States move to restrict Monsanto Herbicide Use

Several states are moving to restrict the use of a Monsanto herbicide.  Monsanto’s poison Dicamba has drifted into neighboring farms, homes, and gardens, killing indiscriminately.

Writer Rhonda Johansson reported for Natural News on Oct. 29, 2017 that Tennessee just became the fourth state to restrict the use of Monsanto herbicide.

Dicamba drifts, kills Neighboring Lands

Tennessee farmers have stated that Monsanto’s poison Dicamba has drifted to neighboring farms. It has damaged neighboring crops and garden life not genetically-modified to withstand it.  Nor are bees, birds, and people genetically modified to withstand this poison.  Consequently, we now see massive pollinator bee and bird die-offs, along with Monsanto lawsuits being filed for hundreds of people with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Tennessee joins Arkansas, Missouri, and Kansas in holding Monsanto responsible for environmental damage. Dicamba is the main ingredient in herbicides produced by Monsanto, BASF, and DuPont for use on genetically modified soybeans and cotton. Part of that genetic perversion makes the seeds impervious to toxic assaults.  It also strips them of nutritional value and attacks otherwise healthy flora in the human gut. (This is also how glyphosate kills plants and bees and sickens people.) The U.S. EPA approved dicamba in 2016 to kill broadleaf weeds, using Monsanto’s own studies as “proof” of its safety. In much the same way, the Monsanto-captured agency approved Monsanto’s cancerous Roundup.

Related: One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

Monsant Poison kills Indiscriminately
Farmers in the southern United States say dicamba has cost their neighbors thousands of dollars in lost crops by drifting onto surrounding farms.  Several lawsuits have already been filed against dicamba producers.  A Wyatt, Missouri farmer, Hunter Rafferty, told Reuters, “We’ve had damage across just about every acre of soybeans we farm in southeast Missouri.  In our small town, the azaleas, the ornamentals, people have lost their vegetable gardens.  It’s a big problem.”

Mr. Rafferty says 3,000 to 4,000 acres of soybeans on his family farm have been compromised because of dicamba drifting onto his property.  He says plant leaves have constricted into cup-like shapes – a warning sign that the soybeans have been altered.

Monsanto has dismissed these claims (of course).  Monsanto insists these are only challenges faced by any and every “early-adoption strategy.”  Monsanto representatives liken this cross-contamination to similar problems Monsanto faced launching Roundup Ready glyphosate-resistant crops 20 years ago.  Monsanto claims that situation was “fixed.”  Other recent reports and hundreds of Roundup cancer lawsuits against the toxic giant suggest otherwise.  Monsanto has a long, sordid history of contaminations and cover-ups.

Monsanto blames Farmers
“In almost every technology in the first year there are kinks that you need to work out,” said Robb Fraley, Chief Technology Officer of Monsanto, in response to the dicamba lawsuits.

Fraley joins spokespeople from BASF and DuPont who blame improper application as the cause for the damaged crops. They flatly deny any inherent chemical issues.  Mr. Fraley claims farmers fail to follow application labels, use contaminated equipment, or buy older formulations which save on costs but are more prone to drift.  However, he did say Monsanto will look over additional safeguards for using Dicamba.

Monsanto likes to blame farmers.  It has sued more than 145 of them over the years, never losing in Monsanto-friendly courts.  Litigation-happy Monsanto is the first to claim “frivolous lawsuit” anytime the company is sued for its civil and criminal behavior.

Monsanto unleashed Dicamba to match its Monits Xtend line of soybeans and cottons which have been designed to withstand the poison. The line was meant to replace earlier products that contained only glyphosate.  In 1970, Monsanto introduced glyphosate-resistant crops to battle the rapid buildup of plant-destroying weeds.  Glyphosate’s performance has been less than stellar over the long run.  Early Roundup crop yields matched conventional yields, but heavier and heavier chemical applications of Roundup have spawned superweeds and superpests.  The monoculture farming methods Roundup engenders have stripped fields of needed nutrients, destroying thousands of acres of once-fertile farmland.  Monsanto’s chemical farming methods also require greater amounts of water than conventional or organic farming.  That’s anther problem for Monsanto, since water has become more valuable than oil.

What is Dicamba?

