Congress May Destroy Your Rights with H.R. 1215

(June 28, 2017)  The U.S. Congress may destroy your rights with H.R. 1215. Duplicitously named “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017,” this bill does everything BUT protect people. Please call your U.S. Representative this minute. Tell that person to vote NO on this unconstitutional bill. The House is discussing this bill right now and will vote on it tomorrow. Find your rep by clicking this link.

Tort Reform Ruse

Tort reform pushed by the U.S. Congress has always been a ruse. Even a publication as pro-corporation as Forbes has admitted as much. Tort reform has done nothing to lower medical malpractice insurance or the cost of healthcare, and nothing to make healthcare better or safer. The real game has always been to attack lawyers with Ad Populum fallacies in order to disguise the real target: the citizen and the citizen’s inalienable rights. H.R. 1215 is the same animal dressed up as a bill to “protect” a person’s access to healthcare.

Related: Fallacies of MedMal Tort Reform

Duplicity on Parade:  “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017”

What the so-called “Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017″ does primarily is prevent peoples’ access to the courtroom.  It also severely limits payments for their injuries, even those caused by corporate negligence or outright criminality. It also virtually wipes out class action lawsuits – whether for credit card fraud committed by a major bank, rank discrimination, negligence or even outright corporate criminality.  It also makes it all but financially impossible for a plaintiff’s law firm to pursue pharmaceutical drug or medical device cases for their injured or dead clients. All of this is done under the guise of saving money, but this bill doesn’t do that, either. Limiting a victim’s ability to collect fair and just compensation not only makes survival more difficult for that person, it also undermines any real accountability of the negligent party.

H.R. 1215 Violates the Constitution
The Seventh Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees your right to a civil trial by jury. Despite all its phony language about “protecting” people, H.R. 1215 is in direct violation of your Constitutional rights.

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

Medical Errors 3rd Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in this country. So how are your rights being “protected” if Congress limits your compensation?  Is your child’s life worth just $250,000?  According to Paul Ryan and other sponsors of this bill, that’s all any life is worth. This bill will not only not “protect” you and your family. It will also destroy any incentive that the medical industry has to actually fix real problems.

Tort Reform Texas Style for the Entire Country

What has happened in Texas with its Draconian “tort reform” will open the door to it happening all over the country. H.R. 1215 will preempt your state’s laws that would formerly protect you from the kinds of things that have happened to Texas patients. Texas’ king-sized ‘tort reform has helped encourage the state’s growing population of criminal doctors like Dr. Christopher Duntsch (known locally as Dr. Death); sexual molester Dr. Donald Okechukwu Ozumbages; drug addict Dr. Peter Crandall; bank robber Dr. John Christian Gunn, so incompetent and surly with patients that only the great “tort reform” state of Texas would have him as a doctor;  fraud and thief Dr. Tariq Mahmood; home healthcare fraud Dr. Noble U. Ezukanma; child porn pediatrician specialist Dr. Dennis Patrick Meehan Hughes; or Texas’ own pedophile Dr. Charles Fischer.

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

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

“The jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting for any other reduction in damages required by law.”
“In any health care lawsuit, each party shall be liable for that party’s several share of any damages only and not for the share of any other person. Each party shall be liable only for the amount of damages allocated to such party in direct proportion to such party’s percentage of responsibility.”

More Problems with H.R. 1215

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

  • Eliminate the class-action lawsuit
  • Eliminate state laws by making all healthcare claims federal
  • Let insurance companies slow-pay claims, not pay all at once

Soft Targets of H.R. 1215

For soft targets, plaintiff attorneys – those who fight for victims – will have their fees limited, but defense attorneys – those who represent the negligent parties who caused harm – have no such limitations placed on their salaries. In other words, the surgeon who hacked off the wrong leg, or the intern who mislabeled a chart and killed somebody with a drug overdose, or the doctor who missed your cancer diagnosis – their attorneys can charge whatever they want.

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

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

Congress May Destroy Your Rights with H.R. 1215

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

What is Your Life or Injury Worth?
Is your life is worth just $250,000?  If a surgeon accidentally nicks your wife’s artery during back surgery and kills her, is that worth only $250,000 for you and your surviving children?

If a doctor fails to recommend an emergency C-section because the umbilical cord is wrapped around your unborn baby’s neck, causing permanent brain damage that requires lifetime nursing care, is that worth just $250,000?

