First Roundup Trial begins this week

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

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

Related: Monsanto Campaign to Attack Seralini Study Revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Share

Invokana Drug Amputations drive Lawsuit Filings

(March 5, 2018) – Invokana drug amputations have prompted two new lawsuit filings. Lawsuits were filed last month in New Jersey for two people who lost a leg below the knee after using Invokana.  The suits came after the FDA concluded in 2016 that the drug made by Johnson & Johnson, Co. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – a sodium-glucose co-transporter-2 (SGLT2) inhibitor diabetes treatment – can cause an increased risk of toe, feet, and leg amputations.  The FDA warning applies to Invokana, Invokamet, and Invokamet XR.

In addition, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also warned about a potentially increased risk of amputations for anyone taking SGLT2 inhibitors.

Related: Invokana Lawsuit

The two lawsuits were filed last month in New Jersey State Court – the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division, Middlesex County.  Defendants named in the suits are Johnson & Johnson, Co. and Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  The plaintiffs are two men who each lost a limb which they allege was a result of their use of Invokana.

One plaintiff is an Alabama resident, Robert E. Shook.  His lawsuit petition sstates that he began treatment with Invokana in January 2015.  Mr. Shook lost his left foot and part of his leg below the knee on or about December 15, 2015 and January 15, 2016.

The second Invokana lawsuit was filed for Michael A. Wilkinson. The 53-year-old Iowa man alleges that after he began taking Invokana in April 2015, he suffered a below the right knee amputation on or about December 14, 2015

Both lawsuits contend Johnson & Johnson and Janssen concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of Invokana’s unreasonably dangerous risks of lower limb amputations. The lawsuits also allege the defective nature of Invokana can cause other problems.  Besides the tragic amputations suffered by Mr. Shook and Mr. Wilkinson, the suits allege people who were prescribed and took Invokana risked or suffered additional severe and permanent personal injuries, including amputations, kidney failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, stroke, and heart attack.

Invokana Approved in 2013
The U.S. FDA approved Invokana (canagliflozin) in March 2013 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) allowed Invokana sales in the European Union in November 2013.  Despite its frightening risks, Invokana has been one of Janssen and Johnson & Johnson’s top selling drugs.  J&J reported worldwide Invokana sales of $1.31 billion in 2015 and $1.41 billion in 2016.

Invokana Amputation Risk Warning from Europe
On February 24, 2017, the EMA issued information “about a potential increased risk of lower limb amputation (mostly affecting the toes) in people taking the SGLT2 inhibitors canagliflozin [Invokana], dapagliflozin [Farxiga] and empagliflozin [Jardiance].” The EMA review of SGLT2 inhibitors was triggered by an increase in lower limb amputations reported for patients taking canagliflozin (Invokana) in two large clinical trials, CANVAS and CANVAS-R, even though the final results of those trials had not yet been made public. The EMA wrote: “[A]n increase in lower limb amputations has not been seen in studies with other medicines in the same class, dapagliflozin and empagliflozin.  However, data available to date are limited and the risk may also apply to these other medicines.”

FDA Warning of Invokana Amputation Risk
On May 16, 2017, the FDA issued a Drug Safety Communication that confirmed an “increased risk of leg and foot amputations with the diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR).”  The Drug Safety Communication noted: “[B]ased on new data from two large clinical trials, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has concluded that the type 2 diabetes medicine canagliflozin (Invokana, Invokamet, Invokamet XR) causes an increased risk of leg and foot amputations.”

Clinical Trials Out Invokana
The two clinical trials the FDA relied on in requiring new Invokana label warnings were the  CANVAS (Canagliflozin Cardiovascular Assessment Study) and CANVAS-R (A Study of the Effects of Canagliflozin on Renal Endpoints in Adult Participants With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus).

The FDA also announced in the May 16, 2017 Drug Safety Communication that it was “requiring new warnings, including our most prominent Boxed Warning, to be added to the canagliflozin drug labels to describe this risk.”  The “Boxed Warning,” also known as a “Black Box Warning,” was added in the United States to the Invokana label/package insert on July 25, 2017.  It states:

WARNING: LOWER LIMB AMPUTATION
See full prescribing information for complete boxed warning.

