Flu Shots Weaken Immune Response

Flu shots weaken immune system response in subsequent years, according to the latest research.  People hoodwinked into taking flu shots every year by their doctors, along with heavy advertising campaigns from Big Pharma and the CDC may want to take heed. That flu shot taken this year will weaken the immune system for next year’s “flu season.”

(And just coincidentally, what many think is the “flu” taking hold of them may not be an influenza virus at all. Another recent flu shot study showed that only 18% of people who reported that they had the flu actually had the virus in them.)

Related: More than 100 Seniors Die after Flu Shot from Pharmacies

The latest eye-opening medical study on the flu vaccine was conducted at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. The study found women who submitted to flu vaccines displayed a weakened immune system response in subsequent years.

Head Researcher: Lower Antibody Responses
The head researcher in the study, Dr. Lisa Christian, said, “Growing evidence shows that those who received a flu shot in the prior year have lower antibody responses in the current year.”

This latest flu shot study demonstrates once again that the official story we hear every year from the vaccine industry, the CDC, and the mainstream media, is not to be trusted.  Sadly, it seems one must be a scientist today to determine whether or not to submit to a particular vaccine.

Flu Shot and VAERS Database
In addition to this latest bombshell, there are plenty of other reasons to question the safety and efficacy of the flu shot.  Far from even being as safe as advertised, the flu shot is responsible for more adverse events reported to VAERS – the Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System – than any other vaccine.

Need a Flu Shot? Need a Hole in the Head?
What possible sense could it make to take any sort of vaccine that makes one more susceptible to that sickness than less susceptible? Given the facts, one needs a flu shot like one needs a hole in the head. And even if it’s all about fear for those promoting the flu shot (and it is), then how about facing the real, proven fear that one is more susceptible to a sickness the more one is exposed to the so-called “flu vaccine”?  Ludicrous is not a strong enough adjective to explain the behavior of anyone taking a flu shot given these latest facts.  Insane is the only word that applies.  And what of all those poor nurses and others who work in the hospital systems who are forced by terms of their employment to take the less-than-worthless flu shot?  Do we live in a sane world that operates on reason?  Or does money really do most the talking where the “healthcare” field is concerned?

Remember those absurd arguments from parents who tell the parents of unvaccinated children to keep their kids away from the vaccinated darlings?  Well, here’s something to consider along the same line of reasoning.  When someone takes a flu shot, we now know that they are not only raising their own risk of getting the flu, they are walking around with an activated flu virus potentially infecting everyone with whom they come in contact.  So not only are those taking the less-than-worthless flu shot lowering their own immunity and endangering themselves, they are endangering others with their ignorance of the facts.

More Flu Shots = Less Protection from Flu
Here’s the score then:  The more flu shots one takes, the more susceptible one is to acquiring the full-blown flu.  Yes, incredibly, the flu shots themselves are leading to an increase in influenza infections.  This is a self-defeating spiral of insanity that enriches drug companies and the CDC (which owns some 57 vaccine patents) while making us all sicker.  The flu vaccine only helps perpetuate the myth that flu vaccines are needed by ensuring influenza spreads more rapidly than it would otherwise.  As Mike Adams of Natural News writes: “Flu vaccines spread the very infections that generate more demand for flu vaccines.”

Mr. Adams (who has been censored by Google) also gives us these gems re: the flu shot:

  • People who submitted to a 2008 flu shot suffered a 250% increase in influenza infections in subsequent years.
  • A study published in Human & Environmental Toxicology found that mercury-laced flu vaccines caused a 4,250 percent increase in fetal deaths during the 2009 flu season.
  • The flu shot narrative pushed by the vaccine industry is a medical hoax that’s easily disproved by fact-based evidence.
  • People who take flu shots will be the first to go in an actual global pandemic because they have been made vulnerable to infections.

Mainstream Media Pushes Flu Shots
Indeed, all is not as it appears in reports from the mainstream media.  If the powers that run the media really cared about the health of all of us on earth, they would give us honest reporting about the flu vaccine.  You will not see this latest research honestly reported in the MSM.   And the flu vaccine is hardly the only dubious “vaccine” on the market.

Shingles Vaccine Problems
The shingles vaccine has been shown to give people shingles, or to damage a person’s eyesight.  It too, is a dubious vaccine which a person would be wise to research before blindly submitting to (pun intended).  Our law firm has heard from more than one person who reported going blind, or nearly blind in one eye, shortly after submitting to the shingles vaccine.

Related

Share

Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

Hernia mesh has a 10-20% complication rate, says a surgeon who has performed dozens of hernia mesh removals.  That’s much higher than the 1-2% complication rate that has been reported by mainstream doctors who parrot mesh makers’ claims.

Doctor will speak to UK Parliament

On Oct. 18, 2017, Dr. Robert Bendavid will tell the UK Parliament just how troublesome plastic mesh can be for hernia repair.  Dr. Bendavid works out of Shouldice Hospital in Toronto, Canada.  Jane Akre of Mesh News Desk reports that the surgeon is frustrated with the way plastic hernia mesh makers have downplayed the number of catastrophic events triggered by hernia repair that inserts plastic mesh into the human abdomen.

20% Hernia Mesh Failure Rate
Dr. Bendavid says 20% is likely a closer complication rate for the meshes used in hernia repair. He laments that, for about 20 years, synthetic meshes have become the mainstay of hernia surgery. The reason, he says, is not for efficacy.  Like plastic mesh put into women for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI), hernia mesh surgery has exploded in popularity primarily because mesh makers have so assiduously promoted it.  Mesh makers have doled out millions promoting mesh conferences, societies, and free surgical training sessions.  Those promotions have even formed a whole new generation of surgeons who were taught to favor mesh over traditional suture repair for hernias.  Meanwhile, the drawbacks of meshes, says Dr. Bendavid, “were always vague and nebulous.”

