J&J Talc Supplier agrees to Settle Lawsuits

(June 14, 2018)  A J&J talc supplier has agreed to pay at least $5 million to settle 22 ovarian cancer law suits, Reuters reported last week.  Imerys Talc America supplied Johnson & Johnson with talc for its Shower-to-Shower and Baby Powder products. Imery’s has agreed to the reported $5 million figure in order to settle a talcum powder lawsuit filed by 22 women.

The women all allege they developed ovarian cancer from regular, repeated use of J&J talc-based powders for feminine hygiene.  Their lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson is being heard now in Missouri’s 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis.  Bloomberg News reported that Imerys agreed to the settlement just before the trial began.  A company spokesperson confirmed the agreement.

No Fault for Imery’s
Imerys has not admitted fault for any of the plaintiffs’ injuries. The company continues to deny its talc was tainted with asbestos, as does Johnson & Johnson.  No exact settlement terms will be made public.

Talcum Powder Mesothelioma Verdicts
Johnson & Johnson and Imerys are named in more than 9,000 lawsuits which allege talc used to make Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower was tainted with asbestos. Lawsuit petitions all state that the talc caused regular users to develop ovarian cancer or mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson Talc Powder Mesothelioma Trials
A California jury ordered J&J and its talcum suppliers – including Imerys – to pay a woman $27.1 million for her claim that asbestos-tainted Baby Powder caused her mesothelioma. The jury also added $4 million in punitive damages. It found J&J acted with malice, oppression, or fraud.

In April 2018, a New Jersey’s jury in Middlesex County Superior Court awarded a man $117 million in compensatory and punitive damages. He had alleged his life-long Baby Powder use was the only possible explanation for his mesothelioma. The jury found J&J and Imery’s Talc 70% and 30% liable (respectively) for damages incurred by the plaintiff and his wife.

Johnson & Johnson prevailed in a California mesothelioma trial that concluded in November 2017, but it has lost other talcum-mesothelioma cancer lawsuits.

A third California case was declared a mistrial in May 2018, and a recent South Carolina talc-meso trial was also declared a mistrial after the jury deadlocked.

Talcum Powder Ovarian Cancer Verdicts
Plaintiffs have won four and lost two talc-cancer verdicts in Missouri’s 22nd Circuit Court.

•  February 2016: A jury ordered Johnson & Johnson and Imerys to pay $72 million* to the family  of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer.
•   May 2016: A jury ordered J&J to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman.
•   June 27, 2016: A jury ordered J&J to pay $70 million to California woman.
•   March 2017: A jury founds in favor of J&J against a Tennessee woman.
•   May 2017: J&J and Imerys were ordered to pay $110.5 million to a Virginia woman.**

*The $72 million verdict was later dismissed after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of California. The high court held that a plaintiff must file suit where defendants are headquartered or else in the state where the plaintiff was injured.

**J&J challenged the $110 million verdict, but it was upheld. The trial court ruled jurisdiction was appropriate because J&J had used a Missouri-based company to label, package and distribute.

J&J Talc Supplier agrees to Settle Lawsuits

Johnson & Johnson is appealing the other four Missouri verdicts.  There has also been a concerted PR campaign from industry quarters to attack the Missouri court as unfairly favorable to plaintiffs.

Related

Share

J&J Talc Trial for 22 Women

( June 8, 2018)Talcum Powder Lawsuit  A J&J talc trial for 22 women began last week in St. Louis.  Six of the women plaintiffs have died of ovarian cancer.  The 16 still alive also have ovarian cancer, which they said they got as a result of their daily use of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder products – either J&J’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower. Their lawsuit charges that  J&J willfully ignored evidence that the powder was tainted with deadly asbestos.

The 22 women hail from all across the nation.  The court anticipates hearing from each of them or from a surviving family member over the course of the trial.

Related:  J&J Talc Powder Cancer Lawsuit

Johnson & Johnson representatives and company lawyers say the talc in Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower is a cosmetic grade that was, and is, free of asbestos.  J&J says many  scientific and governmental organizations that have investigated any talc-cancer link have not been persuaded.

But the women’s attorney, Mark Lanier, argued in opening statement that J&J worked furiously to keep the talc-asbestos evidence hidden from the public.

The Houston attorney told the jury of an Italian mine that supplied J&J’s talc for baby powder.  The Italians warned J&J that they had asbestos in their talc mines.  He said, “[T]he company sends two of their big dogs over to Italy to get in front of that company and say, ‘Please stop this English translation from going out until we can work on it and take out the asbestos section.’”