Monsanto introduced its new dicamba formulation late in 2016, marketing it as XtendMaxTM.  Dicamba was reported to have low-volatility, which Monsanto described as being less likely to drift while being more “flexible,” (not sure what that means).  Monsanto also claimed Dicamba is    better able to “maximize crop yield potential.” (Great buzz phrase, that.  Time will tell if it’s true.  It wasn’t true for Roundup in the long run.)  In its official press release, Monsanto projected over 15 million Roundup Ready 2 Xtend soybean acres, as well as three million Bollgard II XtendFlex cotton acres by the end of 2017.

These estimations might not apply, given the latest restrictions filed by Tennessee.  Part of these guidelines include allowing application only from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., and banning the use of older dicamba formulations.

Tennessee Agriculture Commissioner Jai Templeton has said, “I’m confident that we can address this issue as we have in other cases to ensure the safe and effective use of these tools.”

States move to restrict Monsanto Herbicide Use

“Safe and effective use of these tools”?  Since when is poison a tool?  Is Jai Templeton also another tool, like the EPA’s Jess Rowland, or the FDA’s Michael Taylor?  Keeping dicamba from contaminating neighboring corn or soy fields is like having a no-peeing section in a swimming pool.  Can fences be made impermeable to drifting winds?  Monsanto’s game is the same as it has always been.  It moves closer and closer to monopolizing seeds.  The company seeks to own every growing thing in the world.  Anyone who doesn’t understand that yet doesn’t know much about Monsanto.  Please study its rancid history, and its latest move to join war criminal Bayer in a nightmare merger of chemical giants.



One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

The EPA, FDA and other government agencies are often maligned for showing fealty to corporate interests rather than U.S. citizens. The criticism is usually deserved.  Citizens pay those agencies’ salaries through their taxes. But among the runaway corporate wreckage aided by captured government agencies, some employees stand firm for citizen safety.  One such unsung hero is Marion Copley.  May she rest in peace, but may her work and her words of warning never rest.  Ms. Copley knew glyphosate is carcinogenic.  She tried to hold the EPA’s feet to the fire to announce that fact and protect citizens from it.

A recent Monsanto lawsuit has introduced the world to Marion Copley.  An EPA toxicologist, Ms. Copley was dying of breast cancer in March 2013 when she wrote a telling letter to Jess Rowland, deputy director of EPA’s pesticide division.  She tried to appeal to Mr. Rowland’s sense of civic duty.  As her letter made clear, she was well aware of his history of running interference for corporate interests.  What she didn’t know then, but what we all know now, is that Mr. Rowland had no sense of civic duty.

Editor’s Note:  It’s not all bad news.  The FDA’s David Graham is another unsung hero; he alerted Americans to the dangers of Vioxx.  Dr. William Marcus is another.  A Senior Science Advisor in EPA’s Office of Drinking Water, Dr. Marcus sued the agency and won, after it tried to destroy him for doing his job – alerting Americans to the dangers of fluoridation chemicals in their drinking water. Another is CDC scientist William Thompson.  (It’s heartening to know some exist!)

A Dying Declaration of Purpose
Since a cancer diagnosis is now well known to be most often a result of toxic environmental exposures, Ms. Copley’s breast cancer led her to redouble her longtime efforts to act in the interests of others facing toxic exposures.  She had been an EPA toxicologist for 30 years, researching the effects of chemicals on mice.  She knew something about toxicity, including the kind in office politics, as her letter to Mr. Rowland made clear, and as his subsequent actions made ever clearer.

Jess Rowland was deputy director of the EPA’s pesticide division in 2013.  He led the Cancer Assessment Review Committee, which was evaluating (or pretending to evaluate) Monsanto’s glyphosate.   Ms. Copley also served on that committee.  In her letter, she described how the property that makes glyphosate such a potent pesticide – its ability to target an enzyme that plants need to grow – also plays a role in the formation of tumors in humans.  She named 14 specific methods by which it could do the job.  (Fourteen!  Where are her study notes now?)  She wrote:

“Glyphosate Causes Cancer”
“Any one of these mechanisms alone…can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously,” Ms. Copley wrote. “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.”

Then she got personal with Mr. Rowland, and in doing so revealed much more about him and the way the EPA too often works, or doesn’t:

“Jess: For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants.”  [Monsanto, in this case, of course.]  She closed her letter: “I have cancer and I don’t want these serious issues to go unaddressed before I go to my grave.  I have done my duty.”  Ms. Copley died the next year, in 2014.

