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:

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.



$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.



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!


Allergy to Hair Dye – NIH

•  Just For Men Lawsuits



Driverless Uber Kills Pedestrian

(March 22, 2018) A driverless uber car killed a pedestrian in Arizona on March 18. It was the first reported pedestrian death linked to a driverless uber car. The incident caused Uber Technologies Inc. to temporarily pull its self-driving cars off the roads. Uber has been testing driverless cars in the U.S. and Canada.

The uber vehicle struck a woman Sunday night as she was pushing her bicycle on a street. Tempe, Arizona police said the Uber vehicle was in autonomous mode with a human safety operator at the wheel when it hit 49-year-old Elaine Herzberg as she walked her bicycle.

The police said Ms. Herzberg later died of her injuries, after she was hit by the Uber Volvo as it was traveling around 40 mph. They said the car didn’t show any signs of slowing, and the Uber “driver” in the car was not impaired.

An Uber spokeswoman said Uber is investigating the incident and cooperating with authorities. So far, the only thing clear about the accident is that it confirmed the worst fears of critics who have sounded the alarm for years that driver-less cars would eventually kill somebody.

The Wall Street Journal, always ready to help promote any technology if it might make some corporation richer, reported that auto makers and technology companies have “braced for this inevitability but contend that the technology will ultimately save thousands of lives by eliminating human error.” (If it doesn’t eliminate thousands of humans first – people like Elaine Herzberg walking their bikes, say, or people jaywalking in stop and go traffic, expecting that some human being will have a heart and not run them down, because they know that the most dangerous place to cross some city streets is in a marked crosswalk.)

The biggest auto makers, like Toyota and GM, along with tech giants like Uber and Alphabet, Inc., are spending billions of dollars on driverless car technology. They hope to replace human drivers and turn the car travel world upside down.  Some technology company with the “right” design might be able to replace Toyota or GM as the transportation king of the world.

Uber calls its self-driving plans “existential” (whatever the hell that means in this context).  It just settled a costly lawsuit with rival Alphabet’s self-driving unit, Waymo, over what the latter alleged were stolen trade secrets.

WSJ reported that Uber has logged more than three million test miles in self driving cars. Waymo has conducted more than five million.

All those test miles did nothing for Elaine Herzberg, who only wanted to walk her bike on the side of the road, in the bike lane, and not get murdered.  But that was asking too much where profits are concerned.  (At least a human driver could have shed a tear and said he was sorry.)

Waymo, meanwhile, plans to begin commercial robot taxi services in Phoenix this year, as federal and state regulators are allowing Uber, Waymo and others to test their unproven technology on public roads.  More than 50 companies are licensed in California alone, with the caveat that they also have human operators in the car.

The National Transportation Safety Board and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said they were sending people to Tempe to investigate the death of Ms. Herzberg.  NHTSA said it was in touch with Uber, state and local authorities, and Volvo, the car maker Uber uses for self-driving vehicles.

Tesla Death in 2016
Tesla Inc. was the first to kill a human being in a self-driving car.  One of Tesla’s Model S electrics on “Autopilot” killed a man in a May 2016 collision on a Florida highway.  NHTSA said Tesla’s technology was not defective, while NTSB said Tesla shared blame by failing to include enough safeguards. Tesla, of course, defended itself. It said Autopilot makes its cars safer. Safer than what? One might ask.

Those cheerleading for driverless technology point to government figures that 94% of crashes involve human error.  U.S. road accidents killed 37,461 people in 2016.

Those pushing driverless technology trumpet the safety benefits, even though there are plenty of other factors to consider, including the autonomy of secular human beings. You probably won’t hear a lot about that as internet, television, and newspaper media will help promote this technology with few questions about its long-term costs and consequences to actual human beings, but it’s something to keep in mind, say, as you are walking your bike on the side of the road, or ordering your next Uber ride.  For whatever reasons you prefer, would you not like to be able to choose an actual person as opposed to a robot on wheels?

