Vaccine Failure Makes Mainstream News

Vaccine failure has made mainstream news, though couched in subterfuge, as usual.  We learned this week from the New York Times (Nov. 6, 2017)  that the mumps vaccine doesn’t work.  The old Gray Lady is a little slower than she used to be.   Lots of vaccine experts have been reporting the mumps vaccine’s failure for years.  But this is the first time the country’s paper of record admitted it.  After dropping this truth bomb as softly as a fuzzy slipper, the Times then quickly assures us that this doesn’t mean we should question the mumps vaccine.  Oh, no, all should continue submitting to the mumps vaccine, even though it doesn’t work, according to the New York Times.

Related: Gates Polio Vaccine causes Paralysis, Death

Mumps Outbreak for Vaccinated People

There were 191 cases of mumps reported in one outbreak in 2017.  One hundred eighty seven (187) of those 191 were vaccinated.  You do the math.  The Times’  Nov. 6 2017 story is titled, “Mumps Makes a Comeback, Even Among the Vaccinated.” A longtime vaccine cheerleader, the Times admits that vaccinated children are spreading mumps, but very quietly in the story, if you read very closely.   The headline itself, however, is a lie of omission.  The mumps “comeback” is primarily from people who have been vaccinated, while the headline makes it appear that vaccinated people contracting mumps are in the minority.  A more honest headline would have read: “Mumps’ Comeback defies Vaccination.”

Most of the outbreaks were among 18 to 22 year olds.  Most of them had taken the requisite two doses of mumps vaccine in childhood.  “We are seeing it in a young and highly vaccinated population,” a Dr. Routh told the Times.

The Times mumps vaccine spin, however, goes something like this: ‘Regrettably, the mumps vaccine doesn’t work, but we’ve got to stick to the program.  We can’t have chaos.  The agenda must be followed.  Please hold your place in line. Nobody panic. Everything is under control. We are the Times; You are The People. We report and instruct; You read and follow instructions.’

A Limited Hangout
A limited hangout is an old CIA trick that the Times is not too proud to perform herself.  A limited hangout is necessary when so many people are reading the truth in other places that it can no longer be denied.   In this limited hangout, the newsplayer gives readers a modicum of truth that the readers can’t help but to see elsewhere.  The limited hangout is necessary because without it, the newsplayer risks becoming completely irrelevant. (Eh, MSM newsplayers?) The Times and other top newsplayers can’t keep this genie in the bottle any longer. So the Times’ gives its fans, admirers, longtime loyal readers an out, with a limited cutout.  Times loyalists can now say:  “The Gray Lady already told us the mumps vaccine doesn’t work, but she also said that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it.”  (As every publisher knows: Brand loyalty is tough to beat.)

The problem with this transparent hangout is so glaring as to be laughable. Recommending that one take more toxic doses of a failed vaccine is beyond ludicrous, especially in this case.  Merck’s mumps vaccine appears to cause more mumps than it prevents, if it prevents any at all.

Mumps Vaccine Fraud
According to two Merck whistleblowers, Merck faked mumps vaccine data to defraud the U.S. government out of hundreds of millions of dollars. This vaccine is even arguably less than worthless. One story after another confirms the mumps vaccine to not only be a failure; it appears that the mumps vaccine causes mumps, perhaps for people who never would have gotten them in the first place.

The Times, however, just spins this story of abject vaccine failure to recommend that those recently vaccinated against the mumps who then contracted mumps, should just go ahead and get a second or third mumps shot. The Times fails to simply admit what any half wit can see is painfully obvious. Taking more shots of a failed vaccine doesn’t grant any more protection. In fact, if history is our guide, it may well grant less protection from the mumps.

Natural News has preempted the NYT in publishing several stories on the Mumps Vaccine:

•  Mumps stupidity: After vaccines fail to stop mumps outbreaks,  journalists call for more!
•  Measles outbreak likely caused by vaccinated children, science shows
•  85% of measles outbreak victims already received vaccinations
•  Soccer star gets mumps after being vaccinated with Merck’s fraudulent MMR vaccine
•  Mumps outbreak spreads among people who got vaccinated against mumps
•  Forty people contract mumps at Harvard … all were vaccinated … mumps vaccines fraud

Mumps Vaccine Quackery Reigns
Dr. Patricia Quinlisk, the medical director and state epidemiologist for the Iowa Department of Public Health, dealt with an outbreak at the University of Iowa and surrounding area in 2015 to 2016 of more than 450 cases of mumps. The students involved had all had their childhood M.M.R. shots, she said, as required by the university. Iowa decided to offer a third dose of mumps vaccine.

Mumps vaccines create their own repeat business by not working. It’s like buying corn from a farmer that gives you food poisoning. Should you then buy the same corn from the same farmer to reinforce the first case of food poisoning?  If that second corn load also sickens you, should you then buy a third load of corn from the same maker to “reinforce” the first two?

