Vaccine Maker makes US Vaccine Policy

Just as “defense” contractors spend millions of dollars urging political hacks (and “journalists” – Read: stenographers) to gin up threats, drop more bombs and build more airplanes in order to sell more weapons – and oh, just incidentally kill more people) – pharmaceutical companies spend millions of dollars to gin up disease threats and pay off legislators in order to sell more vaccines.

Even Government Tells Truth sometimes
Government agencies like the CDC usually work hand in fist with vaccine makers to make vaccine policy and bury vaccine injuries.  But sometimes even a government agency acts in the best interests of citizens.  The National Institutes of Health, for one, has blown the whistle on how at least one drug company has worked to manipulate vaccine policy in order to promote profits over health.

Related:  Merck Role in Vaccination Policymaking – NIH

The NIH has wisely questioned the blatant conflicts of interest that lie at the vaccine-damaged heart of America’s vaccination policies.  It has also outed them.

HPV Vaccine’s Dark Promotion
In May 2012, the NIH sought to investigate the roles that Merck & Co played in state human papillomavirus (HPV) immunization policy making.  The agency wrote that it wanted “to elicit key stakeholders’ perceptions of the appropriateness of these activities, and to explore implications for relationships between health policymakers and industry.”

Merck has a lot of horses running in the lucrative vaccine profit races.  Merck makes the insidious Gardasil vaccine, as well as the mostly worthless but always potentially dangerous shingles vaccine.  Merck also makes the ill-fated MMR vaccine, the subject of a recent  vaccine injury lawsuit that charges the company with fraud, deceit, and negligence.

NIH used a series of state case studies combining data from key informant interviews with analysis of media reports and archival materials.  NIH interviewed 73 key informants in six states that were actively engaged in HPV vaccine policy deliberations.

The agency found that Merck promoted forced vaccination for schoolchildren, though the euphemism is “mandatory.”   NIH found that Merck served as an information resource.  Merck lobbied legislators, drafted legislation, mobilized female legislators and doctor organizations.  Merck conducted consumer marketing campaigns.  Merck filled gaps in “vaccine access.” (A real public service, that.)

Merck Controls Vaccine Science for Legislators
Worse yet, the NIH found that legislators relied heavily on Merck for scientific information. The NIH wrote: “Most stakeholders found lobbying by vaccine manufacturers acceptable in principle, but perceived that Merck had acted too aggressively and non-transparently in this case.”

The NIH concluded: “Although policymakers acknowledge the utility of manufacturers’ involvement in vaccination policy making, industry lobbying that is overly aggressive, not fully transparent, or not divorced from financial contributions to lawmakers risks undermining the prospects for legislation to foster uptake of new vaccines.”

Money Trumps Science
And there you have it.  Another clear case where money blinds, or at least trumps, science. Merck worked to avoid transparency, because anyone with a level of intelligence higher than a tape worm can see that its financial stake in the great vaccine game renders it unreliable in questions of science.  Merck makes a billion dollars a year on the flu vaccine alone, which is always loaded with aluminum, a touch of mercury, and virtually never works.

Former Merck Scientists sue Merck
At least two former Merck scientists have blown the whistle on Merck’s junk science which overstates the safety of vaccination as well as every vaccine’s alleged effectiveness.  Another former Merck scientist, Dr. William Thompson, has also blown the whistle on Merck’s coverup of an MMR vaccine-Autism Link.  Hundreds of studies have shown or suggested a vaccine link to autism, in spite of the mainstream media’s steady drumbeat to repeat the big lie ad infinitum that there is no vaccine link to autism.

Merck’s ill-fated Gardasil vaccine, meanwhile, continues to sterilize some girls and kill or sicken many others.  Despite a total mainstream media blackout of Gardasil’s problems, a recent court ruling shows that Gardasil can and does kill some people who submit to it. Others may only be made very sick.

The U.S. Supreme Court has called vaccines “unavoidably unsafe,” yet political whores like California senator Richard Pan and others have moved to remove informed consent and force vaccination on all schoolchildren, despite their wishes or their parents’ wishes to control what goes into their bodies, directly into their bloodstream.

Shame on Big Pharma whores like Richard Pan and the awful Dr. Paul Offit (appropriately named).  Vaccines can “offit’ all right.  Vaccines can and do kill people, and there is not one iota of scientific evidence that one single vaccine has ever worked to stop the disease for which it was allegedly invented.  And every vaccine produces harm, as Dr. Andrew Moulden made clear in his research and in many presentations before he was neutralized by the mainstream media.  He then died mysteriously at age 49, along with the heroic Dr. Jeffrey Bradstreet and nearly 80 other holistic or alternative doctors, or those researching links between vaccination and cancer, or those researching cancer cures.

Curious Doctor Deaths – Erin Elizabeth 
Robert De Niro and Robert Kennedy, Jr. have offered a $100,000 reward to anyone who can prove that one vaccine is safe and effective.  The reward has gone unclaimed for more than two years.  If there were such a vaccine, that would be easy money which we would love to put in our own pocket.  Who wouldn’t?

Not one single vaccine has ever been proven safe or effective. Anybody who thinks so is scientifically illiterate, period, or simply not paying attention, or watching too much mainstream news.  Fake news is a much bigger problem than most Smart-phone-addicted Americans have ever imagined.