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

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

Contact your Congressional Rep by clicking this link:

House Government Representatives

Lawyers Working for People

Matthews & Associates will continue to fight against this obscenity of a bill. We have always fought for the rights of individuals to seek redress against the corporation(s) that harmed them. Our law firm’s lawyers work for people, not corporations.

To learn more about our services, contact us any time. Phone us at 888-520-5202 or email us for a free legal consultation.

RELATED

Share

Five Things All Railroad Workers Should Know

FELA has grown and changed over the years, but one thing has not changed. FELA still provides strong support for injured railroad workers who know their rights and how to protect them. Here are five things all railroad workers should know to protect their rights in the event of an injury:

1. FELA differs from Workers’ Compensation

The Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) helps ensure railroad workers’ rights. The U.S. Congress passed FELA in 1908 for railroad workers and their families. FELA is designed to help protect every type of railroad worker, whether an engineer, brakeman, switch man, dispatcher, or any other railroad employee. FELA law differs from state workers’ compensation laws and state-based negligence laws. One must show negligence to win a case under FELA. Workers’ compensation cases, by contrast, are no-fault.

2. The Railroad is not on the worker’s side

Railroads will aggressively defend themselves against any injury claim. Railroad companies typically employ several hardball tactics to quickly minimize an injured worker’s claim. Company representatives and insurance adjusters often begin preparing their defense against any potential injury claim while an injured worker is still in the emergency room. That is why it’s crucial to understand one’s rights as a railroad employee after a railroad-related injury.

3. A railroad worker is not required to hire a union-designated lawyer.

Anyone injured while working for a railroad has likely heard of “union-designated” lawyers. An injured railroad worker may think it mandatory to hire a union lawyer for legal representation, but this is not the case. There is no “requirement” that an injured railroad worker must hire a union lawyer.

“Union-designated” means only that the lawyer or law firm was selected by the representatives of the union to represent members in cases involving railroads. “Union designated” does not certify a lawyer’s competence, reputation, or success record. It says only that the lawyer has succeeded in getting connected to those who run the union.

Related: Learn how our Railroad Attorneys can help. Give us a call at 888-520-5202. Click here for a free legal consultation.

4. An injured worker can choose a personal doctor

A man (or woman) has the right to choose his own doctor for treatment of railroad injuries, even though one may still have to see a doctor chosen by the railroad. However, one needs to be very careful visiting a railroad’s chosen doctor. Though that railroad doctor may have experience with railroad injury claims, that person may not have the injured worker’s best interests at heart.

Beware the Doctor Who Works for the Railroad

That doctor works for the railroad, not for you. It may be the doctor’s sole job to evaluate employees who have been hurt while working for the railroad. Railroad doctors may not even have a practice outside of company medical exams. They are generally chosen for the job because the railroad trusts them to document findings favorable for the railroad.
The purpose of the exam by the railroad’s doctor is to find evidence that could destroy a worker’s injury claim. The one or two company exams an injured worker may be required to attend are the railroad company’s only chance to build medical evidence against the worker’s claim. It is typical to find that results of the railroad doctor’s exam twist the truth to make it appear that the worker exaggerates personal injuries.

Any railroad worker who must visit a company doctor would be wise to speak with an attorney about how to prepare for an exam to protect his personal rights. Though one should always be honest about any injuries, it is easy to make a tiny mistake or fall into a trap which could make it easier for the railroad to avoid responsibility.

5. Protecting Medical Records is Crucial following a railroad injury

One may not think much about medical privacy when seeing a family doctor for a checkup, but it becomes a major concern if one has been injured at work. In a railroad injury case, it’s important for two reasons:

* The company may try to defend itself against accusations that it was responsible for what happened and for how the worker was injured.
* The insurance company may try to minimize its liability for a personal injury on the job.

Five Things All Railroad Workers Should Know

The railroad and insurance companies’ ability to defend themselves against a railroad worker’s claim often turns on how much information they have on the injured worker’s personal and medical history. A person can control others’ access to personal medical records with a medical release-of-information form. One is wise to limit access to this information as much as possible.

RELATED

Share

Is Monsanto Killing Oceans, Too?