Mike Adams explains that the whole idea of immunization is that once your body is exposed to the virus, it builds antibodies for life: “But in an attempt to explain why mumps vaccines don’t work, the vaccine industry has fabricated a whole new concept rooted in complete fiction: The idea that vaccines ‘wear off’ and need to be repeated over and over again to make sure they ‘stick.’ This anti-science bunk is, of course, peddled for the sole purpose of selling more vaccines even when they don’t really work as claimed.”

Mumps Vaccine Fraud
Vaccinated people keep spreading mumps because the mumps vaccine is a fraud.  This fact has been openly admitted by two virologists who worked for Merck, one of the largest makers of the MMR vaccine.

Related

Share

Flu Vaccine Fails Again in Latest Study

Flu vaccine makers know something you don’t.  Nobody would take the flu shot if all the facts were made clear.  If it weren’t for complete corporate control of the mainstream media and endless propaganda pushing the flu shot and other vaccines, nobody in her right mind would take a flu vaccine.  The latest study over the flu vaccine shows not only that it fails to protect most of the time for most people who take it, but also why it fails.

Conducted by the Scripps Research Institute and published in the science journal PloS, this study explains why people would be wise to educate themselves before lining up for their flu shots. The paper is titled: “A structural explanation for the low effectiveness of the seasonal influenza H3N2 vaccine.” It concludes that the very method of modern flu vaccine production causes viral strains to mutate to non-effective structures that do not confer the immunity being routinely claimed for flu vaccines.  This should and would be front-page news if the real fake news makers weren’t posing as real news outlets.

Related:  Shingles Vaccine Lawsuit

The production method for flu vaccines, the authors concluded, renders certain influenza viral strains nearly useless. This is clearly part of the reason why those who submit to flu shots still manage to catch the flu with alarming frequency. The failure of flu vaccine effectiveness, meanwhile, (and absurdly), is used by mainstream media to encourage people to take even more flu shots. Does receiving more of what doesn’t work help anything? The flu shot does help the flu vaccine industry, because those who take the flu shot shed the virus and infect others, before they often get the flu themselves.  Those “outbreaks” are trumped up and trumpeted by MSM, so that people stampede to Walgreens for a flu shot to continue the cycle.

The Study Abstract
The study abstract reads: The effectiveness of the annual influenza vaccine has declined in recent years, especially for the H3N2 component, and is a concern for global public health. A major cause for this lack in effectiveness has been attributed to the egg-based vaccine production process… Overall, these findings help explain the low effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine against H3N2 viruses… It is common to use chicken eggs for culturing clinical isolates and for large-scale production of vaccines.  However, influenza virus often mutates to adapt to being grown in chicken eggs, which can influence antigenicity and hence vaccine effectiveness.

The author’s summary makes clear that flu vaccines don’t work, and then urges the vaccine industry to change its production practices pronto:

“Our study describes a mechanism for the low influenza vaccine effectiveness and reaffirms the urgency for replacing the egg-based production of influenza vaccines…”

The author even admits that the flu vaccine propaganda which bombards us is largely false. Despite the first commercial influenza vaccines being approved in the US more than 70 years ago, complete and broad protection from an influenza vaccine has remained out of reach.  In the past decade, the effectiveness of the seasonal vaccine against H3N2 viruses has been particularly low.

The paper clearly exposes two absurd claims from the flu vaccine industry:
False claim #1: All vaccines work on all the people all the time.
False claim #2: Vaccines pose no risks and are always safe for everyone.

These two undying lies continue to be pushed by vaccine industry shills, trolls, doctors, pharmacists, no-nothing “news reporters” and dishonest medical quacks.  Many die of the flu after taking the flu shot, and the U.S. government has paid out more than $3 billion in the last 20 years to the families of children injured or killed by vaccines.

The flu vaccine label even ADMITS that no study has been done to show the vaccine to be effective.

144 Kids Killed by Vaccines in 2016
The U.S. government’s VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Events Reports System) database confirms that at least 144 children were killed by vaccines in 2016 alone. Thousands more were injured, maimed or sickened by the dangerous shots. One Texas girl went blind and was paralyzed just two days after being vaccinated. The Hepatitis B vaccine routinely kills newborns from system shock.  Vaccines have been repeatedly and scientifically linked to an increased risk of autism, despite the MSM’s endless lies to the contrary.  (See the film:  Vaxxed.) Merck vaccines reportedly killed babies in Mexico.  Health Ranger Mike Adams reports that in one Mexican town, 75% of the children who received vaccine shots ended up either dead or hospitalized.

Vaccine insert sheets openly admit that flu shots have never been subjected to medical studies that show they even work. Mr. Adams found this insert sheet from a 2014 Flulaval vaccine:

The insert sheet admits:

“…there have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with FLULAVAL.”

If you keep reading the FLULAVAL insert, black and white text clearly states:  “Safety and effectiveness of FLULAVAL in pediatric patients have not been established.”  How can we give kids a flu vaccine when “safety and effectiveness have not been established”?