Related

Share

Roundup Poison gets a Free Press Pass

Roundup poison gets a free press pass, but another scientist has blown the whistle on Monsanto’s endless ploy to discredit any organization, person, or persons who dare to call Roundup what it is: a human carcinogen.  A specialist in toxic chemical regulation consistent with science, health policy, and environmental law, Jennifer Sass testified before Congress earlier this year over Monsanto’s ongoing campaign to attack, discredit, or “neutralize” any critics of Monsanto and/or its best-selling poison, Roundup.

Roundup Poison gets a Free Press Pass
It is a measure of Monsanto’s ability to control the argument that merely naming Roundup a poison, which it is, instead of an herbicide – which is merely a euphemism for a poison or a pesticide – can, in any way, be construed as an outright attack on the chemical giant.  Though every mainstream news and television outlet will refer to Roundup with the euphemism of herbicide, Roundup is a poison; and Monsanto is a poison company.  Monsanto makes things that kill, and it promotes – at an enormous profit – chemical farming methods that are slowly (though at a faster and faster rate) killing everything that lives on the earth: bees, birds, plants, people – the lattermost with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and some other types of potentially-deadly leukemias.

Related:  Roundup, non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Link

Monsanto’s Full Spectrum Dominance Plan
Monsanto has been moving for years to monopolize the seed industry as well as all farming throughout the world, often with the help of the U.S. military, which has literally helped force Monsanto’s poison products down the throats of conquered peoples like the poor bastards of Iraq after we “liberated” it.

This is not theory. This is fact. Monsanto, with the help of millions of dollars it has spent “lobbying” (some would say “bribing”) members of congress as well as U.S. presidents and presidential candidates.  George Bush I, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton were all enormous Monsanto backers.  Yes, perhaps the silver lining is that Monsanto is an equal-opportunity political pig (favoring neither demrats nor repugnants) when it comes to greasing palms for sweetheart deals.

Monsanto needs political and military muscle in order to force its poison edicts on the hapless peoples of the world who would otherwise refuse to poison their own food, water, air, bodies. Monsanto’s goal is nothing less than to patent every living thing that it can. Its well-paid scientists work everyday to further monopolize seed and farming industries in the U.S. and across the world. Monsanto’s end game – which we know sounds like hyperbole, and we really wish it were – is to control the market on everything that grows, to completely control anything that can be grown. Sadly, the monster from Missouri is edging closer each day to its final dream of full spectrum dominance.

Glyphosate Poison for Everyone
The U.S. FDA has found glyphosate in virtually every food in which it has bothered to look for it, yet the agency has covered up this damning information.  Glyphosate is the main active ingredient that Monsanto lists in its Roundup poison.  This is not a subject that anyone who eats anything in this country can avoid.

Glyphosate is in everything, but that doesn’t mean it has to be this way. That doesn’t mean we can’t stop Monsanto from continuing to poison us all, as the monster from the midway continues to sell more and more of this poison, and spray more and more of it onto our food, into the air, into our water, into us.

Jennifer Sass – based in Washington, D.C. – brings a highly specialized expertise in U.S. chemicals policy.  She focuses much of her work on understanding and explaining the science behind toxic chemical regulation and on advocating for regulations that are consistent with science, health policy, and environmental law.  Ms. Sass frequently provides testimony and scientific briefings for members of Congress and federal advisory committees.  A lecturer at George Washington University’s department of environmental and occupational health, she has a master’s degree and a PhD in anatomy and cell biology from the University of Saskatchewan.  She has performed postdoctoral work in toxicology at the University of Maryland.

Please read her presentation to Congress here, and write your chemical-loving representatives and tell them that if they want glyphosate, they can buy Roundup themselves and drink it right from the bottle.  Tell them to let the rest of us choose what we want to put into our bodies, and into our air, water, our soil.  Tell them we need Roundup like we need a hole in the head.

Sane people don’t poison their own land, their own water, their own food, their own bodies. Chemical farming must be stopped before it is too late.  All the phony talk of chemical farming’s feeding the planet and being necessary is a pack of wild lies put together by chemical companies with lunatics in charge that see only money.  Please contact your U.S. representatives today and tell them you are watching how they vote, and watching how much money Monsanto is contributing to their campaign coffers in order to continue poisoning us all with impunity.

Related

Share

Medical Devices Wild West for Profits, Safety Problems

Dubious medical Cook Blood Clot Filter Lawsuitsdevices like IVC filters, heart stents, and metal-on-metal hip implants are allowed on the US market through some very questionable means. Most people assume the U.S. Food and Drug Administration extensively tests all medical devices before blessing them with the agency’s magic wand of approval. The fact of the matter is far different. The FDA performs no studies of its own. The FDA merely evaluates research that is usually submitted by medical device and drug makers with a vested interest in that research. The FDA hasn’t the time, the funding, or the personnel needed to do the job entrusted to it, the job that most Americans assume it is doing.

The FDA has – through budget cuts and restructuring of its funding, political pressures from Big Pharma lobbyists, and a revolving door which shuffles drug and medical device company employees in and out of FDA employment – now become little more than a pawn for medical device and drug makers. Medical device companies making billions of dollars on dubious devices – like overused IVC filters, over-prescribed heart stents, and dangerous metal-on-metal hip implants – use the FDA primarily as a cover. They use the agency to imply that it has verified the safety and efficacy of their medical devices, and to help them sidestep liability lawsuits.

Full FDA approval can and does help medical device makers sidestep many liability lawsuits; however, FDA approval does not verify the safety and efficacy of medical devices.

