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

Vaccine-injured Child used to Push Vaccine Agenda

(April 16, 2019) A vaccine-injured child was used by CBS last week to push the vaccine agenda that all mainstream media outlets support at the behest of their Big Pharma advertisers.  The all-seeing “eye” network presented the picture of a blotchy-faced infant and captioned the photo to imply he was unvaccinated and suffering from measles as a result.  In reality, in the actual world, not the promotional one that CBS lives in, the child looked that way because of his reaction to the MMR vaccine, according to his mother.  In fact, beside the obvious signs of a vaccine reaction, the child was also diagnosed with autism following his MMR vaccination. Back to the drawing board, CBS.

“No matter how cynical you get, it’s impossible to keep up.”  – Lily Tomlin

CBS: A Fake News Master

How could CBS get it so wrong?  Simple.  Just follow the money.  The network, a key gatekeeper for the medical monopoly that runs the country’s “healthcare” system, operates like the CDC.  The overarching agenda – mass vaccination for all, forced if necessary – is handed to them by their Big Pharma advertisers and government partners.  Everything they see afterwards, every potential piece of evidence, is something that can be used to further that agenda.  Once an agenda is established, and then made into an industry – like the $40 billion per year vaccine industry – all the media and government powers connected to it are then mobilized to further that agenda.  It’s a druggernaut that’s tough to stop, or even to slow down.  The avalanche of money it generates turns it into a self-propelled monster that feeds many of the same people that it feeds on.

It’s Just Business

In addition, fully vaccinated children are more likely to become chronically ill than unvaccinated “others,”  so vaccination can greatly help build a drug company’s customer base. The sicker most people are, the more drugs they are likely to take.  It’s a fairly simple business model, and a good one, protected by government fiat, as drug companies bear no liability when their vaccines injure or kill someone, thanks in large part to the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. (Quite an Act, that) and now the equally Draconian 21st Century Cures Act.

The Merck Druggernaut

The vaccination monster operates much like the Merck Druggernaut. Merck founder George Merck famously told TIME magazine in 1956 that you don’t sell the drug; you sell the disease.  This time it’s measles, and the more the media can gin up hysteria about measles, the more, (and more often – don’t forget your “booster” shots) they can scare people into vaccinating their children. Merck makes the enormously profitable MMR vaccine administered to millions of non-consenting children; the potentially lethal Gardasil vaccine; and also the dangerous and arguably less-than-worthless Zostovax vaccine which has been the subject of several hundred shingles vaccine lawsuits.

The Mother Speaks

The mother of the child pawned by CBS, Dawn Neufeld, caught the phony “eye” network using the image of her son when she happened to spot his picture on Facebook.  She was decidedly furious, if her postings are any indication:

“So @cbsdfw decided to use my kid as the poster child for the measles outbreak. We did not grant permission of any kind for its use. But the irony… Will doesn’t have measles in this picture; this is the reaction he had to taking the ‘safe’ MMR shot. We’re not happy about this… at all,” she wrote on Facebook Tuesday. (April 9, 2019)

You f***ed up @CBSDFW – this is my kid you used in your story without my permission. He does not have the measles. This was his reaction to the MMR shot. Take it down. Now. Issue a retraction. It’s much easier than having to litigate a defamation case. I’ll wait. pic.twitter.com/ZJA7XYirqT

— Dawn Neufeld (@DawnNeufeld) April 9, 2019

CBS’ Fake News Post that incensed Mother Dawn Neufeld:

“Neufeld,” explains Matt Agorist – a former marine who worked in military intelligence – “is an outspoken advocate for safe vaccines. Despite attempts to smear her as an ‘antivaxxer,’ Neufeld has merely advocated for safe vaccines and notes that she still vaccinates her children. Because of Neufeld’s large social media following, CBS was inundated with angry comments on how ‘deceitful’ and ‘negligent’ the decision to use her son’s photo was – especially considering the fact that she blames vaccines for her son’s autism.”

“Only after receiving threats of a lawsuit and an onslaught of negative comments and demands for them to take it down did CBS finally remove the image and issue a retraction.”

CBS’ Belated Correction

CBS’ belated correction read: “CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story showed a file photograph of a child who had an adverse reaction to the MMR vaccine. Due to an editing error, the child was misidentified in the caption as having measles. CBSDFW apologizes for the error.”

Vaccine-injured Child used to Push Vaccine Agenda

This fact cannot be stressed enough: Drug companies account for 80 percent of mainstream advertising revenues.  The “mistake” by CBS comes as every mainsteam media outlet in the country has ginned up measles hysteria in order to jab every kid they can and demonize anyone who questions the safety of the ballyhooed vaccination paradigm.  In this case, however, the ruse didn’t work so well; the mother whose child was injured by the MMR vaccine strongly objected to her child’s picture being used to tout the wonders of  the MMR vaccine.