Not satisfied with simply poisoning Mother Earth and its inhabitants with cancer-causing glyphosate, Monsanto may also be killing off ocean life. Monsanto’s Roundup (glyphosate) appears to be implicated in some very recent research into mass ocean die-off. Monsanto now appears to be killing off ocean life as efficiently as it kills off plant life. It sounds crazy, but this is happening right under our noses as the company continually moves to monopolize seeds and control all food life as we know it. If you think this is hyperbole, you don’t know Monsanto and you haven’t seen the latest scientific research.

Scientists who have studied the undersea horrors unleashed by Monsanto’s poisoning of the worlds’ oceans have determined that Roundup runoff into the oceans is killing them.

Related: Monsanto isn’t Feeding the World. It’s Killing our Children

Roundup Pollution Kills Great Barrier Reef
Dr. Kathi Forti has seen firsthand how Roundup pollution is killing Australia’s Great Barrier Reef. While snorkeling off Port Douglas in 2013, she found few coral areas that weren’t completely dead. Most were entirely bleached of life. Her boat captain blamed pollution. Neither of them knew then what they know now, that glyphosate runoff into the oceans was the “pollution” that was killing ocean life.

Look at these pictures of the Great Barrier Reef, before and after glyphosate poisoning.

Global Warming caused by Monsanto?
Dr. Forti says that today we have a much clearer picture of what is killing the oceans and also warming Mother Earth. We have been programmed to believe that fossil fuels, CO2 emissions, are the main culprit in global warming, she says. We may need to reconsider that hypothesis. Dr. Forti writes: “According to research by the Marine Pollution Bulletin and others, we can add glyphosate, Monsanto’s Roundup Ready herbicide, to the top of the list.”

Killing Plankton Kills Oceans
All ocean life depends on phytoplankton for its sole food source. That life includes whales, reefs, sponges, coral, and everything else in the great waters. Some fishes have their phytoplankton needs met by eating other fish. Those other fish feed off the plankton. Phytoplankton is as at the very top of the ocean food chain. ALL life is connected to it, dependent upon it. If all the phytoplankton dies, then so does everything else. The Pacific Ocean, for one, is suffering huge fish die offs: whales, dolphins, seals, and many thousands of fish are now washing up dead almost daily somewhere in the world, at ever increasing rates. One man who recently sailed thousands of miles across it was unable to catch a single fish to eat. Everything was dead.

Phytoplankton, a photosynthetic plant, is essentially ocean algae. Its biological processes parallel those of land-based plants. Dr. Forti points out that, “Ocean and coral reef death can be traced to phytoplankton die-off, which has accelerated by 40 percent since the 1950’s. It wasn’t long before some researchers started asking: What new substance was introduced in the last 40 years that kills virtually all land-based plants? The answer: Glyphosate.”

Glyphosate kills EVERYTHING
Coral reefs are primarily plant life. Glyphosate is made to kill plants. It is designed to kill all life, except that which has been genetically altered to withstand it. Run-off from agricultural spraying of glyphosate runs into our rivers, which run into the ocean, in less than 40 days. Dr. Forti says glyphosate maintains about 80% of its killing capacity, more than enough to kill phytoplankton.

Glyphosate kills Phytoplankton
According to research by the Marine Pollution Bulletin and others, the most notable phytoplankton declines are seen in waters near both poles, in the tropics, and in the open ocean. In short, everywhere. Conventional science says phytoplankton die-off is due to warmer waters from climate change. So why is the die-off also happening in the colder waters of the Arctic poles? The answer is that temperature is not the decisive factor. This kills the global warming explanation for phytoplankton die-off.

Ocean Acidification
Phytoplankton die-off triggers ocean acidification. Recent studies show ocean acidification may have a climate effect of its own. (Everything is always connected.) While climate change and ocean acidification are parallel phenomena, they also interact. Rising temperatures and changing seawater chemistry are known to impact marine life. Some of those impacts can, in turn, cause rising air and sea temperatures. It’s all one system. Affecting one thing change everything else.

Massive Fish Die-Offs
As phytoplankton is dying, so is the Earth’s once-rich marine life. Pacific salmon are disappearing at a staggering rate. Scientists believe they are starving to death. Plankton pastures that once flourished have morphed into lifeless deserts. This will continue to contribute to our already tragic increases in large-scale whale beachings and fish deaths.