In patients with type 2 diabetes who have established cardiovascular disease (CVD) or at risk for CVD, INVOKANA has been associated with lower limb amputations, most frequently of the toe and midfoot; some also involved the leg (5.1)
Before initiating, consider factors that may increase the risk of amputation. Monitor patients receiving INVOKANA for infections or ulcers of the lower limbs, and discontinue if these occur. (5.1)

The EMA commendably notified people promptly about the potential for an increased risk of lower limb amputations with the use of any SGLT2 inhibitor before the final CANVAS and CANVAS-R study results were published. The FDA also acted swiftly in requiring a label change after the publication of the final results from the two clinical trials that “showed that leg and foot amputations occurred about twice as often in patients treated with canagliflozin compared to patients treated with placebo, which is an inactive treatment.”

The FDA also noted that the risk of leg and foot amputations may be even higher for some people, “including those who have peripheral vascular disease, neuropathy (nerve damage), or diabetic foot ulcers (sores), or who have a history of prior amputation.”

Invokana / Invokamet Lawsuit
Invokana and Invokamet appear to double the risk of lower limb amputations.  Anyone suffering the tragic loss of toes or a foot or limb as the result of using a dangerous drug is deserving of financial compensation, in our view.  Our law firm exists to seek justice for those injured by dangerous drugs and medical devices.  If you or someone you love lost a limb following use of Invokana, Invokamet or some other SGLT2 inhibitor used for type 2 diabetes, contact us for a free legal consultation in a potential lawsuit.

Related

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of those agencies looked at Roundup.

Do we live in a sane world?

Related

Share

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Share

First Bard IVC Filter Trial Scheduled

(Feb. 21, 2018) The Bard Recovery Blood Clot Filter Flawedfirst Bard IVC trial has been scheduled to be heard next month. The first jury trial against medical device maker C.R. Bard is set for March 14, 2018 in Phoenix, Arizona.

Lawsuits filed over Bard IVC filters claim the blood clot filter device can migrate, perforate, and break up into fragments which can travel to vital organs and lead to catastrophic injuries.

3,500 Bard IVC Filter Lawsuits

More than 3,500 plaintiffs have had their Bard IVC filter lawsuits consolidated in the C.R. Bard MDL litigation venue established in Phoenix. Since August 2015, all personal injury and product liability lawsuits filed against Bard in the federal court system have been centralized. U.S. District Judge David Campbell presides in the District of Arizona as part of the multidistrict litigation.

Bellwether Trials

The first scheduled trial in any mass tort litigation is informally considered by legal scholars to be a bellwether trial. These first trials generally set the tone for a given litigation. They can often help determine the merits of not just one plaintiff’s case but all plaintiffs’ cases.  The defense goal in these cases is to have them dismissed outright, if possible, while plaintiffs work to prove to a jury that the product in question is defective and fails to pass muster in any fair basic cost-benefit analysis.

Defendants in these cases will usually attempt to extol the virtues of their beleaguered device and will further attempt to show it as not only necessary but superior to other available options at the time of implant.  The Plaintiffs side, by contrast, will work to show the device is perhaps entirely unnecessary and/or unreasonably dangerous. They will also try to prove to the jury that alternative treatments were available which were both safer and better than the device which was used.

In the first Bard IVC filter lawsuit scheduled for next month, a woman was implanted with a C.R. Bard G2 IVC filter in June 2007.  She alleges that she suffered personal injuries as a result.

C.R. Bard, Cook Medical, and Cordis are the main IVC makers facing IVC filter lawsuits.  Cook Medical is exposed to 3,750 IVC filter lawsuits in a separate MDL based in Indiana.

What is an IVC filter?
IVC filters, or inferior vena cava filters, are made to trap or filter blood clots. They are tiny, umbrella-like devices placed in the inferior vena cava – the vein returning blood to the heart – to prevent blood clots in the leg from traveling to the heart, lungs, or even the brain.

Blood Thinners vs. IVC Filters
Blood thinners or anticoagulants are usually the first, best treatment option for blood clots in the leg.  Blood thinners, however, are contra-indicated for some people. A person with a pre-existing bleeding problem may not be able to take a blood thinner.  That unlucky person might be implanted with an IVC filter.

