Chlorpyrifos Pesticide linked to Autism, ADHD, Lower IQ

Several studies have linked pesticides to child development problems. Those near farms face the greatest risk.

(June 17, 2019) Young children exposed to pesticides containing chlorpyrifos can suffer lifelong problems that include autism, ADHD, Parkinson’s-like tremors, and lower IQ. Many injured by chlorpyrifos were exposed to the chemical while in the womb of their pregnant mothers. Prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos has been linked to anomalies in the brain’s surface.

What is Chlorpyrifos?

Chlorpyrifos — patented by Dow Chemical in the 1960s — belongs to a nasty family of toxic pesticides called organophosphates. These pesticides work as neurotoxins to kill insects. In bigger doses, they’re also neurotoxic to human beings.

People once used chlorpyrifos to control insects at home, though the EPA has banned residential use.

Besides homes, chlorpyrifos was widely used as a multipurpose insecticide for many agricultural and residential applications – from flea control for pets to mite protection for crops.  Trade names include Lorsban, Lock-On, Cobalt. Chlorpyrifos was also marketed and sold for home and industrial uses under the brand name Dursban.

Farm workers and others who often handle or inhale chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates are at the “highest risk of exposure,” the NIH says. When it’s sprayed in homes and gardens, residents are also at a “higher risk of exposure,” says the NIH.

The EPA banned chlorpyrifos for residential uses in 2000, except where it might be “safely” contained in ant and roach bait products.

How does Chlorpyrifos work?

Chlorpyrifos lethally disrupts the nervous system of its targets. Dow developed it to rid homes and gardens of cockroaches, ants, mites, and other undesirables. The problem is that human beings can also be vulnerable to the neurotoxic effects in small, continuous doses.

Chlorpyrifos Pesticide linked to Autism, ADHD, Lower IQ

Chlorpyrifos exposure occurs in many ways. Families living near farms that spray chlorpyrifos on their fields are acutely affected. Runoff from agricultural uses can put the chemical in drinking water. If you think you are safe from chlorpyrifos, don’t buy any fruits and vegetables; its residue can remain on fruits and vegetables in your local grocery store.

Over the past several years, many studies have shown prolonged exposure to chlorpyrifos hurts neurodevelopment in fetuses and young children. It leads to a heightened risk for autism and ADHD. A recent EPA report detailed the risks of exposing infants and pregnant women to chlorpyrifos. It demonstrated a potential link to intelligence deficits; the development of autism; problems with attention, memory, and motor skills.

Dow disputes Scientific Findings

Dow disputes virtually any and all findings which point to chlorpyrifos dangers. A company website claims: “The weight of the evidence of years – in some cases, decades – of scientific study continues to demonstrate that there is no link between chlorpyrifos and any of these health concerns.” Dow, like another poison giant – Monsanto — has been funding its own scientific research to fight the growing consensus about chlorpyrifos.

Dow is preparing for a long legal battle to keep chlorpyrifos on the market, and, by turn, in our air, food, and water.

California Chlorpyrifos

It’s no surprise that the country’s largest food producer sees more chlorpyrifos dumped on it than any other state.  RevealNews.org reports that chlorpyrifos is used most heavily in the California counties of Fresno, Tulare and Kern.

A recent University of California, Davis study found that pregnant women living near fields treated with the pesticide chlorpyrifos were three times (3x) more likely to have a child with autism. Early childhood exposure has been linked to developmental delays.

California counties with highest chlorpyrifos use, including agricultural and nonagricultural uses such as landscaping, mosquito control and, before 2001, residential fumigation:

County Pounds of chlorpyrifos used, 1991-2012 Percentage change, 1991-2012
     
Fresno 7.2 million 78%
Tulare 6.1 million -21%
Kern 5.4 million 70%
Kings 3.2 million 97%
Stanislaus 2 million -66%
Imperial 1.8 million -50%
San Joaquin 1.7 million -59%
Merced 1.5 million -51%
Monterey 1.4 million -68%
Los Angeles 1.4 million -99%

Related

Share

Jury awards $12M In Talc Suit against J&J, Colgate

(June 13, 2019)A California jury ruled yesterday that asbestos in Johnson & Johnson and Colgate Palmolive’s talcum powder products likely caused a woman’s cancer. The jury awarded the dying woman $12 million. It was the latest of several cases J&J has lost over its Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower talc products. Thousands of similar lawsuits remain pending across the country instate and federal courts.

The 12-member state court jury deliberated for five days before concluding it is more likely than not that J&J’s baby powder and Shower to Shower, along with Colgate’s Cashmere Bouquet, contained asbestos that caused Ms. Patricia Schmitz’s mesothelioma.

Negligence, Design Defect, Failure to Warn, Concealment
The jury found both companies liable for negligence, design defect, failure to warn, and concealment.  The jury did not determine whether J&J and Colgate acted with “malice, oppression or fraud.”  Such a finding could have warranted punitive damages. The jury were also unable to find J&J liable for another intentional misrepresentation claim for advertising company talc products as “pure,” in spite of knowing they could be contaminated with asbestos.

The $12M  jury award included approximately $2 million in economic damages and $10 million in noneconomic damages. The jury found J&J 30 percent responsible, its subsidiary Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. 10 percent responsible.  The jury found Colgate 40 percent responsible. They also found non-party Avon Products Inc. 20 percent responsible.

The highly contentious trial began back on April 23 in Oakland, California. Ms. Schmitz claimed  decades of exposure to J&J and Colgate talcum products was a substantial factor in causing her cancer. The 61-year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2018. Her attorneys told the jury that she is not expected to live past this summer (2019).

J&J Execs knew Talc contained Asbestos

The jury heard wildly-conflicting expert testimony from mineralogists, pathologists, epidemiologists, microbiologists, and microscopists. Ms. Schmitz’s experts and attorneys pointed to dozens of internal corporate documents since the 1960s which they claimed show Colgate and J&J executives knew their companies’ talc products could contain asbestos.

Ms. Schmitz’s attorneys argued that the companies’ corporate executives downplayed the risks, skewed lab results, promoted imprecise talc testing methods, refused to replace talc with non-toxic cornstarch, failed to warn consumers and federal regulators.

Both sides complained to Judge Frank Roesch throughout the proceedings that their opponent had mentioned topics which he had specifically excluded from trial. On two occasions, J&J attorneys asked the judge to declare a mistrial.  He rejected both mistrial bids, called the second request “ridiculous.”