Today, mesh-based repairs are touted as the ideal in the guidelines of the European, Danish and Swedish Hernia Societies.  The American Hernia Society has gone right along with the mesh program.  Dr. Bendavid has not.

Shouldice Repair for failed Plastic Mesh Repair
The doctor notes: “Shouldice repair, a pure tissue repair, rated a mention only when infected mesh was removed!”  He adds that Shouldice repair was considered the “gold standard” 20 years ago, but today no one performs or knows how to perform it outside Thornhill. (editor’s note: We believe there are some American doctors and others in other countries who do perform Shouldice repair.)

Plastic Mesh spawns New Injury
Dr. Bendavid further notes that, “The world literature is now replete with publications on chronic postherniorrhaphy inguinodynia, a condition unknown before the introduction of mesh.  In 1964, in Nyhus’ classic hernia, postherniorrhaphy pain did not rate a mention in its index.  In Ponka’s equally excellent book, pain is mentioned in half a column as ‘uncommon’ and due to ‘scar tissue’ (1980).”

Hernia Mesh Complications
Many publications are now providing more up-to-date statistics on postoperative complications of mesh. Dr. Bendavid says that 11% of patients will have a “history of severe chronic postoperative inguinodynia severe enough to be detrimental to their quality of life.”

Mesh Pain Irreversible
Another group of patients (3%–4%) will suffer irreversible dysejaculation, which 20 years ago, sans mesh, had an incidence of 1 in 2500 cases and was reversible.  That is a hundred-fold (or 10,000%) increase.  Another 10% of patients will suffer severe testicular pain secondary to mesh erosion of the vas. This in some cases requires an orchidectomy. Additionally, transmigration of mesh into adjacent organs is commonly reported but not systematically quantified with any accuracy through industrial surveillance. Dr. Bendavid asks: “With such evidence, would a ‘duly informed’ patient consent to mesh-based surgery?

Mesh is now used in 90-97% of hernia surgeries around the world, but in just 3% of the cases at the Shouldice Hospital.

Professor Volcker Schumpelick, Editor in Chief of the Hernia, in his address to the American Hernia Society (2005) stated: “[D]espite the introduction of mesh and laparoscopy, there has been no reduction in the incidence of hernia recurrences in the last 30 years. That incidence worldwide is 14%.”  So Dr. Bendavid fairly asks: “Why are the European guidelines rushing to be launched as World guidelines?”

Dr. Bendavid has helped launch a study to pin down the percentages of complications resulting from hernia meshes used in hernia surgery.  He says the current hernia mesh surgery complication rate, “estimated at 10-20%, could be brought to a mere 5% with simple emphasis of anatomy. The Shouldice Hospital already demonstrated, 20 years ago, that 1%–5% is the magic number depending on the type of hernia.”

The doctor also notes that it takes surgeons 4-6 years to learn the necessary skills to safely and successfully perform hernia mesh surgery, while plastic mesh industry representatives, who are not always doctors, train doctors to perform plastic mesh surgery in minutes.  How many hernia sufferers would rather their hernia surgeon have trained for 4-6 years rather than for just a few minutes?

Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

How many people would rather have hernia surgery with a product (pure tissue) that can be safely and fully removed, rather than with a product that may be impossible to fully remove (plastic hernia mesh) and that could cause permanent, debilitating pain?

Ralph Nader, for one – who tends to do his research – chose to forego plastic mesh for his own hernia repair.  Mr. Nader chose Dr. Bendavid to perform his recent hernia surgery.  The man who started Consumer Reports may know a thing or two when it comes to safe products.

Related

Share

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

Monsanto is trying to dismiss more than 250 Roundup lawsuits in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The suits were filed by people who allege exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. The suits all charge that Monsanto covered up Roundup risks. The cases have been combined in a multi-district litigation action under Judge Vince Chhabria.  The lead case is 3:16-md-02741-VC.

In addition, at least 1,100 plaintiffs have made similar claims against Monsanto in state courts across the country. The first trial in the Roundup litigation is scheduled for June 18, 2018 in the Superior Court for the County of San Francisco.

On March 13, 2017, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that certain documents obtained by plaintiffs through discovery could be unsealed, over Monsanto’s attorneys’ objections.

U.S. Right to Know has reported the documents listed below will include discovery materials, transcripts of court proceedings, depositions and other case-related items.

The schedule for adjudication of the MDL litigation as of July 2017:
•  Close of Expert Discovery due by 9/22/2017.
•  Defendant’s Summary Judgment and Daubert Motions due by 10/6/2017.
•  Plaintiffs’ Cross Motions and opposition due by 10/27/2017.
•  Live testimony from witnesses set for 12/11/2017 through 12/14/2017 09:00 AM.
•  Summary Judgment and Daubert Hearing set for 12/15/2017 09:00 AM.

Meanwhile, a joint committee of the European Parliament is holding a hearing into the revelations contained in the discovery documents obtained through the MDL litigation on Oct. 11, 2017.

Discovery Documents show Monsanto EPA Collusion
Discovery documents in the litigation have revealed Monsanto colluding with EPA officials to sidestep regulatory agency reviews of Roundup. They show EPA officials working secretly with Monsanto to help the company portray Roundup as safe. They also reveal Monsanto executives discussing the ghostwriting of research literature in the name of academics like Stanford’s Henry Miller.