Rigged Talc Asbestos Tests?
Mr. Lanier told the jury he expected J&J’s defense attorney to show them “document after document” in his own opening in an attempt to prove the company performed hundreds of tests to rule out any possible asbestos in J&J talc products.

“They rigged the tests,” shrugged Mr. Lanier.  “They rigged the tests.”

Mr. Lanier called J&J’s baby powder the company’s “sacred cow.” He said talc mines are “marbled” with asbestos like streaks.  He said testing should be done on “concentrate” asbestos, like orange juice.  He said asbestos doesn’t reveal itself via “onion properties” like smell, visibility, sneezing or eye-watering.

The defense attorney did not fall short of performing as Lanier had anticipated for the jury. “Millions of women who’ve used baby powder have not gotten cancer,” he said.  “And most who have ovarian cancer did not use baby powder.”

“We believe and have always believed that there isn’t [asbestos in J&J talc],” said the defense lawyer.  “Independent laboratories said there’s no asbestos. Universities and research centers said there’s no asbestos. Government agencies, no asbestos. Johnson & Johnson’s testing, no asbestos. The talc suppliers’ certificates, no asbestos.”

He said at least one of the plaintiffs had brought her own bottle of baby powder to a deposition, and when asked to read the back of the bottle, read, “Pure cornstarch”– not talc.

He further alleged that every one of the 22 women had a family history of cancer.

“Asbestos is everywhere,” the defense attorney told the jury.  “[T]heir experts will say to you that everybody, you, me, everyone has asbestos in their tissue because of what is in the atmosphere. I don’t think there’ll be any dispute about that.”

Witnesses expected in this trial include materials scientist Bill Longo and mineralogist Dr. Alice Blount for plaintiffs.  Matthew Sanchez of R.J. Lee Group and gynecological oncologists Cheryl Saenz and Warner Huh are expected to testify for J&J.

The trial for the 22 women is expected to last a couple of weeks.  It comes on the heels of several previous talc-cancer trials over Johnson& Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower. It has been a mixed bag of results so far, as plaintiffs have won some and J&J has prevailed in some.  In addition, some large verdicts for women have been overturned on appeal.

Related

*

Share

Monsanto hid Roundup Cancer Link, says dying Plaintiff

(May 23, 2018)  Monsanto hid a Roundup cancer link, says dying plaintiff DeWayne Johnson, 46. Mr. Johnson has terminal cancer which he says was caused by Monsanto’s Roundup. A former groundskeeper, Mr. Johnson will become the first person to face the chemical giant in a U.S. court over an alleged Roundup-cancer link. Mr. Johnson’s case against Monsanto will open in San Francisco County Superior Court beginning June 18, 2018.

Groundskeeper used Roundup for years
A father of three, Mr. Johnson was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma at the age of 42. His lawsuit states that he had worked for a California school district, “where his responsibilities included direct application of Roundup and RangerPro, another Monsanto glyphosate product, to school properties.”

Monsanto hid risks, polluted science – attorney
Mr. Johnson’s s attorney told The Guardian: “Monsanto does not want the truth about Roundup and cancer to become public. (We) look forward to exposing how Monsanto hid the risk of cancer and polluted the science.”

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lyphoma Lawsuit

Monsanto hid Roundup Cancer Link, says dying Plaintiff

Monsanto tried to keep experts hired by Mr. Johnson from testifying. Monsanto also tried to keep his legal team from using certain research. Some of Monsanto’s efforts to quash evidence were granted, according to the order signed by San Francisco Superior Court judge Curtin Karnow last week. The judge did, however, rule that Mr. Johnson’s lawyers could use various peer-reviewed studies and some expert evidence for the trial.

Some of the judge’s judgments may have been influenced by a California appeals court which last week turned back a Monsanto challenge to keep the state of California from including glyphosate – the main active ingredient Monsanto declares in Roundup – on its list of probable carcinogens. Following the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) designation of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen, the state followed its legal mandate and added glyphosate to its own list of probable carcinogens. Monsanto attempted to have the state stopped from listing glyphosate as a carcinogen, but failed in the California courts.

Thus far, however, US and EU watchdogs have not banned glyphosate and Roundup from widespread agricultural use.  Glyphosate use has, however, been banned or restricted in large parts of Europe because of its alleged links to many health problems, ranging from birth defects and kidney failure to coeliac disease, colitis and autism.

France, the Netherlands and Sweden have all said they would not support an assessment by the European food safety authority (Efsa) that glyphosate is harmless.