Sanctions for J&J Attorney?

Judge Roesch said during closings that he would entertain a request for sanctions against J&J’s counsel Alexander Calfo.  The plaintiff’s attorneys argued that J&J’s attorney, Mr. Calfo, repeatedly violated the judge’s pretrial orders during J&J’s closing arguments. They also argued that he  attacked the court. A June 25 date is set to hear that motion.

Growing List of Verdicts against J&J for Talc Products

This latest verdict adds to a growing list of plaintiffs’ wins in jury trials over claims that J&J’s talc products were contaminated with asbestos and caused their users’ cancers.

Earlier in 2019, another California jury awarded a woman and her family nearly $29.5 million over similar claims against J&J and talc supplier Cyprus Mines. In 2018, a New Jersey jury awarded Stephen Lanzo III and his wife $117 million. State judges in both cases have since refused to throw out or reduce the verdicts.

In May 2019, a New York jury hit J&J and its talc supplier with a $325 million verdict that included $300 million in punitive damages. That jury found the company’s talc powder likely caused Donna Olson’s pleural mesothelioma.  In a similar case in South Carolina, however, a jury cleared J&J of similar allegations.

J&J currently faces a federal probe and federal multidistrict litigation in New Jersey over claims that some of its talc products caused cancer. It also faces at least four securities suits over the allegations of asbestos contamination, according to its February 2019 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

J&J was also hit with whopping $4.69 billion verdict in another talc cancer case, and Colgate was hit with a $13 million verdict in 2015.

Imery’s Bankruptcy Bailout
Imerys Talc America Inc., a J&J supplier, was originally named as a defendant in Ms. Schmitz’ complaint, but avoided trial after filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in February 2019. Imerys said it faces up to $100 million in debt from a litany of lawsuits over claims that talc which it produced contained asbestos.

Jury awards $12M In Talc Suit against J&J, Colgate

The case is Schmitz v. Johnson & Johnson et al., case number RG18923615, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda.

Related

Share

Roundup Cocktail threatens Monsanto

The Roundup cocktail that has killed living things for decades now threatens its Monsanto creator.  One is reminded of Macbeth’s pausing to consider the fallout before he murders Duncan: “That we but teach bloody instructions which, being taught, return to plague the inventor.”  Monsanto has taught a lot of bloody instructions through the years, all over the world. And now the company that kills for a living may fast be approaching its day of reckoning, despite whatever its well-paid lawyers and executives endlessly repeat about jury appeals as the company loses each new trial in spectacular fashion.

Or consider a Frankenstein metaphor – Monsanto as mad scientist creating an ugly monster that destroys its creator. All metaphors break down on close inspection, but this one might not be hyperbole, given the enormous verdicts against Monsanto that Roundup has wrought so far.  What seemed unthinkable just six months or a year ago is now eminently thinkable: The toxic Roundup cocktail may yet destroy its creator. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that Bayer is worth less now than the $63 billion it paid for Monsanto about a year ago.

The WSJ wrote on Monday, May 20, 2019:

“Bayer’s market capitalization has shrunk by more than 40% to roughly $59.13 billion. Worried that liabilities from the weedkiller are going to rise, investors have abandoned the stock, sending the shares into a downward spiral.”

Monsanto loses a third Roundup Trial, now 0-3 against Roundup Users

The latest Roundup trial – which brought a staggering $2 Billion verdict against Monsanto – has revealed to the world the glaring EPA loophole which allowed Monsanto to unleash Roundup on the world. It is a loophole that was clearly designed by chemical industry executives working through  back doors with “our” government regulators.  It was clearly not designed by regulators working first and foremost with the health of the public, the birds, bees, animals, and the land in mind. This glaring loophole has helped corporations escape liability in most environmental or product liability cases for many decades.

The Glyphosate Loophole

The regulatory loophole is so large and glaring that it is difficult to imagine it being allowed by any sane agency, government, or people. This loophole allows a company to list and test for safety only whatever that company decides to call an “active ingredient.” Roundup, as well as virtually any pesticide or poison you can think of (including the fluorosilicic acid dumped into most of the nation’s drinking water), has a twisted and tortured regulatory history.  In the case of Roundup, Monsanto was allowed to tell the EPA that glyphosate is its only active ingredient, and that the others were virtually irrelevant. The company had gotten away with that ruse – using a see-no-evil, speak-no-evil, hear-no-evil EPA – since the 1970s. All that has finally changed with the Roundup trials. The world is apparently waking up as juries are finally being allowed to hear the truth. The EPA classifies an ingredient as “inert” if it does not do the actual weed-killing, but that classification doesn’t mean the ingredient is not relevant, or doesn’t make the entire cocktail more toxic.

Inert Ingredients Matter

The obvious truth is that ALL the ingredients in a given toxic cocktail matter. The truth is that a company’s calling an ingredient “inert” doesn’t necessarily make it so. That’s what three juries have discovered as Monsanto has lost all three trials over Roundup so far – for $289 million, $80 million, and $2 billion. Monsanto has lost those trials principally because all three juries have been able to hear evidence of how the entire toxic cocktail called Roundup is at least 50x more toxic than glyphosate alone. (Who’d have thunk it? Not the US EPA, which still backs Monsanto.)  As the Pilliods’ lawyer put it before the jury which reached the $2.06 billion verdict, Roundup isn’t just glyphosate. It includes other “highly more toxic” components that “have a synergistic effect with glyphosate.”

University of Richmond law professor Carl Tobias noted: “The trial judge let in a lot more in the third trial than [was let in] in the first two.  (It) seems like they heard more, and more of it was bad.”

Roundup Ingredient banned in Europe

Mr. Tobias noted that Alameda Superior Court Judge Winifred could again allow plaintiffs to reveal to the jury that a surfactant in the toxic Roundup cocktail, polyoxyethylene tallow amine, known as POEA, is banned in Europe.  POEA helps the Roundup liquid spread across leaves’ waxy surfaces and coat them instead of beading up. The Pilliod case jury was the first to learn of the European ban.  Just as it coats living plants, Roundup coats the human skin in similar fashion, then leeches into the bones and the lymph, where it triggers non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Just as the plants are unable to uptake vitamins and minerals to keep them alive after Roundup surfactants attach and attack, eating Roundup-contaminated GMO food attacks the human gut and damages its ability to uptake needed nutrients.