The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry
This is not Conspiracy Theory 101. This is the fact of the matter, and it is well documented in at least a dozen extensively-researched books. One of the latest, The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive It, by Jeanne Lenzer, makes the case all over again.  Ms. Lenzer shows just how broken our medical regulatory system is.  The book should be required reading for the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled in some landmark cases that FDA approval grants medical device makers a free pass to harm people at will with poorly tested or even arguably worthless medical devices.

Despite the woeful state the FDA has been left in after billions of Big Pharma lobbying dollars have worked to undercut and weaken it, the U.S. Supreme Court has ludicrously ruled that FDA approval of a medical device gives its maker license to avoid legal responsibility for injuring people.

Riegel v. Medtronic:  Justice Denied by Preemption

In Riegel v. Medtronic and other miscarriages of justice, the highest court has ruled that medical device makers get a free pass when they make a device that injures or kills someone, if that device was approved by the FDA.  The ruse is called “preemption.” It adds an additional injury to people whose lives were taken entirely or perhaps only badly damaged by some dubious medical device. The preemption argument, in a nutshell, claims states can’t comply with both federal and state laws; therefore, federal laws “preempt” state’s rights.  Preemption is a Sophist argument easily refuted on both legal and ethical grounds by anyone (such as Justice Ginsburg) who believes in civil liberty, corporate responsibility, and the U.S. Constitution. But all is not lost, yet.

Medical devices which have not gone through the FDA’s full PMA approval process are still fair game for liability lawsuits. That is at least the case for now, though several bills written by medical device and drug company lobbyists are currently being pushed by Big Pharma’s lackeys in congress. The obvious goal for the Western medical “industry” is to remove all vestiges of remaining protections for people injured by dangerous drugs and medical devices. Unfettered profits with zero accountability has always been the goal of every corporation, of course, but in the case of the healthcare “industry,” that goal strikes one as especially unmoored from any basic semblance of human decency.

Related: 21st Century Cures Act a Disguised Handout to Drug Companies

The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process
But even in today’s wild west of a healthcare system broken both legally and morally, medical device makers can sometimes still be made to face some legal liability. Medical device makers can still sometimes be held accountable if, rather than gaining full FDA approval for the device in question, it was allowed on the market via the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process. The 510(k) clearance process has so lowered the bar to the open market that even the corporate-friendly judges of the high court have been forced to see that it does not even imply that the FDA has researched the product sufficiently to ensure its safety or effectiveness.

IVC Filter Lawsuits

Because IVC filters were allowed on the market via the FDA’s 510(k) clearance process, IVC filter makers like Cook Medical , C.R. Bard, Cordis, and Rex Medical can still be held accountable when their filters fail to perform as advertised.

Related

Share

Neurosurgeon explains Chemtrail Brain Effects

(May 2, 2018)  Why is the earth being  poisoned daily with unmeasured amounts of aluminum and other toxic substances?  While disinformation dominates the internet regarding chemtrails that have been unleashed across the US (and the world) for more than 20 years, neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock and several other doctors and scientists have examined the materials in the secret aerial spraying.

The evidence for chemtrails is too overwhelming to bother with a retort to the CIA’s “conspiracy theory” ruse meant to silence any meaningful research or discussion.  It’s a simple fact that we and God’s living earth and sentient creatures have all been suffering the effects of a criminal enterprise for more than two decades.  Chemtrails are real.   The time has come for people to voice their concerns while they can still think for themselves and exercise their God-given right to reason.

Why in the World are they Spraying?

Watch this award-winning documentary:

Anyone too lazy or too willfully ignorant to look up into the skies and see for himself exactly what is happening, can find hundreds of YouTube videos, as well as dozens if not hundreds of personal and professionally-researched stories which detail the enormous extent of the ongoing poisoning of our atmosphere.  Entire areas of the pacific northwest are dying from heavy concentrations of aluminum being sprayed from the high-flying planes, along with barium, mysterious blood plasma concoctions, several unknown substances, and nanobots too small to be filtered out by our lungs.

Educate yourself if you want to save the earth.  Watch these videos and decide for yourself what the truth is.

Discovery Channel explains Chemtrails Experiment

Meanwhile, nanoparticles being sprayed on us daily are a trillion-dollar industry with absolutely no government oversight or regulation.   Most people spend most of their time with their heads buried in their cell phones, apparently too busy to look up and see what kind of air they are being forced to breathe.  Elsewhere, at least one doctor has warned about chemtrail lung.

Doctor Warns about Chemtrail Lung

Related

Share

Healthcare Fraud Heart of America’s Dysfunctional Healthcare

Many people believe you get what you pay for, but nothing has ever been less true when you consider American healthcare. Over-prescribed medical devices – like heart stents, IVC filters, hernia mesh – are just one of many ways Americans are enticed into paying for things they don’t need. Or that they “need” like they need a hole in the head. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, in fact, often pay for medical treatments – which include medical devices like IVC filters – that can hurt more than help them. Extensive research has proven that many doctor-treated Americans are left worse off than they would have been had they chosen not to visit a doctor at all.

The Danger Within Us: Untested, Unregulated Medical Devices

In a widely acclaimed new book – The Danger Within Us: America’s Untested, Unregulated Medical Device Industry and One Man’s Battle to Survive it – author Jeanne Lenzer accounts in painful detail how medical device and drug approval in our country is controlled by medical device and drug makers, not by our own FDA regulators.  The sad result creates a lot of unwitting victims.

US #43 in Mortality, #1 in Waste
Ms. Lenzer explains that the U.S. ranks a woeful #43 in life expectancy – below Costa Rica and Cuba, just ahead of Lebanon.  One huge problem, she says, is “squandering our resources on ill-advised treatments.”