Monsanto manufactured Outrage at IARC
When the International Agency on Cancer Research declared in 2015 that glyphosate – in Roundup and other Monsanto pesticides – is a probable carcinogen, Monsanto went to work behind the scenes to manufacture outrage with astroturf organizations that it controlled. Documents released in the litigation show just how Monsanto called in scientists to protect its flagship product after it had been shown in dozens of studies to be a probable carcinogen. The scientists presented themselves as “independent,” while paper and email trails now show that nothing could be further from the truth. Most were former Monsanto employees or else had other financial ties or mutual interests with Monsanto.

Monsanto was terrified at the IARC’s review of glypohosate.  Internal Monsanto emails included: “It is possible that IARC’s decision will impact future regulatory decision making.”

Monsanto knew the timing was vital. In 2015, both the U.S. EPA and the European Commission were evaluating re-authorizations of Monsanto’s Roundup. Following the IARC’s classification, both the EU and the EPA delayed final decisions on glyphosate.

Whitewash
Carey Gillam just-released an eye-opening book called Whitewash (2017), which details Monsanto’s corruption of, and collusion with, government regulators.  Ms.Gillam notes just how important Monsanto knew it was to discredit the IARC.  She quotes Peter Infante, an epidemiologist who worked for more than 24 years for the U.S. government studying cancer risks from toxic exposures.

Mr. Infante spoke of Monsanto’s falsely manufacturing outrage at the IARC: “What this indicates to me is that it was obvious to Monsanto that there was evidence of carcinogenicity.  It would seem to me that Monsanto does not like the public to be informed of the cancer hazard.”

After the IARC ruled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, some Monsanto-connected scientists questioned the wisdom of U.S. funding for IARC.   Monsanto has since perpetuated a false story that the chairman of the IARC working group withheld critical information from the team.

Monsanto’s Manufactured Dissent
Monsanto’s telling document trail includes internal emails, memos and other communications obtained by plaintiffs’ attorneys suing Monsanto in the U.S.. That trail makes clear that the challenge to IARC’s classification did not come organically from a variety of voices.  The “outrage” was manufactured by Monsanto prior to IARC’s decision, and it continued afterward. The goal was, and is, to bully regulators into discounting the findings of the team of independent scientific experts who made up the IARC team that reviewed glyphosate.

Monsanto’s Decades-Long Subterfuge
The internal records obtained through Roundup cancer lawsuits, combined with documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and state records requests, also show that the actions employed to discredit IARC were part of a decades-long pattern of deceptive tactics by Monsanto.  The company has spent millions in working behind the scenes to manipulate regulators, lawmakers and members of the press and public into believing glyphosate and Roundup are safe.  Monsanto has used these tactics over the years to attack and discredit several scientists whose research has found glyphosate and Roundup harmful.

Monsanto:  “Orchestrate Outcry”
Monsanto’s IARC attack plan was laid out in an internal February 2015 memo.  It involved not only Monsanto’s internal PR people, scientists and marketing experts, but many outside industry players. Various individuals were assigned tasks.  The “strategies and tactics” evidenced from Monsanto’s own files included:

“Orchestrate Outcry” with IARC Decision – Industry conducts robust media/social media outreach on process and outcome.

“Identify/request third-party experts to blog, op/ed, tweet and/or link, repost, retweet, etc.”  The documents reveal one such paid shill, so-called “expert,” academic Henry Miller.  He was provided a draft article to submit to Forbes for publication under his name, sans any mention of Monsanto’s heavy hand.  Forbes learned of the deceit in October 2017, and said it severed ties with Mr. Miller.

“Inform/Inoculate/Engage Industry Partners” – Notably the industry partners listed included three organizations that purport to be independent of Monsanto but have long been seen by critics as front groups for the company – Monsanto named ‘Academics Review’ and the ‘Genetic Literacy Project.’ Both are Monsanto PR companies based in the U.S.. Monsanto also named ‘Sense About Science,’ which has run operations for Monsanto in the United Kingdom and the U.S.  ‘Sense About Science’ was the astroturf group named by Monsanto to lead the industry response and “provide a platform for IARC observers.”  The groups did as Monsanto planned, posting scathing attacks on IARC on their websites.

Engagement with Regulatory Agencies – Monsanto planned for grower associations / growers to “write regulators with an appeal that they remain focused on the science, not the politically charged decision by IARC.”

“Push opinion leader letter to key daily newspaper on day of IARC ruling” with assistance of the Potomac Group marketing firm.

Monsanto’s “preparedness plan” against the IARC also called for supporting “the development of three new papers on glyphosate focused on epidemiology and toxicology.” As planned, shortly after the IARC decision hit the news, Monsanto arranged for several scientists – many of them former employees or paid consultants – to author and publish research papers supporting glyphosate safety.

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

There is little Monsanto won’t do to protect its flagship chemical, glyphosate, which stands as the cornerstone of its poison products’ business model.  Meanwhile the much greater danger is Roundup, of which glyphosate is only the main active ingredient. Roundup is many times more dangerous than glyphosate.  In keeping the argument narrowed to glyphosate, Monsanto is keeping regulators farther away from the much larger problem of Roundup. We will hope and pray that Judge Vince Chhabria sees through the subterfuge and allows Monsanto to stand trial.