(Many obese and even morbidly obese people are sadly living nutrient-deprived lives as a result.  No matter how much they eat, they are sadly always hungry because their bodies are unable to uptake vital nutrients.)

Monsanto Rebuttal

Monanto’s lawyers’ rebuttal at trial was to claim that dozens of studies were done on surfactants and that they were all found safe. What entities performed those studies, what company paid for them, and how they were designed were all questions that came up in court and were tackled by the plaintiff’s side. Again and again plaintiffs showed in all three trials that Monsanto paid for virtually all of the studies which suggest Roundup might be safe to use. Monsanto lawyers, meanwhile, repeated over and over that hundreds of studies have shown glyophosate is safe, though virtually all of those studies were done by Monsanto or were paid for my Monsanto, or were done by scientists or researchers with vested interests in Monsanto.

The Pilliods’ lead attorney Brent Wisner told the jury that Monsanto knew for a long time that combining glyphosate with the surfactant is more genotoxic and has a “synergistic effect.” He said Monsanto knew as much as early as 2000, that the company had heard it from a consultant whose findings Monsanto then dismissed for not helping support the company.

Internal Monsanto emails showed Monsanto religiously avoided switching to a known safer surfactant in the U.S. for fear that the change would look like an acknowledgement that Roundup  was dangerous.  Switching would have alerted the world, leading to Roundup bans everywhere, and it might have led to the exact types of lawsuits the company now finds itself fighting.

Monsanto claimed the change in Roundup’s European formula was for “market tastes.”  The jury clearly didn’t buy it.

Related

Share

Monsanto Black Ops revealed

Bayer begins internal investigation as law enforcement investigates. 

(May 17, 2019)  Monsanto has for at least a decade made “hit lists” of people it considers enemies, including select journalists, lawmakers, regulators, and scientists. Monsanto has targeted those people for blowing the whistle on the corporation’s poison practices, or for otherwise questioning or opposing the GMO agenda, the centerpiece of which is Monsanto’s toxic glyphosate weed killer chemicals. The company has now lost three straight trials for failing to warn Roundup users that it raises the risk of developing non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  Awards of $289 million, $80 million, and $2 billion have been delivered by three juries, which all voted unanimously against Monsanto.

What’s at Stake for Monsanto

A Monsanto-made carcinogen, glyphosate – the main active ingredient listed in Roundup – now contaminates much of the world’s food supply, as well as the water, air, and soil that sustains us all.  Worldwide glyphosate contamination represents enormous potential liability for Monsanto, enough to destroy the poison giant altogether.  According to Natural News’ founder Mike Adams, anyone who has opposed Monsanto may have been subjected to one or more of the following dirty tactics:

  • Attempted bribery
  • Death threats and intimidation
  • Character assassination through well-funded “negative P.R.” campaigns
  • Defamation via coordinated Wikipedia attacks run by Monsanto operatives
  • Career destruction, such as getting scientists blacklisted from science journals
  • Being “doxxed” – having their home addresses publicized and their families and co-workers threatened

Monsanto has long been targeting Mike Adams and many others through what intelligence operatives call a “black ops” division. For more than ten years, Monsanto has spent perhaps $100 million or more, according to Mr. Adams, in coordinated efforts to silence, destroy, or character-assassinate anyone who has interfered or publicly questioned Monsanto’s market dominance and worldwide propaganda.

Now, at last, the criminal activity that Monsanto has carried out for years is finally being exposed, as law enforcement closes in on the crimes of the biotech bully now owned by Bayer.  According to Mr. Adams, Bayer appears to at least be making an effort to “clean house” and end Monsanto’s targeting of journalists, lawmakers, scientists (like Gilles-Eric Seralini), and regulators (like members of the International Agency for Research on Cancer) with intimidation and bribery campaigns.

Law enforcement prepares criminal charges against Monsanto operatives

“French prosecutors said on Friday they had opened an inquiry after newspaper Le Monde filed a complaint alleging that Monsanto – acquired by Bayer for $63 billion last year – had kept a file of 200 names, including journalists and lawmakers in hopes of influencing their positions on pesticides,” Reuters reported.

This “hit list” of journalists and lawmakers was directly translated into action to intimidate, threaten, or bribe these individuals. Mr. Adams claims this criminal behavior also occurs in the US and he has been a victim of it.  He reports that a Monsanto spokesperson now confirms Monsanto used the list to take out anyone standing in the way of the Monsanto agenda:

“There have been a number of cases where – as they would say in football – not the ball was played but the man, or woman, was tackled,” Matthias Berninger admitted to to Reuters. Mr. Berninger acts as “head of public affairs and sustainability” for Monsanto.

In his statement, Mr. Berninger also admits Monsanto collected “non-publicity available data about individuals,” and then issued an apology from Bayer for the activity.

Related: France bans Glyphosate

Bayer Apologizes over Monsanto Black Ops “Initiative”

“Following an initial review, we understand that this initiative has raised concerns and criticism,” said Bayer in a May 12th public statement. “This is not the way Bayer seeks dialogue with society and stakeholders. We apologize for this behavior.”

Monsanto Character Assassination Teams

Mr. Adams states that Natural News can reveal Monsanto hired black ops teams and private investigators to dig up the personal locations of individuals and their families. The company  then engaged in activities to threaten and intimidate those individuals while publicly smearing them online through coordinated, well-funded character assassination campaigns.

Mike Adams, who operates more than half a dozen web sites dealing with Monsanto and the GMO agenda, believes he has been “personally hunted by Monsanto-funded black ops teams who intended to destroy my credibility and physically harm my person in order to silence my public criticism of Monsanto and end the publishing of MonsantoMafia.comGMO.newsGlyphosate.news and the dozens of other websites that Monsanto did not want to see published.”

Mr. Adams has also been targeted by google, which has both de-listed and re-listed his web site at various times, and by YouTube, which disappeared his channel along with his more than 350,000 followers as part of a crackdown on what Google and YouTube have called “fake news.”

Mr. Adams stated on his web site: “This is a rare opportunity for Bayer to hear directly from the victims of the Monsanto ‘black ops’ division that Bayer likely was not aware it was acquiring when it purchased Monsanto, since the entire division operated in secret and relied on internal corporate money laundering to obfuscate its operations.”