So this is what it has come to in the land of disinformation, where the prime makers of fake news label all other news as fake.  This is what it has come to:  Vaccine-injured children are now being used to prove to you that vaccination works and you had better get your kid(s) vaccinated with any and every product we help our advertisers promote.

Vaccine-injured Child used to Push Vaccine Agenda

And – you can always catch the subtext – don’t talk to us about “safe vaccines.”  If  drug companies had any interest in safe vaccines, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to stop any and all safety testing.  This isn’t a story about the importance of safe vaccines. (There aren’t any.)  There is no public discussion allowed about vaccine safety, or effectiveness.  This story by CBS, and similarly slanted stories from a hundred other mainstream media outlets, is all about advocating for a policy that is firmly embedded in the psyche, a policy that supports billions of dollars of industry, part of what Nietzsche calls the superstructure of brutality.

Just get in line is always the storyline, the clear message, in every one of these vaccine scare stories.  Don’t ask questions.  Let the people in the white coats do your thinking for you.  Just listen to them.  Rockefeller Medicine works well for the for-profit medical monopoly.  If it doesn’t work so well for you and me,  that’s neither here nor there.  This is a story about industry, about billions of dollars in profits, an agenda and a storyline needed to continue selling snake oil to the medicated masses. This is about doing what we are told to do, and it’s about not asking questions.

Understand?

Related

Share

Drug Company Dollars control Vaccine Injury News

(April 5, 2019) Drug company dollars control vaccine injury news. That’s not theory. It’s a fact. Virtually every mainstream news outlet in the U.S. fails to report vaccine injury facts. Children and adults can, and do, sicken and/or die as a direct result of submitting to vaccinations. The U.S. government has quietly paid out more than $4 Billion to people and their children injured or killed by vaccinations.

RelatedA Shingles Vaccine?  Really?

So why don’t we hear about the real and actual vaccine problems?  Why don’t we all know that the US vaccine court has been compensating for cases of vaccine-induced autism since 1991? The US Department of Health and Human Services has been secretly settling cases of vaccine-caused autism without a hearing since 1991. (See Sharyl Attkisson’s:  “The Open Question on Vaccines and Autism.”)

Google, YouTube Censor Vaccine News

Google and YouTube receive billions of dollars in advertising revenue from Big Pharma vaccine machines like GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi, and Pfizer. They are now actively censoring vaccine-related injury news and videos. They simply label as “fake news” anything which displeases or threatens the profits of their vaccine-maker clients; then they throttle that “fake news” in search results or even “disappear” it from the web altogether in a manner more befitting communist China or the old Soviet Union.

Using their Congressional minions to kill net neutrality has made the whole process easier. Any and all information which threatens drug company profits is censored, period, or if it is impossible to completely censor it, that news is spun to readers and viewers in favor of industry.

Entire web sites and hundreds of vaccine injury news videos and web pages are either being “de-platformed” like Mike Adams’ Natural News, or erased from Google and YouTube search results, or else throttled and slowed so as to discourage readers and viewers. These news giants own a virtual monopoly on our “news” along with their drug company partners. They are censoring the free flow of information under the guise of helping us.  To excuse their behavior to those of us paying attention, they tell us that they are doing it to help us. They tell us they are censoring our news to help us.

Where the drug companies and their media partners are concerned, ours, as the old poem says, is not to reason why.  Ours is but to do or die.  We citizens of a Democracy (at least in name) are now being treated like the cavalry in the Charge of the Light Brigade.  We are supposed to ride into the valley of death, to do the bidding of our “Masters.” We are not supposed to engage our God-given ability to think and reason.  We are not supposed to decide for ourselves, individually, what makes sense and what doesn’t. We are not supposed to decide for our children whether or not a particular vaccination is worth the risk of submitting to it.

Attention, Trolls

Cue the trolls, who at this juncture always raise the nonsense about why informed consent can’t apply in the case of vaccination.  Trolls give us the ludicrous “herd immunity” ruse put forth by their Big Pharma handlers. Read The Myth of Herd Immunity from Dr. Russell Blaylock:

There can be no herd immunity with artificial immunization.  Natural immunity, of the kind which can be achieved only by the grace of God through the miracle of good health – via clean food, clean water, and clean and rational thinking and discourse – is the only kind which is possible for human beings. Read some Vaccine History, Thinking Person.

Related: Vaccinion Truth, Fake News, Internet Freedom

Vaccines Risk-Benefit Analysis

What we need and rarely get is a vaccine risk-benefit analysis. But all we have to do ourselves is  look closer. The truth is out there if one is willing to dig it out. The truth is, the influenza vaccine hasn’t worked in at least 70 years because of the way it is produced.  The shingles vaccine is arguably less than worthless, given its tiny theoretical benefits and huge risks. The shingles vaccine is decidedly dangerous and arguably worthless. The vaccines schedule the CDC recommends for our children have given us the highest rate of vaccination in the “free world” while making our children sicker than they have ever been. More than half are chronically ill, and a new childhood cancer center pops up nearly every week.