Glyphosate – the Gift that Keeps on Killing
Dr. Forti explains that glyphosate’s half-life – the rate at which it breaks down – lasts much longer in the ocean than in fresh water. Glyphosate is a salt, and in the presence of ocean salts it acts as a preservative. Worse still, it gathers strength over time. This leads to massive plankton and aquatic die-off. Sadly, criminally, this news is not being reported in the mainstream “news.”

Is Monsanto Killing Oceans, Too?
The real fake news the mainstream “news” outlets carp about is delivered by them every day. The continued, wretched failure of mainstream news outlets to report important stories such as this one is as fake as fake news can get. The mainstream newsfakers fail to report on mass ocean die-offs and the probable causes of those die-offs. Instead we get 24-hour reports on the latest sports event or “movie star” scandal. Those distractions are the real fake news, while Monsanto continues to poison the world with criminal backing from the U.S. Government.

RELATED

Share

First Multi-Plaintiff Talc Cancer Trial underway in Missouri

The first multi-plaintiff talc cancer trial is underway. A Missouri state court jury in St. Louis heard opening statements June 9, 2017 in a trial involving claims from the families of three dead women. All had, for decades, used talc-based products like Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. The trial is the first of its kind against J&J to involve more than one dead plaintiff.

Related: Talc Powder Cancer Attorney

$300 Million in Talc-Cancer Verdicts
Overall, this is the sixth talc-related trial in St. Louis, where thousands of similar cases are pending. All previous talc cancer trials in St. Louis involved individual plaintiffs. All but one resulted in huge verdicts against J&J. The most recent trial, in May 2017, ended with a $110 million jury verdict. Three earlier verdicts resulted in juries awarding nearly $200 million.

Thousands of Talc Cancer Lawsuits against J&J
Thousands of talc cancer lawsuits have joined consolidated dockets in Missouri, California and New Jersey state courts. There is also a recently established federal multidistrict litigation court (MDL) based in New Jersey. The trial that began last week will be watched closely, as attorneys consider pushing future multi-plaintiff trials, in order to have more cases heard before a jury.

Each initial bellwether trial in any litigation can play a key role in shaping any eventual settlement for large numbers of people.

Attorneys accuse J&J of Failure to Warn
Attorneys representing the families of Shawn Blaes, 50, Angela Dawn Hershman, 46, and Eron Evans, 41, accuse J&J of continuing to sell dangerous products like Johnson’s Baby Powder and Shower to Shower. The plaintiffs’ attorneys allege that J&J knew about numerous scientific studies that showed a conclusive link between talc and ovarian cancer, yet sold the product to the women anyway. According to the attorneys, this exposure occurs when talc is applied to the genitals; talc and asbestos particles then travel up the fallopian tubes into the ovaries.

J&J accused of Marketing to Minority Women
The lawsuit also charges that J&J marketed talc products specifically to African-American women, despite knowing scientific evidence showed them more susceptible to ovarian cancer than other parts of the population.

30+ Years of Talc Use
All three women used talcum powder for more than 30 years. Ms. Blaes was a Missouri resident, while Ms. Hershman and Ms. Evans lived in Virginia and Texas. Missouri’s joinder rules allow non-resident plaintiffs to file lawsuits in the state’s courts, which has made St. Louis a popular venue for mass tort cases. However, this situation could change depending on the outcome of a U.S. Supreme Court case addressing out-of-state plaintiffs’ rights.

Defendants J&J and Imerys Talc America
J&J and its talc supplier and co-defendant Imerys Talc America maintain talc is not a carcinogen. Their lawyers argue that studies plaintiffs highlight are outdated and full of flawed methodology. The companies compare talc to products like alcohol or red meat. They argue that no government regulatory agency has called for a cancer warning label on talc-based products. That theme may have played a major role in J&J’s lone trial win in a talc cancer case earlier this year.

Corporate Image Trumps Safety?
An attorney for the women plaintiffs said in his opening statement Friday: “This case is about corporations placing their corporate image over the life of their customers and the safety of their customers, pure and simple.”

J&J Lawyer Responds
J&J has used several different powerhouse law firms in the talc litigation. The company’s lawyer for this trial told the jury: “Because it’s not toxic, and because it’s not a carcinogen, and because it doesn’t cause ovarian cancer, it’s not a hazard and therefore no warning is required.”

California Bellwether Talc Trial
Another upcoming bellwether talc trial is also set to begin this summer, on July 10 in California state court. That date was set by a Los Angeles judge for the first trial in his state.

