Aspartame poisoning President Trump, many others

Aspartame poisoning is back in the news because President Trump drinks 12 diet sodas a day.  People on both sides of the political aisle are concerned for the man’s health, especially as he now contemplates war with North Korea, a possible nuclear conflagration that could destroy us all.  The U.S. President’s mental and physical health is a topic that concerns every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (as well as the world); and this is not another media attack piece on President Trump.  (Let’s all please be adults on this subject.)

Mainstream media, or at least Newsmax (and to some extent the Washington Post and N.Y. Times) has recently brought the issue to the fore (again).  Outlets have covered the carcinogenic and neurodegenerative effects of the 12 Diet Cokes a day that President Trump drinks.  Many sane people hope the attention will finally force the FDA to take aspartame off the market.  Removing this poison is a real possibility if mainstream media sites (whether full of fake news or not) keep covering the subject.

If those publications sound too far left for you, please consider that the ultra right-wing preacher Pat Robertson has also warned his flock about the dangers of aspartame, and one of the world’s leading experts on the subject has also sounded the alarm about aspartame poisoning.

Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills
Perhaps most prominently, a Texas neurosurgeon named Dr. Russell Blaylock has said Mr. Trump’s aspartame consumption could lead to dementia and cancer.  Dr. Blaylock’s politics lean decidedly to the Right, so this is not, in any fashion, another concerted media attack on President Trump.  Dr. Blaylock’s book – Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills – is arguably the most scientifically relevant treatise on the subject of aspartame.

Why an Aspartame Name Change?
Op-Ed News has noted, meanwhile, that ASPARTAME is being renamed AMINOSWEET by its makers AJINOMOTO.  Writer Stephen Fox legitimately asks, “What reason could Ajinomoto possibly have to rename ASPARTAME?”  Indeed.

NewsMax (with 1 million circulation in NYC) published an article by Sylvia Booth on Monday, Dec. 18, 2017.  Ms. Booth wrote:

“Media reports of President Donald Trump’s love of fast food, Diet Cokes, and extra desserts have dogged him since the primaries – a questionable diet he does little to deny. A recent New York Times article stated he drinks 12 Diet Cokes a day. Is Trump’s Diet Coke habit a real danger to his health? And if so, what business is it of ours? (She) inquired of the right person, Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, former professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical School.”

Dr. Blaylock responded: “Yes, drinking Diet Coke, especially in the large amounts reported, is a definite danger to his health. And since he’s our president, his health is our business, too.  If I were President Trump’s physician, I’d advise him to do whatever it takes to ditch diet drinks.”

Aspartame Harms the Brain
Several studies have shown that aspartame used in Diet Coke harms the brain.  Additionally, Mr. Trump is 70 years old; the damaging effects can be more pronounced on older folks.

Mr. Trump will end Demented on Aspartame
“The evidence of the damage they do is profound, and if he doesn’t get off this stuff, he’s going to end up demented,” says Dr. Blaylock, adding that he has seen “people who had to be institutionalized with dementia because they drank large amounts of aspartame.”

Aspartame raises Cancer Risk
Besides causing neurological problems, aspartame also increases cancer risks.

Dr. Blaylock said, “Two big cancers, lymphoma and leukemia, are the two most associated with diet drinks, but another big danger is pancreatic cancer.  Pancreatic cancer is exploding because people are drinking tons of these drinks.

They don’t just drink one a day; they are swilling massive amounts of it. President Trump can break this addiction. All he needs is to be convinced that he’s killing himself, and that his habit may ruin his mind.”

Quitting Aspartame Improves Brain Power
Dr. Blaylock said he has weaned several people off of aspartame, “and they were amazed at how their brain power improved, and how much more clearly they could think.”

Many studies have found diet drinks increase the risks of many dangerous conditions, especially those associated with aging.

Aspartame increased the risk of many maladies, including:
•  cancer
•  obesity
•  diabetes
•  stroke
•  insomnia
•  cardiovascular disease
•  weakened bones

Some mainstream media have covered the dangers of aspartame in the past, and Mr. Trump’s diet soda habit has gotten many to turn away from the artificial sweetener, the excitotoxin with a taste that kills.  Mr. Trump is decidedly stubborn, but let’s hope that he finds a good doctor and takes helpful advice to save his brain and his health.  Our lives may depend on it.

Op-Ed News

Mr. Fox in an Op-Ed News piece hopefully points out that the aspartame alert has brought some mainstream media papers into the fold (pun intended).

The Washington Post ran a story on the subject, albeit a minor one.  WaPo did at least mention the aspartame connection to stroke and dementia, writing:

“People who drank diet soda daily were three times more likely to develop stroke and dementia than those who consumed it weekly or less, according to a study published in April in the journal Stroke. The study found those who consumed at least one artificially sweetened drink a day, compared to less than one a week, were three times as likely to have an ischemic stroke from blood vessel blockage. They were also three times as likely to be diagnosed with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. The effect of diet sodas persisted even if the researchers controlled for factors such as diabetes or high blood pressure.”

But of course WaPo had to follow with the obligatory disclaimer defense from industry lobbying groups like, the American Beverage Association, which said, “Low-calorie sweeteners have been proven safe by worldwide government safety authorities as well as “hundreds of scientific studies.”

Those “hundreds of studies” were virtually all done at the behest of the beverage industry, but the Post failed to point out that little fact, the same way it consistently fails to point out misleading material behind Monsanto defense statements about the company’s carcinogenic Roundup. Monsanto, coincidentally, formerly owned aspartame through its G.D. Serle affiliate. Monsanto has been in the business of poisoning food for a very long time.

Some things never change.

Related

•  Aspartame gets Mainstream Coverage

•   Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Fox News on Aspartame Poison

•  Aspartame poisoning President Trump, many others

Share

How Big Pharma buries Vaccine Problems

Big Pharma buries vaccine problems the old fashioned way, with advertising money. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a fact. It is a cold, hard fact admitted by the CEO of the most watched news show on American television. It is a fact that should make any thinking person of only average intelligence (or perhaps even slightly below average intelligence) question whether or not the real story of anything ever appears on what most of us sloppily call “the news.”