While every national news outlet in the country repeats the lie that there’s no link between autism and vaccination, the US vaccine court has quietly been compensating American citizens and their children for cases of vaccine-induced autism since 1991. Hannah Pohling is just one of many hundreds or thousands who have received compensation.

Related:  Vaccine Injured Children Compensated

We people of the street, meanwhile, are repeatedly told that all vaccines are safe and effective and no evidence exists otherwise.  We are taught that anyone questioning vaccination in any fashion is anti-science, akin to a heretic who ought to be stoned or at least muffled and preferably detained, forcibly vaccinated, and kept away from the vaccinated children, whom the drug companies and their government enablers would have us think are “protected” from the unvaccinated “others.”

Despite the MSM onslaught to demonize anyone who questions the heavy and heavier vaccination schedule recommended by the CDC for children and adults, the scientific jury is in.  It tells a far different story than what most of us have been led to believe. Unvaccinated children have been found to be healthier than vaccinated children. That’s because vaccination taints the human blood.  It tricks and confuses the immune system, which oftentimes attacks itself.  Vaccination may, and that is a very big may, offer some artificial immunity for a short time.  In the long run, and sometimes in the very short run, it leads to autoimmune disorders and reduced immunity from disease.

Vaccination is Big Business

Vaccination is a $40 Billion per year industry with no liability, no accountability for vaccine makers. That’s because in 1986, during the Reagan administration, the US Congress gave vaccine makers a get-out-of-jail free pass whenever their vaccines injure or kill people or their children.  That year the government created a secret vaccine court which allows no legal discovery.  It also exists in a nearly total media blackout. Vaccine injured children and adults are compensated through our tax dollars.  The vaccine makers have only to make their profits.  We, the taxpayers are stuck paying the bills for vaccine-induced injuries, not just in the super-secret vaccine court but in the larger sense in our insurance premiums as the incidence of childhood cancer rises in proportion with the increased vaccine schedule. Increased healthcare costs for sick and sicker children cost us all not just in heartache, but also directly in the pocketbook.

CDC Conflict of Interest drive Vaccine Policy

The Centers for Disease Control, which promotes vaccination despite a laundry list of dangers associated with the practice, owns at least 57 vaccine patents.  That’s a clear conflict of interest that has never been disclosed by the agency. It needs to be disclosed every time the CDC adds another vaccine to the already obscenely heavy vaccine schedule.

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

Monsanto Poison contaminates Wine and Beer

(Feb. 26, 2019)  A Monsanto poison contaminates most of the wine and beer sold in the United States, according to a recent study by U.S. Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG).  Glyphosate, the main active ingredient in Roundup – which impairs human gut health and is linked with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and a host of other maladies – was found to contaminate every conventionally produced wine and beer tested in a recent study, as well as most organic beer and wine samples.

Glyphosate Contamination Epidemic

PIRG tested 20 different wine and beer samples in the U.S., finding glyphosate contamination in 19 of them, including most organic wine samples.  Just one product they tested, an organic beer, was found to have no glyphosate contamination.  Some mildly good news for the organic crowd is that the organic beer and wines tested were found to have far less glyphosate than conventionally-produced beverages, but good news was hard to come by in this study.  (Is anyone paying attention?  Why would someone pay $100 for a bottle of contaminated California wine, or even $10 for that matter?)

The presence of glyphosate pesticide even in organic products proved once again just how widespread glyphosate contamination is in the country.  Organic beer and wine producers do not intentionally use any glyphosate in their products, and they do their best to avoid the chemical, for obvious reasons.

The Findings

Wines

  1. Sutter Home Merlot – 51.4 ppb
  2. Beringer Estates Moscato – 42.6 ppb
  3. Barefoot Cabernet Sauvignon – 36.3
  4. Inkarri Estates Malbec (Organic) – 5.3 ppb
  5. Frey Organic Natural White (4.8 ppb)

Beers

  1. Coors Light –  1 ppb
  2. Tsingtao Beer – 49.7 ppb
  3. Miller Lite – 29.8 ppb
  4. Budweiser – 27.0 ppb
  5. Corona Extra – 25.1 ppb
  6. Heineken – 20.9
  7. Guinness Draught – 20.3
  8. Stella Artois – 18.7
  9. Stella Artois Cidre – 9.1 ppb
  10. Ace Perry Hard Cider – 14.5 ppb
  11. New Belgium Fat Tire Amber Ale – 11.2 ppb
  12. Sam Adams New England IPA – 11.0
  13. Sierra Nevada Pale Ale – 11.8 ppb
  14. Samuel Smith’s Organic Lager – 5.7 ppb
  15. Peak Beer Organic IPA – no detected level

Glyphosate at 1 ppt is Problematic

Human tolerance for glyphosate may be much lower than the U.S. EPA claims, especially as one considers the secret and not-so-secret relationships some EPA officials, U.S. politicos, judges, and journalists share and have shared with Monsanto executives.