Here’s one bombshell from the book: “The US spends trillions of dollars on healthcare each year, and 20-30 percent of that care is considered unnecessary.”  We may be #43 in mortality, but we’re an undisputed #1 in wasting money on ill-advised “healthcare.”

225,000 – 444,000 Americans Killed by “Healthcare” every year!
Beyond wasting resources, many treatments wreak severe, even mortal harms.  Unnecessary medical interventions, which include medical device implants, are now the third leading cause of death in our country.  Unnecessary medical treatments in the US kill an estimated 225,000 to 440,000 Americans each year. (You can’t make this stuff up!)  Ms. Lenzer points out that’s “more deaths than from diabetes, murder, car accidents, and AIDS combined.”

Medical Treatment Deaths Dwarf Gun Violence Deaths, but MSM Mum
So where’s the outrage? Every time the media trumpets another mysterious mass shooting or potential false flag, the public is stirred by agents provocateur on all the mainstream media outlets, while medical doctors, manipulated by Big Pharma and medical device makers into over-prescribing dangerous drugs and dubious medical devices, are killing hundreds of thousands more than guns or state-sponsored terrorists are.  HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS MORE.

So where is the sense of perspective?  Where is the sense of proportion? Where is any sense of rational thinking? Why don’t we hear about this deadly issue in our major media? Why is CBS not interested? Where is CNN when you need real news?  Why doesn’t Fox run a show on this problem KILLING HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of AMERICANS?

Look no further than all those drug commercials on your TV screen. Drug makers, which often make medical devices as well, account for the lion’s share of advertising money for television stations. Will they bite the hand that feeds them? Only by turning off the television “news” and doing your own research on the web can you find any truth, if you can navigate through the web’s seemingly endless sea of disinformation, which is also mostly paid for by Big Pharma and its many corporate partners and subsidiaries.

Healthcare Fraud Heart of America’s Dysfunctional Healthcare

“Healthcare” – and because the state of ours is so woeful it seems only honest to put that word in quotation marks – has become the single biggest sector of the US economy. US “healthcare” is an industry, period.  It exists to make money.  If it existed to care for people, we would not be 43rd in mortality.  If it existed to care for people, our “healthcare” system would not kill 225,000 to 444,000 people yearly.  The proof IS in the pudding.  US “healthcare” dwarfs even the military-industrial complex spending that President Eisenhower warned us about.  The military-murder industry eats a paltry $1.3 trillion yearly, while “healthcare” expenditures in 2015 topped $3.2 trillion, gobbling up nearly one of every five dollars spent in the country.

And just like there’s an enormous lot of waste in military spending, the difference is that healthcare spending waste is more easily quantified.  Just look at the numbers.  While dozens of countries’ citizens live longer and healthier lives than Americans do (recall that we are #43 in mortality), the US is easily #1 in the world in healthcare spending, “far surpassing all other countries,” writes Jeanne Lenzer.

Murder by Injection
For a fuller account of how your “healthcare” system became so broken, read Murder by Injection, by Eustace Mullins, published in 1988.  Mr. Mullins details just how Rockefeller Medicine took over what in the US had been a broad range of alternative choices for one’s actual healthcare. John D. Rockefeller, a Rothschild agent, created the Flexner Report, which demonized any medical practitioner not accredited by a university which followed the Rockefeller dictates for “healthcare.”

The idea was to make patent medicines the only ones approved for use in the US and in Europe, and to make criminals of anyone not practicing Rockefeller-style medicine.  The term “quack” was often used by Rockefeller agents cornering the healthcare market. The plan to monopolize our healthcare system took giant lucrative steps with the invention of chemotherapy, which then and now causes much more cancer than it cures, eventually killing most of the people who submit to it.

The Profits of Cancer – the War on Cancer Hoax

Trillions and trillions of dollars have been spent in the so-called “War on Cancer,” which has been an unmitigated flop.  But the big cancer  “war” has made many oncologists and doctors wealthy, if not any healthier than the people they help kill with chemo.  The so-called War on Cancer has also greatly enriched the coffers of the American Cancer Society, which has never cured anything save for cash-flow problems among its executive officers.

And just as the profits of cancer never stop flowing for the American Cancer Society and other medical concerns engaged in the very lucrative cancer-for-profit industries, the profits of the medical device makers and pharmaceutical drug pushers never stop growing, despite their often dubious results.

Related

Share

Hog Farm neighbors win $50 million Jury Award

(April 27, 2018)  A North Carolina jury awarded $50 million to neighbors of a huge Chinese-owned hog farm in Eastern North Carolina yesterday.  The jury deliberated less than two days.  The case was the first in a series of federal lawsuits filed against Murphy-Brown, a subsidiary of the Chinese global food giant Smithfield Foods.  The world’s largest pork producer was sued over its 15,000-hog farm in Carolina.

In a federal courtroom in Raleigh, the hog farm neighbors’  lawyers focused on the continued use of “anaerobic lagoons” behind the livestock pens. Hog waste was stored there, liquefied, then sprayed onto nearby fields.

Ten neighbors alleged that industrial-sized hog operations have known for decades that the open-air sewage pits on their properties were the source of noxious, sickening, overwhelming odors.  Neighbors said the stench was so thick it was impossible to remove it from their clothes.  They say odors and mist from the spray drift onto their property; that the hogs attract swarms of flies, buzzards, and gnats; that boxes filled with rotting dead hogs produce an especially pungent odor; that the rotting smells has limited their ability to go outside.