Jon Rappoport reports from his web site “No More Fake News” just how Big Pharma controls the news and buries pharmaceutical drug and vaccine problems.

Big Pharma spends $3.2 Billion on TV Ads
Over the last 11 months, pharmaceutical companies have spent a staggering $3.2 billion on TV ads. In that time, Big Pharma has easily outspent all other industry advertisers combined. Big Pharma is without advertising peer.  It is easily “the news’” biggest customer.  Its money buys what editors call “friendly” or “complementary copy.”  Several billion dollars also buys a lot of silence on drug and vaccine safety issues.  That silence it buys, the missing information, the stories squelched, may be the most damaging aspect of all.

Mercury in Vaccines Problem Censored by “The News”
The extent of censorship became quite clear recently when Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. produced a film called “Trace Amounts,” about the mercury, aluminum and other toxic ingredients used in vaccines.  In an effort to garner some promotion for his film, he spoke to several network heads, including Roger Ailes, who was then CEO of Fox News (before his recent retirement following sexual harassment claims.)

The son of the murdered Senator Robert F. Kennedy asked Mr. Ailes, whom he had known since he was 17 years old, to give his film some spot somewhere on one of Fox’ 24-hour news stations.

Robert F Kennedy, Jr. said Mr. Ailes was very sympathetic with the toxic mercury issue.  Mr. Kennedy said he told the Fox News CEO, “‘I just want to go on one of your shows.  Nobody will allow me to talk about this or debate me.’  He [Ailes] said to me, ‘I can’t allow you on any of them. I’d have to fire any of my hosts that allowed you on my station.’  Because he said, ‘My news division gets up to 70% of advertising revenues during non-election years from the pharmaceutical companies’.”

Mr. Rappoport points out that foundations like Rockefeller and Gates make the medical/pharma agenda part and parcel of the Globalist agenda.  The end goal is total control of the news that people hear and the medical treatment they are allowed to pursue.  Insurance companies work with the AMA, pharmaceutical companies and their lackeys in the U.S. Congress and the courts to ensure that only medical procedures that benefit companies in the Globalist loop will be paid for by insurance. They’ll pay hundreds of thousands to kill you with chemotherapy (with a 97% failure rate), or pay for your worthless flu or dangerous shingles vaccine shot; but they won’t pay for an $18 vitamin B-12 shot, a simple massage, chelation therapy, or whatever other alternative procedure you might like to choose.  If you don’t think that healing has become a crime in some cases, you simply haven’t read enough. Read: When Healing Becomes a Crime for a good primer on the broken medical system.

Few people, for one example among dozens, know that the AMA lost a multi-million-dollar damage lawsuit after they conspired to discredit chiropractors. The AMA wanted to destroy the competition, and the game has gotten a lot dirtier now, and more under the radar, unless you are paying attention.

Rappoport asks: “How can you control billions of people, erase national borders, destroy untold numbers of communities and their traditions, wage senseless wars, send millions of jobs out of industrial countries to Third World backwaters, and build a de facto global management system – unless you can also debilitate, weaken, confuse, toxify, and thus pacify those billions of people?

The pharmaceutical empire is instrumental in this dirty work.

John D. Rockefeller and Dale Carnegie set out a hundred years ago to capture the medical industry. Using the diabolical Flexner Report and other ruses, they sought to establish a monopoly on medical treatment and the drugs which people would be allowed to use.  It was the beginning of a medical monopoly, of patenting dangerous and worthless drugs for profit, the beginning of the end for medical freedom and sound human health and the freedom for people to choose their own treatment.  Rockefeller and Carnegie used useful idiots like Morris Fishbein and the creation of the AMA to accomplish their goal, which they’ve largely succeeded in achieving.  Today Rockefeller medicine vultures squat over the rotting carcass of western medicine, exemplified in the gleaming medical palaces that are towering monuments to the loss of the tens of billions of dollars wasted on the so-called “War on Cancer,” a near total loss in what was and is a perverted ruse.

Related:  Rockefeller Medicine

Mr. Rappoport has long reported how “Rockefeller medicine” has led to some 106,000 deaths in the U.S. every year from government-approved medicines.  In the US and Europe, 330,000 die every year from correctly prescribed drugs, while 6.6 million are hospitalized, and some 80 million report adverse events following the “approved” and “proper” use of drugs and vaccines. These are all likely conservative estimates.

So why does everybody keep watching “the news”?  Old habits are tough to break.  We have been lied to for so long it is accepted by most of us, apparently, as business as usual.  That attitude can  be bad for one’s health.  It certainly is a sad situation in America, where our most heavily advertised people are the most obese and unhealthy in the world, and our children are the most vaccinated and the sickest in any modern society.

How Big Pharma buries Vaccine Problems

One must do a lot of research on the web today to learn something of importance, to remain healthy.

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,” as Jefferson said.  So be it.

Related

Global Vaccine Cartel wreaks Destruction

•   Shingles Vaccine eye Damage

•  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

•  Vaccine Hysteria Reigns

•  How Big Pharma buries Vaccine Problems

Share

Vaccination Truth, Fake News, Internet Freedom

Vaccination truth is tightly tied with the current fight for net neutrality.  Corporations threatened by the truth want to slow it down on your browser, or make it disappear from google search results altogether. Those who do not have the truth on their side must resort to propaganda, either to control the spin or to turn black into white, war into peace, death into liberation. Already organic search results will bring up disinformation sites (like the dreadful ‘Snopes,’ for one).  In very recent history, fake news outlets like CNN, CBS, the Washington Post, New York Times and many other mainstream outlets delivered shameless propaganda, pure lies, to help war profiteers manufacture a casus belli for the Iraq invasion.  There are few crimes more treasonous or serious than manufacturing a fake casus belli which commits your country to an ill-advised war. For outlets like these, proven news fakers, to call fake news on legitimate “alternative news” sources (isn’t whatever one chooses to watch an ‘alternative’?) is quite simply ludicrous. (CNN’s latest lie is simply another in an endless litany.)

