editorial.  Today, readers practically need degrees in journalism and science to know what they’re reading, who sponsored it, and why.

A business has to pay for a sponsorship/advertorial just like it would a regular ad.  In some cases, businesses pay significantly more than they would for a regular ad.  But corporations consider the expense of a sponsorship/advertorial ad well worth the cost.

As Dr. Mercola explains: “The venue where your sponsored advertorial is going (in this case, WebMD and its affiliates) has no input on the content – the advertiser has full control over the text of the ‘informative’ ad.  The advertiser can control how the information is presented on the page, as opposed to having to select a regular display ad format.”

The sponsored advertorial can be used in multiple publications.  Companies can reuse a sponsored advertorial as a stand-alone ad in other places.

Native Advertising’ further Blurs the Line Between Ads and Independent Content

Another form of this type of shrouded sales presentation is called “native advertising.” The key difference between a native ad and an advertorial is that a native ad fits more seamlessly into the Website which features it, making it even less noticeable as a sales pitch.

This sneaky ad is designed to make you think you’re reading a regular content article, when in fact it’s all marketing. In the case of WebMD, the advertorial/native ad line is so thin as to be non-existent. Many of WebMD’s disclaimers are barely noticeable, and rendered in a typeset which manipulates readers into skipping them entirely.

Dr. Mercola explains:  “This all amounts to massive collusion on the part of the industries partnering with WebMD to sell THEIR health goals and products without you realizing you’ve been sold something that may or may not be in your best interest at all.”

WebMD pushes Vaccination

When it comes to vaccination, WebMD publishes only those articles which make it seem as if vaccination is a tried and true science without enormous problems, which include lawsuits for dubious vaccines like Merck’s Zostavax.  Vaccination “science” is far from settled, but you wouldn’t know that if you read only WebMD’s narow take on the subject.  The same goes for Monsanto products, and Big Pharma drugs.

WebMD shills for Monsanto & Big Pharma

If you want to find out what is really going on in the world of GMO foods, Big Pharma drugs, and vaccination safety and efficacy, the best thing you could do is avoid WebMD.  You will find little truth there not colored by WebMD’s fealty to its corporate and government sponsors.  Selah!

RELATED

Share

U.S. Senate Could Destroy Your Rights with H.R. 1215

Tort reform pushed by the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has always been a ruse.  The game has always been to attack lawyers in order to disguise the real target: the citizen and the citizen’s inalienable rights.  H.R. 1215 is the same animal.  Dressed up as a bill to “protect” people’s access to healthcare, it does the opposite.

H.R. 1215 Would Severely Limit Courthouse Access

The duplicitously named “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017″ does everything BUT protect peoples’ access to healthcare.  What it mostly does is severely limit a U.S. citizen’s access to the courtroom.  It virtually wipes out class action lawsuits – whether for credit card fraud committed by a major bank, rank discrimination,  negligence, or even outright criminality committed by any corporation.  It also makes it all but financially impossible for a plaintiff’s law firm to pursue pharmaceutical drug or medical device cases for their injured or dead clients.  All of this is done under the guise of saving money; but this bill doesn’t do that, either.  Limiting a victim’s ability to collect fair and just compensation not only makes survival more difficult for that person, it also undermines any real accountability of the negligent party, the corporation.  The U.S. Supreme Court erroneously granted corporations personhood with its unconscionable ruling in the duplicitously-named  “Citizens United” case.  The rancid H.R. 1215 bill takes that catastrophe a step further, moving us all further down the road to complete corporate servitude.

Make no mistake: the end game is clear.  Like the Trump juggernaut, this bill moves under the guise of a populist movement which pretends that it will help people.  But the people ARE the target, and this new war is the same as the old:  It’s corporate power vs. people power.  If you have not figured that out yet, God help us all.

H.R. 1215 Violates the Constitution
The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees a U.S. citizen’s right to a civil trial by jury.  Despite all its phony language about “protecting” people, H.R. 1215 works in direct violation of that right.

What is the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017?
The summary of the bill, H.R. 1215, reads: “To improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.” In short, this is a bill designed to take away your rights to a jury trial, and to limit how much compensation an injury victim can collect.

Medical Errors are 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country. So how are your rights being “protected” if we limit your compensation?  Is your child’s life worth just $250,000? According to Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan it is. This bill will not only not “protect” you and your family. It will also destroy any incentive that the medical industry has to actually fix that problem. What has happened in Texas with its Draconian “tort reform” will open the door to that happening all over the country. H.R. 1215 will preempt your state’s laws that would formerly protect you from the kinds of things that have happened to Texas patients with their many perverted, imprisoned doctors, which the state’s twisted Tort Reform enables.