Hey Uber, Have a Heart. Give us an option.
Hey, Uber, how about an option as you move forward with your robot cars?  For those of us who value American jobs and people and maybe don’t mind paying a little extra for a human being rather than for a robot, you would be wise to give us the option of ordering either an actual human driver or a robot-driven car.  If you don’t give us the option, we’ll use Lift, or perhaps a local taxi service that doesn’t use robots.  You aren’t the only game in town, and we don’t appreciate your taking away American jobs to drive up your own profits. Thousands of human Uber drivers now count on us human riders for a living, and we are glad to help give them one.  Are we not?




Judge calls Expert Testimony Against Roundup “Shaky”

A California judge has indicated that lawsuits against Monsanto’s Roundup in his court may be difficult to pursue.  The federal judge dealt a potential death blow to a lawsuit claiming Roundup causes cancer when he concluded last week that the plaintiff’s experts’ testimony against Roundup is “shaky.”  The case, as well as hundreds of others filed in the federal MDL, now stands in danger of not getting to trial.

First Judge to Opine on Roundup Toxicity

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is the first judge to opine on the toxicity of Roundup, the world’s most popular poison. Roundup has been the center of controversy for more than 30 years, since the U.S. EPA bent its own rules and regulations to allow it on the market. The judge has indicated he may cut several or all of the plaintiff’s key witnesses, which could make the case impossible to pursue in his court. Such a move could also profoundly impact the outcome of more than 300 Monsanto lawsuits in his court. That’s the number of cases in federal courts trying to hold Monsanto liable for failing to warn about Roundup’s cancer risks.

Chhabria heard from about a dozen witnesses including toxicologists, statisticians and an oncologist. He took special interest in two epidemiologists who study how humans contract disease.

Chhabria said on March 14 that he has a “difficult time understanding how an epidemiologist in the face of all the evidence that we saw and heard last week can conclude that glyphosate is in fact causing non-Hodgkin lymphoma in human beings.” The judge called the evidence that glyphosate is currently causing NHL in human beings “pretty sparse.”  The judge was apparently impressed by all the Monsanto-sponsored studies the chemical giant had trotted out earlier to exonerate glyphosate.

The judge also seemed to have fallen for Monsanto’s ploy, which it has gotten away with for decades, through the EPA and other regulatory bodies, to test only glyphosate, instead of the entire concoction of Roundup, which experts estimate to be 1,000 more toxic than glyphosate alone.  Nobody uses glyphosate alone, but Monsanto has been able to make that substance the key to the whole poison puzzle.

Reuters reported that it remains to be seen which witnesses the judge will allow to testify at trial on behalf of more than 700 farmers, landscapers and gardeners. All claim that exposure to glyphosate – through skin contact or inhalation — caused their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Judge Chhabria appeared to give some credit to Beate Ritz, a public health professor at the University of California at Los Angeles, for having conducted independent analysis.  Still, he called Ms. Ritz’ conclusion that glyphosate causes NHL in humans “dubious.”  He indicated she might be the only witness he allows to testify for the plaintiffs, but even she is at risk of elimination.

Why Not Let a Jury Decide?

Monsanto isn’t completely off the hook, based on what Chhabria said last week.  At this stage he is acting as a corporate gatekeeper to exclude evidence not backed by what he calls scientific rigor, or to at least give the appearance that he is doing so. (Politics frequently prevails in federal court; there’s no way around that fact.)  His position allows him to decide which witnesses are qualified as “experts” who can present their conclusions to a jury. Chhabria said his role is to decide whether the testimony is “in the range of reasonableness,” not whether glyphosate causes cancer.  If you think “reasonableness” is an awfully broad, subjective term, you are exactly right, in your own subjective way.  Why not let a jury decide?

Chhabria also termed the epidemiology for Roundup causing cancer as “loosey-goosey” and called it a “highly subjective field.” (Isn’t that what trials are for?)  But Chhabria may not be able to ride roughshod over all the plaintiffs’ cases.  Some constraints for eliminating witnesses may leave the plaintiffs’ room for Ritz to testify, he conceded.  Maybe Ritz “is operating within the mainstream of the field,” he said.  “Maybe that means it’s up for the jury to decide if they buy her presentation.”