Monsanto Black Ops revealed

The Texas-based “Health Ranger” has invited Bayer’s attorneys to contact him through his public contact page.  He said his attorneys are also contacting Bayer’s legal team to initiate discussions. Mr. Adams also notes that “The Food Babe,” Jeffrey Smith, and some 20 others in the independent media were targeted by Monsanto. If the LeMonde article about Monsanto targeting some 200 journalists in France is even close to being an accurate number, it’s not too far fetched to think that at least 20 journalists have been targeted by Monsanto in America. If Monsanto’s products are so harmless and so helpful, as the company says, if Monsanto is  producing something that people need, why does the company work so hard to propagandize the public and threaten those who exercise their free speech rights?

Stay tuned. . .

Related

Share

FDA Recalls Mesh Products for Women

(April 17, 2019)  The US FDA announced yesterday that it was recalling all remaining surgical mesh products used on women to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP).  The FDA said it determined that Boston Scientific and Coloplast, makers of those plastic mesh products, had failed to demonstrate a reasonable assurance of their safety and effectiveness.  That assurance is the premarket review standard that had applied ever since the agency reclassified POP meshes as class III (high risk) in 2016.

That reclassification meant POP mesh makers were henceforth required to submit and obtain approval through premarket approval (PMA) applications.  PMA is the  FDA’s most stringent device review path for marketing medical devices in the US.

The agency said BSC and Coloplast now have 10 days to submit a plan to withdraw their products from the market.

FDA Announcement of April 16, 2019:

“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today ordered the manufacturers of all remaining surgical mesh products indicated for the transvaginal repair of pelvic organ prolapse (POP) to stop selling and distributing their products in the U.S. immediately. The order is the latest in a series of escalating safety actions related to protecting the health of the thousands of women each year who undergo surgery transvaginally to repair POP.”

Transvaginal Mesh not FDA Approved

Plastic mesh to treat POP and SUI was never formally approved by the FDA in the usual PMA process.  These meshes were, rather, “cleared” under the auspices of the agency’s 510k program, which allows some devices to reach the market if the agency determines the product in question is substantially equivalent to a product already approved.  In the case of transvaginal mesh (TVM), that comparison has always been shaky at best. Polyurethane or plastic mesh was first used in hernia repair surgery in the mid 1970s, and even then it was shown to cause problems in some people.  The company that made the oil-based plastic product is on record as saying it should never be implanted in the human body, but medical device companies used it anyway, and continue to use it.

FDA Dr. Jeffrey Shuren

Jeffrey Shuren, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said, “In order for these mesh devices to stay on the market, we determined that we needed evidence that they worked better than surgery without the use of mesh to repair POP. That evidence was lacking in these premarket applications, and we couldn’t assure women that these devices were safe and effective long term.”

100,000 + TVM Lawsuits

A multi district litigation court was created to handle more than 100,000 transvaginal mesh lawsuits filed over the plastic devices used to treat POP and SUI.  It was the largest ever MDL ever assembled. Jury trials resulted in several large verdicts for plaintiffs, and several thousands of cases were quietly settled for injured women.  Hundreds of TVM lawsuits are still on file, and more trials are ongoing.

FDA Recalls Mesh Products for Women

One lawyer, David Matthews, who won a large jury verdict in a TVM case and later settled several others, said: “The FDA has finally done what the mesh industry would not do on its own. The adverse event reports, which reflect less than 10% of actual injuries to the women implanted with this product, coupled with multiple large jury verdicts based on expert opinions, has shown the risks of these products far outweigh their benefits, if any. This is yet more evidence that the clearance process for these dangerous products is inadequate.  As lawyers who have been represented those injured by these defective products for more than eight years, we thank the FDA for declaring these plastic devices unfit for use.”

Related

Share

Farmer died fighting Monsanto

At least one Wisconsin farmer died fighting Monsanto.  Mike O’Connell tried blowing the whistle on the biotech bully from Missouri before he died of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2011. He wrote books of poems as well as letters to his political representatives and to local newspapers blowing the whistle and attempting to stop FDA approval of Monsanto’s insidious bovine growth hormone (rBGH), called Posilac.  He also refused to use Monsanto’s chemically-perverted GMO seeds and its Roundup poison on his own corn crops.

Fencing can’t stop Roundup

Mr. O’Connell may not, however, have mistrusted Monsanto enough. He did use Roundup to kill weeds on his farm property.  It was a choice which may have killed him.  His widow said he was drenched in Roundup on at least one occasion after a spill while mixing it in his barn.  He most certainly inhaled the poison for decades when his farm neighbors routinely sprayed it on their own corn and soy crops. A former college basketball player and restless athlete, he loved to walk for miles at night along the country roads lining his and his neighbors’ properties.

We are All Glyphosate Poisoned Now

Most of the farmers whose property surrounded the O’Connell farm regularly used Roundup on their crops.  The southern part of the state where he farmed for three decades is annually drenched in millions of gallons of Monsanto’s best-selling poison.  Fence lines can’t stop pesticide drift.  Tests show Roundup’s only listed active ingredient – glyphosate – is present in more than 90 percent of Americans. We are all being forcefed glyhosate in one form or another.  Even organic wine has been found to contain glyphosate, though in lower levels than conventionally-produced wine.  Glyphosate has been proven to contaminate our water, popular foods, wine, beer, and our vaccines. Yes, this known carcinogenic is being injected directly into the bloodstreams of babies and small children.

Time will tell just how many of us will die of lymphoma like Mr. O’Connell did, or of some other malady related to Roundup exposure.

Mike O’Connell’s story demonstrates that it probably doesn’t matter whether we liberally spray Roundup ourselves.  Tests have proven that glyophosate accumulates over time in the human body.  The more exposure one has, the more it accumulates. We’re not unlike fish who all swim in the same water.  We all breathe the same air, and like John Kennedy said in trying to stop the arms race, “We are all mortal.”

No Ordinary Farmer

Mike O’Connell was no ordinary farmer – if any fool could ever say there is any such thing as an “ordinary farmer.”  He graduated from Dartmouth College with a B.A. in English, and then earned a Masters Degree in English from the University of Wisconsin.  He was teaching Journalism at a  high school in 1968 when he fell in love with the land in southern Wisconsin.  At age 25, he bought a small farm for $19,000, with a down payment of $3,000. In the next thirty years he would get an education in farming and its nearly complete takeover by corporate interests like Monsanto and its government and university enablers.