IVC Filters Meant for Temporary Use
IVC filters are meant to be implanted only for temporary use.  Once the threat of a clot has passed, they are supposed to be removed. In reality, however, most retrievable IVC filters are never retrieved, or they are not retrieved until after the safe removal window recommended by the FDA has passed.

IVC Filter Retrieval Problems
Some IVC filters cannot be retrieved at all. Sometimes the filter embeds in the vein wall, causing severe risk of injury. In several cases, the IVC filter has been found to embed and perforate the wall of the inferior vena cava. The filter can also tilt or break free from the insertion point and migrate to the heart and lungs. The brittle spider-legged struts of the IVC filter have been found to snap off and embolize or migrate into vital organs.

First Bard IVC Lawsuit Trial
Judge Campbell has ordered that the first Bard IVC filter bellwether trial will be conducted in two phases. The first will be a determination of liability, compensatory damages, and possible punitive damages. The second phase will determine the amount of any possible punitive damages.

IVC Filter Injury Lawsuits
If you have been implanted with a troublesome IVC filter (a Bard Recovery, G2, Cook Celect, Gunther Tulip, Cordis Optease, or Trapease) and you have suffered IVC filter failure or injuries by embedment, migration or embolization requiring emergency care or surgery, contact an IVC filter attorney today. Call 713-522-5250 or email Matthews & Associates Law Firm for a free legal consultation.  We are handling IVC filter lawsuits in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Related

Share

Smart Meters Inflate Utility Bills

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Share

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded to delay Glyphosate Review

New evidence shows Monsanto and EPA colluded to delay a glyphosate review that was potentially damning for Monsanto.  The documents show senior Environmental Protection Agency officials didn’t worry about protecting anyone but Monsanto, and perhaps their own jobs.  Emails show EPA officials genuflecting to the chemical giant in an effort to help Monsanto continue selling Roundup without a hitch while taxpayers awaited a fair safety review after previous studies showed Roundup was a probable human carcinogen.

Related:  Roundup non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuit

It took a Freedom of Information Act request to uncover the damning documents. The emails reveal Monsanto’s influence over the EPA and show just how far the biotech bully goes to spin science for profit. The communications show EPA officials working closely with Monsanto to delay a toxicology review on glyphosate that was supposed to be conducted by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  The ATSDR is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but the emails show it to be a subsidiary of Monsanto.

Roundup Carcinogenicity Clear since 1985

EPA collusion with Monsanto stretches back to at least 1993, when the agency reversed its 1985 ruling that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  See: EPA’s 1985 Roundup Cancer Ruling.  We didn’t then have the benefit of emails to prove the collusion, but now we do.

The latest Monsanto-EPA collusion began in early 2015, when glyphosate was finally red-flagged by the World Health Organization (which is normally a corporate lapdog).  In 2015, the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) declared Roundup’s active ingredient, glyphosate, a “probable human carcinogen.”  That finding made Monsanto executives apoplectic.  Monsanto had poisoned so many people and their lands with Roundup for so many years, what could the company do then but what it did – feign moral outrage?

Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Lawsuits
With Roundup lawsuits reigning down on them after the IARC ruling, Monsanto senior officials knew that something had to be done, and fast.  Monsanto needed to discredit the IARC,  or “neutralize” it, as corporations say.  Monsanto needed to make glyphosate appear safe again in the public eye, because appearance, not reality, is the ALL.  Monsanto’s immediate fear was that ATSDR might make a similar ruling about the carcinogenicity of glyphosate.  If ATSDR followed IARC’s lead, it could spell the death knell for Roundup, Monsanto’s best-selling poison.  Monsanto promptly kicked into gear and used its EPA connections to halt the toxicological review.

Evidence Monsanto, EPA Colluded  to delay Glyphosate Review
The emails show how EPA officials worked closely with Monsanto executives, updating the company on their progress to keep the ATSDR’s from completing a toxicological review. The emails detail Monsanto’s M.O.: its naked attempts to squelch or manipulate real scientific reviews of the company’s chemical poisons.  The emails vindicate Monsanto lawsuits.  The emails show how Monsanto tried – successfully, in this case – to cover up glyphosate’s deadly links with cancer.