Chhabria’s use of the word “buy” clearly shows his bias against the plaintiff’s case(s).

The judge noted that Ritz was the only plaintiff’s expert not to rely on a 2015 determination that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization.  He said that wasn’t enough to argue exposure to glyphosate is more likely than not the cause of the plaintiffs’ cancer.  (A fair legal assessment)

A lawyer for the group suing Monsanto, said “the weight of the epidemiology, toxicology and mechanistic science strongly supports” the conclusion that Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma.  “Our experts used valid methodologies to arrive at their conclusions,” he said in a  statement emailed to Reuters.  “Ultimately, we think courts will agree.”

Judge calls Expert Testimony Against Roundup “Shaky”

Judge Chhabria apparently already does not agree, so good luck to plaintiffs in these cases. Our prayers go out to them, and to the truth of Roundup toxicity, that the facts  may all come clear in this litigation.  Let the truth come out!

The case is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, MDL 2741, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California (San Francisco).



Roundup causes Cancer, Experts tell Judge

(March 6 2018) A parade of experts testified to a judge in California this week that Monsanto’s Roundup causes cancer.  The testimony came as part of the first trial in the country against Monsanto over its popular weedkiller Roundup.  U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria heard evidence from several plaintiffs’ experts who said Roundup causes cancer, and then he heard testimony from several Monsanto experts who claimed Roundup is perfectly safe and no evidence suggests otherwise. What conclusion could anyone draw but that “Science” takes on a whole new meaning where Roundup is concerned.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit

Before jury selection gets underway in this first scheduled trial, Monsanto seeks to stop the Roundup litigation in its tracks by having the judge dismiss the case on the grounds that no science links Roundup with cancer.  If Judge Chhabria were to rule that no credible evidence shows Roundup causes cancer, or that plaintiffs don’t have the right “experts” to prove up the cases, Monsanto could escape prosecution in some 350 cases in California, and, potentially, in all 3,500 cases filed against the company for Roundup cancer cases nationwide.

The arguments from both sides came in a six-hour hearing before Judge Chhabria, presiding over the federal multidistrict litigation, and California Superior Court Judge Iona Petrou, handling similar claims in state court.  The experts testified that there was statistically significant evidence showing prolonged exposure to glyphosate – Roundup’s primary active ingredient – raises one’s chances of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

A hematopathologist employed at City of Hope National Medical Center testified that several epidemiological studies he examined showed glyphosate could double one’s chance of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Dennis Weisenburger said that between those studies and several animal studies explained two possible ways glyphosate causes cancer. He said he was convinced of a correlation between glyphosate and the disease.

Glyphosate Genotoxic in Living Cells
Mr. Weisenburger said he synthesized all the information and weighed it as a whole.  He said, “There’s good data to conclude exposure to glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  (There’s) a body of evidence that’s pretty compelling that glyphosate and its formulations are genotoxic in living cells.”

Monsanto has tried to have the case thrown out on a technicality concerning “expert” testimony. Law360 reported that Monsanto’s motion for summary judgment argues that the Roundup cases should be thrown out because “testimony proposed by six plaintiffs’ experts failed to meet the admissibility requirements for scientific evidence as set by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Daubert standard.”  Monsanto argued that the plaintiffs’ experts used “results-driven methods” to show evidence that links Roundup’s glyphosate with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Testimony: Glyphosate Doubles Cancer Risk

Dr. Beate Ritz testified at length. An occupational and environmental epidemiologist, she reviewed the validity of studies based on sample size, statistical significance and research biases.  She lauded a famous Swedish study which found glyphosate doubles the risk of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and also a Canadian study which found similar results for farmers exposed to Roundup more than two times per year.