Monsanto denies all
Monsanto says Mr. Johnson’s cancer was not caused by exposure to Monsanto products. Monsanto has rejected all allegations and scientific findings regarding the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.  Monsanto has effectively kept government regulators looking at glyphosate when it is never used alone, and Roundup has been shown to be many times more toxic than glypohoste alone.

Roundup Lawsuits
Approximately 4,000 plaintiffs have filed Roundup lawsuits similar to Mr. Johnson’s, claiming that they or their relatives were given cancer – usually non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma – from exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup.

Related

Share

Court rejects Monsanto Challenge to Cancer Warning

(May 18, 2018) Unless you’ve been living in a cave for three years, you already know Monsanto’s glyphosate was declared a probable carcinogen (in March 2015) by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).  That declaration threatened – and threatens – billions of dollars in Monsanto profits. Glyphosate is the main active ingredient listed in Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling poison. Roundup is the cornerstone of Monsanto’s worldwide efforts to control agriculture.  All agriculture.  It’s a high-stakes game.  If farmers and homeowners were to learn that Roundup can kill them just as it kills weeds and pollinator bees, they might stop using it altogether.  Many more people might learn about Monsanto’s links to cancer now.  A court just rejected Monsanto’s challenge to a cancer warning over glyphosate.

Related:  Snopes Lies for Monsanto

After the 2015 IARC cancer ruling on glyphosate, the state of California followed its own laws and listed glyphosate on its list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Monsanto promptly sued the state to de-list glyphosate. California countersued for the right to enforce its own laws.  A California district judge heard both sides’ arguments, then ruled yesterday.  It was an important victory for citizen’s rights in the face of millions in corporate dollars and an army of Monsanto attorneys who tried to exonerate the poison king from Missouri.

Court rejects Monsanto Challenge to Cancer Warning
Fortunately, California’s Fifth District Court of Appeals in Fresno rejected Monsanto’s argument that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.  That meant California can exercise its right to list glyphosate as a carcinogen and prevent it from being discharged into public waterways.

Roundup Kills

Roundup kills; that’s what it does.  It kills things.  It kills people, too.  It kills them with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other types of leukemia.  Many, many people have been hoodwinked for a long, long time over Roundup, for more than 20 years. Millions of gallons of Roundup poison have now been dumped on farmland all over the world. Millions of gallons of Roundup have run into the world’s waterways. So much Roundup has polluted the world that glyphosate is now found in most rainwater, as well as in most human beings and in most food tested. It has even been found in organic foods, in organic wine, though thankfully not in as great a volume as in GMO foods like corn and soy which are sprayed directly with the poison.

Thanks to Monsanto, the U.S. Congress, the EPA, and the US FDA, Roundup is now nearly as ubiquitous as oxygen. But that doesn’t mean we all have to continue to put up with it, or to  acquiesce in our own slow poisoning. (Called “softkill” in military parlance.) We don’t need to acquiesce to the destruction of mother earth and all of its gifts: pollinator bees, birds, plants, people.

Mainstream Media and Monsanto Advertising

A google search of “Monsanto Roundup cancer” will first turn up a litany of screeds aimed at attacking and discrediting the IARC. Corpocracy-addled publications like Reuters and Forbes, and several of Monsanto’s own responses are the first thing you will find.  On the web, newsfakers like Snopes.com blatantly lie for Monsanto.  They all claim the IARC “edited out” evidence showing glyphosate was safe.  What IARC did was not edit out; it chose not to include those studies presented by Monsanto or its research minions, who all found that glyphosate was safe (of course).   Most searches of “Roundup cancer” will be dominated on page one by screeds meant to discredit the IARC, and all of them mis-state, as does Monsanto, the agency’s methods for determining that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

Why is the mainstream media so solidly behind Monsanto, providing a unified front?  The answer is too easy.  Monsanto spends millions of dollars advertising Roundup, and it gets what it pays for.  Monsanto gets favorable coverage, as MSM falls into lockstep with Monsanto’s own messaging. Nearly every mainstream outlet mirrors Monsanto’s own mean-spirited, fact-challenged rebuttals to the IARC’s declaration that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

The attacks on IARC all say the same thing, that the agency ignored evidence which exonerated glyphosate and Monsanto. What all those IARC attack pieces fail to say is that the IARC looked only at INDEPENDENT research evidence of gyphosate’s carcinogenicity. It did not include research paid for by Monsanto or performed by Monsanto employees or the company’s “scientific” minions. Virtually all of the attack pieces – and they dominate every ‘Roundup cancer’ or ‘Monsanto Roundup cancer’ search page – fail to mention that Monsanto’s own research with obviously vested interest was not included. The evidence IARC “overlooked” was not overlooked. It was rejected by the agency as not credible, given its sources and obvious conflict of interest.