The old weapons of mass destruction lie regarding Iraq, which all the mainstream outlets repeated despite any evidence to back it, got our country into its longest-running war.  It has resulted in the deaths of at least a million people who never did us any harm, nor even had the means to do so. The fake news that sealed our fate and stole our nation’s bounty has also made our country an international pariah.   We could not have been brought this low without the aid of fake news.  Wrap yourself in Old Glory and bang your chest all you want and hate some enemies (real or imagined) as you will, nobody in this world survives without friends.  We have been made decidedly poorer, morally and financially, all of us, thanks in large part to our fake news outlets, which continue to misinform and disinform us daily, about almost everything.

The Truth Spills Out Regardless
The truth, regardless of the sea of fake news that never ends on our “Smart” TV screens and much of the internet, has a funny way of spilling out.  Corporations know this. The fight over net neutrality is a fight for truth vs. propaganda. If corporations have their way, they will slow down any and all information that doesn’t back their bottom line. The current battle over internet freedom is also a watershed moment for vaccination truth.

Follow the Money

The vaccine market today is worth close to $24 billion.  A report titled ‘Global Human Vaccines Market 2016-2020’ gives an in-depth view of the possible revenues and emerging global market trends.  It says that by 2020 the vaccine market will be worth $62 billion.  That much money will buy a lot of advertising, and friendly promotional coverage.

No Conspiracy. An Open Secret.
The internet has taught us all many things that we likely would not have learned otherwise. The internet is obviously a huge moneymaker for corporations, but it is also a two-edged sword for them. The fight for vaccination truth is one very big front in this battle. The U.S. government has paid out billions of dollars to vaccine-injured children and their families saddled with vaccine-crippled children, but they never run that story in the mainstream news. Why not? Conspiracy? No, it’s all an open secret.

Vaccination Lies Promoted, Covered up by CDC, Big Pharma, MSM
Whistleblowers at the CDC and former employees of Merck Pharmaceuticals have shown us that we are being lied to about the safety and efficacy of vaccination. One fugitive author of a fraudulent vaccine safety report still used by the CDC to justify forced vaccination on our children is still at large, while his handiwork, his web of lies, is still used by the CDC to justify mass vaccination.

Shingles Vaccine Lawsuits
Meanwhile, shingles vaccine lawsuits are being filed by people who have lost their eyesight from the live shingles vaccination made by Merck. Many have developed shingles FROM the vaccination, just as many develop flu from the influenza vaccine (so-called).

Flu Vaccine causes Flu
Piers Morgan showed us how to develop flu from vaccination on national television. He took the flu shot from Dr. Oz on his show. The two were supposed to show all of us yokels how the flu shot not only did not cause the flu, but was safe and would prevent it. The little tableaux accidentally gave the whole game away when Morgan soon came down with the flu after taking the shot. Dwight Yoakum joked with him about it on a subsequent episode. He must not have gotten the memo to keep that on the down low.

Sacrifice the Children?
What gives? Are the vaccine injured children sacrifices we give to the Gods to keep the rest of us healthy, like Druids throwing children into the bog so that the Gods may grant us fecundity?  Is it all okay just so long as you and your children submit to the government-approved vaccinations and are not (apparently) injured by them?

Vaccines are Safe and Effective Myth
The biggest, most tiresome myth we endlessly hear is that vaccines are safe and effective. Vaccines are not safe, as even a casual reading of any vaccine package insert reveals. Thousands of adverse events from vaccination are reported to the VAERS database each year, including many deaths following vaccination. The numbers reported to VAERS are merely 1-10% of the actual adverse events. Everyone who knows anything about vaccination or adverse drug events knows this is true. Therefore, there are a bare minimum of 10,000 adverse events from vaccination yearly, and likely more than 100,000.

Congress: Vaccines Unavoidably Unsafe
The U.S. Congress, which gave us the 1984 Childhood Immunization Act – which vaccinated vaccine makers against liability, hence removing any incentive they had to actually make vaccines safe OR effective – has called vaccines “unavoidably unsafe.”  How can vaccines be both safe (as most of our doctors tell us they are) and unavoidably unsafe?  Why do we accept these blatant contradictions as some sort of gospel truth?  How can we?  Have we all mastered the absurd art of “Doublespeak” as seen in George Orwell’s 1984?  Do we take our shots and risk our health and lives, and the lives of our children, because fake news master CNN says so? Because Fox News reporters say so? Because Rachel Maddow says we should? Because Comedy Central makes fun of “anti-vaxxers”? Do we accept as science today whatever our mainstream outlets – be they left or right leaning – say is science?

Vaccines are not Effective
No definitive science has ever shown that any vaccine has ever been proven effective on human beings. There is no definitive science which proves any vaccines is effective, that any vaccine actually works, that any one vaccine is worth the risk of taking it. So how does it come to pass then, that vaccine makers and their partner, the CDC – which owns 57 vaccine patents itself, is also in the business of vaccination, part of the market supply chain – how DO they claim vaccines are effective?

Vaccine Safety Depends on the Meaning of “is”
It is more than a little like Bill Clinton saying, “It depends on what the meaning of is is.” In the vaccine makers world – a parallel universe ungoverned by sensibility, honesty, or practicality – a vaccine is said to be “effective” when it can be shown to trigger antibodies to the disease the vaccinated person has been shot with. But. . . wait for it. The presence of antibodies in no way correlates with immunity. That’s right. There is NO scientific evidence anywhere to prove that simply producing antibodies as a result of the artificial immunity resulting from vaccination gives one any immunity at all, to anything.

Vaccine Autism Link
It is a well accepted myth that vaccines don’t cause autism. Why is that? Vaccines DO cause autism, and the U.S. Government has admitted it. The government has paid vaccine-injured children and the parents of those poor children who developed autism following vaccination. Our government has paid out more than $3 billion dollars for vaccine-related injuries, including those in which vaccines were linked with autism. See it here: Project Censored: U.S. Vaccine Court paid $3 Billion to Vaccine Injured Families

Vaccine Autism Link is Real
In March, 2008 the U.S. Government conceded that mercury containing vaccines can cause autism in children.