Related

Share

The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate Hazardous to Crops, Soils, Animals, People

The truth about Monsanto is almost completely censored by the mainstream media.  In Washington, a majority of both parties backed the heinous Monsanto Protection Act.  The DARK Act signed by President Obama made things even worse.  And when small farmers and other U.S. citizens manage to work around Monsanto’s own Congress –  Sen. Roy Blount (R-MO) and others – and air their grievances before the nation’s Supreme Court, a former Monsanto lawyer – Judge Clarence Thomas – is there to slam the courthouse door on them.  (Thomas has done so more than once.)  In Europe, however, Monsanto has had a tougher time forcing its poison practices on people.  Junk science and disinformation from Monsanto don’t sell  as well in Europe and elsewhere as they do in America.

Monsanto’s cancerous bovine growth hormone (rBGH), for one example, is banned in Europe, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan.  Most of those countries have also fought hard to keep Monsanto’s Roundup out of their food.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

In Europe, politicians will even listen to an American scientist who can’t get heard in his own country.  Don Huber, a USDA senior scientist and professor emeritus at Purdue University, delivered to the UK Houses of Parliament the truth about Monsanto, Roundup, and glyphosate. Back in 2012, Huber gave UK’s Parliament a damning indictment of Monsanto products and methods.  He explained just why Monsanto is such a serious threat to crops, soils, animals, and people.

Crop Disease Sparks Scientist’s Interest
Mr. Huber has been a plant physiologist and pathologist for more than 40 years.  His academic career began with eight years as a cereal pathologist at the University of Idaho.  He spent 35 years at Purdue University, specializing in soil-borne disease control, physiology of disease, and microbial ecology. For the last 20 years, he has conducted extensive research into the effects of glyphosate on crops. His interest followed the huge increase in crop diseases on fields sprayed with glyphosate.

Letter to US Secretary of State Ignored
Mr. Huber wrote a letter to the US Secretary of State Tom Vilsak in February 2011. It was ignored by mainstream media and the American government. In the letter, Mr. Huber described a pathogen “new to science” that is everywhere in glyphosate-tolerant GM crops. He concluded in his letter: “We are now seeing an unprecedented trend of increasing plant and animal diseases and disorders. This pathogen may be instrumental to understanding and solving this problem”.

Glyphosate Reduces Nutrient Availability
Mr. Huber’s Parliament talk also linked glyphosate to reduced nutrient availability in plants, and to increasing plant diseases. He also referenced the emergence of a new pathogen causing animal illness that can possibly affect human health, since humans eat animals.

Pathogen New to Science
The conversion of U.S. agriculture to monochemical herbicide practice has resulted in the heavy use of glyphosate herbicides, Mr. Huber explained.  Farmers have coincidentally seen deterioration in the health of corn, soybean, wheat and other crops.  They’ve also seen epidemics of diseases in small grain crops. All this deterioration and disease are linked with the heavy use of glyphosate, which has increased further since the introduction of glyphosate-tolerant, Roundup Ready (RR) crops.

The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate kills by immobilizing nutrients that plants need for health and disease resistance.  (It also immobilizes human gut flora; so it is likely the cause, or a leading cause, of the huge increase in Irritable Bowel Syndrome.)  This weakening of plants’ defenses could explain the infestation of GM crops with the new pathogen.  It has now been found in horse, sheep, pigs, cows, chicken, multiple animal tissues including reproductive parts (semen, amniotic fluid), manure, soil, eggs, milk, as well as the common fungal pathogen now infesting RR crops, Fusarium solani fsp glycines mycelium.  All come in contact with glyphosate through direct exposure or animal feed consumption.  The pathogen is also highly abundant in crops suffering from plant Goss’ wilt and sudden death syndrome.

The pathogen can be cultured in the lab, Mr. Huber explained to Parliament.  It has been isolated from livestock foetal tissue, replicated in the lab and re-introduced back into the animals.  It appears to be very common and may well be interacting with the effects of glyphosate on both plants and animals. The result is that it exacerbates disease and causes reproductive failure in livestock.

Money Matters Limit Good Science
People who care about clean food and a cancer-free life want Mr. Huber to publish his findings. The problem is that he insists that before he can publish, he needs more resources (ie. money) to be able to characterize the ‘entity’ and identify what type of species it is, including sequencing of its genome. Such research is very expensive. The problem is who would pay for such research? This is largely how we got into the mess with Monsanto in the first place. Monsanto’s own studies (and political connections) were used to push Roundup past the US FDA and EPA. Those agencies simply took Monsanto’s word that Roundup was safe. They never required the necessary safety testing. Mr. Huber wants eventually to publish his work in a peer-reviewed journal, which is the only way such work could get into evidence to help stop Monsanto from continuing to devastate the world with its poison practices.

Government Must Sponsor Sound Research
It’s well past time that the National Institutes of Health, paid for by our tax dollars, performs long-term testing on Roundup as well as Monsanto’s monochemical practices.  Besides the fact that evidence shows Roundup to be linked with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, Hairy Cell Leukemia and other cancers, Roundup is killing pollinator bees, depleting soils, and devastating biodiversity.  It’s time for adults to take charge in Washington and do the work that only government can afford to do.  Our tax dollars should be spent in protecting us from criminal organizations like Monsanto, not being used against us to rubber stamp all of Monsanto’s poison practices.

Related

 

Share

Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

Glyphosate shocked the news world in 2015 when the World Health Organization declared it a probable carcinogen. The larger, nearly unmentioned problem, is that focusing on glyphosate alone obscures the real issue: the toxicity of Roundup.  Glyphosate is merely a red herring that hides the real dangers of Roundup.  Farmers and homeowners don’t poison weeds and driveways (and themselves) with glyphosate alone. They use Roundup, which is an entirely different animal.