A Monsanto attorney on cross examination pointed out that most of the studies Dr. Ritz referred to did not consider other possible pesticide exposures.

Judge Chhabria said, “This continues to be an issue for me.  I still don’t understand how or why it would be a bad idea to adjust for other pesticide exposure.”

AHS Study Deeply Flawed
Dr. Ritz also attacked the Agricultural Health Study, a National Institute of Health analysis begun in 1993 which found no correlation between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in North Carolina and Iowa farmers.  Dr. Ritz acknowledged some merits of the study, but said its glyphosate results were deeply flawed.  She said the AHS first surveyed the farmers in the 1990s, but when NIH returned for an update years later, a third of the original farmers failed to follow up.  She also said that glyphosate use was rare at the beginning of the study, but heavy by the follow-up date.

“The use of glyphosate changed mid-baseline,” she testified.  “I have to downgrade the importance of the AHS study that otherwise, I really love.  I just can’t take it seriously.  All the other effects are drowned out in the noise of exposure misclassification.”

Roundup causes Cancer, Experts tell Judge

The AHS study was obviously on both sides’ minds as potentially pivotal in these cases. Monsanto’s VP of Global Strategy lauded it, telling Law360 after the testimony that AHS was “the largest epidemiological study of glyophosate ever.”

We haven’t heard the last word from the AHS study, or from Monsanto, or plaintiffs who believe their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was caused by Roundup exposure.

Stay tuned. . .



First Roundup Trial begins this week

(March 6, 2017)  The first Roundup trial begins this week in California in the multi district litigation court set up to handle all the federal claims against Monsanto’s flagship product. Overall, Monsanto faces thousands of cancer lawsuits in the U.S. which claim the company’s Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Monsanto, meanwhile, has publicly proclaimed that Roundup is safe, while working privately to influence (or manipulate) chemical regulatory bodies and government agencies here and abroad. The lone objective scientist allowed to testify last year about the cancer hazards of Roundup before the U.S. House of Representatives’ House Science Committee– to “balance” a contingent of three Monsanto-connected mouthpieces – has that story pinned up and bleeding from every angle.  To understand how your government works (or doesn’t), please read Jennifer Sass’ remarkable expose: Monsanto Mouthpieces House Science Committee

Related: Monsanto Campaign to Attack Seralini Study Revealed

Monsanto Lawsuits
More than 365 lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto Co. in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, at the site of the first trial. Plaintiffs in those suits all allege that exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Their petitions also claim Monsanto covered up the risks of Roundup exposure. The cases have been combined into a multidistrict litigation court under Judge Vince Chhabria. The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC. Thousands of other people have filed similar claims against Monsanto in state courts. Plaintiffs’ attorneys estimate the total number of plaintiffs nationwide at 3,500.

First Roundup Trial – June 18, 2018
The first Roundup trial is set for June 18, 2018 in Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

On March 13th, 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled, over Monsanto’s objections, that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed. Some of those documents include internal emails between Monsanto and the U.S. EPA which strongly hint at unseemly collusion between the agency and the chemical giant it’s supposed to be regulating. They also show Monsanto working behind the scenes to discredit the IARC, which ruled in 2015 that glyphoste, the main ingredient in Roundup, is probably carcinogenic to humans.

First Roundup Trial begins this week
Live testimony from witnesses is set to begin the week of March 5, 2018. Argument from counsel is scheduled for the week of March 12 or the week of March 19. Claims Construction Hearing is set for 3/5/2018 through 3/9/2018 09:00 a.m. A Motion Hearing for Summary Judgment and Daubert Motion on General Causation begins 3/5/2018 in Courtroom 8, 19th Floor, San Francisco.