A child named Hannah Poling got autism from vaccinations. At 18 months old, she was given shots for nine diseases. Two shots contained thimerosal. Within 48 hours of the shots, Hannah became ill. She lost her ability to walk. She couldn’t sleep through a night. Within three months, she showed signs of autism. The shots resulted in a brain disorder “with features of autism spectrum disorder.” (That’s as close as they ever get to admitting it, hedging as much as they can to help continue the tiresome ruse.) The US Department of Health and Human Services determined that Hannah’s family is entitled to compensation from the federal vaccine injury fund. Put together by the U.S. Congress in 1984 to save drug companies from real liability, this “fund” is built on taxpayer money made from the sale of toxic vaccines. More than 5,000 vaccine autism cases are pending right now in the Federal “Vaccine Court.”

The Danish Study Hoax still cited by CDC and MSM
Fugitive Poul Thorsen is the “author” of the Danish Autism Study (a complete myth) that attempted to prove vaccines and autism have no correlation; scientifically referred to as the “Denmark Study.” After using fraudulent data to distort the truth about the human health dangers of being injected with mercury in vaccines, and more specifically the MMR vaccine combination, Thorsen, leader of the fraudulent study, was deified by the CDC as a genius who had discovered something monumental. Then. . . Newsflash! It was all shown to be a big cover up, which the CDC is still using so it doesn’t have to admit its own research had found out about the autism/mercury link back in 2004. See also the William Thompson whistleblower case shown in the film Vaxxed.

Vaccination Truth, Fake News, Internet Freedom

Here’s the punch line. Even though Thorsen is a wanted criminal today, for embezzlement, he remains even now as the central figure behind the CDC’s claims disputing the link between autism spectrum disorder (the whole array of central nervous system, neurological and brain dysfunctions) and mercury in vaccines (and flu shots-still). Even now. So the CDC is now just as guilty of fake news as the mainstream media news fakers.

Related

•  Vaccine Lottery: Sacrifice the Children

•  Shingles Vaccine?  Really?

•  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

•   True Disclosure.: The Real vaccine Story

•  Vaccination Truth, Fake News, Internet Freedom

Share

Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Monsanto has announced it will pay farmers to use one of its troubled poisons. (And why not? It’s a tried and true method that has worked for drug sales, illegal and otherwise.  Give the customer a free sample to hook him, then start charging, raising the price with the demand you’ve created.)

Monsanto’s latest version of its dicamba poison has been the subject of several lawsuits from farmers and homeowners. Dicamba has been shown to blow into neighboring farms and fields, damaging or killing plants. Monsanto and some farmers have consequently been sued by farmers or homeowners whose plants or property has been damaged by dicamba.

Farmers tend to get upset when you threaten or kill their livelihood. One Arkansas farmer was murdered over a Monsanto dicamba feud.  Others have developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma from Monsanto Roundup exposure.

Monsanto’s answer to the dicamba drifting problem has been to make it cheaper for farmers to use its beleaguered poison. It is offering cash to farmers who will use it. The ploy is clearly part of Monsanto’s continuing strategy to own everything that grows. If Monsanto can make everyone use its poison products, there will be nothing left to grow except patented Monsanto-poisoned seeds sprayed with Monsanto poisons. If you don’t think full spectrum market domination is not the company’s goal, you don’t know Monsanto.

Monsanto Lesson for India
American farmers lured into using dicamba by the promise of being paid to use it may want to consider the lesson of Indian farmers lured into the promise of easier farming and bigger yields.

Monsanto Farmer Suicides
In third-world countries such as India, Monsanto lured thousands of farmers into using its Roundup and GMO seeds by initially making them cheaper to purchase and use.  Then it lowered the boom, jacking up prices to where farmers couldn’t turn a profit.  Monsanto’s engineered crops also spectacularly failed in India.  So miserable did so many of the farmers become in their awful farming arrangement with Monsanto that thousands of them committed suicide.  Death became preferable to doing business with the biotech bully from Missouri.

In America today, Reuters reports – without the India farmers’ perspective – that “Monsanto Co will give cash back to U.S. farmers who buy a weed killer that has been linked to widespread crop damage, offering an incentive to apply its product even as regulators in several U.S. states weigh restrictions on its use.”

Monsanto wants farmers to use XtendiMax with VaporGrip, a poison (herbicide) based on the chemical known as dicamba. Reuters reportrs that Monsanto could refund farmers over half the sticker price of the poison in 2018 if they spray it on Monsanto’s GMO soybeans altered to resist it.

Monsanto is using its “generous offer” in an attempt to override the fact that the U.S. faced an agricultural crisis in 2017 which was caused by new formulations of Monsantio’s dicamba-based poisons.  Both farmers and weed experts say dicamba spraying harmed crops because it evaporated and drifted onto neighboring plants, gardens, trees, and other green growing areas that were not genetically altered to withstand the poison.

Monsanto claims XtendiMax is safe when properly applied.  Monsanto is banking on dicamba and soybean seeds engineered to resist it, called Xtend, to dominate soybean production in the U.S.

Meanwhile, if Monsanto’s latest dicamba product doesn’t kill non GMO plants, BASF SE and DowDuPont also sell versions of dicamba-based herbicides that can.

Monsanto competes against other chemical farming monsters such as Bayer AG (which is now trying to buy Monsanto) to sell farmers genetically perverted soybean seeds and chemicals.  Bayer is selling its LibertyLink soybean brand, a main rival to Xtend, to BASF as part of a deal to acquire Monsanto for $63.5 billion.  (Yes, Virginia, there’s good money in poisoning the land and monopolizing the seed industry.)

States prohibit Monsanto Poison
North Dakota in December 2017 said that it planned to ban dicamba herbicides after June 30, 2018, and when temperatures top 85 degrees Fahrenheit. The state think those restrictions may prevent dicamba from drifting beyond where it is sprayed.

Missouri may finalize restrictions on XtendiMax soon, after banning sprayings of BASF’s dicamba herbicide, called Engenia, in ten counties after June 1, 2018, and statewide after July 15, 2018.

Arkansas wants to stop dicamba sprayings after April 15, 2018.

Minnesota is also considering dicamba restrictions.

The farming states are taking action after the U.S. EPA (normally a rubber stamp agency for Monsanto) mandated special training for dicamba users for 2018. They will require that farmers keep records proving they were complying with label instructions.  (As if farmers don’t already have enough to do.)

Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Will Monsanto be able to lure in more customers with cheaper poison?  The company sure thinks so. Reuters reports Monsanto predicts it will double Xtend soybean plantings to about 40 milion acres next year, despite the millions of dollars in crop damage dicamba unleashed in 2017.

Related

•  Dicamba Pesticide Lawsuit

•  Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Monsanto pays farmers to use troubled poison

Share

Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban

Monsanto sued Arkansas agricultural officials in October 2017 for a proposed ban on dicamba, which has damaged millions of acres of crops.  Arkansas proposed a summer ban on Monsanto’s dicamba weed killer, which has been linked to widespread crop damage in the state as well as beyond its borders.

Arkansas faces a tough task in taking on the chemical giant from neighboring Missouri. Loaded with lawyers, Monsanto has used its legal army (which includes former Monsanto lawyer Clarence Thomas as well as employees of the EPA) to sue more than 100 American farmers, and it has never lost against them.  Though this case is admittedly somewhat different.

Related: Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Poison Feud

The Monsanto lawsuit is attempting to block the Arkansas State Plant Board from prohibiting the use of Monsanto’s dicamba herbicides. Arkansas wants them banned during summer.  The poisons are meant to be sprayed on GMO soybeans and cotton.  Monsanto genetically modifies staple money plants like soy, cotton, and corn; so that they become resistant to Monsanto-patented poisons like Roundup and dicamba.  But dicamba has caused some serious problems for neighboring farmers and residents.

Farmers across America’s farm belt said in summer 2017 that dicamba drifted onto areas beyond where it was sprayed, damaging millions of acres of crops that were not genetically engineered to absorb and tolerate the herbicides.  Poison experts say dicamba is likely to vaporize in high temperatures in a process known as volatility.

Monsanto blames Farmers
Companies like Monsanto selling the herbicide/pesticide poisons have blamed the crop damage on farmers they say are misusing dicamba.  Farmers, in turn, have responded by saying the dicamba directions are nearly impossible to follow.  Farmers suffering possible damages from lawsuits against them for dicamba drift have also said Monsanto sold them the seeds meant to be sprayed with dicamba, but failed to sell them the latest formulation of dicamba.  In some cases, Monsanto sold them seeds before the dicamba formulation meant to go with them had not yet been approved by the U.S. EPA.

To prevent damage, the Arkansas plant board proposed at a September 2017 meeting to limit or stop dicamba spraying.  That put Arkansas one step away from banning dicamba sprayings after April 15, 2018.

Monsanto wants its own studies made evidence
Monsanto argued in its latest lawsuit that the Arkansas board did not review 14 studies on volatility Monsanto submitted at the meeting. Monsanto’s own studies virtually always exonerate Monsanto products, despite what independent studies find.  But Monsanto did not mention that fact in its lawsuit.  Most likely the Arkansas board was not interested in studies performed by a company with vested interests in the outcomes.  It was looking at what was happening on the ground, at millions of acres of crop damage seen firsthand and reported by experienced farmers.

Monsanto’s lawsuit said that the Arkansas board’s action hurt Monsanto and its dicamba herbicide brand through the loss of direct sales and indirect business through distribution and licensing agreements.  Scott Partridge, vice president of global strategy for Monsanto, claimed, “The plant board’s action disadvantages Arkansas farmers.”

Director of Arkansas’ plant board, Terry Walker, said in October that he had not seen Monsanto’s lawsuit, and he declined to comment.

Arkansas previously forbid farmers from using Monsanto’s dicamba herbicide, called XtendiMax with VaporGrip, in 2017.  Arkansas did allow sales of a version made by Monsanto’s rival BASF SE.

The U.S. EPA approved use of the herbicide poisons on crops that had emerged from the ground only through next year.  It could stop sprayings after 2018 if farmers suffer another year of damage.

Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban
The case is Monsanto Co v Arkansas State Plant Board et al, Circuit Court of Pulaski County, Arkansas, No. CV-17-5964.

Related

Arkansas Farmer Murdered in Monsanto Feud

•  Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear

•  Monsanto sues Arkansas for Dicamba Ban

 

Share

Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive

Another talc asbestos case was recently settled by Colgate-Palmolive. On October 30, 2017, the consumer products giant once again chose to pay for the link between the company’s Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder and deadly asbestos exposure.

The New York-based company was sued by a Pennsylvania woman who developed mesothelioma after using the talcum powder product for more than 20 years.  According to court filings, Colgate-Palmolive avoided a trial in a New Jersey state court by reaching the undisclosed settlement.

Plaintiff Carol Schoeniger alleged that Colgate-Palmolive failed to warn her of risks associated with using Cashmere Bouquet.  She claimed that inhaling the asbestos-contaminated talc product caused her cancer.

Ms. Schoeniger’s case is the latest of several in which talc users accuse talc product makers of selling them products that pose serious health risks.

More than 170 Talc Cancer Mesothelioma Cases
Colgate-Palmolive faces more than 170 lawsuits from people who claim the company sold them talcum powder that contained asbestos.  The company has resolved 43 talc asbestos cases so far in 2017, according to Bloomberg News.

Talcum powder was routinely in American homes for more than 100 years. Colgate-Palmolive made Cashmere Bouquet from 1871 to 1985, marketing it until 1995.

Moisture Phobia drives Talc Sales
Some sort of moisture phobia appears to lurk behind the human craze for talc.  Despite this talc asbestos lawsuit and others involving a talc link to ovarian cancer, talc is still sold today and used in many products.  People seem drawn to its ability to absorb moisture and soften the skin in some areas.

Talc with Asbestos
Prior to the 1970s, reports showed some talc products contained traces of asbestos dust, a result of talc and asbestos minerals often appearing near each other in the natural world.

Long Latency Period for Mesothelioma

Inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers can lead to serious health problems, including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.  The latency period for these diseases is usually decades. It may take 20-30 years or more for people exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc products to exhibit symptoms of talc-related problems.

Related:  Talc Powder Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Judith Winkel Case Precedent
In 2015, a California jury awarded Judith Winkel $13 million over her mesothelioma claim tied to Cashmere Bouquet.  That was the first verdict against Colgate-Palmolive for asbestos exposure from commercial talcum powder.  But few know what she was actually awarded in damages, as Ms. Winkel later agreed to a confidential settlement with the company.