Would that Mr. Rowland also have done his duty.  He was, instead, busily acting in a manner which Ms. Copley’s letter telegraphed for future investigations into EPA collusion with Monsanto. Mr. Rowland acted exactly as he had in the past, according to Ms. Copley’s estimation of his past work for EPA.  He played his “political conniving games.”

Mr. Rowland’s job required him to work closely with registrants like Monsanto. The documents, however, demonstrate a strikingly cozy relationship with Monsanto employees.  One April 2015 e-mail reveals that Mr. Rowland told Monsanto he would try to kill a planned review of glyphosate by the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR).  That agency, along with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), is charged with evaluating potential adverse health effects from exposure to man made chemicals.

“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Mr. Rowland said of the review, according to an e-mail written by Dan Jenkins, Monsanto’s lead liaison to government agencies. “I doubt EPA and Jess can kill this; but it’s good to know they are actually going to make the effort,” Mr. Jenkins wrote to his colleagues in the same e-mail.  (Note Monsanto’s cozy first-name basis with its own regulator.)

Some other EPA officials claimed the ATSDR’s proposed review was unnecessary since the EPA was conducting its own evaluation.  Regardless, Monsanto got what it wanted.  By October 2015, the ATSDR review was  put on hold, and Monsanto was anticipating good news from the EPA.  Mr. Jenkins gushed to his colleagues: “Spoke to EPA: is going to conclude that IARC is wrong.”  Six months later, on a Friday in April 2016, the EPA’s long-anticipated report on glyphosate, signed by Rowland and stamped “final,” was released on the Internet.  It lasted only the weekend.  EPA retracted the report first thing Monday morning, calling its release “premature.”  Monsanto nevertheless dispatched a press release with the phony headline:  “Once Again, EPA Concludes That Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer.”

Jess Rowland retired within weeks of the release, which came as no surprise to Monsanto.  The previous September, Mr. Jenkins had told his co-workers, “Jess will be retiring from EPA in 5–6 months and could be useful as we move forward with ongoing glyphosate defense.”  (Attaboy, Jess!)

EPA Bows to Monsanto’s Own Studies
The EPA has often been criticized for its chemical-screening processes. It relies primarily on research funded or conducted by the chemical companies themselves.  In 2015, EPA determined there was “no convincing evidence” glyphosate disrupts the human endocrine system.  But that determination was based almost solely on studies funded by Monsanto, other chemical companies, industry groups.  None of the industry-sponsored studies, which were obtained by The Intercept’s Sharon Lerner, concluded that there were any health risks, despite the fact that some of their data suggested otherwise.  By contrast, a few of the small number of independent studies considered by the EPA did find evidence that glyphosate harms the endocrine system.  Unlike the EPA, the IARC considers only published, peer-reviewed science.  It does not consider a corporation’s own sponsored studies. Virtually all of Monsanto’s arguments that glyphosate is safe come from the company trumpeting its own industry-sponsored studies.

One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

Time will tell if the IARC can cleave to its designation of glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.  Meanwhile, how many other EPA employees are working behind the scenes to help Monsanto, while the company continues to spend millions of dollars, just as cigarette companies did, to confuse the issue with yet more industry-sponsored studies.  Many or most of these studies are disguised as independent, while a little digging shows that they are industry sponsored, like the ones Monsanto used to hoodwink the EPA and FDA into letting them unleash their glyphosate poison on the world.

More on that later.  Stay tuned. . .



Roundup damages Cells, DNA

Research in Austria found that Roundup (glyphosate) causes cell and DNA damage to epithelial cells derived from the inside of the mouth and throat. The research raises concerns about the safety of inhaling glyphosate, a common way in which people are assailed by Roundup and other Monsanto poisons.

Siegfried Knasmueller and his colleagues at the Medical University of Vienna, Austria, found back in 2012 that Monsanto’s formulated version of glyphosate – Roundup Ultra Max – caused cellular and DNA damage.  That damage included chromosomal abnormalities. Roundup ultimately killed the cells at higher concentrations.  Most alarmingly, DNA damage occurred at concentrations below those required to induce cell damage. That suggests the damage was caused directly by glyphosate, not as an indirect result of cell toxicity.

This was not the first time glyphosate-based poison concoctions were shown to cause cytotoxic and genotoxic effects.  Several independent research teams have been documenting glyphosate hazards over the last several years, using in vivo, in vitro, and clinical studies.