He saw how Monsanto gained FDA approval for bovine growth hormone despite the objections of thousands of farmers as well as scientists who showed that it was fraught with peril for both cows and human beings. One team of investigative reporters in Florida were muzzled and then fired — which later led to a whistleblower lawsuit which they won – after they unveiled the ugly truth about Monsanto’s BGH.  ln 1995, Mike O’Connell wrote a poem about the unholy alliance of Monsanto, the FDA and land grant universities like his alma mater, the University of Wisconsin.

One of his poetry collections – My Bucket’s Got a Hole In It – includes several poems calling out Monsanto for its dangerous products and surreptitious dealings with government regulators and educational institutions beholden to the biotech giant by virtue of its multi-million-dollar “contributions.”

Mike O’Connel wrote:

“The deep pockets of the chemical companies allowed them to buy influence for approval of Bovine Growth Hormone injections in State Legislatures and at the Food & Drug Administration. More discouraging was the way they were able to silence any dissent from within Land Grant Universities, institutions founded to preserve, protect, and defend family farms.

BGH had no redeeming social or economic value for farmers, cows, or consumers. But the prospect of a $26 million Biotech Center on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus was enough to guarantee undivided support from career-conscious faculty and extension agents.”

Dairy Science Christmas

After a decade of buying influence in high places, Monsanto finally gained FDA approval of its synthetic bovine growth hormone product, Posilac, just before the holidays in 1993.  By this time, some of the Monsanto researchers had taken posts inside the FDA, where they could pretend to be objective reviewers of their own company’s data.

God rest ye merry dairymen, let nothing you dismay.
You must accept this biotech, there is no other way.
A shot on Christmas Eve could mean more milk on Christmas Day.
O tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

Now there will be some suffering, your finest cow may fall,
But you must keep the needle sharp, your back’s against the wall.
Don’t skip a single stanchion and don’t miss a single stall.
O tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

Before you go to church today, or after you come back,
Give your cows their Christmas gift, the gift of Posilac,
And pray to God that somehow you will get your money back.
O tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

Tonight there lies a baby in a manger far away.
He might not like to see the things we do to cows today.
But he still has his eyes closed – sssh! – don’t wake him right away.
O tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy,
O tidings of comfort and joy.

 

Farmer died fighting Monsanto

Mike O’Connell would no doubt be pleased to see that some people harmed by Monsanto have won dramatic jury verdicts — of $289 million and $80 million (though they’re on appeal, of course). Though justice against the biotech bully from St. Louis is coming late, at least Monsanto is being taken to task for its monstrous crimes against us all, against nature.  Mass chemical poisoning of our land, air, and water is not the answer to our food challenges.  One out of every two people will now develop cancer. This madness must end. We can’t both poison our food and eat it, too.  It was nothing but insanity to think that we ever could, the kind of insanity that Monsanto money drives. Nobody knew that lesson better than Mike O’Connell.

Related

Share

Down goes Monsanto!

 (March 20, 2019 Like the underdog Muhammad Ali shocking the giant George Foreman in 1974, plaintiff Edwin Hardeman knocked biotech monster Monsanto to the canvas yesterday.  In a unanimous decision in a California court room, a jury of six declared that Monsanto’s Roundup caused Mr. Hardeman’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The trial will now move to a phase two, a “damages” phase, which will somewhat untie Mr. Hardeman’s attorneys’ hands.  In this first phase which the plaintiff won yesterday with the unanimous decision, the plaintiff’s attorneys were allowed only to present evidence proving Roundup can cause cancer, and that it likely caused Mr. Hardeman’s cancer.

Attorneys not allowed to share evidence

Mr. Hardeman’s attorneys were not allowed to show any of Monsanto’s ongoing efforts to –

Monsanto has taken all these actions which the jury was not allowed to hear about in phase one.  (Hence the Foreman analogy; the behemoth Foreman appeared unbeatable, especially as he had youth and raw power on his side, just as Monsanto had the bifurcation power of the court on its side, as well as a judge who had once worked for a law firm which defended Monsanto.)

Some of Monsanto’s Machinations now Fair Game

In phase two of the trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys can now show the jury some of Monsanto’s devious moves behind-the-scenes to manipulate public opinion and ply federal regulators to help hide Roundup’s poison profile.

The key word is some.  Judge Vince Chhabria, who had granted Monsanto attorneys’ requests to handicap the plaintiff’s side by bifurcating the first Monsanto trial in federal court, is also keeping a tight rein on what evidence he will allow even now.

Since Mr. Hardeman was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in 2012, Chhabria has said that he will not allow evidence against Monsanto that came to light after that time.

Monsanto IARC Evidence Stifled

This ruling means that plaintiffs will not be allowed to show evidence of how Monsanto secretly hired ostensibly “objective” scientists to denounce the World Health Organization after its International Agency for Research on Cancer declared glyphosate in Roundup a probable human carcinogen in 2015.

The Seralini Affair Evidence Stifled

The jury will also not see evidence of how Monsanto used its media monies worldwide to attack French researcher Dr. Geiles Seralini after he performed a two-year rat study which showed how rats fed glyphosate developed hideous tumors.  That study was so threatening to Monsanto that the company quietly enlisted several scientists (who were on the company’s payroll in one way or another) to manufacture outrage about the legitimacy of the rat tumor study.  Monsanto also quietly (but not quietly enough, obviously, for it was all discovered later) had an editor installed at the offending journal, who then pulled the article from publication.  To this day, Monsanto claims that the Seralini study was pulled from publication because it failed a test of scientific legitimacy.  However, what Monsanto’s misinformation minions always fail to say is that there was such legitimate outrage in the honest scientific community over Monsanto’s subterfuge in the Seralini affair that the “pulled” journal article was re-peer reviewed and then re-published in another scientific journal.

There was nothing wrong with the Seralini study in the first place, which is why it was published in the first place and also why it was republished.

There was something wrong with Monsanto, there is something wrong with Roundup, and with Monsanto’s duplicitous and even arguably criminal actions, as there has always been something wrong with Monsanto.  Just as there is something wrong with Agent Orange, and bovine growth hormone, something very wrong with Monsanto’s PCBs and a host of other toxic products which spread misery and death as they raise Monsanto profits.