The plaintiffs argued that the Chinese company’s waste-management practices are the problem that creates a public nuisance. Smithfield Foods has not changed its method of disposal since the 1980s and ’90s.

U.S. Pork Costs lower than China’s
The neighbors’ attorneys argued that waste treatment methods have evolved but Smithfield Foods has not.  The neighbors’ attorneys said pork production operations in Eastern North Carolina have not changed their methods because it keeps operational costs lower than in China.

Michelle Nowlin, the supervising attorney for the Environmental Law and Policy Clinic at Duke Law and the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University, said by email that the verdict “(is) a significant victory for the community members who live next to these factory feedlots. They have suffered indescribable insults, not just from the immediate impacts of the feedlots themselves, but also from decades of government failure to come to their aid. Litigation was their last chance for justice, and this verdict and award will help them move forward.

“This verdict proves, once and for all, that ‘cheap meat’ is a myth. Someone pays the price of production, and for far too long, that burden has been on the rural communities that are home to North Carolina’s factory farms. This verdict forces the industry to internalize and reckon with those costs. I’m hopeful this decisive victory will be a game-changer in North Carolina and force the industry to modernize its waste-treatment, to the benefit of rural communities, the environment, and the farmers themselves.”

Smithfield calls Lawsuit an Attack on Farmers

Keira Lombardo, senior vice president of corporate affairs for Smithfield Foods, painted the verdict as an attack on industry and contract farms. She said in a statement, “We are extremely disappointed by the verdict. (These) lawsuits are an outrageous attack on animal agriculture, rural North Carolina and thousands of independent family farmers who own and operate contract farms. These farmers are apparently not safe from attack even if they fully comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations.”

Hog Farm neighbors win $50 million Jury Award

The $50.75 million verdict would be equally divided among the ten plaintiffs. The verdict orders  each plaintiff to receive $75,000 in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, but that amount seems likely to be drastically reduced by North Carolina tort reform law, written by corporations in tandem with state government representatives.  A Smithfield attorney has already noted that North Carolina law restricts punitive damages to no more than $250,000.

Animal Rights Matter
In a related matter, maybe this verdict and future trials will also begin to shed more light on the horrendous conditions in which pigs and other animals are “raised” and tortured for slaughter on factory farms.  The hogs have their internecine revenge through the morbid obesity, heart disease, and cancer that eating them indiscriminately visits on most of us, but there’s also a moral element of torturing and killing sentient beings that should concern all Christian folks.

Raising your own hogs on a small farm which has ample room for them and then killing them in a humane fashion is one thing.  Cramming them all into filthy, tiny enclosures, separating piglets from their mothers at birth, treating them all as if they have no feelings or animal intelligence, is not the path to heaven from this earth.  People would do well to find out where their food is coming from, how it is raised and slaughtered, before indiscriminately eating whatever meat is thrown them on a plate.

The Superstructure of Brutality
It’s not enough to be a part of the superstructure of brutality and just plead ignorance, and make yourself fatter until you die of a heart attack, stroke or diabetes from indiscriminate eating of factory-farmed and tortured animals.  God is watching us, always, and watching over the animals, too.  Our having dominion over the animals, as the Bible teaches, does not mean that we are free to mistreat them however we please.

Free Legal Consultation

Our law firm is investigating environmental pollution cases such as this one concerning a factory farm.  If you have been sickened, nauseated, or otherwise personally polluted by a factory farm near you, contact us today for a free legal consultation regarding a potential environmental lawsuit against the company that owns the factory farm.

Related

 

Share

IVC Filters Overused, Unproven

(April 26, 2018)  PulmCC, a trade publication for pulmonary and critical care, published an article on Dec. 16, 2016 titled, “Inferior vena cava filters are overused.  What’s the harm?”  The piece details the puzzling acceptance of IVC filters despite a decided lack of evidence proving their efficacy.  It asks several pertinent questions about whether inferior vena cava filters are being used in safe or necessary ways.

The PulmCC piece also asks why patients with IVC filters aren’t receiving notices to have them removed.  Evidence shows that the longer a temporary IVCF remains in a person’s vena cava, the more likely it is to cause problems.  Shouldn’t IVCF makers and the parties that implant them be under some obligation to patients to keep them informed until the filters are safely removed?

Some people, such as trauma victims, might receive an IVC filter and never even know they have one, until, perhaps, it is too late to have it safely removed.

Inferior vena cava filters are placed in the vena cava, the vein returning blood to the heart from the legs, to prevent deep venous thromboses (DVT) – blood clots in the legs – from traveling to the heart and lungs, causing pulmonary embolism (PE).  PulmCC notes that, “[D]espite their wide use, the benefits and risks of IVCF remain unclear. With about 50,000 IVC filters placed annually in the U.S., that’s a lot of unclarity.”

A Lack of Clarity
“Unclarity” is a charitable way to put it.  The publication also notes that IVCF are often used in conjunction with anti-coagulation therapy, and it asks whether this is good medicine. It’s a fair question, especially as studies have shown that adding an IVCF to go with anticoagulation therapy gives no mortality benefit to the patient.

IVC filters are the standard of care for people with acute pulmonary embolism or proximal DVT who cannot receive anticoagulation because of bleeding risk. But IVCF are used more often as an additional preventive therapy along with anticoagulation in an attempt to further reduce PE risk.

Scant Evidence for IVC Filter Benefits
Evidence supporting IVCF for any indication is scant, at best. Two large randomized trials have failed to show any mortality benefit from IVC filters.