California Contradictions
California is a state full of contradictions. In a Draconian horror show three years ago, the state killed informed consent for vaccinations, for all intents forcing vaccinations on kids if they wanted to attend California public schools. That meant, and means, that state officials can inject California schoolchildren with virtually any vaccinations the state, and money-toting lobbyists from Merck Pharmaceuticals and other multi-national drug companies, think the students “need,” regardless of their wishes or the wishes of their parents. That is an awful slippery slope, when the state removes parental rights. Forcing vaccinations and removing informed consent is nothing less than communistic. Removing informed consent is what they do in China, not in America.

But at least in these dark days where corporations are spending more and more money – ala Citizens United and other government-sanctioned takeovers – to take away more and more of our individual rights, it is nice to see that sometimes a judge stands up for the rights of the individual not to be poisoned by corporate chemicals and the endless corporate lust for unfettered profits.

Of course this fight is far from over, though environmental activists have been quick to applaud the Fresno ruling.  A lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco, Rebecca Riley, called it “a win for science and democracy.”

Ms. Riley added, “The ruling clearly backs the voters’ choice to rely on expert scientific bodies to add dangerous chemicals to its list.”

Monsanto Appeal Likely, of course
Upholding states’ rights is always a cause for celebration in these dark days of complete corporate takeover of the commons and our politicians, but Monsanto will likely take this case to the next level. It will probably ask the Supreme Court for another review. Monsanto at this juncture has little choice but to continue the big lie that Roundup is safe. It has too much invested not too, and too much liability if the world is allowed to discover the truth.

One can only fully expect Monsanto to continue to manipulate glyphosate “science” with its well-funded “scientists.” All of them help keep regulators like the Monsanto-compromised EPA and FDA focused on glyphosate alone. This ongoing subterfuge is an unfolding tragedy for the world, because Roundup has been found to be 125x more toxic than glyphosate alone, 125x more toxic than regulators claim.

For all this talk about glyphosate, it is Roundup at which EPA and other regulators need to be looking, not the red herring of glyphosate.

Related

Share

India Fights Monsanto Patent Scam

(May 14, 2018)  India is fighting a Monsanto patent scam that gave Monsanto a near monopoly on India’s cotton industry.  India has finally taken a stand to deny seed patents that India now says Monsanto never had a right to own in the first place.  Last month, India rejected patents for Monsanto’s genetically modified cotton seeds Bollgard and Bollgard II.

Monsanto uses its patents in India, the US, and other countries to dictate what seed distributors can sell.  Monsanto controls agriculture by designating which genetically modified seeds farmers can use.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

India’s Delhi High Court ruled last month that Monsanto’s Indian licensee, Nuziveedu Seeds, will no longer be bound by Monsanto’s patents.  The ruling means Nuziveedu Seeds can now sell seeds freely to farmers without being forced to distribute what Monsanto’s army of lawyers say they can sell.

Monsanto’s steady takeover of India’s cotton industry had made things increasingly difficult for Indian farmers.  Like any agriculture monopoly anywhere, Monsanto’s near monopoly of the country’s cotton industry has driven prices sky high and made farmers’ lives miserable. Thousands have committed suicide.

From Monsanto Suicide seeds:  “The region in India with the highest level of farmers suicides is the Vidharbha region in Maharashtra — 4000 suicides per year, 10 per day. This is also the region with the highest acreage of Monsanto’s GMO Bt cotton. Monsanto’s GM seeds create a suicide economy by transforming seed from a renewable resource to a non-renewable input which must be bought every year at high prices.”

Monsanto loses Patent it never had
A Nuziveedu Seeds lawyer – Diva Kapur – said Monsanto no longer has a patent on the seeds and “they have never had it.”  India’s Patents Act of 1970 states that plant varieties cannot be patented, no matter what has been done to the genetics of the seed.

Mr. Kapur said that Monsanto has “tried to hoodwink the seed companies and farmers for years claiming they have a patent and making huge amounts of money from that.”  “Tried” seems to be the wrong word, as the Monsanto scam to hoodwink India has worked for 20 years.

New Freedom for Farmers
Moving out from under the jackboots of Monsanto’s patent scam will help seed distributors and farmers more readily adapt to their own situation and climate, says EcoWatch.  It will help them make better decisions over what is best to grow in their region.  They will no longer be forced into the vicious cycle of buying Monsanto’s latest seed technology through strict patent enforcement.  The de-patenting could also free India from more of Monsanto’s infamous genetic experimentation.  Monsanto’s death grip on Indian agriculture has caused a growing crisis of increasing pest resistance.