We pray that the truth will out, and that more people, like the jury in California, will come to see that the vast poisoning of our world by Monsanto does not bode well for any of God’s creatures, who count on the humanity and intelligence of decent men and women everywhere to protect the bounty of the earth.  Religion is on our side and so is the science, as Altered Genes, Twisted Truth, by Steven M. Druker, shows us.

Down goes Monsanto!

George Foreman got religion in his later years, by his own admission.  He dropped the hateful bully routine and began to work at becoming a better human being.  Now, if only Monsanto would do the same, we could all be living in a better place.  Let’s all dare to dream.

Related

Monsanto Lawsuit Lawyer | Attorney

Judge limits Monsanto Trial Evidence

Judge rips Attorney’s Composure

Down goes Monsanto!

California EPA labels Roundup Cancerous

Monsanto EPA Collusion?

Roundup Cancer Lawsuit 

Share

Monsanto attacks Honest Scientists & Science

More evidence has emerged to show how Monsanto attacks honest scientists and even science itself.  The chemical company giant has long worked to “neutralize” or discredit individuals and organizations when their findings threaten Monsanto profits.

Time and again, Monsanto’s actions behind the scenes impugn the chemical company’s endless “on- message” claim that Roundup is safe, doesn’t cause cancer, and no evidence exists anywhere to show that it does cause cancer.

The big message problem for Monsanto is that its own duplicitous conduct is well known on many fronts.  It begs the simple question:  If Roundup is as safe as advertised, then why has Monsanto worked so very hard to attack any scientists and any scientific findings showing Roundup causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma?  Monsanto’s messaging problems abound and grow by the day.  Here is just a small sampling:

  • Why has Monsanto hired ghost writers like Henry Miller, the bogus Stanford academic, to attack organic foods and organic farming in mainstream publications like Newsweek?
  • Why does Monsanto secretly attack anti-GMO Activists?
  • Why did Monsanto try to destroy French researcher Dr. Giles Seralini after he performed a rat study which showed GMO corn gave rats hideous tumors?
  • Why did Monsanto use its press minions to attack Carey Gilliam, a brave and honest writer who has published a superbly-researched book on Monsanto titled, “Whitewash — The Story of a Weed Killer, Cancer and the Corruption of Science.
  • Why has Monsanto worked behind the scenes with EPA regulators to quash at least one Roundup safety study?
  • Why did a Monsanto executive feed a Reuters reporter fake news that defamed the International Agency for Research on Cancer and one of its scientists, after the IARC declared glyphosate a probable carcinogen?
  • Why has Forbes magazine had to pull fake news stories (on at least two occasions) that maligned, misrepresented, and attacked researchers who pointed out the dangers of Roundup?
  • Why did Monsanto use an industry hack named Geoffrey Kabat to attack research which showed Roundup increases non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma risk by 41 percent? Kabat accused the authors of cherry-picking data, and he made other patently false statements, all while failing to disclose his ties to the industry.
  • Why has Monsanto attacked those who prove that the industrial farming methods Monsanto promotes strip soil of nutrients that form the most basic building blocks of environmental, human, and animal health?

Forbes magazine – which has published several articles defending Monsanto – published Mr. Kabat’s scathing review of the meta-analysis showing Roundup increased cancer risk, and then later pulled the article.  Why did Forbes pull the piece?  Because it was full of falsehoods, like so much of Monsanto’s propaganda that its press minions get paid to fling.  It was the second time in recent memory that Forbes was forced to pull Monsanto propaganda which Forbes had initially represented as “news.”

There was nothing honest about Geoffrey Kabat’s diatribe, just as there is nothing honest about Monsanto’s position that glyphosate is safe and no studies prove otherwise.  Even a federal judge who has shown himself more than sympathetic to Monsanto’s arguments – curiously “bifurcating” the first federal Roundup trial – was forced this week to admit the plain truth.  The judge denied a request from Monsanto’s lawyers to grant a summary judgment which would have ended the trial in Monsanto’s favor.

Yes, even the federal judge who had favored Monsanto by severely handicapping the plaintiff’s side with “bifurcation” wrote:

“[T]he plaintiffs have presented a great deal of evidence that Monsanto has not taken a responsible, objective approach to the safety of its product. (Although) the evidence that Roundup causes cancer is quite equivocal, there is strong evidence from which a jury could conclude that Monsanto does not particularly care whether its product is in fact giving people cancer, focusing instead on manipulating public opinion and undermining anyone who raises genuine and legitimate concerns about the issue.”

Those are strong words from a judge who had once worked for a law firm that defended Monsanto.  His bifurcation of the trial meant the jury was not able to hear about Monsanto’s reckless attitude toward safeguarding the public.   They were unable to hear trial evidence of how Monsanto had more interest in manipulating public opinion than getting at any underlying truths.  The jury did not hear evidence of how Monsanto was most interested in undermining anyone with “genuine and legitimate” concerns about Roundup.

The six jurors will be allowed to hear some of that evidence of Monsanto’s propagandizing and reckless disregard only if they decide unanimously that Roundup caused the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.  The jury began deliberations on March 13, 2019.  They will resume deliberations again on Friday, March 15.

One can only hope now that the bifurcated trial arrangement will not hinder the jury’s arriving at the truth of the matter, despite being allowed to hear only a fraction of the whole story in this first phase of the trial.

In this first phase, only if all six jurors unanimously agree that Roundup was the principal cause of the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, will they then be allowed to move to a second, damages phase.  If and only if they make it that far, will they then be allowed to hear at least some of the truth behind Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes manipulations, of Monsanto’s attacks on honest scientists, of its never-ending maneuvers to manipulate the actual reporting of the science itself.

Related

Share

Monsanto Roundup likely Caused Cancer, Pathologist testifies

(March 7, 2019)  Monsanto’s Roundup likely caused a California man’s cancer, a pathologist testified in a federal courtroom yesterday.  Dorothy Atkins reported for Law360 that the pathologist testified that it is “more likely than not” that Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer poison caused a man to be diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL). The testimony refuted Monsanto’s claim that hepatitis C, weight, and age caused the (now 70-year-old) plaintiff’s cancer.

Dr. Dennis Weisenburger explained to jurors in San Francisco that plaintiff Ed Hardeman was treated for hepatitis C within a year of contracting it.  Dr. W. said that early treatment significantly reduced Mr. Hardeman’s risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma from the virus.  Dr. Weisenburger also testified that any cells damaged by the Hep-C virus would have died off when the man was cured of that disease in 2006.  He rejected Monsanto’s claim that Mr. Hardeman’s 2015 NHL diagnosis was caused by hepatitis.