Before that July trial, on June 26 the same judge will convene a 5-day hearing to determine the admissibility of expert testimony. Expert testimony on the alleged link between talc and ovarian cancer is crucial in these trials. A New Jersey state court judge (named Johnson) last fall arbitrarily ruled to exclude witnesses who have been permitted to testify for plaintiffs in Missouri. That decision ended a bellwether trial just days before it was to begin.

More Talc Cancer Trials
Besides the California hearing and trial set for the coming weeks, another multi-plaintiff talc trial is scheduled in July before St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Rex Burlison. He has presided all of the previous talc trials.

First Multi-Plaintiff Talc Cancer Trial underway in Missouri
The consolidated case is named Swann, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., No. 1422-CC09326-01, in Missouri’s 22nd Circuit Court in St. Louis.

RELATED

Share

Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

Vaccines are, unfortunately, not as safe as advertised. More than $3 billion in injury compensation and legal fees have been paid by the U.S. government for vaccine injuries from 1989 – 2015. That money has gone to the parents of children killed by vaccines, or for lifetime care needed for vaccine-injured children. It has also gone to lawyers who have been brave enough to face a so-called “vaccine court” decidedly stacked against people injured or killed by vaccines. (Read further for the five most dangerous vaccines.)

Secret Vaccine Court

The secret vaccine court allows no legal Discovery, no chance for plaintiffs to compare a vaccinated group with an unvaccinated one. That gold-standard exercise in safety and efficacy would decidedly prove which group is healthier and which is more likely to suffer disease or death. A control group comparison would show the real dangers and the failure of vaccination to perform as advertised. Mass vaccination promoted by the CDC, and billions of dollars in vaccine profits made by Merck Pharmaceuticals –  which makes the MMR and the highly dubious shingles vaccine – would be gravely threatened in the face of scientific evidence. No vaccine has ever been shown to be safe and effective in any legitimate epidemiological analysis. Robert Kennedy and Robert De Niro just offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove any vaccine safe.

Five Most Dangerous Vaccines

All vaccinations come with potentially grave risks – especially for the 98 million Americans shot with SV40, a live cancer virus that the CDC fears has contributed to the current cancer epidemic. The CDC fears it enough to have removed that information from its web site. Just because someone doesn’t drop dead after “vaccination” doesn’t mean she hasn’t been harmed, yet. (See Dr. Andrew Moulden: Every Vaccine Produces Harm )

Though all vaccines produce harm, some vaccines have been reported to be more harmful than others. Here are the top five most dangerous vaccines by filed injury reports as of 2015. Multiply each of these by at least a factor of ten. The CDC acknowledges, and it is common knowledge, that less than 10% of these types of injuries get reported, especially when potential reporters are well aware of the hostility the vaccine court holds toward claimants:

  1. DTP – 3,982 Complaints, 696 Deaths
  2. Influenza (Flu) – 1,788 Complaints
  3. MMR – 947 Complaints
  4. Hepatitis B – 672 Complaints
  5. DtaP – 454 Complaints

Only 1,270 of the DTP cases were awarded compensation. Only 985 flu cases received compensation. The so-called “vaccine court” is entirely unaccountable, set up outside our legal system. No jury ever gets to hear the very limited evidence plaintiffs are allowed to present.

Flu Shots Loaded with Toxic Poisons

Most of the flu vaccine formulations on the market contain  toxic ingredients: squalene-based adjuvants (linked with Gulf War Syndrome), formaldehyde, monosodium glutamate, thimerosal. Thimerosal (containing mercury) is used both as a preservative and a processing agent in several vaccines, according to the FDA. The FDA itself admits that some vaccines contain up to 24.5 micrograms of mercury per 0.5 milliliter dose.

While world health authorities claim thimerosal is not harmful, that claim is ludicrous.  The World Health Organization acknowledges that studies of infant macaques monkeys and rats have found that there is indeed evidence of harm caused by clinically relevant amounts of thimerosal.  As the WHO summarizes, “preliminary evidence of behavioral neurotoxicity in infant macaques following a single dose of HBV containing a clinically relevant dose of thimerosal on day of birth.”

The same document also states “Half-life of ethylmercury in blood has been shown to be similar in human and macaque infants.” (Connect the dots, anyone?) Yet, this evidence is dismissed because of “limitations” that necessitate replication, according to the WHO. The CDC has openly admitted before Congress that they never have evaluated the toxicity of mercury in vaccines. How can it be that known neurotoxinis taint vaccinations which are increasingly forced on the public?