The schedule before California before Judge Vince Chhabria: Monday, March 5, 2018 – 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Tuesday, March 6, 2018 – 12:30 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Wednesday, March 7, 2018 – 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Thursday, March 8, 2018 – 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.; Friday, March 9, 2018 – 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

The Monsanto Papers
Roundup has been a controversial product since it was first unleashed on U.S. lands and people in the mid 1980s. The U.S. EPA initially listed glyphosate – Roundup’s only listed active ingredient – as probably carcinogenic to human beings (in 1985), and then inexplicably shifted course in 1991,  green-lighting it for massive spraying.  A revolving door between U.S. FDA or EPA employment and Monsanto employment – for people like Michael Taylor and others – seemed to help Monsanto secure glyphosate approval.  The upcoming Roundup trials are likely to unveil some of those past connections, along with the cozy relationships between Monsanto and the EPA made clear by Monsanto emails with EPA officials like Jess Rowland.

Time will tell if the available science is strong enough to back the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and whether or not Monsanto’s secret moves to destroy its detractors and its manipulative and/or monetary relationships with U.S. regulators and researchers will be enough to sway jurors.



Judge rules Calif. Can’t Warn of Roundup Cancer Dangers

(Feb. 28, 2017) A California judge nominated by George Bush I – who infamously visited Monsanto in 1987 and later worked with the chemical giant to foist Roundup on the public* – has ruled California can’t warn its citizens of Roundup’s cancer dangers. U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb claimed in his ruling Monday that there is not enough proof of glyphosate causes cancer to merit the addition of a cancer warning on Roundup’s label.

*Monsanto’s political ties are formidable: Hillary Clinton is known as the Queen of Monsanto

Judge Shubb failed to mention or examine the fact that Roundup is decidedly more toxic than glyphosate alone. He failed to note that Monsanto continues to get away with having Monsanto-compromised agencies like the EPA examine only glyphosate, when every scientist knows glyphosate is never applied alone. Any scientist not beholden to Monsanto could take 20 minutes to examine the evidence and clearly see the toxicity of Roundup is much greater than glyphosate alone – 1,000x more toxic, by some estimates. Any argument about glyphosate is a red herring; the real issue is the toxicity of Roundup.

The judge chose to rule exactly as Monsanto wished. He barred the state from requiring Monsanto to warn that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen. The judge said such a warning (on Roundup) would lead consumers to wrongly conclude that the chemical (glyphosate) definitely causes cancer.

Monsanto sues California
Monsanto and some corporate farm associations sued California state officials after the state added glyphosate to its list of substances “known to the state of California to cause cancer.”  The judge pointed to the U.S. EPA and other agencies which have ruled that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer. He ignored or was never shown recent evidence which strongly suggests the EPA has colluded with Monsanto to delay or stifle further Roundup safety testing.  At least one EPA scientist, Jess Rowland, emailed back and forth with Monsanto executives detailing her efforts inside the EPA to stifle Roundup safety review.

The judge further ignored the quality of the studies and the vested interests of the sponsors of the studies which have allegedly proven glyphosate is not a probable carcinogen. Virtually all of the studies which have found glyphosate is not carcinogenic were sponsored by Monsanto, or they were studies not published in peer-reviewed publications, or they were small-sample studies not statistically significant.

Shubb wrote:
“The required warning for glyphosate does not appear to be factually accurate and uncontroversial because it conveys the message that glyphosate’s carcinogenicity is an undisputed fact, when almost all other regulators have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that glyphosate causes cancer.”

In November 2017, Monsanto and some corporate-run farm associations had specifically sued Lauren Zeise, director of the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, and Xavier Becerra, California’s attorney general. Monsanto and the others sought to stop California from including glyphosate on a list of chemicals “known to the state of California to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity.” Inclusion in the state’s Proposition 65 list requires businesses that sell glyphosate-containing products to include warning labels. Monsanto et al. argued that the warning requirement and list inclusion would violate the First Amendment by causing them to make “false, misleading, and highly controversial statements.”

Law 360 reported that the court said on Feb. 26 that “inclusion of glyphosate on the California list could be classified as government speech and therefore would not be regulated by the First Amendment. The warning label, however, would require commercial speech, since consumers would read it. Inclusion on the list would therefore need to be based on “purely factual and uncontroversial information,” as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court.”