Roundup Lawsuits
Make no mistake.  Roundup is a prominent pillar in Monsanto’s whole toxic business model.  The genetically modified seeds it sells are called “Roundup Ready.” The Roundup-Ready corn and soy and other genetically-perverted seeds Monsanto patents and sells – as it attempts to monopolize the seed industry – are chemically engineered to resist Roundup’s toxic assault.  Roundup kills everything not genetically modified to withstand it.  Any threat to Roundup – whose only listed active ingredient is glyphosate – is a direct threat to Monsanto’s whole business model.

Related:  Roundup more toxic than glyophosate

Because glyphosate plays such an outsized role in U.S. agriculture and lawn care, and Roundup is Monsanto’s best selling killer, the company could not let the IARC classification that it was a probable carcinogen go unpunished, or unanswered.  Monsanto could not let the IARC ruling  stand.  Because desperate times call for desperate measures, Monsanto employees got sloppy with their normally quieter collusion with EPA.

After the IARC ruling, it was absolutely essential for Monsanto that ATSDR publish a positive safety review to refute the IARC.  Monsanto’s collusion with EPA worked just as Monsanto knew it could – they seamlessly follow the golden rule; whoever has the gold rules.

EPA Stifles Glyphosate Review for Monsanto
In February 2015, the ATSDR promised a toxicology review on glyphosate by October 2015, but Monsanto’s EPA collusion got it halted. No toxicological profile from ATSDR has been published as of February 2017.  We now know why.  Monsanto’s emails to EPA worked just as the company hoped they would.

Jess Rowland, Monsanto’s EPA Insider
Jess Rowland, former deputy division director in the health effects division of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), retired in 2016 with a giant black mark on her career. Emails between her and Monsanto showed Ms. Rowland telling the biotech bully that she hoped to kill the ATSDR review.  And according to the email dump courtesy of FOIA, she was not the only high level EPA official working with Monsanto to stop the toxicology review.

Monsanto EPA Collusion Systemic
At the behest of Monsanto, a collection of (colluding) EPA officials aggressively pressured the ATSDR and HHS for Monsanto. The “officials” claimed a toxicology review on glyphosate would be unnecessarily “duplicative” because the EPA was putting its own review together.  Lo and behold, the EPA’s assessment in 2016 refuted IARC’s scientific proof that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen.  Its evidence was scant, fictional, or non-existent; but so is lots of “evidence” that finds its way into “scientific studies.” That review also failed the public entirely because it focused only on glyphosate – Roundup’s only named active ingredient – which is never applied alone but becomes at least 1,000 more toxic when mixed into a Roundup concoction.

In addition, in sharp contrast with EPA, the IARC looked only at glypohosate studies independent of industry, while EPA takes Monsanto at its word (as it did when it unleashed Roundup on the world) and allows Monsanto-funded studies the same weight as independent ones.

Gov’t Official: ATSDR Study not Duplicative
OPP Director Jack Housenger genuflects to Monsanto repeatedly through the recent FOIA-released email communications.  In his ultimately successful efforts to suppress the ATSDR review, Housenger bowed to Monsanto pressure, wondering “whether this is a good use of government resources.” (Millions and millions of gallons of Roundup have been dumped on us all, but Housenger is worried over OPP expenses in examining the most-used poison of our time ?)  At first, officials with the ATSDR review didn’t bend.  ATSDR division director James Stephens wrote back. He said their review overlaps the EPA’s review “but isn’t totally duplicative…”

Monsanto Muscle at Work
Monsanto’s chief “scientist” William Heydens forcefully convinced EPA officials to bury any ATSDR review.  ATSDR officials said their review was distinguishable and not duplicative, which contradicted the EPA’s opinion. But ATSDR finally agreed with Housenger not to say anything about glyphosate’s carcinogenicity. When our government regulator – OPP Director Housenger – confirmed to Monsanto that the ATSDR was backing off the glyphosate review, Monsanto’s William Heydens snapped, “Distinguishable and not duplicative’? Seriously? And I will believe the not ‘making a call on cancer’ part when I see it. Anyway, at least they know they are being watched, and hopefully that keeps them from doing anything too stupid…”