India Fights Monsanto Patent Scam

The Delhi High Court ruling means the Nuziveedu seed company is no longer required to pay Monsanto exorbitant royalties.  Hallelujah to India farmers!

The ruling could also end a Monsanto joint venture with Mahyco Seeds Ltd., which could dismantle a seed license empire that controls nearly fifty domestic companies in India.

As Monsanto’s big profits dry up from the de-patenting, organic farmers and others who eschew poisonous chemical farming hope and pray Monsanto will leave India altogether.

EcoWatch.com

EcoWatch notes: “If Monsanto was all for ‘feeding the world’ then they would stay in India and help the farmers find out what works best for their climate and community needs.  Since Monsanto only gets involved in agriculture to control it, they will likely depart India as their patent control and perpetual profit dissipates. They may even be as arrogant as to fight the ruling, to regain control over India’s farmers.”

Since it is impossible to overestimate the arrogance, greed, and vindictiveness of Monsanto, we are sadly betting on Monsanto’s fighting India’s beaten-down farmers in India’s Supreme Court. If Monsanto can use its deep pockets to control the US court system and the US Congress – which it does with nauseating ease – what’s to stop it from manipulating the Indian courts?

Monsanto brings the pain to India Farming
When Monsanto first enticed India into trying its GM technology in 1995, many farmers quickly reaped higher yields of specific crops, most notably Monsanto’s genetically modified cotton. EcoWatch says the GM cotton seeds were successful at first, due to a pest-resistant trait called Bt – Bacillus thuringiensis.

But then the usual pests began to resist the genetically altered traits of Monsanto’s allegedly “superior” technology.  Cotton yields fell, but farmers were still forced to pay Monsanto royalties and eat the high cost of failed GM seeds.  Thousands of farmers were forced into a vicious cycle of debt and dependence.  Yields dropped to record lows. Debt suffocated their livelihood. Many farmers committed suicide.

The Monsanto-induced havoc forced the Indian government to regulate prices in 2006, and finally impose strict price controls on cotton seeds in 2016. (If India had done nothing, how many farmers did the country have left to sacrifice to Monsanto’s voracious appetite for unregulated profits?)

And now Monsanto is negotiating a merger with Bayer, a war criminal of a company that made Zyklon B gas used in WWII concentration camps, among other killer chemicals. That jibes with Monsanto’s own wretched history of helping produce Agent Orange, a toxic foliant that kills green plants and the people who depend on them to eat. Generations of Vietnamese children have suffered birth defects as a result.  These companies are birds of a feather.  They make things that kill, for astonishing profits, in the guise of helping humanity.

Some things never change, but we can change them, if we try. If we don’t, they may well change us, or kill us, like Indian farmers.  There is a most definitely an agenda, and most of us are at the wrong end of it. Or we’re like the suicided Indian farmers, being sold a bill of goods promoted as helpful, when in reality it is anything but.

Related

Share

Healthcare Fraud Heart of America’s Dysfunctional Healthcare

Many people believe you get what you pay for, but nothing has ever been less true when you consider American healthcare. Over-prescribed medical devices – like heart stents, IVC filters, hernia mesh – are just one of many ways Americans are enticed into paying for things they don’t need. Or that they “need” like they need a hole in the head. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, in fact, often pay for medical treatments – which include medical devices like IVC filters – that can hurt more than help them. Extensive research has proven that many doctor-treated Americans are left worse off than they would have been had they chosen not to visit a doctor at all.

The Danger Within Us: Untested, Unregulated Medical Devices

In a widely acclaimed new book – The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive it – author Jeanne Lenzer accounts in painful detail how medical device and drug approval in our country is controlled by medical device and drug makers, not by our own FDA regulators.  The sad result creates a lot of unwitting victims.

US #43 in Mortality, #1 in Waste
Ms. Lenzer explains that the U.S. ranks a woeful #43 in life expectancy – below Costa Rica and Cuba, just ahead of Lebanon.  One huge problem, she says, is “squandering our resources on ill-advised treatments.”

Here’s one bombshell from the book: “The US spends trillions of dollars on healthcare each year, and 20-30 percent of that care is considered unnecessary.”  We may be #43 in mortality, but we’re an undisputed #1 in wasting money on ill-advised “healthcare.”