Monsanto narrows Glyphosate / Roundup Argument

Monsanto is pleased to keep the discussion narrowed to glyphosate alone.  And most of the world’s industry-captured regulatory agencies have been pleased to oblige the chemical giant.  Glyphosate alone can be shown – in some studies, at least – to have a much nicer safety profile than Roundup. Consequently, any arguments about glyphosate have been cleverly controlled by Monsanto from the beginning.  The company has been assisted in this shell game by many of the world’s alphabet agencies – like the Monsanto-friendly EPA – in charge of protecting public health and the commons.

The EPA, incredibly (some would say, criminally), reviews only those studies which have examined glyphosate alone. The agency does not research, in any meaningful way, the entire toxic cocktail that is Roundup.  This glaring glitch results from an absurd loophole in the way chemicals in the U.S. are unleashed on the public, with the help of pliant agencies like the EPA, FDA, and others.  It’s the same story for generic drugs, which are not equivalent, no matter how they are marketed.  A generic drug is deemed to be “equivalent” if its “active ingredient” can be shown to be triggered in dubious lab tests.

Nothing in Our Universe exists in a Vacuum
For reasons beyond the pale of sensibility, EPA looks only at what Monsanto alleges is Roundup’s only active ingredient, glyphosate.  This is a ludicrous position, because the numerous adjuvants in Roundup change the entire game.  Nevertheless, as incredible as it seems, chemical companies like Monsanto are allowed to claim that all the adjuvants in Roundup (or other pesticides) are not active (in other words, irrelevant), without being made to prove that claim.

Far from being the be-all the and the end-all in the active chemical cocktail that is Roundup, glyphosate is only one of many ingredients present and active in the world’s most popular week killer.

Roundup lawsuits being filed against Monsanto are calling the company out for this incredible oversight.  The suits argue that the mixture of glyphosate with many other ingredients that comprise Roundup is what makes Roundup’s carcinogenic to people. Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma (NHL), Chronic Lymphocytic Lekemia (CLL), Multiple Myeloma, Hairy Cell Leukemia (HCL) have all been linked to Roundup exposure.

Roundup Warning: Adjuvants increase the toxicity of active ingredients
The FDA has  categorically failed to demand long-term tests of Roundup, the most popular of many Monsanto pesticides that list glyphosate as their only “active” ingredient.   Meanwhile, all glyphosate weed killers contain many other chemicals and ingredients called adjuvants.  Many of these adjuvants are toxic by themselves, yet their own toxicity can increase exponentially when mixed with glyphosate.

The adjuvants increase glyophosate toxicity by allowing it to penetrate animal, plant and human cells more easily.  The half-life of many Roundup adjuvants also outlast glyphosate alone.

The testing of a so-called active ingredient like glyphosate is essentially pointless.  Nobody is exposed to glyphosate alone.  It is always within a product that contains many other chemicals and components.  These ingredients can affect one another in profound ways.

1,000 times more toxic
An in vitro study looked at eight major pesticides – including Roundup – in terms of their complete formulations. The products were all shockingly many times more toxic to human cells when tested against their isolated adjuvants or so-called active ingredients.  Some were as much as 1,000 times more toxic.

Another in vivo study of pigs showed glyphosate and the adjuvant POEA combined in herbicide formulations were toxic to the pigs and lethal in high doses. Glyphosate alone, however, was not. A similar study using rats showed Roundup formulations were far more toxic than glyphosate alone.

Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

Herbicides and pesticides are not accurately tested for safety and regulated by the agencies in charge of protecting human health and our environment.  The additives in Roundup and other weed killers and pesticides can comprise as much as 95 percent of the finished product. The EPA, FDA and other alphabet agencies have failed to protect us from Roundup and other pesticides and chemicals.  Our last best hope is that Roundup Lawsuits filed against Monsanto will stop the systemic poisoning of our food, soil, water, and our own bodies and minds.

Related

Share

Glyphosate devastates Brain Development

Besides being a probable carcinogen triggering thousands of Roundup Lawsuits, glyphosate devastates brain development.  That is the conclusion of several researchers who have examined the full impact of Monsanto’s best-known poison in Roundup.  Glyphosate has been found in Cheerios,  crackers, many processed snacks and other popular foods, as well as in most rainwater in the U.S., in California wine, in orange juice, in vaccines, in nearly everything we all eat and drink.

Restore Literate America – Documentary
Concerned citizens and scientists have produced a documentary titled, “Restore Literate America,” which shows the problem of glyphosate’s ubiquitous presence in our bodies, brains, and physical environment.  The documentary covers what ordinary people as well as healthcare professionals with scientific training are saying about glyphosate and brain development.

Mothers seek Healthy Food for their Children
This national effort from Julie Bjornson, DC, brings awareness to the problem of delayed brain development. Ms. Bjornson says that children are no longer ready to enter school at their chronological age, because their brains have not developed enough to control eye movement in order to learn to read or to learn from reading.

Brain-Eye Muscle Connection
Ms. Bjornson explains that the brain must be able to control and coordinate the 12 eye muscles needed to function at the normal reading distance of 8-12 inches. Unfortunately, this is not happening when children’s brains are handicapped by glyphosate.

Ms. Bjornson says that recognizing the BIG “E” at 20 feet does not mean the two eyes can converge at 8 inches, and then hold that gaze while reading across a sentence. This function must now be specially trained in preschool, but that crucial training is not occurring.

Brain Development needs Chemical-Free Food
Development starts with nutrient-dense, chemical-free food, which is the opposite of all the GMO foods now tainting most of our food supply.

1/27 Boys Now Suffer Autism
Studies have shown autism in boys has reached a staggering one in 27 (1:27). Ms. Bjornson and others attribute that figure to the greater and greater levels of glypohosate increasingly allowed and found in the nation’s food supply.