Human Guinea Pigs in Argentina, Ecuador

DNA damage was seen in blood samples from exposed people in Argentina and Ecuador.  Lab mice showed chromosomal and DNA damage in bone marrow, liver, kidney cells, lymphoid cells. Similar effects were seen in non-mammals, including sea urchins, goldfish, eels, tilapia fish, fruit flies.

These experiments show glyphosate in weed killers is dangerous for humans and many other animals.  Glyphosate is highly soluble in water, so its assault on aquatic life may be of particular concern.  Other recent studies have found glyphosate in most samples of rain water, groundwater, rivers, air.  Glyphosate is now everywhere. Scientists have already shown its extreme toxic effects on amphibians such as frogs.  (See: Roundup Kills Frogs.)  Scientists have seen cell damage in many cell types, including those derived from rat testis, human placenta, umbilical cord, embryo, rat and carp neurones, liver.

Multiple tests have all shown cell damage from Roundup
To reflect occupational exposure, human buccal epithelial cells were exposed to glyphosate and Roundup for 20 minutes only at concentrations from 10 mg/L to 200 mg/L.  Roundup formulation used for the experiments contains 450 g/L of glyphosate and should be diluted according to Monsanto’s instructions to 1–3 % before use (final concentration 4 500–13 500 mg/l).  Researchers found significant effects with 10-20 mg/l, equivalent to a 225–1 350-fold dilution of the spraying solution.

Roundup more toxic than Glyphosate
Test results showed cells much more sensitive to Roundup (with glyphosate) than glyphosate alone. Roundup showed a significant effect at a dose level of 40 mg/L with the XXT assay.  A clear increase of the lactose dehydrogenase levels was already seen with 10 mg/L.  The cell proliferation and the neutral red assays were less responsive, with significant effects detected at 80 and 100 mg/L, respectively – still well below agricultural use levels.  All effects were dose-dependent.

Multiple tests show Roundup causes DNA damage
Significant effects on DNA integrity as assessed by the SCGE assay were seen at 20 mg/l of both Roundup and glyphosate, increasing in a dose-dependent manner.

Roundup damages Cells, DNA

Roundup was cytotoxic at concentrations as low as 20 mg/L, while its active ingredient was not generally cytotoxic to buccal epithelial cells. Both glyphosate and Roundup elicited genotoxic effects at concentrations below the level required to induce cell damage. The different effects between the active ingredient and its commercial formulation is consistent with previous work, including experiments done on testicular, placental, embryonic and umbilical cord cells. These results may explain some of the ailments observed in people who work with Roundup. They add yet more weight to the argument that Roundup should be completely banned for any use.  One shouldn’t need to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma and file a Roundup Lymphoma Lawsuit to get Roundup taken off the market.



Hernia Mesh vs. Suture Repair

Most people considering surgery for hernia repair will find themselves facing a difficult choice.  Of course, one can always “wait and see” in the event of a hernia (more on that below).  And it is sometimes possible to use belts or trusses to help manage or simply live with a hernia.  Most people suffering from a hernia, however, will likely face a choice of surgical options.  Most will decide whether it is best to choose a plastic hernia mesh to repair a hernia, or to find a surgeon who can perform a more traditional hernia repair using sutures and/or natural tissues.

What is a Hernia?
A hernia occurs when an organ, intestine or fatty tissue breaches a weak spot or a hole in muscle or connective tissue.  Hernias often occur at the abdominal wall.  Sometimes a hernia can be visible as an external bulge, particularly when one strains or bears down.  There are many types of hernias, but inguinal hernias – in the groin area – are by far the most common.

Hernia Types
•  Inguinal: inner groin
•  Femoral: upper thigh/outer groin
•  Incisional: incision or scar breach in the abdomen
•  Ventral: general abdominal/ventral wall
•  Umbilical: belly button
•  Hiatal: inner abdominal, along the upper stomach/diaphragm

Hernia Causes
Most hernias are caused by a combination of pressure and an opening or weakness of muscle or connective tissue.  Pressure pushes an organ or tissue through the opening or weak spot.  The muscle weakness can be present at birth, but it usually occurs later in life.  Anything that increases abdominal pressure can cause a hernia.  Risk factors include obesity, heavy lifting, diarrhea, constipation, persistent coughing, sneezing.  The FDA web site notes that poor nutrition, smoking, and overexertion can also weaken muscles and contribute to hernia risk.