The levels of glyphosate found in these latest beer and wine tests were below EPA risk tolerances for beverages (for what that’s worth from a captured agency).   However, in one study, scientists found that 1 part per trillion (ppt) of glyphosate has the potential to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells and disrupt the endocrine system.  German scientists have shown that 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has the potential to destroy beneficial gut bacteria while pathogenic gut bacteria were resistant.  Furthermore, 0.1 ppb of glyphosate has also been shown to stimulate the proliferation of certain types of breast cancer cells.

PIRG calls for Glyphosate Ban

In short, no safe level for glyphosate has ever been proven.  The researchers recommend that the EPA ban the use of glyphosate unless and until it can be proven safe.

Public Interest Research Groups

Founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader  in 1971, PIRG’s motto is “Standing up to Powerful Interests.”  PIRGs are a federation of non-profit U.S. and Canadian organizations that use grassroots organizing and direct advocacy with the goal of effecting political change.

Someone needs to do this important work to safeguard our health, because it is not currently being done by the government institutions we entrust to do it – the EPA and the FDA.  Both of those agencies continue to show a fealty to Monsanto that comes at the considerable expense of people, animals, birds, bees, plants, and other living things throughout the world.

Related

Share

Breast Implant Lymphoma Warning from FDA

(Feb 6. 2019)  The FDA issued a letter today which warns that breast implants may increase the risk of Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma.  The agency sent the letter to health care providers alerting them to the problem and the potential risks to their patients of breast implants.

 All Breast Implants Included

The letter stated that the FDA “wants to increase awareness about an association between all breast implants [emphasis ours], regardless of filling or texture, and Breast Implant Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).”

The agency said it had received reports indicating that patients with breast implants face an increased risk of developing this disease within the scar capsule adjacent to the implant.

The FDA wrote:  “We want all healthcare providers to be aware of BIA-ALCL, particularly in patients with new swelling, lumps, or pain around breast implants, to expedite diagnosis of this malignancy.  We are also asking health care providers to report to the FDA cases of BIA-ALCL in patients with breast implants. This includes reporting individual cases as well as rates you may have experienced during your practice.”

Associated-Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

BIA-ALCL is not a cancer of the breast tissue but a type of lymphoma.  Breast implants are inserted behind the breast tissue or under the chest muscle (see photo).   A fibrous scar called a capsule then develops around the implant, separating it from the rest of the breast.  Cases of BIA-ALCL have typically been found adjacent to the implant and contained within that fibrous capsule.

The FDA says a significant amount of medical literature has been published since its 2011 report on BIA-ALCL.  It includes more case histories and comprehensive reviews of the natural history and long-term outcomes of BIA-ALCL.  Current literature reports various estimates for the incidence of BIA-ALCL.  These estimated incidence rates range from 1 in 3,817 patients to 1 in 30,000 (Clemens et al, 2017; Loch-Wilkinson et al, 2017; De Boer et al, 2018).

 Textured vs. non-Textured Implants

Most patients who develop BIA-ALCL have received textured implants, but BIA-ALCL reports have also involved patients with smooth-surfaced implants, and many diagnostic reports do not detail the implant’s surface texture.

660 MDRs for BIA-ALCL, 9 Deaths

The FDA said it has received a total of 660 Medical Device Reports (MDRs) of BIA-ALCL.  The agency has reviewed the “660 MDRs to remove duplicate reports and to control for MDRs in which a BIA-ALCL diagnosis was confirmed by: a physician, positive pathology/cytology test results, or positive for biomarker CD30 and negative for biomarker ALK. The FDA’s additional data analysis identified 457 unique MDRs for BIA-ALCL, including the death of nine patients which may be attributable to BIA-ALCL. However, it is important to note that at the time of diagnosis, patients may have their original breast implants or they may have had one or more replacements.”

Risk Factors for BIA-ALCL

Recent journal articles explore possible risk factors for developing BIA-ALCL, including the methods used to create the textured surface of the implant and the possible role of biofilm.

Treatment for BIA-ALCL

Most of the published information regarding treatment involves removal of the implant and the capsule surrounding the implant, and in some patients, treatment with chemotherapy and radiation.

 1.5 Million Breast Implants Yearly – Increased Risks

Though FDA says the number of identified cases of BIA-ALCL is small compared to the estimated 1.5 million patients who receive breast implants worldwide each year, confirmed data and published information that the agency has reviewed  suggests patients with breast implants have an increased risk of BIA-ALCL.

Related

 

Share