225,000 – 444,000 Americans Killed by “Healthcare” every year!
Beyond wasting resources, many treatments wreak severe, even mortal harms.  Unnecessary medical interventions, which include medical device implants, are now the third leading cause of death in our country.  Unnecessary medical treatments in the US kill an estimated 225,000 to 440,000 Americans each year. (You can’t make this stuff up!)  Ms. Lenzer points out that’s “more deaths than from diabetes, murder, car accidents, and AIDS combined.”

Medical Treatment Deaths Dwarf Gun Violence Deaths, but MSM Mum
So where’s the outrage? Every time the media trumpets another mysterious mass shooting or potential false flag, the public is stirred by agents provocateur on all the mainstream media outlets, while medical doctors, manipulated by Big Pharma and medical device makers into over-prescribing dangerous drugs and dubious medical devices, are killing hundreds of thousands more than guns or state-sponsored terrorists are.  HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE.

So where is the sense of perspective?  Where is the sense of proportion? Where is any sense of rational thinking? Why don’t we hear about this deadly issue in our major media? Why is CBS not interested? Where is CNN when you need real news?  Why doesn’t Fox run a show on this problem KILLING HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of AMERICANS?

Look no further than all those drug commercials on your TV screen. Drug makers, which often make medical devices as well, account for the lion’s share of advertising money for television stations. Will they bite the hand that feeds them? Only by turning off the television “news” and doing your own research on the web can you find any truth, if you can navigate through the web’s seemingly endless sea of disinformation, which is also mostly paid for by Big Pharma and its many corporate partners and subsidiaries.

Healthcare Fraud Heart of America’s Dysfunctional Healthcare

“Healthcare” – and because the state of ours is so woeful it seems only honest to put that word in quotation marks – has become the single biggest sector of the US economy. US “healthcare” is an industry, period.  It exists to make money.  If it existed to care for people, we would not be 43rd in mortality.  If it existed to care for people, our “healthcare” system would not kill 225,000 to 444,000 people yearly.  The proof IS in the pudding.  US “healthcare” dwarfs even the military-industrial complex spending that President Eisenhower warned us about.  The military-murder industry eats a paltry $1.3 trillion yearly, while “healthcare” expenditures in 2015 topped $3.2 trillion, gobbling up nearly one of every five dollars spent in the country.

And just like there’s an enormous lot of waste in military spending, the difference is that healthcare spending waste is more easily quantified.  Just look at the numbers.  While dozens of countries’ citizens live longer and healthier lives than Americans do (recall that we are #43 in mortality), the US is easily #1 in the world in healthcare spending, “far surpassing all other countries,” writes Jeanne Lenzer.

Murder by Injection
For a fuller account of how your “healthcare” system became so broken, read Murder by Injection, by Eustace Mullins, published in 1988.  Mr. Mullins details just how Rockefeller Medicine took over what in the US had been a broad range of alternative choices for one’s actual healthcare. John D. Rockefeller, a Rothschild agent, created the Flexner Report, which demonized any medical practitioner not accredited by a university which followed the Rockefeller dictates for “healthcare.”

The idea was to make patent medicines the only ones approved for use in the US and in Europe, and to make criminals of anyone not practicing Rockefeller-style medicine.  The term “quack” was often used by Rockefeller agents cornering the healthcare market. The plan to monopolize our healthcare system took giant lucrative steps with the invention of chemotherapy, which then and now causes much more cancer than it cures, eventually killing most of the people who submit to it.

The Profits of Cancer – the War on Cancer Hoax

Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent in the so-called “War on Cancer,” which has been an unmitigated flop.  But the big cancer  “war” has made many oncologists and doctors wealthy, if not any healthier than the people they help kill with chemo.  The so-called War on Cancer has also greatly enriched the coffers of the American Cancer Society, which has never cured anything save for cash-flow problems among its executive officers.

And just as the profits of cancer never stop flowing for the American Cancer Society and other medical concerns engaged in the very lucrative cancer-for-profit industries, the profits of the medical device makers and pharmaceutical drug pushers never stop growing, despite their often dubious results.

Related

Share

Hog Farm neighbors win $50 million Jury Award

(April 27, 2018)  A North Carolina jury awarded $50 million to neighbors of a huge Chinese-owned hog farm in Eastern North Carolina yesterday.  The jury deliberated less than two days.  The case was the first in a series of federal lawsuits filed against Murphy-Brown, a subsidiary of the Chinese global food giant Smithfield Foods.  The world’s largest pork producer was sued over its 15,000-hog farm in Carolina.

In a federal courtroom in Raleigh, the hog farm neighbors’  lawyers focused on the continued use of “anaerobic lagoons” behind the livestock pens. Hog waste was stored there, liquefied, then sprayed onto nearby fields.