Cashmere Boquet Talc
Cashmere Bouquet contained talc mined by Imerys Talc North America, the world’s leading talc producer.  Imerys’ Yellowstone open-cast mine in Montana is the country’s biggest talc mining operation.

Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive

A spokeswoman for Imery’s, Gwen Myers, told Bloomberg in an email: “Imerys’ firm position is that talc is safe, and that position is backed by the consensus of government agencies and professional scientific organizations that have reviewed the safety of talc.’’

Colgate-Palmolive Files Motion with Philadelphia Court
The company has asked a judge to reconsider dismissing the first asbestos-related talc case in Philadelphia after the court rejected the testimony of two key experts for the plaintiffs.  Colgate-Palmolive filed a motion for summary judgment Oct. 23.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Idee Fox barred the experts from testifying in October in the case of Brandt v. Colgate-Palmolive.  The Philly-filed lawsuit alleges Sally Brandt developed mesothelioma from using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder from 1954 to 1970.

California Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment
In a separate but related case, a California appeals court reversed a summary judgment Oct. 20 in a Colgate-Palmolive asbestos lawsuit.

The three-justice panel of the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, ruled the trial court made a mistake in granting Colgate-Palmolive summary judgment over allegations that Cashmere Bouquet contained asbestos and caused plaintiff Mary Lyons to develop mesothelioma. Ms. Lyons was diagnosed in October 2015.

In the unanimous decision, the appeals court ruled Ms. Lyons had provided enough evidence to warrant a trial, which is pending.

“All or most of the Cashmere Bouquet that [Lyons] used almost daily for 20 years contained harmful asbestos,” said Justice Stuart Pollak in the 3-0 ruling.  Judge Pollak also noted there was no evidence Ms. Lyons had been exposed to asbestos from any other source.

Related

•  Talcum Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit

•  Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Link

•  Talcum Powder Cancer Attorney

•  Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive

 

Share

Xarelto Verdict $28M

On December 5, 2017, a Philadelphia jury delivered a Xarelto verdict of nearly $28 million in damages against Johnson & Johnson and Bayer. The jury found the companies had provided inadequate warnings about bleeding risks linked with the blood thinner Xarelto.

The case was filed by an Indiana woman who said she suffered a serious gastrointestinal bleed after using Xarelto. It was the first Xarelto verdict for a plaintiff. Juries in three previous federal multidistrict litigation trials in 2017 sided with the drugmakers.

Related:  Xarelto Lawsuit

The Lynn Hartman case is one of more than 1,500 pending as part of mass tort litigation in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas.  Xarelto-related product liability claims were consolidated there, despite defense protests.

U.S. Patient Bleeding Events Misrepresented
Ms. Hartman’s trial centered around claims that J&J’s Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. failed to include vital information in Xarelto’s warning label.  The companies were charged in the lawsuit with failing to properly report the rate of bleeding events observed in a clinical trial.  The trial showed the rate was significantly higher among U.S. patients compared with patients elsewhere in the world.

According to evidence shown in the trial, the rate of bleeding events among people in the U.S. was 8.1 percent yearly versus 3.6 percent among people globally.

Ms. Hartman’s lawyers also accused the two companies of failing to adequately warn about the higher bleeding risks in using the drug with aspirin.  They also charged that the companies failed to inform doctors that some patients end up with significantly higher levels of the medication in their blood than others.

Higher Risk than Elizuis, Pradaxa
The woman’s lawyers argued that adverse event risks linked with Xarelto were significantly higher than that of Xarelto’s competitors, Eliquis and Pradaxa.

“Xarelto is the worst in class of the new blood thinners,” argued Ms. Hartman’s lawyer.  “The serious health complications suffered by thousands of patients could have been avoided if physicians were properly instructed about the risks, and if patients were given the choice to switch to Eliquis and Pradaxa, which are safer and far more effective.”

Ms. Hartman’s case was supported by testimony from former FDA head David Kessler.  He told the jury he believed that Xarelto’s warning label lacked key information concerning the severity of the drug’s potential bleeding risks.

Xarelto Defense Respose
The drugmakers’ lawyers focused Xarelto’s defense on the language included in the Xarelto label, which warned that Xarelto “can cause serious and fatal bleeding.”

The defense also pointed to testimony from Ms. Hartman’s doctor that she would not have changed her decision to prescribe Xarelto even with the additional information that she agreed (with the plaintiff) should have been included on the label.

Xarelto Verdict $28M

The case is Hartman v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al., case number 160503416, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

A Janssen spokeswoman said the company will appeal the verdict, which was not a shock to anyone, as no drug company has ever accepted any verdict against it without appealing to have it thrown out of court.  Hence the importance of corporations lobbying and bankrolling state and D.C. beltway politicians who then work endlessly to stack the appeals courts against citizens and their rights.

According to court records, a second Xarelto case is scheduled for a trial in Philadelphia in January 2018.

Stay tuned. . .

Related

•  Xarelto Lawsuit

•  Xarelto Dangers Rival Pradaxa

•  Xarelto Maker, Marketer fight MDL

•  Xarelto Makers win First Trial

•  Pradaxa Lawsuit

•  Stay tuned. . .

 

Share

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit filed in Texas

Recent sexual harassment charges leveled against Harvey Weinstein, Donald Trump, Roy Moore, Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly, Matt Lauer, Kevin Spacey, Charlie Rose and several other well-known men may come to impact  sexual harassment lawsuits filed against others.  Before the national tumult that began with the Weinstein allegations, a sexual harassment lawsuit was quietly filed in Texas against the head of an investment firm in Fort Worth.

The local lawsuit was filed in May 2017 against Chairman Dale Rogers on behalf of Megan Raetz. Ms. Raetz was hired as an administrative assistant by Rogers Wealth Group in December 2014.  Her lawsuit petition charges, “[Ms. Raetz] was told she should be overly attentive to Dale Rogers and to dress as he asked.”

Unwanted Advances Alleged
Dale Rogers later “promoted” Ms. Raetz to his personal assistant and gave her a raise. The petition details 18 specific, unwanted advances allegedly made my Mr. Rogers. The complaint further states:  “As his personal assistant, she was told to sit for pictures in his office, which she refused, and to escort him to and from his car, always allowing him to walk behind her and make comments about the fit of her clothes and her back side.”