Indeed, government agencies have kowtowed to corporate bullies like Monsanto for so long that many have learned to look over their shoulders for people like Heydens. If Monsanto complains enough to the right Senators or congressional reps whose campaigns, junkets and pork barrel projects they help fund, could they have not only a review but also a troublesome reviewer removed?  We now see how easily they can remove a review.  How else are we to take Heydens’ thinly-veiled threat?

Heydens sheds light on the fact that our government of wolves is controlled by corporate wolves. Meanwhile, Monsanto continues to poison us all with relative impunity.

Related

 

Share

Monsanto Money drives Newsweek Newspeak Organic Hit Piece

(2/13/2018) We’ve always known Monsanto money drives organic hit pieces and pro-GMO propaganda; but now we have hard evidence that just keeps piling up.  Newsweek was outed as a fake news outlet using Newspeak this month, publishing an organic hit piece authored by a paid Monsanto shill. Stanford academic Henry I. Miller was outed once again as a Monsanto promoter when readers noted his slanted hit piece in Newsweek denigrating organic food and the people who eat it.

Miller had tried a similar trick in Fortune magazine a couple of years ago when he put his name on a Monsanto-promotional piece.  He got away with it for quite a while, until he was outed by savvy readers who connected the dots of his Monsanto ties through his main employer, Stanford University.  In the Fortune magazine propaganda caper, Miller’s email exchanges with Monsanto employees gave the game away.  They showed Miller didn’t even write the bulk of the propaganda in question. Monsanto employees wrote most of the pro-Monsanto piece to which Miller put his name.  Most pointedly, Miller failed to divulge his direct financial conflict of interest.  Fortune eventually removed the piece from its web site, but Newsweek learned nothing from the experience and neither did Miller.

Stanford captured by Industry

Most land grant universities receive 25% or more of their funds from corporations, and Stanford is no exception.  GMO giant Cargill, the country’s largest privately held corporation, has “donated” millions of dollars to Stanford.  Its professors, like Miller, have rarely seen a GMO they didn’t like, nor an organic food that they did.

Newsweek Newspeak Implodes

The fallout at Newsweek was more pronounced than the one at Fortune, which, at least, names itself for what it is – a promotional publication to celebrate business and avaricious corporations in any form.  One might expect more from a publication calling itself “Newsweek.”  Newspeak would be a more accurate name for this propaganda rag.  It has recently been outed time and again as an Orwellian disinformation machine, and it turns out that, like most major media, it has been one for a very long time.

“The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media.”  – Former CIA Director William Colby

The corporation that owns Newsweek fired its top executive, editor-in-chief, executive editor, and several veteran investigative reporters following an uproar over the organic food attack piece from savvy readers, though the publication was apparently fraught with other difficulties as well, most of which had to do with putting out lots of other fake news (and fake advertising numbers – see below), which upset both its readership and its advertisers.

Newsweek has plenty of credibility problems in addition to its poor copy.  Newsweek is facing allegations of advertising fraud, and the NYPD and the Manhattan District Attorney’s office recently raided Newsweek’s New York City headquarters.

Organics.news writes:
“Monsanto and their paid shills are not going to convince the public to hate on nutrition, sustainable growing methods, and chemical-free foods. The public is sick of being polluted by Roundup and tired of subsidizing the genetic modification of their food. The public has grown weary of Monsanto’s claims, the volatility of pest resistance, and the toxicity of pesticides. The public cannot stand the control that corporate agriculture patents have over farmers, the food insecurities of monoculture, the ecological destruction and the nutrient depletion of soils.”

Stanford, Monsanto Work Together
Stanford and Monsanto have a cozy relationship, just as Monsanto has a cozy relationships with many other land grant universities on which it bestows “donations.”  A Stanford study on organic foods in 2012 was also linked with Monsanto. The company used its deep pockets to pay academics in order to fool Californians into voting against food labeling laws. See it here:
Stanford Organic Study linked to Monsanto, Tobacco Industry

And that’s hardly the only tie between Monsanto and Stanford.  Here’s another:  Stanford author bashing organics who’s tied to Monsanto.