Ten neighbors alleged that industrial-sized hog operations have known for decades that the open-air sewage pits on their properties were the source of noxious, sickening, overwhelming odors.  Neighbors said the stench was so thick it was impossible to remove it from their clothes.  They say odors and mist from the spray drift onto their property; that the hogs attract swarms of flies, buzzards, and gnats; that boxes filled with rotting dead hogs produce an especially pungent odor; that the rotting smells has limited their ability to go outside.

The plaintiffs argued that the Chinese company’s waste-management practices are the problem that creates a public nuisance. Smithfield Foods has not changed its method of disposal since the 1980s and ’90s.

U.S. Pork Costs lower than China’s
The neighbors’ attorneys argued that waste treatment methods have evolved but Smithfield Foods has not.  The neighbors’ attorneys said pork production operations in Eastern North Carolina have not changed their methods because it keeps operational costs lower than in China.

Michelle Nowlin, the supervising attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Duke Law and the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, said by email that the verdict “(is) a significant victory for the community members who live next to these factory feedlots. They have suffered indescribable insults, not just from the immediate impacts of the feedlots themselves, but also from decades of government failure to come to their aid. Litigation was their last chance for justice, and this verdict and award will help them move forward.

“This verdict proves, once and for all, that ‘cheap meat’ is a myth. Someone pays the price of production, and for far too long, that burden has been on the rural communities that are home to North Carolina’s factory farms. This verdict forces the industry to internalize and reckon with those costs. I’m hopeful this decisive victory will be a game-changer in North Carolina and force the industry to modernize its waste-treatment, to the benefit of rural communities, the environment, and the farmers themselves.”

Smithfield calls Lawsuit an Attack on Farmers

Keira Lombardo, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Smithfield Foods, painted the verdict as an attack on industry and contract farms. She said in a statement, “We are extremely disappointed by the verdict. (These) lawsuits are an outrageous attack on animal agriculture, rural North Carolina and thousands of independent family farmers who own and operate contract farms. These farmers are apparently not safe from attack even if they fully comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations.”

Hog Farm neighbors win $50 million Jury Award

The $50.75 million verdict would be equally divided among the ten plaintiffs. The verdict orders  each plaintiff to receive $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, but that amount seems likely to be drastically reduced by North Carolina tort reform law, written by corporations in tandem with state government representatives.  A Smithfield attorney has already noted that North Carolina law restricts punitive damages to no more than $250,000.

Animal Rights Matter
In a related matter, maybe this verdict and future trials will also begin to shed more light on the horrendous conditions in which pigs and other animals are “raised” and tortured for slaughter on factory farms.  The hogs have their internecine revenge through the morbid obesity, heart disease, and cancer that eating them indiscriminately visits on most of us, but there’s also a moral element of torturing and killing sentient beings that should concern all Christian folks.

Raising your own hogs on a small farm which has ample room for them and then killing them in a humane fashion is one thing.  Cramming them all into filthy, tiny enclosures, separating piglets from their mothers at birth, treating them all as if they have no feelings or animal intelligence, is not the path to heaven from this earth.  People would do well to find out where their food is coming from, how it is raised and slaughtered, before indiscriminately eating whatever meat is thrown them on a plate.

The Superstructure of Brutality
It’s not enough to be a part of the superstructure of brutality and just plead ignorance, and make yourself fatter until you die of a heart attack, stroke or diabetes from indiscriminate eating of factory-farmed and tortured animals.  God is watching us, always, and watching over the animals, too.  Our having dominion over the animals, as the Bible teaches, does not mean that we are free to mistreat them however we please.

Free Legal Consultation

Our law firm is investigating environmental pollution cases such as this one concerning a factory farm.  If you have been sickened, nauseated, or otherwise personally polluted by a factory farm near you, contact us today for a free legal consultation regarding a potential environmental lawsuit against the company that owns the factory farm.

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

$37M Asbestos Talc Verdict against J&J

(April 5, 2018) A New Jersey jury today hit Johnson & Johnson and its talc supplier with a $37 million   judgment over claims from a man who said he developed mesothelioma after using J&J’s asbestos-containing talcum powder over several decades.

In a trial that lasted more than two months, jurors sided with plaintiff Stephen Lanzo, III and his wife. The jury found that J&J’s products, including its baby powder, contained asbestos. Further, it found that Mr. Lanzo’s exposure to asbestos since the 1970s played a substantial role in his contracting mesothelioma, a deadly disease.