The court said that even if the warning that California “knows” the ingredient causes cancer is accurate, it nonetheless would mislead a reasonable consumer because multiple agencies have determined otherwise.

The court said a “reasonable consumer would not understand that a substance is ‘known to cause cancer’ where only one health organization had found that the substance in question causes cancer and virtually all other government agencies and health organizations that have reviewed studies on the chemical had found there was no evidence that it caused cancer.”

The IARC, which found glyphosate a probable human carciniogen, did not look at industry-sponsored studies, nor unpublished ones.  Each of the other organizations looked only at glyphosate, and even then only through the lens of Monsanto-connected groups which had performed the research which exonerates glyphosate.  They gave equal weight to industry-sponsored studies and independent studies.

None of those agencies looked at Roundup.

Do we live in a sane world?



Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Linked in Several Studies

Roundup lawsuits naming Monsanto as the defendant are being filed across the country because Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma have been linked in several studies. Farmers, farm workers, landscape professionals, and even homeowners who tend their own lawns have all filed lawsuits alleging Roundup exposure caused them to develop non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL), or B-Cell Lymphoma.

Monsanto Lawsuits
The Monsanto lawsuits state that the same enzyme found in plants which is targeted by Roundup, also kills friendly flora and fauna in the human gut, sickening people as well, and in some cases killing them. At least two class actions lawsuits have also been filed against Monsanto for false advertising. Monsanto claims on Roundup’s label that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants, but not in pets or people. The Monsanto false advertising lawsuits state that such a claim is demonstrably false, that the same enzyme found in plants also lives in the human gut, and that enzyme is vital to human health. Roundup attacks plant cells on an enzymatic level, just as it attacks human cells. This attack at the enzymatic cellular level is what triggers sickness and death in both plants and people.

Glyphosate a Probable Carcinogen
Monsanto lawsuits over Roundup were spurred on by a 2015 finding by the International Agency on Cancer Research (IARC) that glyphosate was probably carcinogenic to humans. That finding has been disputed by Monsanto, but lawsuits filed over Roundup have focused less on glyphosate than on the toxic totality of the whole Roundup concoction. According to the plaintiffs, Roundup, not glyphosate, is the smoking gun which is indefensible in these cases.

Roundup under the Radar?
Plaintiffs suing Monsanto over Roundup charge that the popular herbicide has escaped careful scrutiny over the years by scientific sleight of hand. Most safety studies of Roundup have focused solely on its single named active ingredient, glyphosate. The glaring problem, say the plaintiffs, is that glyphosate does not exist in a vacuum; and it is never applied alone. Glyphosate is just one of many adjuvants, or additives, included in Roundup, making it a far more toxic cocktail than glyphosate alone.

Scientific Sleight of Hand
This scientific sleight of hand is highly troublesome.  It helps explain why Roundup was able to fly under the radar for so long. Would we apply the same approach to anything else in the practical world? Would we study only gun powder, say, in trying to determine the end result of firing a particular weapon at a live target? Would we study the entire weapon to see how it effectively kills, or would we study only the powder and determine that since the powder, the only “active” ingredient, can’t kill a target by itself, the gun cannot kill, either? This sort of “science” is only ludicrous if you think about it. Anything mixed with something else creates a different reaction than anything alone. The whole effect of anything is changed by the interactions of chemicals with one another.  Drinking alcohol alone has one effect. If we drink with others and then mix copious amounts of cocaine and add several people, whom we may or may not know, we achieve quite another effect.  In addition, many of Roundup’s ingredients are hidden under the auspices of proprietary privilege, so we’re not allowed to know exactly what toxins are poisoning our land and food.

Studies which have focused on the entire Roundup cocktail of toxic ingredients, the parts which Monsanto has revealed – additives and all – have usually found very different results than studies focused only on glyphosate.