NHL Diagnosis Nine Years Too Late for Monsanto

“If he was going to get lymphoma, he would have gotten it when he had the infection, not nine years after he was cured,” Dr. Weisenburger testified.

Dr. Weisenburger is one of the last experts to testify before Mr. Hardeman’s attorneys rest the first part of his case in the controversial bifurcated trial arrangement which District Judge Vince Chhabria agreed to assemble at the request of Monsanto’s attorneys and against the strong objections of the plaintiff’s side.

Related: MonsantoLawsuit.com

Arcane Bifurcated Arrangement Censors Plaintiff’s Side

In the arcane “bifurcated” arrangement of this first federal trial in the Monsanto Roundup litigation, the plaintiff’s side may not bring to the jury’s attention any of the mountain of evidence which shows Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes moves to censor or attack any research or organization deemed a threat to Monsanto profits.  That arrangement severely handicaps the plaintiff’s side.  One cannot fairly present Monsanto’s brand of “science” without simultaneously showing how the company manipulates it, promotes the views of its own paid scientists, and attacks with its well-paid media minions any scientist or organization that questions Roundup safety.

Bifurcation in this case means that the jury will not hear about any of Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes manipulations unless the jury first rules, solely on the basis of “scientific” grounds, that Roundup caused Mr. Hardeman’s NHL.  Without any doubt, censoring all the damning information that we now know about Monsanto’s real actions to manipulate science and public opinion decidedly favors the company.  It allows Monsanto lawyers to repeat the company’s default defense that “hundreds of studies” prove Roundup is safe enough to drink, or that Roundup is as safe as table salt (a false, claim along with many others, that Monsanto was forced to retract in New York state.  Because virtually all of those Monsanto studies were short-term and were virtually all sponsored by Monsanto, the WHO refused to include them in its evaluation which concluded in a 2015 assessment that Roundup is a probable human carcinogen.

The Monsanto Papers

A mounting pile of evidence from internal documents revealed in “The Monsanto Papers” and elsewhere has shown how Monsanto propaganda clouds and poisons – like mustard gas in WWI trenches – the worldwide fight over Roundup.  Monsanto or its proxies have been shown to manipulate news outlets like Reuters, Newsweek, Fortune, and others around the world; email secretly with EPA regulators to derail or influence Roundup safety studies; hire bloggers to attack anyone or any organization that questions the safety of Monsanto’s products; entice academic ghostwriters and blogger goons to put their names on pro-GMO propaganda; move Monsanto employees through a revolving employment door between the FDA and the company, compromising regulatory agencies with industry monies.

Ed Hardeman’s case is the first to go to trial where hundreds of similar lawsuits have been filed in the multidistrict litigation court overseen by U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.  Claimants all share the same injury, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and all claim that injury resulted from their exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and Ranger Pro herbicides, which are classified as pesticides by EPA.

Mr. Hardeman testified on March 5, 2019 that he used Roundup to kill weeds and poison oak on his 56-acre property in Santa Rosa, California.  He said he used it for 25+ years, between 1986 and 2012.  The spray’s mist often fell on his skin and face, he testified.  Mr. Hardeman was diagnosed at age 66 with stage 3 cancer on Feb. 14, 2015.  He has undergone cancer treatment.

Dr. Weisenburger, who took the stand March 6, has published more than 50 research papers on causes of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He noted during his direct examination that less than 1 percent of patients with chronic hepatitis C develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 10 years.  He said those patients have a “much higher” risk of getting liver cancer. He said that age and being overweight are minor risks for developing NHL. He added that obesity increases the risk of getting the cancer by 30 percent “at most.”

Monsanto Attorneys Cross Examination

In cross-examination, Monsanto’s attorney, Brian L. Stekloff, tried to discredit Dr. Weisenburger’s testimony.  Mr. Stekloff asked him what doctors and pathologists know about the biological impact of having hepatitis for decades.

Dr. Weisenburger said there’s no way to tell by looking at a damaged cell if the damage is due to Roundup exposure.  He further conceded that the “vast majority” of patients’ diagnosed with NHL don’t get it from Roundup exposure. The doctor also admitted that he could not completely rule out that Mr. Hardeman’s decades-long chronic hepatitis B could have contributed to his NHL.

Mr. Stekloff also tried to cast doubt on studies that showed links to Roundup exposure and NHL. He pointed out that test subjects who developed NHL were diagnosed a few years after Roundup came on the market in 1974, not 20 years later, which Dr. Weisenburger claims is the cancer’s latency period following Roundup exposure.  However, Dr. Weisenburger responded that the 20-25 year latency period is just a guess, as it’s the median; so that all the test subjects in the studies at issue still fell within the bell curve.

Dr. Weisenburger also said he didn’t know the cause of cancer for 70 percent of the 1,000 NHL patients he has treated.  But the pathologist said repeatedly that doctors don’t look at the history of patients closely.  He said physicians often don’t know the cause of cancer, because they don’t pursue it in detail.

“Physicians don’t ask about Roundup,” said the pathologist. “They don’t even ask about pesticides.”

Monsanto’s own health assessment “will be inaccurate”

After Dr. Weisenburger’s testimony, Mr. Hardeman’s attorneys showed a video deposition clip of Monsanto’s corporate representative Bill Reeves. Mr. Hardeman’s attorney questioned Mr. Reeves about a 1997 letter from an in-house Monsanto epidemiologist who wrote that the exposure assessment in a decades long agricultural health study “will be inaccurate.”  Monsanto has used the study to counter Mr. Hardeman’s allegations.

Mr. Wisner also pointed out a 1986 document in which the US EPA told Monsanto its mouse study testing the safety of glyphosate was based on insufficient data and needed to be redone.

The trial is expected to last into at least the middle of next week if Monsanto wins this first phase, and there will be no second phase for damages in the bifurcation arrangement if the plaintiff fails to win this first truncated round.

Though this is the first trial against Monsanto for Roundup in a federal court, there has been one previous Roundup trial in a state court, last summer in California.  In that case last summer, a state jury hit Monsanto with a $289 million verdict.  It was later slashed by tort reform to $78 million and is on appeal.  Monsanto has yet to pay out any monies over Roundup.