Two IVC Filter Studies show no IVCF Benefits
PREPIC (1998) study participants with either DVT or PE who received IVCF, had fewer recurrent PEs, but suffered more DVTs, and had no mortality reduction. PREPIC studied non-retrievable filters. Half its patients had routine DVTs without PE. PREPIC confirmed that routine placement of permanent IVC filters in DVT and PE is not a good idea. After PREPIC, nearly all IVCF placed in the U.S. today are retrievable.

PREPIC2’s (2015) updated design tested retrievable IVCF (with anticoagulation, vs anticoagulation alone) enrolling ~400 ‘high risk’ patients with acute PE. There was no difference in death or recurrent PE between groups at 3 or 6 months. Although closer to real-world practice today, ‘high risk’ in PREPIC2 included anyone over 75, or with any active cancer diagnosis, which are not widely accepted indications for IVCF. Fewer than 18% of patients in PREPIC2 had any hypotension during their hospitalization.

Some Benefit for Elderly
A retrospective review of a large inpatient database, however, did show IVC to be associated with improved survival in elderly patients with massive PE (i.e., with hypotension). But no randomized trial testing this IVCF indication has been performed, probably because this is a small subset of patients.

Professional Society Disagreements on IVC Filters
Only two indications for IVCF are generally accepted by all major professional societies:

1.  Acute PE or proximal DVT with inability to provide anticoagulation;
2.  Patients with hemodynamically unstable PE, for whom another PE might be fatal.

Professional societies mostly disagree on appropriate indications for IVC filters. For example, the American College of Radiology (ACR) supports prophylactic placement of IVCF in patients with severe trauma or spinal injury without DVT, but the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) advises against it. Similarly, ACCP endorses IVCF placement as an adjunctive measure for massive PE treated with thrombolysis*, but American Heart Association (AHA) disagrees.

Radiology professional societies, whose members commonly place IVC filters – for a price, of course – endorse more IVCF indications than do ACCP and AHA. (Medicare pays roughly $3,800 to install an IVCF, another $2,250 to remove it.)

*ACCP advises against the routine use of IVCF in PE and DVT but adds “our recommendation against insertion of an IVC filter in patients with acute PE who are anticoagulated may not apply to [patients with hypotension].”

Temporary IVC Filters not removed
Most “retrievable” IVC filters become permanent. Less than a third of them are ever removed. “Patient lost to follow-up” is the oft-cited reason, but PulmCC says, “[F]ailure to remove an IVCF is more likely due to inadequate communication and care coordination by physicians between the inpatient and outpatient settings.”

IVC Filter Risks Unknown
IVC filter risks are largely unknown, because no IVCF maker or medical entity has set up a comprehensive public repository for adverse events from IVCF. Complications of IVCF placement frequently occur, according to PulmCC; but the rate of real harm is unknown. IVC filters have been generally considered reasonably safe mainly because hundreds of thousands have been placed without large safety signals emerging, says PulmCC; but that may be changing.

IVC Filters Overused, Unproven

A retrospective review of 952 patients after IVCF placement suggested a 1% rate of serious complications from IVCF. After receiving thousands of adverse event reports, the FDA advised physicians to remove IVC filters as soon as feasible – ideally within two months – and demanded additional longitudinal product safety data from IVCF makers. The PRESERVE trial is ongoing in response. IVC filter lawsuits asserting negligence and product defects are pending against at least three IVC filter manufacturer: Cook Medical, C.R. Bard, and Rex Cordis.

IVC Filters are Big Business
IVC filters are a roughly $200 million business. Hospitals split the profits with the interventional physician (radiologist, surgeon, cardiologist).

PulmCC asks, “With all that money sloshing around, and the payment on the table for IVC filter removal, why can’t doctors, hospitals and industry at least get organized enough to take them out?”

The publication suggests that a hospital could schedule a removal for a time after the patient leaves the hospital. IVCF makers could maintain a registry, pay call center reps or robots to reach IVCF recipients by phone, mail, and email until the filter is removed They could add follow-up money to the device cost, and have FedEx deliver a package to the patient’s home as a reminder to remove the filter.

PulmCC closes by saying that, “Blaming the patient and primary physician for IVC filters left in place won’t cut it anymore.”

The publication takes doctors to task for not promptly removing the filters, but don’t the IVCF manufacturers have a greater responsibility? How clear have they made it to doctors that the longer a filter stays in place, the more likely it is to cause problems?

An upcoming IVC filter trial in Houston, Texas, beginning May 15, 2018, will attempt to answer this question and many more regarding the safety and efficacy of IVC filters. The trial specifically concerns the Cook Celect IVC filter made by Cook Medical of Indianapolis, Indiana.

Related

 

Share

Merck accused of Fraud, Deceit, Negligence in Vaccine Injury Case

It is extremelyFormer Merck Employee speaks against Vaccination difficult to hold a drug company accountable in a vaccine injury case, but a Gardasil vaccine lawsuit filed in 2016 in California could change the whole game.

California is a fitting venue for a real vaccine safety challenge.  In 2015 it earned the right to bear the black badge of shame by becoming the first state to remove informed consent from schoolchildren and their parents.  Thanks largely to a Merck Pharmaceutical darling working in the government, a state Senator named Richard Pan, and a blitzkrieg fear campaign that muddied the waters of vaccine reality, California’s politicians happily voted away their citizen’s rights. Under the guise of doing it for their constituents own good, of course.