Roundup’s Mechanism of Action
Glyphosate (N-phosoponemethyl)glycine), the active component named in Roundup is a broad-spectrum systemic herbicide. Roundup is used to kill weeds, especially annual broadleaf weeds. Glyphosate is not a member of the phenoxy chemical family because it lacks a phenyl group and because glyphosate causes cell death directly, rather than death through rapid grown acceleration.

Co-Formulants Key to Roundup
Glyphosate is not applied alone but with “declared active ingredients” (dAIs). Other substances (co-formulants) are added to the final product, in order to modify the physico-chemical properties or to improve penetration into the plants or stability of the dAIs in the final product of the dAIs.

It is well known that glyphosate G-based herbicides (GBHs) are not applied as pure G as sold and in agricultural use. Other substances are added to the final product, in order to modify the physico-chemical properties or to improve penetration into the plants or stability of the dAIs in the final product of the dAIs. This results in a mis-consideration of GBH toxicities in the scientific literature, because different biological effects of formulations due to different co-formulants are possible.

Roundup, Lymphoma Linked in Several Studies
NHL is a cancer that grows in white blood cells called lymphocytes, which help prevent infections and are part of the body’s immune system.  Three major studies published since 2001 have linked Roundup to non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Other studies published since the 1970s have found convincing evidence that Roundup causes cancer in rodents and has genotoxic effects in humans.

1. A 2001 study published by McDuffie et al. found higher exposures to Roundup were associated with higher rates of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. They conducted a Canadian multicenter population-based incident, case (n = 517 people with NHL)-control (n = 1506) study among men in a diversity of occupations using an initial postal questionnaire followed by a telephone interview for those reporting pesticide exposure of 10 h/year or more, and a 15% random sample of the remainder.

McDuffie concluded that NHL was associated with specific pesticides after adjustment for other independent predictors. Glyphosate was not significant for exposure (due to low use reporting) but demonstrated a dose-response relationship to NHL.

2. A study published by DeRoos in 2003 used pooled data from three case-control studies of NHL conducted by the National Cancer Institute in the midwestern U.S. The pooled data were used to examine pesticide exposures in farming as risk factors for NHL in men. A large sample size (3,417) allowed analysis of 47 different pesticides simultaneously, with appropriate controls to differentiate pesticides. Glyphosate exposure showed a statistically significant link to NHL in the study.

3. Eriksson et al 2008 reported a population based case-control study of exposure to pesticides as risk factor for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Men and women aged 18-74 living in Sweden from Dec. 1999 to April 2002 were included. In total, 910 cases of NHL and 1016 controls participated. Eriksson concluded there was an association between exposure to phenoxyacetic acids and NHL and the association with glyphosate was considerably strengthened. Unspecified NHL was significantly associated with glyphosate.

4. Shinasi et al 2014 looked at exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients. They found in some studies an association between pesticides and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma NHL subtypes. Large B-cell lymphoma was positively associated with phenoxy herbicides and the organophosphorus herbicide glyphosate.

Why EFSA and IARC Differ in Glyphosate Assessment
Breaking with the IARC’s pronouncement that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2015) concluded that the active ingredient in Roundup (glyophosate) was “unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans.” The discrepancy may be explained by the fact that the EFSA report included only studies looking at glyphosate alone. A 2016 article published by 94 environmental health experts added that IARC considered only independent studies, while EFSA included data from unpublished industry-submitted studies, which were cited with redacted footnotes.

EPA Balks at Glyphosate Review
The U.S. EPA concluded in a 2015 report (that followed the IARC’s damning pronouncement) that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans, but the agency then removed that report and 13 related documents from its web site just a few days later, saying the publication had been in error. Evidence since has shown the EPA to have possibly colluded with with Monsanto to stifle glyphosate review by another government agency.

EPA Mistake further Highlights Monsanto Slant
In response to queries, an EPA spokesperson claimed that “the safety of all inert ingredients are considered” during the pesticide registration process, though an 87-page “Cancer Assessment Document,” which was among the documents accidentally released, contains no references to research conducted on the co-formulants.