What damage caps will H.R. 1215 put into place?
The new bill places no caps on economic damages, a small silver lining in a black cloud. It will, however, drastically limit the amount of non-economic damages you may be able to collect – and in a sneaky way, too. From the bill (excerpts in bold are ours):

“In any health care lawsuit, the amount of noneconomic damages, if available, shall not exceed $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same injury.

“The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting for any other reduction in damages required by law.

“In any health care lawsuit, each party shall be liable for that party’s several share of any damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each party shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party’s percentage of responsibility.”

More Problems with H.R. 1215
Damage caps have always been a problem, but we have deeply-rooted concerns about the rest of the bill. H.R. 1215 also stands to:

  • Eliminate the class-action lawsuit
  • Make all healthcare claims federal claims, thus eliminating states’ laws
  • Allow insurance companies to pay claims via payments, not all at once

Soft targets of the bill, plaintiff attorneys – who fight for injured people – will have their fees arbitrarily limited.  Defense attorneys – who represent the corporations that caused harm – have no such limits placed on their pay.  The surgeon who hacked off the wrong leg, or the intern who mislabeled a chart and killed someone with a drug overdose, or the doctor who missed your cancer diagnosis?  Their “defense” attorneys can charge whatever they want.

Why H.R. 1215 is bad for injured people and their families
This Congressional bill aims to fix a “crisis” that even medical malpractice insurers say does not exist.  The Doctors Company, one of the country’s largest medical malpractice insurance providers, says, “Doctors are paying less for malpractice insurance than they did in 2001 – without any inflation adjustment. (And) the rate of claims has dropped by half since 2003.”

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, including years of studies, research, data collection and other hard evidence, this Congress continues to perpetuate the lie that limiting the civil justice system, in terms of which kinds of lawsuits you can bring and in how much money an injured person can collect, will do anything at all to save money when it comes to health care.

All so-called “tort reform” has ever done is hurt more people more often. The Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 essentially says that it doesn’t matter how severe, how catastrophic, your injuries are.  Your life is worth $250,000, end of story.  Is that what your life is worth?  How about your child’s life?  If it costs a plaintiff’s attorney $250,000 to put together a medical malpractice case (and it typically costs at least that much), and the highest possible payout is $250,000, do you think you will be able to find an attorney to represent you?

What is Your Life or Injury Worth?
If a surgeon accidentally nicks your wife’s artery and she dies during back surgery, is that worth only $250,000 for you and your family?

If a doctor fails to recommend an emergency C-section because the umbilical cord is wrapped around your unborn baby’s neck, and your child suffers permanent brain damage that requires lifetime nursing care running into the millions of dollars, is that worth just $250,000 to you?

If a doctor prescribes the wrong medication to your spouse and it kills him, is that worth just $250,000?

U.S. Senate Could Destroy Your Rights with H.R.1215

Whether you have ever needed a medical malpractice or a personal injury attorney or not, you would be wise to contact your U.S. Senators today and tell them to vote “No” on H.R. 1215.  The only ones who will benefit from this bill are the corporations that cause people harm.

Matthews & Associates, meanwhile, will continue to fight against this obscenity of a bill.  We have always fought for the individuals’ rights against the corporation that harmed them.  We are lawyers working for people.  We don’t work for corporations, ever.

To learn more about our services, contact us at any time. Call or email for a free legal consultation.

RELATED

Share

Ten Deaths Linked With Hernia Repair Physiomesh

At least ten deaths have been linked with hernia repair Physiomesh™, according to U.S. FDA reports.  Mesh News Desk worked with Device Events to bring these deaths to light.

Thousands of women with transvaginal mesh claims have known for years of the dangers of polypropylene (plastic) mesh implanted in the human body.  Now, as many of the women’s pelvic mesh cases are settling, several trial lawyers are taking on hernia mesh lawsuits.

One Million Hernia Repairs

More than a million hernia repairs are performed yearly.  Many recipients of the plastic mesh used for hernia repairs are now reporting the same problems that transvaginal mesh patients did.  Hernia mesh victims report chronic pain, infection, mesh shrinkage, mesh migration, organ perforation, and more.