Related: Five Industry Shills to Watch out for

Other states have also taken their marching orders from Merck and the drug-company-compromised CDC, which also owns more than 50 vaccine patents in a grotesque conflict of interest. Many states are now promoting similar mandatory vaccination bills to remove informed consent and force all of their school children (and adults next; that’s in the works) into taking however many vaccines Merck and the CDC decide they “need.”  But there is still hope that sanity and democracy and all that is holy will prevail.

The recent Gardasil vaccine lawsuit filed in California may alter the vaccine-tilted field of play, and give the public a chance to regain vaccine choice and health freedom.   The lawsuit demands that Merck reveal the “science” behind vaccination, and specifically behind the Gardasil vaccine, which has injured more than 85,000 children – and by turns, of course, their families – since it was foisted on the public.

Merck accused of Fraud, Deceit, Negligence
Merck stands accused of fraud, deceit and negligence in a lawsuit concerning its controversial Gardasil vaccine.

Documented evidence suggests the HPV vaccine has caused more injuries than any other vaccination in history, including sterility and death in dozens of young girls. But despite that documented evidence, which the mainstream media continues to cover up (because pharmaceutical advertising pays the bills of most mainstream media outlets), Merck’s HPV vaccination continues to be trumpeted as a success. Besides the money it pumps into advertising, which in turn controls editorial copy, the pharmaceutical industry also exhibits an extraordinary amount of control over the “watchdogs” of government, such as the FDA and CDC.  This is not conspiracy theory; it is well-documented by dozens of researchers, and it is an open secret in Washington D.C.

But while the general look is grim for health freedom in the money-mad U.S., this recent vaccine injury court case is offering hope that Merck will finally need to explain and defend the science behind the Gardasil vaccine.

*** Related***

* US Court pays $6 Million to Gardasil Victims – washingtontimes.com

* Judge finds Merck lied in Patent Trial –  latimes.com

* Merck Whistleblowers out Mumps Vaccine Fraud – ageofautism.com

* Death and Disability follow HPV Vaccination – vaccine-injury.info/gardasil

* Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

* Shingles Vaccine Eye Damage

* How Big Pharma buries Vaccine Problems

Merck and the MSM will tell you Gardasil is 100% safe and effective and you will never hear the truth there, but here is some truth to contemplate one more reason why one cannot trust mainstream news today. Gardasil has some problems.

85,000 Gardasil Adverse Event Reports
The World Health Organization’s (WHO) VigiAccess database – as of April 09, 2018 – records a total of 85,329 filed reports of adverse reactions over the HPV vaccination.  These reports include:

* 389 deaths
* 37,699 reports of nervous system disorders
* 2450 cardiac disorders, (including 38 cardiac arrests)
* 533 Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS)
* 3200+ reports of seizures or epilepsy, 8453 syncope.

Please read about the California case filing here at BlacklistedNews.com and see that there is hope for vaccine truth to emerge from the darkness which all the vaccine money blots out:

Blacklistednews.com – Merck accused of fraud, deceit, negligence over Gardasil

Share

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Concerns

Metal-on-metal hip implant concerns have gotten the FDA’s attention. The agency announced in December 2017 that metal-on-metal (MoM) hip implants carry unique risks, in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.

The metal ball and metal cup in MoM hip implants slide against each other while an implantee is walking, sitting, or running. When metal from the two parts rubs together, tiny particles can wear off of the ball and cup, moving around or between them.

Metal Poisoning
The FDA notes that wear and corrosion at the connection between the metal ball and taper of the stem may also occur.  Some of the metal ions – such as cobalt and chromium – from the metal implant or from the metal particles will enter the bloodstream, according to the FDA.

Related:  Hip Implant Lawsuit

Surgical Cautions
To optimize the way in which the ball and socket rub against each other, the FDA says orthopaedic surgeons take several precautions before and during hip replacement surgery.  The idea is to produce and release as few metal particles as possible, but therein lies the problem. There is simply no way to fully avoid the production and release of some metal particles.

The agency acknowledges that different people will react to the released metal particles in different ways.  It also admits that it is not possible to predict who will have a reaction, what type of reaction might occur, when it will occur, or how severe it will be.

Adverse Local Tissue Reaction – ALTR
Metal particles around some implants can eventually damage bone and/or tissue surrounding the implant and joint.  An “adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)” or an “adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD)” can cause soft tissue damage. Such damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure, and replacement surgery.  The agency says, “Patients with a progressing ALTR may be considered for earlier revision to prevent extensive damage to bone, muscle and nerves.”

Safety Alerts for MoM Hip Implants

•  April 2010: The United Kingdom’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) issued a medical device alert that included specific follow-up recommendations for patients with MoM hip replacements.  Recommendations included blood tests and imaging for patients with painful MoM hip implants.

•  February 2012:  MHRA published a medical device alert, updating it in June 2012 with advice on managing and monitoring MoM hip implant patients.

•  May 2012:  Health Canada issued a public health communication to orthopaedic surgeons and patients over MoM hip implants.

•  Sept. 2012:  Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration published safety information for healthcare professionals on MoM hips.

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant Concerns

FDA adds that reports in orthopaedic literature, data from international orthopaedic implant registries and presentations from professional/scientific meetings have increasingly noted complications and potential problems of early MoM hip system failures.  Much of the available data comes from countries outside the U.S.  It may not be directly applicable to the experience in the U.S.  Some of the devices available outside the U.S. are not marketed in the U.S.; so   international regulatory agency recommendations may not apply to U.S. patients with MoM hips.