Hernia Treatment Options
The FDA reports that more than one million hernia repairs are performed each year in the U.S. About 80% involve inguinal hernias.  Treatment options are myriad.

1. Non-Surgical
Watchful Waiting – One can watch a hernia to see that it is not getting larger or causing problems. Though surgery is the only treatment that can repair hernias, many surgical procedures are elective for adult inguinal hernias.  Watchful waiting is an option for people who do not have complications or symptoms with their hernias, and if recommended by their surgeon.

2. Surgical
a. Laparoscopic – A surgeon makes several small incisions in the abdomen that allow surgical tools in for repair.  Laparoscopic surgery can be performed with or without surgical mesh.

b. Open Repair – A surgeon incises near the hernia and repairs the weak muscle area. Open repair can be done with or without mesh. Open repair using sutures without mesh is referred to as primary closure.  Primary closure, says FDA, is used primarily to repair inguinal hernias in infants, small hernias, strangulated or infected hernias.  But one can use primary closure for other reasons, as well (such as fear of hernia mesh and its “side effects”), though the FDA does not say so.

The Problems of Surgical Mesh for Hernia Repair
The FDA on its web site seems solidly in favor of surgical mesh for hernia repair.  At the same time, it is worth noting that the agency also backed – at least in the beginning – the use of plastic mesh on women suffering from pelvic organ prolapse (POP) or stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The agency’s confidence in mesh appears to have been misplaced for many women.  More than 100,000 have filed lawsuits alleging they were injured by the plastic mesh used on them.  Many thousands of those lawsuits were settled, while many of them remain in the courts.  Just a few weeks ago, a jury awarded a woman several million dollars for a Johnson & Johnson mesh product that she testified badly injured her.  Several mesh trials resulted in large jury verdicts, including a recent $73 million award in Dallas.  The material used in the mesh on that injured Texas woman – along with thousands of others for POP or SUI – is the same material used in hernia meshes.

The FDA reports on its web site that mesh-based hernia repairs have increased since the 1980s.  By 2000, non-mesh repairs made up less than 10% of groin hernia repair techniques.  Does that mean that hernia mesh is safe?  Not according to at least one surgeon, who says that 10-20% of hernia mesh patients suffer complications.

FDA also says “the use of surgical mesh may also improve patient outcomes through decreased operative time and minimized recovery time.”  But FDA also cautions that recovery time depends on the type of hernia, the surgical approach, the patient’s condition before and after surgery.

The agency also says that the medical literature has “consistently demonstrated a reduced hernia recurrence rate when surgical mesh is used to repair the hernia compared to hernia repair without surgical mesh.  For example, inguinal hernia recurrence is higher with open repair using sutures (primary closure) than with mesh repair.”  But does that mean hernia mesh is safer than suturing, or superior to suturing?

FDA Cautions on Hernia Mesh
The FDA also admits that despite reduced rates of recurrence with hernia mesh vs. suture repairs, situations arise in which surgical mesh for hernia repair “may not be recommended. Patients should talk to their surgeons about their specific circumstances and their best options and alternatives for hernia repair.”

Hernia Mesh vs. Suture Repair

While the literature may indicate that using mesh for hernia repairs does have its advantages, the FDA categorically fails to state one glaring fact for those whom the mesh fails.  At least one prominent hernia surgeon says that the complication rate for hernia mesh surgery is a shocking 10-20%.   The FDA also fails to state, in its hernia mesh literature, what we saw with plastic mesh used on women for POP or SUI.  Namely, if the mesh fails the patient, for whatever reason, it can be difficult or impossible to remove it.  That unfortunate situation can lead to permanent pain for the person meshed.  This is one more instance, among an endless list of examples, where the FDA tends to err on the side of industry rather than on the side of the consumer, and safety.  In this instance and in many, many others, the FDA downplays the serious risks of a medical device (or drug), while promoting its alleged benefits.  Buyer beware!



Flu Shots Weaken Immune Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

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

Doctor will speak to UK Parliament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hernia Mesh 10-20% Complication Rate, says Surgeon

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

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



Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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



The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate Hazardous to Crops, Soils, Animals, People

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

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

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth About Monsanto

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

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

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

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




Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

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

Monsanto narrows Glyphosate / Roundup Argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glyphosate Red Herring for Real Dangers of Roundup

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



Glyphosate devastates Brain Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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