Ms. Raetz also claims in the lawsuit petition that Mr. Rogers made weekly unwanted comments to Ms. Raetz, which included, “You make those pants look good,” and, “You probably have knee high leather boots in your trunk,” and “You must dominate the [soccer] field, and probably dominate a lot of other things.”

Mr. Rogers would also text her after work hours, according to Ms. Raetz’ charges.  He would also offer to buy her clothes if she would wear them for him, proposition her for trips to Las Vegas on his private jet, and make “constant sexual innuendo that he wanted more.”

The petition also alleges that Mr. Rogers would touch Ms. Raetz “inappropriately.”  Mr. Rogers is also accused in the petition of putting “his whole palm on her buttock, leaving it there until she moved away.”

Trapping Allegation
The petition further states that on multiple occasions, “Mr. Rogers trapped [Ms. Raetz] between
desks with his body.” It says he once shut the door to her office and began to ask what she was doing after work, then “offered her money for dinner and drinks and told her not to tell anyone, especially her husband.”

Supervisor Complaints
Ms. Raetz also alleges in her petition that she complained to three different supervisors. All told her not to make it a big deal of it or else they ignored her complaints altogether.

Ms. Raetz charges that she was disciplined in the spring of 2016 for a “bad attitude,” then quit the job soon thereafter.

Mr. Rogers Response
An attorney for Dale Rogers generally denied the allegations in his official response filed with the court in June 2017.  Attorney George Haratsis noted: “Defendant denies Plaintiff was restrained or touched in the manner alleged in her pleadings, in the event Plaintiff proves there was such restraint or touching, Defendant invokes the defense of consent.”

A Second Sex Harassment Lawsuit Filed
A second woman also employed by Rogers Wealth Group has filed a separate, nearly identical harassment lawsuit against the company and Chairman Dale Rogers.

Sexual Harassment Lawsuit filed in Texas

The sexual harassment trial for plaintiff Megan Raetz is scheduled to be heard by a jury in the summer of 2018.

Related

•  Sexual Harassment Lawsuit

•  Sexual Harassment Lawsuit filed in Texas

•  Congress’ Secret Fund pays Sexual Harassment Claims

Share

IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory

Science Daily hasCook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuits noted IVC filter use has decreased following an FDA advisory.  IVC filter use began declining last year after the National Institutes of Health noted in June 2016 that IVC filters carry real risks.  IVC filter injury lawsuits may also be slowing down the sale and use of these blood clot filters.

The NIH paper which appears to have slowed the use of IVC filters was titled: “Permanent versus Retrievable Inferior Vena Cava Filters: Rethinking the “One-Filter-for-All” Approach to Mechanical Thromboembolic Prophylaxis.”

IVC Filter Dangers Soft Played
IVC filter dangers have been soft played by their manufacturers. The paper’s opening abstract notes: “Deciding which IVC filters to use, when to use them, and for how long they should remain in place remains a highly complex process with many variables to consider. At a minimum, it is important to recognize that mechanical thromboembolic prophylaxis is not entirely benign.” That’s fancy language for admitting that IVC filters can be dangerous.

IVC Filter Dangers Increase over Time
The NIH noted that the use of IVC filters, especially retrievable filters, “is associated with morbidity risks that increase over time.” In plain language, that means the longer an IVC filters remains in the human body, the more likely it is to cause problems. Pieces of the delicate little thimble-sized devices can break off and migrate throughout the circulatory system, including into the lungs or heart. The entire IVC filter can also tilt sideways or embed into a blood vein wall, causing other serious problems, including death.

NIH: Remove Filter after PE Risk Resolves
NIH cautions that IVC “filters should be removed when the patient’s risk for PE has resolved.” The problem is that many temporary filters are being left inside of a person far longer than they should be. To further complicate matters, many IVC filter patients are not told by their doctors that their temporary filters should be removed after a given time. In addition, as many IVC filter lawsuits charge, IVC filter makers such as Bard and Cook Medical have not given their doctor customers clear instructions for when the filters should be removed.

The NIH saysIVC Filters fail to improve Anticoagulant Therapythat, “Postplacement clinical follow-up is critical to optimizing retrieval rates. Given the increased adverse effects and cost difference when using IVCF in a permanent manner, an important goal for appropriate IVC filter selection should be selecting those patients best served with a permanent filter due to the patient’s unique clinical conditions. . .” That statement is as close as the NIH gets to criticizing IVC filter makers for promoting their filters for too many people, for not properly screening potential filter implantees.

NIH also recommends further development and validation of nuanced, large-scale mathematical modeling tools to determine how best to use IVC filters. The NIH never directly criticizes any medical device manufacturer, but the language makes it clear that current practices fail IVC filter implantees, or are at least inadequate.

The paper also notes that IVC filter implantation rates remain high compared to rates in Europe.

IVC Filter Background
IVC filters are used to prevent deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a medical condition in which blood clots develop in the deep veins of the body, often in the legs, thigh, or pelvis. These clots can break loose and travel to the lungs and can cause a life-threatening condition called pulmonary embolism (PE).  IVC filters are implanted in people at risk for PE when anticoagulant therapy is ineffective or cannot be used.  They are supposed to be use only in those for whom anticoagulant therapy is contraindicated.

IVC Filter Safety, Efficacy Questioned
IVC filter use has increased rapidly over the years, despite no real evidence that the filters are necessary or effective.   In 2010, the U.S. FDA issued a device safety communication after reviewing more than 900 adverse filter events over a five-year period.  Those problems include device migration, embolizations, perforation of the IVC, filter fractures.  Some led to adverse clinical outcomes, often with the filter remaining in the body long after the risk of PE had subsided.  The FDA safety communication recommended filter removal as soon as protection from PE was no longer needed.