Hypospadia, Glyphosate in Mother’s Milk
The prevalence of hypospadia, boys born with this genital malformation, has also markedly increased in proportion to the unleashing of glyphosate into the food supply. Placental malformation is now occurring. Glyphosate passes from the mother into the womb and into the developing fetus. Glyphosate is now found in mother’s milk. Glyphosate weakens the blood brain barrier, allowing toxins into the brain and causing behavioral and health issues, “and so much more,” according to Dr. Bjornson. She hopes we all take the time to educate ourselves on glyphosate’s effect on our children.

Related

Share

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

Actemra was introduced to the public with all the usual glowing recommendations from people paid to promote it. Actemra ads called it a “unique” breakthrough that would “transform expectations” for patients and doctors. A young woman happily boating crowed in one blurb: “If I knew then what I know now about rheumatoid arthritis, I would have been more proactive.”

Actemra Falsely Promoted?

Treatments for an estimated 1.5 million Americans afflicted with arthritis can have terrible side effects. Therefore, doctors and patients were understandably excited when Actemra hit the U.S. market in 2010. Actemra was promoted as not being linked with heart attacks, heart failure, or life-threatening lung complications, unlike competing arthritis drugs.  Was Actemra falsely promoted?

Hundreds Dead after taking Actemra
Despite the promises that it was safer than competitors’ similar drugs, hundreds of people who took Actemra died from the very same problems.  Many others have suffered harm. STAT (statnews.com) analyzed more than 500,000 side-effect reports on rheumatoid arthritis drugs. It found clear evidence that the risks of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, and other conditions were as high or higher for Actemra patients than for patients taking competing drugs.

No Warning for Actemra
Most of those other arthritis medications warn about those risks on their labels. Actemra does not warn about those risks.

What is Actemra?
Taken by injection or intravenously, Actemra is primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease that causes pain, swelling, and stiffness in joints. Doctors also prescribe Actemra “off-label” for about 60 other conditions for which it has not completed testing for safety and efficacy. Actemra has been given to more than 760,000 patients worldwide. It generated sales of $1.7 billion in 2016 for Roche, becoming the company’s fifth highest-grossing drug.

1,128 Deaths Follow Actemra Use
People are peppered every day with drug ads tailed by laundry lists of so-called “side effects.” (They’re REAL effects all right, despite the euphemism.) Nevertheless, STAT’s investigation shows that risks to patients may be greater than they are led to believe. The FDA has received reports on 1,128 people who died after taking Actemra. Considering that it is a well-known fact that just 1-10% of adverse events are ever reported to FDA, the real Actemra death toll could easily top 10,000. Curiously, FDA has reviewed Actemra’s safety profile several times since the drug was approved, and has never proposed a label change. Sadly, the agency doesn’t have the tools to determine whether Actemra was the cause of, or a mere coincidence in, all those (reported) deaths.

FDA Limitations
The FDA is charged with monitoring the safety of prescription drugs, but the agency does not verify the side-effects’ reports it receives. The documents often lack crucial information. In the case of Actemra, they don’t prove the drug caused the deaths. But close inspection of some reports can allow one to reasonably determine the cause of a death or injury.

Two Deaths Causally Linked with Actemra
In one striking example – found through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Charles Piller for STAT – the reporting doctor said, “[N]o factor other than the drug could have explained a 73-year-old man’s fatal brain bleed two days after he received an intravenous Actemra treatment.”  Another reported on a 62-year-old German woman’s heart attack in 2014: “The company assessed fatal myocardial infarction as related to (Actemra).”  That company was Roche, Actemra’s maker.

Despite these and other reports, neither Roche nor the FDA has ascted to change Actemra’s label to alert patients and doctors that potential risks have turned up, along with clinical studies completed after Actemra hit the market in 2010.

Actemra and Heart Failure, Pancreatitis
Experts who examined the data at STAT’s request said the FDA should immediately consider warnings for heart failure and pancreatitis – an inflammation of the pancreas that in its acute form can kill up to half of patients. They said the evidence that Actemra might increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and interstitial lung disease – a potentially fatal scarring of lung tissue – is less convincing, but it warrants further review.

The failure to warn the public, experts say, highlights the FDA’s inability to adequately scrutinize the safety of drugs after they have been approved, and to act promptly when potential danger signs appear.

“The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are linked up to keep it broken.”   – Dr. Vinay Prasad, Oncologist, Medical Ethicist.

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

“We’ve done a very good job of making it easier to approve drugs, often based on very preliminary evidence. But we haven’t ramped up the standards of post-marketing surveillance to make sure that what’s been out there for several years is safe and effective,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad.  The  oncologist and medical ethicist at the Oregon Health and Science University added:  “The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are lined up to keep it broken.”

Related

Share

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study

A journal editor was secretly on Monsanto’s payroll when he retracted a damning Roundup cancer study.  A. Wallace Hayes was being surreptitiously paid by Monsanto when he retracted the now famous Gilles Seralini rat cancer study.  That groundbreaking research showed that rats fed corn grown with glyphosate developed hideous tumors and also died quicker than (more fortunate) rats who drank untainted water and ate non-GMO corn.