Monsanto Money drives Newsweek Newspeak Organic Hit Piece

Reader, beware!  We live in an age where money increasingly calls the shots, makes things up as it goes along, regardless of consequences to the earth or its people.  One needs more than a grain of salt to read anything concerning Monsanto or organic foods in mainstream publications.

Related

 

Share

Smart Meters could be wildly overbilling

If you’ve seen your Smart Meter burns Man to Deathpower bills rise after the power company bolted a Smart Meter to your home, you’re not alone.  Thousands of people have reported the same thing.  And now there is at least one study which may help explain the theft.  According to a team of researchers who studied the microwave spying devices, so-called Smart Meters could be wildly overbilling us by as much as 582%.   Their study may help explain why so many of us saddled with Smart Meters could be paying a lot more than we should for power that we aren’t using.

The web site Boing Boing reported this story.  The smart meter testers were a research team from the University of Twente in Enschende, Netherlands, and Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences.  The team documented billing inaccuracies in a paper that reviewed the efficacy of so-called “smart” electric meters. The discrepancies they found in meter inaccuracies ranged from -32 percent to +582 percent of the actual power consumed in a month’s period.

The team’s paper also noted that the overbilling is mostly due to older power-saving features on the meters. Those features introduce line noise that interferes with the wireless signal and thereby ‘confuses’ the meters into charging for the useless noise.

An abstract of the study findings states:
“Static, or electronic, energy meters are replacing the conventional electromechanical meters. Consumers are sometimes complaining about higher energy readings and billing after the change to a static meter, but there is not a clear common or root cause at present.  Electromagnetic interference has been observed between active infeed converters as used in photo-voltaic systems and static meters. Reducing the interference levels eliminated inaccurate reading in static meters.”

Five of nine smart meters that were tested provided readings that were substantially greater than the real amount of energy utilized. Two gave readings lower than the amount of power consumed.

LED, “energy-saving” Bulbs?
LED and so-called “energy-saving” bulbs may not be living up to their promotion, according to the study’s findings.  Researchers found the biggest meter discrepancies when they joined dimmer switches with LED and energy-saving light bulbs.

After completing their experiments, researchers disassembled the tested smart meters to see if they could discover what was causing the huge discrepancies. The researchers found meters that provided the dramatically higher usage rates used a Rogowski Coil.  Meters that gave artificially lower readings employed Hall effect-based sensors. (So, we can expect to see those changed out!) Both models inaccurately measured the actual amount used.

The abstract did nott make clear whether the tested meters were actually in use somewhere. If they are, most people are paying way too much for the electricity they use, while a minority of people may be paying a little less.

Smart Meter Hazards
Besides costing consumers far more money than the old analog meters, some researchers contend that the meters themselves are also health hazards. Some lawmakers at the state level are taking action.

Opting out of Smart Meters
State Sen. Patrick Colbeck of Michigan testified before the state House Energy and Technology Committee in early March 2017 over a piece of legislation – HB 4220 – which would permit homeowners to opt out of smart meter installations on their homes without having to pay a fine. Sen. Colbeck has based his opposition to smart meters on research indicating that they can cause a wide array of health problems, in addition to a cyber security threat posed by their installation and use, since they are wireless and transmit data to the utility company.

During his testimony, Sen. Colbeck said he thinks smart meters are “putting our homes, our nation and, frankly, some of the power suppliers at risk.”

Smart Meter Home Surveillance for Criminals
Other smart meter critics dislike the surveillance aspect of smart meters. Electric-use data hacked from a wireless smart meter can be used by criminals to determine when people are home.  That gives them a window to safely break in.

Smart Meter Fires
Smart meters have also reportedly started fires in homes. Some smart meters, which have become mandated by government, have spontaneously caught fire, putting residents at risk of loss of life and property. At least one California man perished in a smart meter fire, and smart meters have been a leading suspect in starting several other suspicious fires.

Why do we allow these people to put Smart Meters on our homes?