Related

•  No Evidence Blood Clot Filters HelpBard IVC Filter Lawsuit | Blood Clot Filter Lawyer

•  Texas IVC Filter Lawsuit Filed

•  Bard IVC Filter Lawsuit

•  Cook IVC Filter Attorney

•  IVC Filters poor choice for Trauma Victims

•  IVC Filter use decreases after FDA Advisory

Share

Nurses fired for fighting Vaccine Mandates

More people arguably die from taking the flu shot – or are injured by it – than die from the flu each season. But that hasn’t stopped hospitals from forcing flu shots on their employees.  Some are fighting back.  Many nurses who have seen vaccine damaged people up close are fighting back. The nurses are claiming their right to informed consent, which is the first rule of medicine.  Informed consent is also a basic human right. Nazi doctors who experimented on prisoners were executed for violating that rule in WWII.  Removing  informed consent violates the Nuremberg Code, which begins with informed consent. Nevertheless,  nurses are now being fired for having the temerity to claim that basic right.  How have we reached this tipping point?

Vaccine Damage trumps Fear-Mongering Propaganda

More and more people are discovering that vaccination can come with a litany of dangerous health problems which can be much worse than whatever malady the vaccine maker claims its vaccine will prevent.  Big Pharma’s answer to this elephant in the room that threatens billions of dollars in profits has been to have congress vaccinate them against liability lawsuits.  Their next move was to have those same congressional lackeys force vaccination on more and more people.  This represents quite a nice little business model.  Unless one traffics in illegal weapons’ sales or illicit drugs, there’s not a better one in the world.  Mandatory vaccination means nearly limitless profits with near zero accountability.

Secret Vaccine Court works outside Democratic Law

Yes, the so-called “vaccine court,” a secret government tribunal that allows plaintiffs no discovery, has paid out more than $3 billion to vaccine-injured children or their surviving families. That “court,” however, refuses to pay nearly 80 percent of its claimants.  The victims are mostly made toothless by being forbidden to conduct legal discovery.  Anyone not allowed legal discovery faces a nearly insurmountable task of proving up a case.

Is there a Safe Vaccine Anywhere?

Any real court which would give vaccine-injured plaintiffs a chance to prove up their cases.  That would give the whole vaccine game away.  Robert DeNiro (who has a vaccine-injured son) and Robert Kennedy, Jr. offered up a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove any vaccine safe and effective.  That reward goes unclaimed.  No science exists to prove any vaccine is safe or effective. Congress, in one of its rare truthful moments, has called vaccination “unavoidably unsafe.”

Simple refusal to let somebody shoot a witches’ brew of toxins (mercury, aluminum, squaline, pig cells, etc.) into your bloodstream should suffice to end the discussion. But unfortunately, it no longer does. More and more states are falling in line with the great nanny state of California.  Meanwhile, the nurses’ refusal to claim their rights is costing many of them their jobs. Why is this huge story being buried by the mainstream media? Follow the money.

Money Drives Vaccine Mandates
Anything that doesn’t help promote mass vaccination, that doesn’t support state-sponsored propaganda that all vaccines are safe and effective, fails to make the news. The news is mostly paid for by Big Pharma advertising dollars, by the same companies that make billions of dollars from forcing vaccinations on people That’s not mere cynicism talking. That’s life. Truth.

Most people tend to believe whatever they think is in their best interests. Corporations think the same way, in spades, the only difference being that they have the money to control the debate and further their own interests. Big Pharma has used its billions in profits to buy news outlets, politicians, judges, bloggers, all manner of internet trolls, and what else you got? (Are you an out- of-work writer? Look around and you can easily find a job as an internet troll. How tough can it be to tell people they are nuts for thinking vaccination is related to autism, or any other health problem, despite thousands of parents reporting that they saw it with their own eyes. All you need do is repeat the propaganda that there is no evidence vaccines cause autism. If they point out a former CDC scientist, William Thompson has blown the whistle on the agency’s faking the data which did show a vaccine autism link, you can just ignore that fact and carry on repeating your talking points, the same ones used all over the mainstream media.)

Advertising Money Screams

John Lennon said money doesn’t talk, it screams.  That was never truer than with advertising money.  Merck, makers of the dangerous MMR vaccine and the worthless but dangerous shingles vaccine, spent $205.5 million on advertising in 2014: $95 million on TV ads, $74.1 in magazines, $35 million in newspapers, $467,000 in radio (a half million is plenty for radio; nobody listens to it anymore).

More than $205 million in advertising money will easily buy you what marketers call “complementary copy.” It can also buy you silence, or a serious slant against anything that threatens the vaccine gravy train. It’s like the old joke about borrowing money from a bank. If you borrow enough, the banker becomes your partner. Advertisers with enough money become partners with the media they support. It is a very simple formula. There’s no conspiracy theory here. It is an open secret. But it’s not too secret.

In our age, if you don’t like a fact, you can just pay some money and make it go away.  Those with enough money can make something seem true even if it’s not.  (See also:  Operation Mckingbird, which continues today).  If you own enough congressmen, you may even be able to convince some people that we invaded Iraq to implant democracy there, that we do “regime change” in other countries because we think that’s what is best for them, or that “Citizen’s United,” letting the Koch brothers and other corporate chieftains spend unaccountable millions in state and national elections, has been good for the country.

The nanny state of California began this outrage. California legislators removed informed consent for childhood vaccinations, hence forcing a long list of vaccines on their schoolchildren. It fails to make the mainstream news that the list of mandated vaccines grows longer and longer yearly, in direct proportion to American schoolchildren growing sicker and sicker. It also fails to make the news that Big Pharma lobbyists work hand in fist with the CDC and the money-hungry U.S. Congress, lengthening that list every year, to further pad drug maker profits for Merck, GlaxoSmithKline, and other vaccine profiteers.

Nurses fired for fighting Vaccine Mandates

Nevertheless, many people are still fooled by the ludicrous claim that when they get the flu after taking the shot, the “symptoms” are not as bad as they would have been had they not taken the shot.  These are likely the same people who watch infomercials, or sit in the audiences of them, mouths agape, to help sell products to easily duped others.

Related

•  Vaccination History, Thinking Person

•  Flu Vaccine Deaths Mount

•  Shingles Vaccine? Really?

•  Shingles Vaccine eye Damage

•  Vaccine Hysteria Reigns

•  Mother Jailed for Refusing Vaccinations

•  Nurses fired for fighting Vaccine Mandates

Share