Monsanto Threatened by Cancer Study
The Seralini study was, and is, so dangerous for Monsanto, because it threatens the company’s entire business model.  Monsanto’s herbicide (pesticide) products earned the company $1.9 billion in gross profits in 2015.  Consequently, Monsanto acted quickly when the Seralini study began to pull back the dark GMO curtain that hides the awful truth.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

The Seralini study gives the lie to the notion that GMO foods are safe.  This is why Monsanto went immediately into overdrive to discredit and destroy it.  Monsanto also dispatched its minions in the press (like Stanford academic Henry I. Miller) and blogosphere to destroy the messenger.  It was the same ploy the nasty biotech industry had pulled with Italian researcher Dr. Arpad Pustzai and any others who have found serious health problems linked with GMO foods.

GMO Foods are the New Cigarettes
In the book, Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey M. Smith records these alarming quotes from Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who was roundly attacked and discredited (by biotech minions) after he tested GMO foods and began telling the truth about them.  Dr. Pusztai compares the current GMO food deception with the tobacco industry deception that dragged on for decades. That subterfuge was largely made possible with the help of medical doctors (along with hucksters like Morris Fishbein and propaganda promoter Edward Bernays).  The Journal of the American Medical Association even used AMA doctors to promote cigarettes.

Dr. Pustzai: GM Problems may be Irreversible
“The problems with GM foods may be irreversible and the true effects may only be seen well in the future,” said Dr. Pusztai.  “The situation is like the tobacco industry.  They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading evidence that showed that the problem wasn’t so serious.  And all the time they knew how bad it was.  Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it is going to be problematic, if it is going to cause us real health problems, then tobacco will be nothing in comparison with this.  The size of genetic modification and problems it may cause us are tremendous.”

GMO Freak Show
Dr. Pustzai also blew the whistle on early GMO experiments which continue on us all today:
“In 1985 pigs were engineered with a human gene that produces human growth hormone. The scientists’ goal was to produce a faster-growing pig. What they got was a freak show… In one of the first litters born with the growth hormone genes, a female piglet had no anus or genitals. Some of the pigs were too lethargic to stand. Others had arthritis, ulcers, enlarged hearts, dermatitis, vision problems, or renal disease.”

GMO foods are a hydra-headed monster that undoubtedly contribute substantially to all those maladies in humans today.  Several studies have already linked Roundup with kidney and liver problems. The World Health Organization has announced that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, triggering thousands of Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study
Prior to Gilles Seralini’s study on GMO-fed rats, as well as other studies which are beginning to leak out, Monsanto had been the world’s biggest winner in the suicidal pesticide-based farming methods in vogue since the end of WWII.  The ever-growing problem is that runaway chemical farming dumps greater and greater amounts of cancer-causing pesticides on the earth and into the groundwater. In addition, Monsanto’s pesticide-based farming methods, along with the company’s toxic seeds, deplete soils of necessary nutrients.  Meanwhile, farmers around the world have sadly dumped greater and greater amounts of Roundup and glyphosate into the earth, as pesticide-based farming has given rise to bigger and bigger “superweeds” that have overwhelmed thousands of acres of once-rich farm land.

Editor in Chief a Monsanto Shill
And now recently released court documents reveal what many people have long suspected: Monsanto reverse engineered the retraction of Dr. Seralini’s groundbreaking study on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.

The Editor in Chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology was being secretly paid by Monsanto when he oversaw Seralini’s damning study’s retraction.  Monsanto may have gotten away with this subterfuge had their lawyers succeeded in preventing internal company documents from being released.  Monsanto lawyers tried to stop the documents’ release in a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by people who claim they were stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers as a result of using Roundup.

Mainstream News Misinformation
Bill Gates, a heavy Monsanto shareholder, was one of the first to point to the Monsanto-engineered retraction as proof that GMOs are safe and its detractors are misinformed.  Mr. Gates failed to mention (perhaps he didn’t know) that the retraction was engineered by Monsanto. A google search of the subject will show google’s own corporate agenda in line with biotech’s.  Google search engine results coyly downplay Monsanto collusion and promote the phony story that the Seralini study retraction was somehow legitimate.

Editor paid $400 per hour by Monsanto
The documents disclosed in a Roundup cancer lawsuit show that the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes, had been involved in a consulting agreement with Monsanto prior to his involvement in the Seralini study’s retraction.  Mr. Hayes was paid $400 an hour by Monsanto for his “services.” The documents show that he was contracted to help establish a network of “experts,” participate in meetings, and deliver a seminar about regional issues in Latin America related to glyphosate toxicology.

Mr. Hayes hid his Monsanto ties. He failed to recuse himself from involvement in the Seralini study. Instead, he oversaw a “review” of the study that was carried out by unnamed parties who also failed to disclose whether or not they, too, were paid by Monsanto, or had some vested interest in helping the company. Mr. Hayes then used the findings of these unnamed parties to retract the Seralini study.

Monsanto.News.com
Monsanto.News.com reported that in a letter to Seralini, Hayes, the journal’s Editor in Chief at the time, wrote that although the study’s results were not fraudulent, he felt they were “inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication.”  His conclusion came despite the fact that the study had passed a thorough peer review process prior to being published in the first place.

Monsanto Fears Long-term Glyphosate Studies
Further emails show Monsanto felt the Seralini study’s publication would leave Monsanto vulnerable to the possibility of other scientists and regulators calling for long-term studies on the effects of GM crops and the pesticides used to proliferate them.

Monsanto employee Dan Goldstein expressed concern that a third party would set out to verify the Seralini study’s red flags.  Why would that be a concern to Mr. Goldstein unless he felt that further studies could further damage Monsanto?  If the Seralini study really were as flawed as Monsanto minions claimed, why would the company not welcome other parties to perform further studies that could disprove it, or show the Seralini study to be an aberration?

Mr. Hayes’ relationship with the journal was not tarnished, however.  The publication now names him an “emeritus editor”.  Monsanto money for hungry writers, like its glyphosate gift to the world, is something that just keeps on giving, apparently.