Thimerosal is just one of many troubling vaccine ingredients. Aluminum salts are also often used to help “stoke” the immune system into action. Aluminum is a known neurotoxic metal. It is linked with Alzheimer’s and dementia and other neurological diseases. Is a little mercury or aluminum good for us? The answer is a resounding NO; but people get right in line for their shots and continue to poison their children with them.

The society and its people are harmed by vaccinations everyday in both incremental and sometimes catastrophic ways. One would do well to study some history of vaccination to see where we’ve come from to help determine where we are headed with forced vaccination.

RELATED

Share

Wisconsin Explosion Kills Four

A fourth man has died from a massive explosion that occurred May 31, 2017 at a Cambria, Wisconsin corn mill. His name was not yet  released as of June 5, pending notification of his kin. The cause of the deadly blast at the Didion Milling Plant has not yet been determined.

The Dead

The third man found dead was identified last week as Pawel Tordoff, 21, a packing machine operator. Didion officials said the company had located his body beneath the ruins on Wednesday, but were not able to recover it until early Sunday, June 4. Mr. Tordoff was married, with a 3-month-old son. A GoFundMe page has been set up for his surviving family.

The explosion also killed 27-year-old Duelle Block, a mill operator, and 53-year-old Robert Goodenow, a forklift driver.

Related:  Explosion Lawsuit Attorney

Sixteen men were working at the mill when it exploded. Eleven had been taken to hospitals, according to Didion’s vice president of operations Derrick Clark.

Didion Milling Violations

Didion Milling has been cited for several “serious” violations in the last 10 years, violations that posed potential for serious injury or death. In 2013, Didion was fined $3,456 for failing to control potentially exploding dust. In 2010, it was fined $3,640 when a wooden support broke and caused a worker to fall and suffer a brain injury and broken bones. Details of violations that led to several other fines weren’t readily available, according to Wisconsin State Journal writer Steven Verberg. None of the violations fell in the “willful” category, which includes indifference to safety.

The Columbia County Sheriff’s Office and the local fire department assisted in recovering the dead in Cambria, which is located about an hour north of Madison, the Wisconsin state capital.

Wisconsin Explosion Deaths

Mr. Verberg reports that Wisconsin workplace fires or explosions killed 104 workers, including 10 in farm, fishing or forestry jobs from 2011-2014.  Three of the deaths were caused by explosions.

U.S. Explosion Deaths

More than 500 grain dust explosions have been reported in the U.S. in the last 35 years, killing more than 180 people and injuring more than 675.

Worker Protections?

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is entrusted to enforce workplace safety standards. In grain handling facilities such as Didion, standards address controlling the highly flammable dust and sources of excess heat, flames and sparks. OSHA compliance officers usually conduct inspections only in response to complaints or reported injury accidents. OSHA does not perform regularly scheduled inspections, though it does schedule inspections in high-risk industries based on several factors. It focuses on companies with repeated violations of the highest severity.

OSHA Fines for Violations

OSHA increased fine amounts in 2016 to $12,600 for serious violations, $126,000 for willful or repeated violations.

RELATED

Share

Vaccines Ineffective, Unsafe – 2017 Study

Vaccines are ineffective and unsafe, according to the latest research. The vaccine hoax has just been unveiled by a rigorous scientific study. Completed in May 2017, the study found NO reduction in measles, mumps, rubella, influenza or rotavirus among vaccinated children. The same study of 650 kids also found the vaccinated to be less healthy than the unvaccinated. This study’s results are also consistent with recent meta-analysis of the shingles vaccination for adults. Like the other so-called “vaccines,” Merck’s Zostavax also fails to provide any level of protection which might justify or offset its considerable “side effects.”

Study shows Vaccines may cause diseases

The study was published in the Journal of Translational Science by epidemiologists from the School of Public Health at Jackson State University. In addition to finding no disease reductions among vaccinated children, the scientists — led by renowned epidemiologist Dr. Anthony Mawson — concluded that vaccines may be the culprit in the dramatic rise of neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs) and chronic illnesses such as allergies, autism, ADHD.