The case is Hardeman v. Monsanto Co. et al., case number 3:16-cv-00525, and the MDL is In re: Roundup Products Liability Litigation, case number 3:16-md-02741, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Related

Share

Monsanto Trial Judge rips Plaintiff Attorney’s “Steely” Composure

(Feb. 27, 2019)  A California judge running the first federal court trial in the Monsanto Roundup litigation ripped into a plaintiff’s attorney for her “composure” after he repeatedly interrupted her during her opening argument Monday.  Judge Vince Chhabria (unpronounceable) interrupted the plaintiff’s attorney Amy Wagstaff over and over again as she attempted to open her client’s case for the jury.  The judge later criticized her “steely composure” in responding to his interruptions, and finally he threatened to issue sanctions against the woman as well as her law firm.

Steely Composure proves actions in bad faith and intentional
Judge Chhabria said that Ms. Wagstaff’s actions were in bad faith and intentional. How did the judge know her actions were in bad faith and intentional? Because, the judge said, the woman showed “steely” composure in reacting to his interruptions.

(Editor’s Note: We relate this story directly from the record as it was reported by Dorothy Atkins for Law 360, a publication which, like Judge C., tends to weigh – and share – most evidentiary matters decidedly in favor of Monsanto.)

Bifurcation Blues
The judge’s prior ruling to bifurcate this Roundup cancer trial – at the request of Monsanto’s lawyers – was the clear catalyst for this messy opening scene of the first Roundup trial to be heard in a federal court.  Judge Chhabria ruled before the trial began that it would proceed differently than the first trial, which didn’t work out well for Monsanto.  The first Roundup trial last summer in California brought a former groundskeeper a $289 million verdict (later reduced to $78 million) against Monsanto, though that entire verdict is still (of course) on appeal.

For this second Roundup-Lymphoma trial and the first in a federal court, Judge Chhabria agreed with Monsanto lawyers to split the proceedings into two parts, the first for causation, the second for damages.   In this rare and controversial (to say the least) setup, the jury will first hear only those arguments which relate directly to the science of causation. (That seems fair, at first blush, but wait and hear the whole story.)  If, looking only at the causation “science,” the jury determines that Roundup caused the plaintiff’s non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, then they will also be allowed to hear – in a potential second phase of the trial – about some of Monsanto’s machinations to manipulate the “science” and propagandize to sway public opinion.

In the first trial, the jury was allowed to hear “the whole story” – both the plaintiff’s whole story and Monsanto’s whole story – from the start.  Why did this judge decide to change that simple formula?

Science Divorced from Reality
While bifurcating the trial into two parts – divorcing the science from Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes manipulations – might seem like a fair approach in some sense, the overarching problem with the bifurcation ruling is that the science of Roundup safety cannot be divorced from Monsanto’s machinations to manipulate that “science.” And this is why we need to put that word in quotation marks the rest of the way.  “Science” cannot be divorced today (if it ever could) from politics, or from the considerable money that works so hard to control “scientific findings.”

The jury in the first trial was able to hear, from the start, from the plaintiff’s attorney, the simple question:  “If Monsanto’s Roundup is so safe and the science behind its safety is as strong as Monsanto says it is, then why did the company need to work so hard to ghostwrite articles for academics to sign; hire editors at ostensibly objective publications who could then work as gatekeepers to deny space to anyone showing the danger of Monsanto’s products; retract peer-reviewed and published information when it threatened Monsanto’s business model? Why did Monsanto need to secretly contact EPA employees and secure the quashing of safety studies?  Why does Monsanto hire bloggers and internet trolls to attack citizen researchers who uncover evidence of the dangers of Roundup?  Why does Monsanto continue to feed fake news to Reuters and other worldwide publications to defend its products and attack its detractors? Why does Monsanto spend millions of dollars to defeat food labeling bills?

The Impossibility of Bifurcation
Though this jury may never hear any of them, examples of Monsanto’s behind-the-scenes manipulations of “science” are legion.  Just one case alone will serve to show just how Monsanto poisons the well of honest scientific discourse and research into the safety of its products.

Monsanto Manipulation and Dr. Giles Seralini


Monsanto’s work to discredit and neutralize Dr. Giles Séralini is instructive of how the biotech giant does business. Dr. Séralini found that Monsanto’s GM maize caused massive tumors in rats, and he published those findings in a peer-reviewed science journal. Rats from all over the world at the behest of Monsanto then attacked Dr. Séralini and his study, and a Monsanto minion secured an editorial post at the publication and then had the threatening paper retracted. That retraction then caused an uproar from honest scientists everywhere, so that the paper was then re-peer-reviewed and then re-published in another science journal.

A French Member of the European Parliament and France’s former minister for the environment, Corinne Lepage, explained that the Séralini study exposed the weakness of industry studies conducted for regulatory authorization. The GM maize had previously been judged safe by regulators around the world, including the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).

Institute for Responsible Technology

The Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) explains that Dr. Séralini became the center of an “[E]pic struggle between independent science and corporate hegemony. The scientific journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, which first published his study, had retracted the article following an orchestrated campaign by thinly disguised biotech promoters. The article was later re-published in June 2014 in the journal, Environmental Sciences Europe.”

IRT notes also that another Monsanto minion of a scientist, “[F]ormer chairman of France’s Biomolecular Engineering Commission, Marc Fellous, was then exposed in a libel trial that he lost to Dr. Séralini just last year for using or copying Séralini’s signature without his agreement to argue that Séralini and his co-researchers were wrong in their reassessment of Monsanto studies. The Séralini team’s re-assessment reported finding signs of toxicity in the raw data from Monsanto’s own rat feeding studies with GM maize (corn).”

Monsanto Trial Judge rips Plaintiff Attorney’s “Steely” Composure

The Dr. Séralini story proves – definitively, and all by itself – that there is simply no way for U.S. federal Judge Vincent Chhabria, or anybody else, to “bifurcate” a trial that separates science and causation from Monsanto’s propagandizing machinations.  Monsanto’s actions have proven again and again that science and propaganda are inextricably linked. That IS the story of Monsanto’s Roundup, and why any jury that hears these cases needs to be given both and all sides of the entire story, in order to decide for themselves what real “science” does and does not say.

Let us, the American people, hear the whole story, Judge. We’re as smart as you, and we deserve to hear the whole truth, and then decide for ourselves what is right, and what is not.  The truth of Monsanto’s rat experiments on us all will not be silenced by you or anybody else.

Related

Share