Medical device injury lawyers are focusing primarily on coated hernia meshes.  They are preparing cases for future litigation, specifically Atrium C-Qur and Physiomesh™ made by Ethicon, a division of Johnson & Johnson (JNJ).  Ethicon voluntarily recalled Physiomesh™ from the market in May 2016.

The Urgent: Field Safety Notice, notes two unpublished studies found that Physiomnesh™ had higher failure rates for laparoscopic ventral hernia surgeries than other meshes used in a German and Danish Medical Registry.

The voluntary product recall states unpublished data found, “The recurrence/reoperation rates (respectively) after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using Ethicon Physiomesh™ Composite Mesh were higher than the average rates of comparative the comparator set of meshes among patients in these registries.”

Physiomesh Cleared by FDA, Not Approved

Some 300,000 patients have likely been implanted with Physiomesh™ since it was cleared by the FDA for sale via the 510 (k) process in 2010.   FDA Clearance does not mean FDA Approval, which is why the makers of these products can still be held accountable in the civil court system.

The Field Safety Notice notes nothing about hernia mesh deaths.

Device Events:  Ten Deaths Linked with Physiomesh™
‘Device Events’ is an investigative tool that uses proprietary algorithms designed by developer Madris Tomes, a former FDA investigator.   Ms. Tomes now investigates under-reported or mis-reported entries to the FDA complication databases, in order to identify patterns of injury or death.  In all, Ms. Tomes shared (with Mesh Medical Device News Desk) seven (7) injury and ten (10) death reports linked with Physiomesh™ hernia mesh.

Dirty Data skews True Picture
“While the FDA requires manufacturers and hospitals to report deaths due to devices, if there is any leeway or room for interpretation, often the reports come in as injuries or malfunctions. Tens of thousands of deaths have been extremely difficult to find due to this regulatory ambiguity and dirty data. This can be the critical data point needed for mesh and countless other medical device cases.” – Madris Tomes, Device Events

Further exploration of deaths and injury via additional search terms (such as manufacturer and a host of search terms used to unearth findings), are available via a subscription to Device Events.

Mesh Maker Must Report Adverse Events
Hospitals, medical device makers and importers are required to file adverse event reports with the FDA.  Lawyers, doctors, and patients may also file an adverse event report to the FDA. (See how here.)

An Adverse Event report means the device “may” have caused or contributed to death or serious injury, according to Isaac Chang, Ph.D, Director of the Division of Postmarket Surveillance with the FDA.

Certain malfunctions, such as a product failure, improper design, labeling and manufacturing problems, failure to meet performance specifications and use error must also be reported. Those incidents may have been a factor in a death or serious injury.

Sepsis and Infection
The ten deaths linked with Ethicon Physiomesh reported to the MAUDE database, almost always involved infection.

Sepsis is the most common word for a bacterial, fungal or viral infection of the bloodstream, according to Mayo Clinic here. Sepsis should be treated in the early stages before progressing to severe septic shock, which can be fatal, especially in an older person or one with a weakened immune system.

Sepsis’ origin can be the introduction of an invasive device or injury to the bowel, which then releases bacteria into the system.

Ten Deaths Linked With Hernia Repair Physiomesh
Organs can fail from severe sepsis, gangrene or tissue death.

Patient 8 died from sepsis after straps of the mesh were turned into the fascia violating the bowel.  Bowel violation, says a report on the patient.

Patient 14 is listed as an injury report, even though it later said the “patient had a generalized infection and died” after a Physiomesh™ implant and suffering two injuries to the small intestine.

In some cases, initial injury reports are not updated when the patient expires.

Mesh breakage of Physiomesh report to MAUDE
Patient 23 is an injury report with sepsis and the “mesh breaking up” and a “hole in the mesh” necrosis, and “resection of small bowel,” yet the reporter, JNJ, says the “mesh met the finished goods criteria.”  In other words, it did not test as defective.

Physiomesh™ problems have included a failure of the mesh to incorporate with the body, largely blamed on the laminated coating on the polypropylene (PP).

The Physiomesh™ is constructed of knitted filaments of extruded PP (plastic) with an additional dyed polydioxanone film marker, added for orientation purposes. The coatings were added to each side to avoid contact with tissue and organs and bowel. But with no PP exposed, the hernia mesh may not incorporate into the body, leaving it potentially floating and moving around in the patient.

Also, since less PP (plastic) was used to make Physiomesh™ “lightweight,” it is considered to be weaker than standard hernia mesh made of polypropylene.

The Physiomesh™ may tear apart as a result, according to trial attorneys pursuing these cases.