Vaccinated Kids trade possible outcomes for guaranteed illnesses

The Jackson State scientists analyzed data from Homeschool organizations in four states. They compared the incidence of a broad range of diseases in more than 650 children, 39 percent of whom were unvaccinated.

Vaccines Ineffective, Unsafe – 2017 Study

Vaccinated kids had an increased risk of autism (4.2 times), ADHD (4.2 times), learning disabilities (5.2 times), eczema (2.9 times), and allergic rhinitis (30 times). The vaccinated did have a lower likelihood of two (apparently) vaccine-preventable illnesses (chicken pox and pertussis); however, researchers found NO reduction of other (potentially) vaccine-preventable illnesses such as hepatitis A or B, measles, mumps, rubella, influenza, meningitis, or rotavirus.

Furthermore, the researchers noted that preterm birth itself is not associated with NDDs. When preterm birth is combined with vaccination, however, they found a 6.6-fold increased risk of NDDs. The study authors note that fully vaccinated children may be trading the prevention of certain acute illnesses (chicken pox and pertussis) for chronic illnesses and NDDs such as ADHD and autism.

CDC Fails to Act

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., writing for the World Mercury Project, explained that despite the numerous requests from parents and vaccine safety advocates for  honest research regarding vaccines, the U.S. CDC has failed to act. The Jackson State scientists are therefore calling for more trustworthy scientific studies to help explain and clarify their findings.

Dr. Mawson’s findings terrify the wildly profitable vaccine industry, so vicious push back will come from mainstream media minions for Big Pharma and CDC policy. Shortly after the publication, Dr. Mawson’s study was targeted by so-called ‘Retraction Watch’ — an industry-backed disinformation outlet — to keep the study out of the eye of the public, according to GreenMedInfo. Retraction Watch is an online blog for the Center for Scientific Integrity, which receives funding from The MacArthur Foundation and other pro-business operations.

MMR Vaccine Disinformation Campaign

The MMR – measles, mumps, and rubella – vaccine controversy began with the 1998 publication of a research paper in the medical journal The Lancet. A British gastroenterologist, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and his team found that virtually all of the autistic children in their care were suffering from inflammatory bowel disease. Dr. Wakefield did not claim then, nor has he ever, that there was a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. What he did say was that his study suggested more research should be done on a possible link. He was widely misquoted and discredited in the mainstream press (controlled by vaccine profiteers) as claiming that there was a vaccine-autism link (There is such a link, as the latest study again shows, though Dr. Wakefield never said so). His book “Callous Disregard” covers the autism cases and his press lynching. Dr. Wakefield filed a lawsuit for defamation against a hack British journalist and a newspaper that led the charge to misrepresent, misquote, and destroy him in order to discredit his research. He has been entirely exonerated along with his fellow researcher Dr. John Walker Smith.

Vaccine Profits Drive Mainstream Coverage

Dr. Wakefield is, of course, far from alone, as the billion-dollar profits of “vaccination” forever drive mainstream press coverage on the subject. Virtually every mainstream press outlet promotes mass vaccination with disease-outbreak scare stories and other tactics, while attacking anyone who questions the party line.

Anti-Vaxxer Buzz Word promotes Vaccination Superstition

“Anti-vaxxer” is the preferred buzz word meant to dismiss scientific arguments against vaccination superstition. This rhetorical fallacy (name calling) works just as “conspiracy theorist” has since it was introduced in a secret CIA memo. In 1967, the agency instructed its media shills to tattoo that term onto critics of the ludicrous findings of the Warren Commission. These tiresome terms are always employed in an attempt to humiliate people and silence meaningful dissent and discussion. They are employed to destroy civil discourse and critical thinking. Name calling is only a rank schoolyard bully ploy that should only work on one with the mind of a tapeworm. It doesn’t work on you, does it?

RELATED

 

Share

Invokana Dangers seen Early

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

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

Vulcan Banned in Homes

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

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

Vulcan Sickens Farm Workers

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

Chlorpyrifos was scheduled to be banned

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

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

Vulcan (Chloripyrifos) for All

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

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

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

EPA run by Pruitt allows Banned Pesticide

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

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

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

Unsafe for People, but not for Farmers?

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

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

EPA Green Lights Banned Pesticide

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

RELATED

 

Share

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

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

Related: Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

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

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

Monsanto knows Glyphosate-Cancer Linked

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

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

Environmental Protection Agency Accused of Colluding With Monsanto

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

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

RELATED

Share