Monsanto MO: lie, bribe, bully, deny, deceive
The truth revealed in the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit documents show a systematic effort by the corporation to deceive people into believing Roundup is not carcinogenic. Monsanto has and will use any means possible to defend its flagship product.  Monsanto will pay off scientific journal authors (like the unconscionable shill Henry I. Miller), editors (like A. Wallace Hayes), and so-called expert panel members. Monsanto will counter negative comments on social media with fake science.  Monsanto will smear the reputation of real journalists (like Mike Adams and many others), and it will smear real researchers (like Dr. Armed Putszai and Dr. Gilles Seralini).  There is almost nothing Monsanto won’t do to anyone who threatens the company’s bottom line, which depends on the continued poisoning of the land, people, and civil discourse.

Monsanto’s maneuvering is helping show more and more people that Roundup is indeed toxic and terrible for the earth and for us all.  If Roundup were as safe as Monsanto claims, the company wouldn’t need to lie, bribe, bully, deny and deceive the public.  And farmers and homeowners stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers would not need to take the pesticide king to court.

Related

Share

Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

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

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

Related: Talcum Powder Cancer Attorney

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

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

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

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

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

Sixth Talcum Powder Trial set in Missouri

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

RELATED

Share

Train Engineers’ Sleep Apnea undiagnosed before crashes

Two New York City-area engineers who crashed their trains in 2016 suffered from undiagnosed sleep apnea.  Neither has a memory of the crash he caused.  That was the finding of the National Transportation Safety Board.  The crashes – in Hoboken, New Jersey and Brooklyn, New York – killed one person and injured 200.

Both trains were moving faster than double the posted speed limit, the Associated Press reported. Each crashed at a station that had been exempted from federal regulations which require automatic speed controls that could have slowed or stopped them. The NTSB documents were made public Sept. 21, 2017.

NTSB Report will Combine Findings

NTSB said the common circumstances of the two accidents – the Sept. 29, 2016 New Jersey Transit crash in Hoboken, New Jersey; and the Jan. 4, 2017 Long Island Rail Road crash in Brooklyn – warranted combined findings and recommendations into one report slated for release in 2018.

The 2,500 pages of documents released Sept. 21 included medical reports and interview transcripts.  They show what investigators have learned but don’t include crash causation conclusions.

Sleep Apnea Controversy Rages
The sleep apnea findings inflame the debate over whether or not to require testing for the malady in train engineers and OTR semi-truck drivers. Sleep apnea harms one’s ability to get needed rest, which most reasonable people would agree is important for a train engineer or a truck driver.

The Obama administration had introduced legislation to require train engineers and truck drivers to be screened for sleep apnea; but the Trump administration reversed course.  Many OTR truckers have fought the screening measure because they would suffer the costs of it, estimated at $1,000-$2,000 per person.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has pushed for government-mandated screenings.  Mr. Schumer called the Trump administration’s decision to abandon a plan to enact a sleep apnea testing requirement “unconscionable.”

“We can’t have train engineers with undiagnosed sleep apnea at risk of falling asleep at the switch,” said Mr. Schumer.

Sleep Apnea affects Waking Hours
Sleep apnea can affect the afflicted even during waking hours, leading to drowsiness.  Sufferers are repeatedly awakened as their airways close and breathing stops.

Former Federal Railroad Administrator Weighs In
Former Federal Railroad Administrator Sarah Feinberg issued a safety advisory in December 2016 that urged railroads to test for sleep apnea.  Ms. Feinberg argued that the Hoboken and Brooklyn crashes were “further confirmation” that undiagnosed and untreated sleep apnea “is a danger to rail passengers, subway commuters and everyone on America’s highways.”

NTSB – Sleep Apnea caused Highway, Rail Accidents
The NTSB has blamed sleep apnea as the probable cause of ten highway and rail accidents in the past 17 years.

Morbid Obesity raised Sleep Apnea Risk
NTSB records show the Hoboken and Brooklyn engineers both had the sleep apnea risk factor of morbid obesity, but neither had been diagnosed with that disorder either, until after their crashes.  Both engineers are now being treated with pressurized breathing masks.

NJ Transit engineer Thomas Gallagher – 6 feet tall and 322 pounds – told investigators he only remembered looking at his watch and the speedometer and activating the horn and bell before his packed rush-hour train slammed into Hoboken Terminal.  Then 48, he told investigators the next thing he remembered was a “loud bang.”  Meanwhile, a conductor standing on a platform told investigators he couldn’t see the engineer through the cab window as the train hit the station at more than double the 10 mph speed limit.  That means Mr. Gallagher may have slumped down or fallen.

Falling debris killed a woman on a platform, and the crash hurt 110 people aboard the train.

The morbidly obese train engineer in the Long Island Railroad crash told investigators he only remembered approaching the terminal and then getting thrown from his seat in the crash. His train was going 13 mph in a 5 mph curve when it hit a bumping post at the end of the tracks.
The engineer said he was unaware of the impending crash, which launched the lead car into the air and on top of the concrete platform. His crash hurt more than 100 people.

“I didn’t know what the hell was going on,” the engineer said. “I remember being thrown from the seat because I was into the dashboard area, and just, you know, screaming and smoke, and people were laying on the floor in front of me.”

Train Engineers’ Sleep apnea undiagnosed before crashes
Train Engineers and OTR truckers should not have to pay for their own sleep apnea screenings, but neither should train passengers or drivers of cars on the road, when undiagnosed sleep apnea injures or kills them.

RELATED

Share