The utility companies claimed smart meters would save money.  Have you saved any money on your smart meter?  How are the companies to recover the hundreds of millions of dollars the new meters cost them?  Do you think they won’t pass that cost onto us?  The utility companies claimed there were no health hazards with smart meters.  We know that’s not true.  People have varying susceptibilities to environmental hazards, like the microwave technology which powers the meters, and some people have seen their homes go up in flames due to smart meters.   We also have a right to privacy, which smart meters violate. Smart meter hazards are well documented throughout the web.  Why do we put up with it?  Who have we become to just roll over while these people violate our health, our homes, our right to privacy, and raise the prices at the same time with technology that does us not one bit of good but plenty of harm?  Stand up, America.

Related

Share

CDC Director caught buying Merck Shares Quits

The CDC director has been caught buying shares of vaccine maker Merck, as well as stock in cigarette and junk food companies.  Last week, CDC Director Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald was forced to resign as a result.  This is the latest scandal in an agency which has been found time and again to collude with the very companies it is supposed to regulate.

Shame on you, Dr. Fitzgerald!  But perhaps we should also thank you for showing the world once again how the CDC unashamedly promotes dangerous drugs and vaccines to boost both corporate and personal profits.  This scandal makes it abundantly clear that rather than regulate the drug industry, the CDC is in bed with it. This latest CDC collusion scandal should be a clarion call for regulatory reform.  Closer to home, it should make any thinking person question the CDC’s methods, motives, and history.

CDC Heads’ History of Corruption

As for Dr. Fitzgerald, don’t worry about her.  She will likely land on her feet in some well-paying job with Merck, as one of her predecessors did after being outed as a corporate shill masquerading as a public servant.  Dr. Julie Gerberding has set the bar quite low for former CDC heads who sold out to Merck, but Dr. Fitz can probably take it lower.  While head of the CDC, the infamous Dr. Gerberding helped cover up Merck’s knowledge of the MMR Vaccine-Autism link, then resigned in shame to take a $2 million windfall and head up Merck’s vaccine division.

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
“False in one, false in all” is the Latin saying.  Or, as Nietzsche said, “It doesn’t bother me that you lied to me. What bothers me is that I can no longer believe you now.”  The CDC has deceived us so many times, it’s a wonder that the agency still gets to use our tax dollars to work against us.

RelatedShingles Vaccine Lawsuit

The CDC’s Great Swine Flu Massacre
CDC collusion with drug and vaccine makers was probably never so clear as when the CDC launched the great swine flu massacre on us all in 1976.  Money, as usual, not our health, was the driving force.  Drug companies had produced a vaccine which suspicious pig farmers had refused to use on their own swine.  Because when they did, their pigs collapsed and died. When the swine flu “vaccine” makers (which included Merck, which now makes a shingles vaccine, the horrendous Gardasil HPV Vaccine, and a dubious flu vaccine) failed to secure the $80 million the company had counted on getting from the swine breeders, some bright folks working in government and industry decided to use the vaccine on people instead.  But first they had to convince us the swine flu threat was real.  It wasn’t, so they turned to then President Gerald Ford to sell the disease to the people. (As George Merck once told TIME magazine:  you don’t sell the drug, you sell the disease. The CDC knows that as well as anyone.)

The impetus for the whole swinish project came from the Disease Control Center in Atlanta, Georgia. Out of Atlanta came the CDC plan for a national campaign against “swine flu.” That there was not a single independently confirmed case of swine flu in the U.S. did not deter the CDC.* They had vaccine to sell.  (Theirs was not to question why.)

Smart Pig Farmers, Bad Pigs in Government and Industry
The agency helped get top dollar for Merck and other “swine flu” vaccine makers.  Our government paid $135 million for the same swine flu vaccine which Merck and others had failed to sell to smart pig farmers for $80 million.

*The main problem then was that Dr. Anthony Morris, director of the Virus Bureau at the FDA, declared that no authentic swine flu vaccine could exist, because there had never been any cases of swine flu on which to test it.  The agency promptly fired the whistleblowing doctor (some things never change); but the truth had leaked out – as the truth tends to do.