The FDA recommends that MoM hip implant patients who develop any symptoms promptly make an appointment with their orthopaedic surgeons.  Besides a physical exam, the  surgeon may consider several tests to evaluate the symptoms.  Tests may include:

•  Needling fluid from around the joint (joint aspiration)
•  Soft tissue imaging
•  Blood tests that measure metal ion levels in the blood

Patients who receive MoM hip implants should also pay close attention to changes in their general health including new or worsening symptoms outside their hip. If they are referred to a doctor to evaluate new conditions, they should let their physician know they have a MoM hip implant. Some case reports and articles in the medical literature suggest MoM hip implant patients may see certain symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).  These include:

•  General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
•  Cardiomyopathy
•  Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory or visual impairments)
•  Psychological status change (including depression or cognitive impairment)
•  Renal function impairment
•  Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold

FDA says that unless Mom hip implant patients have signs described above, there is not sufficient evidence to support the routine need for checking metal ion levels in the blood or soft tissue.  But the FDA is “recommending that asymptomatic patients with MoM hip implants continue to follow-up with their orthopaedic surgeon every 1 to 2 years to monitor for early signs of change in hip status.”

Related

 

Share

Hernia Mesh Pains Irish Men

(April 20, 2018) – Hernia mesh pains Irish men, the BBC reported late last year.  In America there has been almost a complete news blackout concerning the tens of thousands of women injured by transvaginal mesh, despite several large jury verdicts.  There has also been a near-total blackout on people injured by hernia mesh.

In the UK, however, the BBC has reported on transvaginal mesh problems and also on men in Northern Ireland reporting personal injuries from hernia mesh.  Here’s the story from Sept. 20, 2017 at BBC News.

The men report post-surgical complications that include chronic pain and the inability to work or enjoy their lives.  As in the U.S., the denial of complications from the medical community is a constant complaint of the men interviewed in the BBC story.

Injured Men call for Mesh Ban
The use of mesh is Northern Ireland’s National Health Service’s recommended treatment for groin hernias.  The group of injured patients has called for a ban on the polypropylene (plastic) mesh material.

One Million Hernia Surgeries yearly
The U.S. Hernia Society says one million hernia mesh surgeries are performed yearly. Approximately one in ten people will develop a hernia in their lifetime.  Most doctors continue to use plastic mesh despite a complication rate estimated to be as high as 30%.

Owen Smith, Labor Party, Northern Ireland
A member of UK’s Shadow Cabinet of Northern Ireland, Owen Smith, said he has been shocked by the stories he has heard.  Mr. Smith believes the mesh issue will become one of the biggest in the UK since breast implants.  He has set up a parliamentary group to study mesh problems.

The Department of Health and the Public Health Agency recently conducted a workshop to establish a standard approach through northern Ireland for women with mesh complications.

Ten Deaths Associated With J&J Physiomesh Hernia Mesh
At least 10 deaths and seven injuries have been associated with Physiomesh™, hernia mesh made by J&J.  Those deaths were reported to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Experts know that a mere 1-10 percent of actual adverse events are reported to the FDA’s MAUDE database, which could mean the actual death toll is closer to 100.

Plastic Hernia Mesh
Johnson & Johnson and other transvaginal mesh makers continue to face thousands of lawsuits in the federal MDL court set up in West Virginia, as well as in state courts across the country. The polypropylene plastic used in the transvaginal mesh is virtually the same as the plastic mesh used in troublesome hernia meshes.  The material itself continues to be a bone of contention between companies that make and/or use the mesh and plaintiffs’ attorneys representing women and men who allege injuries from that mesh.

Foreign Body Reaction
The human body launches a foreign body reaction against any extraneous material with which it objects.  Mesh makers claim their meshes use the human body’s foreign body reaction in a complementary way which helpfully “meshes” the plastic material with the body’s tissues. Plaintiffs who attribute their injuries to the mesh often include in their claims the argument that the foreign body reaction sets off a chain of events that leads their bodies to completely reject the invading mesh. Some plaintiffs claim this foreign body reaction to reject the mesh is part of a design defect.  Some claim it causes an auto-immune response which exacerbates the physical pain mesh can bring when it fails to “mesh” with the human body as it is designed to do.  The foreign body reaction dispute is but one of many issues which become part of most hernia mesh lawsuits or transvaginal mesh lawsuits.

Our law firm and others have settled thousands of transvaginal mesh lawsuits.  Now, more lawyers are turning their attention to hernia mesh.  Unlucky hernia mesh recipients have reported the same complications which transvaginal mesh patients reported – chronic pain and infection, mesh shrinkage, mesh migration, organ perforation, auto-immune sickness, and more.

Physiomesh Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
Lawyers are focusing on coated hernia meshes. They are specifically examining Atrium C-Qur and Physiomesh™ made by Ethicon, a division of Johnson & Johnson.  J&J’s Ethicon division recalled Physiomesh™ from the market in May 2016.

Two unpublished studies found Physomesh™ had higher failure rates for laparoscopic ventral hernia surgeries than other meshes used in a German and Danish Medical Registry.

Jane Akre of Mesh News Desk reported that the Voluntary product recall states that unpublished data found, “The recurrence/reoperation rates (respectively) after laparoscopic ventral hernia repair using Ethicon Physiomesh™  Composite Mesh were higher than the average rates of the comparator set of meshes among patients in these registries.”

Estimates say 300,000 patients have been implanted with Physiomesh since it was cleared by the FDA for sale via the 510(k) process in 2010.

Related

Share