Smart Meters Inflate Utility Bills

(Feb. 19, 2018) Those unconcerned with health hazards reported by thousands of folks secretly “smart-metered” may want to pay attention to the un-american Agenda 21 for another reason. So-called ‘Smart Meters” are now being proven to hit people where they feel it most – in the pocket book. We can now begin to see how these meters inflate utility bills.  Given that many of us have now been smart metered for nearly a decade, a fair accounting could probably find the extra take for utility companies to be in the billions of dollars.

Smart Meters not so Smart
It turns out that we are finally getting real evidence for something many have suspected for a long time now: Smart meters are not smart at all, unless, perhaps, you own a utility company and enjoy inflating your customers’ bills.

Electrical Engineer Testifies to Smart Meter Theft
An electrical engineer from Michigan has just given us all a look behind the arcane smart meter curtain. And just as in the Wizard of Oz, that one look begins to give the whole game away.  On Feb. 13, 2018, electrical engineer Bill Bathgate testified before the Michigan house of representatives.  The man did not call smart meters a scam, but he nevertheless explained just how the smart meter scam works.

Smart Meter Scam
Mr. Bathgate explained to Michigan house reps that he used his own professional equipment to calibrate just how smart meters work to inflate utility bills. The smart meter scam works by charging home and business owners for “harmonics” or “transient energy” which the meters read but which consumers cannot, and do not, use. The meters read the line noise or transient energy as part of actual usage, despite the fact that that energy is not being used.  Testing finds transient noise to be in the 60 hertz range, which is measured and noted by smart meters, but it is simply background noise from dirty electricity, appliances, dimmer switches, fluorescent bulbs, and other devices which are not being directly used.  In his presentation, Mr. Bathgate charts the regular, actual-use readings on a graph showing 120-volt usage, along with the transient energy “usage” which the smart meter also bills us for.

Smart Meters’ Transient/Harmonic Distortions vs. Analog Meters’ Actual Usage
Many things can cause harmonic distortions, “transients,” or extra line noise, including the meters communicating with other meters, or simply detecting dirty electricity from Lord knows where.  Transients are largely by-products of modern energy-efficient electronics and appliances – from computers, refrigerators, and plasma TVs to compact fluorescent light bulbs, and dimmer switches. The old analog meters, by contrast, read only the actual electrical energy that was consumed by the residence or business wired to the meter.

No Transparency in Utility Billing
Mr. Bathgate explains that for $2 per meter, the utility companies could have installed an EMC filter on each of the smart meters. But likely because they were not required to do so, they chose not to. Cell phone chargers and other chargers we use daily all have an EMC filter, so why don’t utility companies include one? Utility companies work virtually without oversight. The Michigan engineer explained that there is absolutely no transparency between our actual energy use and the use for which we are charged. Your power company could send you a bill for $1,000 tomorrow and demand payment. If you refused to pay, the company could simply shut off your power.

Knew or Should Have Known
Utility companies knew or should have known that consumers were being ripped off by the defective meters.  They could easily have installed the cheap EMP filters but chose not to do so.  They knew or should have known that failing to install EMP filters would unfairly inflate their customers’ utility bills.  It is not enough for them to now plead ignorance, when many tests have shown the so-called smart meters charge 10-15% more for electricity than that which is actually used.

ANSI Regulations
The American National Standards Institute oversees smart meter “regulations,” such as they are. The problem is that there’s nothing American about the ANSI. It’s not a government organization. At all. It is a multi-national industry-controlled group.  Where is the oversight?  There is none. Millions of dollars in utility company lobbying has virtually destroyed any meaningful government oversight of utility companies.

Smart Meters Inflate Utility Bills
Recent testing of seven different smart meters in Michigan showed that five overcharged significantly against actual energy usage, while two slightly undercharged. The largest discrepancy was a meter which charged 592% more than the actual power usage.

Free Legal Consultation
Matthews & Associates is investigating smart meter problems for possible litigation. Contact us for a free legal consultation regarding a potential smart meter lawsuit.