Faced with the insurmountable problem that there was no swine flu, much less an epidemic – except in the money-green heads of those wishing to sell the vaccine – President Ford and Walter Cronkite (at CBS) combined their bully pulpits in a last-ditch effort to sell the swine flu “vaccine” to the people. (There was money to be made, by God; so somebody needed to promote the shot, if only to justify the $135 million paid to the swinish flu vaccine makers.)

Death by Injection

Eustace Mullins in his amazingly-researched Death by Injection points out that CBS failed then and later to air any scientific analysis of the swine flu vaccine, “which was identified elsewhere as containing many toxic poisons, including alien viral protein particles, formaldehyde, residues of chicken and egg embryo substances, sucrose, theimorosal (a derivative of poisonous mercury), polysorbate and some 80 other substances.”  (Some things never change.)

Dr. Anthony Morris erased from Swine Flu History
“Our” medical watchdogs, meanwhile, cleaned out Dr. Anthony Morris’ labs, where he had been hard at work investigating the swine flu vaccine for three years. They killed all his animals and burned all his records.  Mr. Mullins writes: “They did not go so far as to sow salt throughout the area, because they believed their job was done.”

(Some things never change: the CDC has also been recently accused by whistleblower William Thompson of destroying records that show the MMR vaccine raises the risk of autism.  See the film Vaxxed, which prompted Robert De Niro and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to offer a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove that any vaccine is safe and effective.)

A Free Vaccine for the People (sound familiar?)
On April 15, 1976, Congress passed Public Law 94-266, which provided $135 million in taxpayer monies to pay for a national swine flu inoculation campaign. That way, they could offer the vaccine for free (as they are offering the 2018 flu vaccine for free).  Insurance companies quickly warned Merck and other drug companies that they would not insure them against possible lawsuits, because no studies had been carried out which could predict the vaccine’s effects. (Some things never change; no independent safety testing has ever been done on any vaccine since). Gerald Ford was trotted out to repair the PR damage done by insurance companies. The president appealed directly to 250 million Americans on national television.  He proudly told the public the shot was free.  (And who doesn’t like the sound of that?)

$1.3 Billion Fallout
The big swine flu campaign had barely been completed when casualty reports began to flow in. Claims totaling $1.3 billion had been filed by victims who had suffered paralysis. (That total easily dwarfed the $135 million paid to the vaccine makers for the “free” vaccine, but pay no attention to that man behind the curtain). The medical “authorities” leaped to the defense of the vaccine makers, labeling the new epidemic “Guillain-Barre Syndrome.”

Within two months of the shots that began Oct. 1976, at least 500 people were paralyzed.  More than 30 people had died.  Amid a rising uproar and growing public reluctance to risk the shot, federal officials abruptly canceled the program on Dec. 16, 1976.

In the end, 40 million Americans submitted to the shot. There was no swine flu epidemic. The only recorded fatality from swine flu itself was a private at Fort Dix, who a military doctor claimed had been diagnosed with swine flu.  The CDC verified that finding.  Given how the agency handled the whistleblowing of Dr. Anthony Morris, and how the agency has tried to bury the whistleblowing of senior scientist William Thompson, one can fairly wonder today if even the one person whom the agency claims died of Swine flu actually succumbed to that malady.

The CDC, meanwhile, continues its cozy relationship with Merck Pharmaceuticals and other vaccine manufacturers.  The CDC itself owns more than 50 vaccine patents. It is in the business of both profiting from and promoting vaccines while it also is entrusted to being a regulator.  Can this agency be a fair arbiter of the truth when its vaccine patent ownership gives it clear conflicts of interest, and when time and again it has shown itself to be in the pocket of the pharmaceutical companies like Merck and others?

Some things never change, but we can change them. It’s possible. We can learn to think for ourselves, and not roll over every time “our” compromised CDC tells us to do something, or claims to be a legitimate watchdog.  The CDC tries to destroy real watchdogs, while promoting to the top of its food chain its most industry-compromised individuals, the likes of Dr. Julie Gerberding and Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald.  We, the American people, deserve better, a lot better than what the old confederate General Robert E. Lee called “those people.”

Related

 

Share