Natural Hernia Mesh Death?
Patient 20 was considered obese with chronic steroid use. Those are the factors contributing to his surgical site infection and wheezing, according to the entry.  The mesh separated and did not adhere to the intestinal loops.  Fasciitis and infection were observed.

A new mesh was implanted. The patient died four weeks after the Physiomesh™ was implanted. His death was attributed to bronchoaspiration and respiratory failure.
An autopsy was not ordered due to the “natural death.”

When Patient 24 presented with a 104.5 fever following his Physiomesh™ implant, as well as sepsis, he had the mesh removed. In 12 hours, the report says, “the patient got better.”

FDA Reports favor Mesh Maker
Two of the reports to the FDA seem tortured to avoid connecting the mesh to the patient’s death.

In the Patient 21 death report, which notes complications and sepsis after a mesh implant, the mesh maker reports there is “no reason to suspect the mesh malfunctioned and caused the patient death.”

Patient 16’s death, J&J reports, is “not related to mesh but to co-morbidity.” The patient had two surgeries, was bleeding from the trocar site and had necrosis of the colon.

Another death report, Patient 17, reports that he died six days post-op. The patient was enrolled in a study of patients with peritonitis to prevent incisional hernias. The patient suffered three small bowel resections during the procedure. The patient passed out in the hospital and hit his head. He died after 45 minutes of resuscitation.

Ethicon Response
Ethicon’s newer version of Physiomesh, Ethicon Physiomesh™ Open Flexible Composite Mesh Device, was approved via 510(k) October 23, 2014. It remains on the market and is not related to the withdrawal of Physiomesh.

Removing Physiomesh™ from the market does not qualify as an FDA recall, notes J&J.

A call from Mesh News Desk to J&J to respond to these reports went unanswered by deadline. Jane Akre of the Desk said that any additional comments will be added when and if they are received.

RELATED

Share

PPI Drugs Raise Risk of Death

A new study has found PPI drugs raise the risk of death. The study from the Washington University School of Medicine found a 50% increased risk of death from long-term use of Proton Pump Inhibitors. The study was published July 4, 2017.

The research was based on 350,000 mostly male military veterans who were prescribed PPIs or H2 blocker drugs to treat heartburn or protect the stomach. PPIs and H2 blockers both allegedly work by reducing stomach acid. The researchers found that those who took PPIs had a greater risk of death from any cause compared with those who took H2 blockers or nothing at all.

Proton Pump Inhibitor drugs are commonly used for heartburn symptoms. Popular PPI drugs include Prilosec, Prevacid, Protonix, Aciphex and Nexium. These drugs can cause acute kidney injury, chronic kidney disease, or kidney failure.

PPIs and Kidney Damage, Bone Fractures, Dementia
PPI drugs were, for a long time, considered safe. (As were Vioxx and dozens of other FDA-approved and subsequently-recalled drugs.) However, these so-called heartburn drugs are now linked to several serious health issues, including an increased risk of kidney damage, bone fractures, and dementia. This latest research was published in British Medical Journal (BMJ) Open.

PPI Drugs Raise Risk of Death
Senior author Ziyad Al-Aly, M.D. told ScienceDaily.com: “[N]o matter how we sliced and diced the data from this large set, we saw the same thing: There’s an increased risk of death among PPI users.”

Dangerous Legal Drugs & Failed Treatments
The Washington University findings provide the latest scientific research revealing the serious health risks of common prescription and OTC medications. Recent research has also shown that statin drugs harm more people than they help. Popular antidepressants (or SSRIs), wildly over-prescribed, come with a litany of so-called “side effects” that are at least as damaging as the maladies they are supposed to prevent. Chemotherapy, the only officially sanctioned treatment for cancer, fails 97% of the people who choose it. “Chemo” also spreads or causes new cancer, a well known fact which is somehow difficult to believe, given the barbaric procedure’s widespread acceptance.

Chemotherapy Kills Millions
PharmaDeathClock.com tracks pharmaceutical-induced deaths in the United States and around the world. The web site has reported that chemotherapy alone has killed more than 17 million people since January 1, 2000. Adverse drug reactions have killed more than 1.8 million people. SSRI (psycho) drugs alone have killed more than 700,000 people. These numbers should be a national scandal. Children in our country have been forcibly removed from their families by CPS and forced to take chemo when both the parents and the children have refused the failed treatment. See “The Truth About Cancer” for real life stories of the medical mafia at work in our country under the auspices of the U.S. Government.

RELATED

 

Share