The jury awarded compensatory damages of $30 million to Mr. Lanzo, $7 million to his wife, Kendra.  They held Johnson & Johnson 70 percent responsible for the damages, its talc supplier –  Imerys Talc America Inc. – 30 percent responsible.

Superior Court Judge Ana C. Viscomi asked the jury to return on Tuesday, April 10, for a punitive damages phase in the case.

$37M Asbestos Talc Verdict against J&J

In closing arguments, attorneys for Mr. Lanzo and his wife, Kendra, and defense lawyers for Johnson & Johnson and Imerys, strongly disagreed over the nature of tests performed by J&J.

A J&J attorney had claimed that the testing Johnson & Johnson and others did on J&J talc never turned up asbestos in either J&J’s talc mines or in its products on store shelves.  He said the plaintiffs may have presented studies showing certain minerals in J&J’s talc, but they didn’t have evidence that those minerals were asbestos.  He told the jury as much in his closing argument Monday.

In stark contrast, Mr. Lanzo’s attorney countered on Tuesday in his closing argument that the company’s talcum powder contained asbestos for years.  He claimed J&J hid that fact from consumers and regulators by using tests that it knew would fail to detect the toxic mineral.

“They came up with the method that was never going to find the asbestos that was there,” he told jurors, “so they could certify that they looked and never found it.”

The jury apparently believed the plaintiff’s version of J&J’s testing.

J&J won one similar lawsuit against the company last year, but it faces many more in which plaintiffs claim they’ve suffered mesothelioma from long exposure to J&J talcum powder products.

Related

Share

Just For Men Lawsuits

“Just for Men” hair and facial dye products may cause severe chemical burns and allergic reactions.  Affected men have reported swelling, scarring, and facial disfigurement.  Just For Men lawsuits may be filed for these problems.

Our product liability lawyers are reviewing “Just For Men” lawsuits for men throughout the United States and Puerto Rico.  If you have suffered injury after using “Just For Men” products, contact us for a free legal consultation.

What is “Just For Men”?

“Just For Men” hair coloring was originally released in 1987 by Combe, Inc.  The product is advertised as a hair, beard, and mustache dye for covering up gray hair. There are many products in the Just For Men line to darken gray hair, from beard and mustache coloring kits to hair and side burns.  Some are even designed to add accents of gray to hair.

In recent years, growing numbers of men have reported severe chemical burns and other allergic reactions after using “Just For Men.”

Just For Men problems / side effects:

•  Allergic reactions

•  Skin burns

•  Skin swelling

• Severe itching

•  Blisters and weeping sores

•  Trouble breathing due to throat swelling

Just For Men Allergic Reactions

Hundreds of men have reported adverse reactions.  Many have reported using Just For Men for years without incident, but then they suddenly suffered severe chemical burns and facial swelling. Many of the “Just For Men” problems emerged long after the men used the product.

While some have speculated that the company changed the formulation of Just For Men, Combe officials have publicly denied changing their popular formula.  If Combe is to be believed, sudden allergic reactions among men could possibly be linked to changes in a person’s body chemistry.

What is p-phenylenediamine?

“Just For Men” hair dyes contain p-Phenylenediamine, an organic compound considered to be one of the world’s most prevalent allergens.  People are exposed to p-phenylenediamine (PPD) primarily through permanent hair dyes which rely on chemical reactions (oxidaton) to fix the color.  PPD reacts with hydrogen peroxide to permanently bind the color to the hair.  PPD is part of a class of chemicals called aromatic amines, which are found in the plastic and chemical industries as byproducts of manufacturing.  PPD is also used in the manufacture of rubber and certain polymers such as Kevlar.  It also acts as a developing agent in photography.

PPD was declared Allergen of the Year by the American Contact Dermatitis Society in 2006.  It has also been suspected of causing cancer.

PPD and Cancer

Aromatic amines in hair dyes such as PPD have long been suspected of being carcinogenic.  They are linked to increased incidence of bladder cancers, though studies examining cancer risk of PPD have found conflicting results.  the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) states that it is unable to classify the carcinogenicity of p-phenylenediamine.

Hair Dye Allergies on the Rise – NIH

The National Institutes of Health noted in 2007 that allergic reactions to hair dye were on the rise, apparently because more and more people were dying their hair.   Allergic reactions became such a serious problem in the 20th century that PPD was banned from hair dyes in Germany, France, and Sweden.  In the U.S., where corporations are more likely to call the shots on chemicals, it’s buyer (and user) beware!

Related

Allergy to Hair Dye – NIH

•  Just For Men Lawsuits

•  www.SafeCosmetics.org

Share