The same insert also admits, “FLULAVAL has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility.”  The insert also explains that when you’re being injected with a flu shot, you’re also being injected with mercury, formaldehyde and other toxic ingredients:

“Thimerosal, a mercury derivative, is added as a preservative. Each … dose contains 50 mcg thimerosal. Each dose may also contain residual amounts of ovalbumin, formaldehyde, and sodium deoxycholate from the manufacturing process.”

Flu shot “side effects” include (but are not limited to):
Eye pain, chest pain
Arthritis
Dizziness, tremors, loss of consciousness (syncope)
Convulsions and seizures
Gullain-Barre Syndrome
Cranial nerve paralysis or limb paralysis
Swelling of the brain
Partial facial paralysis

The Flulaval flu shot even warns that you should never give it to anyone who has previously had a different flu shot, even in previous years:

“Do not administer Flulaval to anyone… following previous administration of any influenza vaccine.”

The real science proves flu shots are little more than medical fraud or outright superstition. The science for taking the flu shot is not on the side of safety and efficacy.  We must educate ourselves.  Our lives depend on it.  It’s all about fear for those endlessly pushing the flu shot.  Let it be all about science and truth for those of us with the courage and wisdom to find them.

Related

Share

Arkansas Farmer killed in Monsanto Feud

An Arkansas farmer was killed in a Monsanto related feud in October 2016.  Mike Wallace had objected to neighboring farmers illegally spraying Monsanto’s Dicamba, which drifted onto Mr. Wallace’s property.  The Dicamba began killing Mr. Wallace’s cotton and soy fields.  When Mr. Wallace objected, he was killed himself.  The killer, who used a rifle, was seen arguing near a field with Mr. Wallace before he was shot.

Related: Dicamba Lawsuit

Monsanto’s Poison Products
Only one thing is certain:  Monsanto’s poison products were at the center of the conflict that led to Mr. Wallace’s murder.  He and most of his neighbors had used Monsanto’s Roundup themselves over many years.  Too many years.  So many years that pigweed evolved to resist the poison.  It had become nearly impossible to kill.  Pigweed is every farmer’s mortal enemy.  It can destroy entire fields.  Monsanto’s answer to the pigweed problem was to pour more poison on it.  (This is chemical farming 101; when one type of poison no longer works, use more of it, then use another.  It is a toxic, insane cycle that cannot, in the long run, benefit the land, animals, or the people who live off it.)  The other, bigger problem that never goes away with chemical farming is that Monsanto’s poison had caused the problem in the first place.  Mike Wallace’s neighbor had begun to use Dicamba to kill his own pigweed.  But Mr. Wallace’s crops had not been genetically engineered to withstand Dicamba; so it began to kill them.

Roundup Dependence Bites Farmers

Mr. Wallace’s “crop consultant,” Dave Pierce, told NPR in June 2017:  “Roundup made a lot of people good farmers.  It was a once-in-a-lifetime chemistry.  I mean, we depended on it for years and years.  And we depended on it too much.”

“Too much,” said Marianne McCune of NPR, “because after a decade or so, the pigweed did its own genetic morphing and became immune to Roundup.”

Then two years ago, the big chemical companies unveiled a new GMO seed to go with a new/old Monsanto poison called Dicamba.  But the new Dicamba spray concoction that Monsanto planned to sell with the seeds wasn’t approved.  Some farmers, meanwhile, had an old formulation of Dicamba, one especially prone to drift onto neighboring fields.

The murdered farmer’s cousin, Maleisa Finch, told NPR that farmers had always dealt with some drift, but had always just talked it out, and amicably paid one another for any damages.

But talking didn’t work for Dicamba, Ms. McCune reported, because it was illegal to spray the old Dicamba formulation during growing season.  Once farmers started planting Dicamba-tolerant seeds, they saw pigweed invading their fields, and started spraying Dicamba.

Question:  Why was Monsanto selling seed before the new Dicamba was approved?  Did the company think farmers would buy seed without using it?  Was Monsanto unaware that farmers had old Dicamba formulations and would use them?

Ms. McCune said, “When Mike saw the leaves on some of his cotton curling and puckering from Dicamba, he, like many farmers, filed a complaint with the Plant Board.  They’re like the pesticide police. And they tracked the cause of Mike’s damage to a neighboring farmer, Donald Masters.”

Ms. McCune spoke with Donald’s son Douglas about the Plant Board’s visit to the Masters’ farm in search of Dicamba.  Douglas said, “[E]verybody got in trouble.”  He laughed when she asked if he knew he wasn’t supposed to be spraying it.

Then Mr. Masters said, “It goes back to economics.”  He explained that, “Farmers take out huge loans every year to pay for seeds, pesticides and everything else. And with crop prices low, their profit margins are very thin.”  So when the pigweed started threatening his crops, he needed a “cheap and effective solution,” he said.  Dicamba was his only option left, he said.

Then she spoke with Donald Masters.  The patriarch of the Masters clan admitted to spraying Dicamba, even though he knew he wasn’t supposed to.

“Why’d I do it?” said Mr. Masters.  “Because I’ve got weeds you can’t kill otherwise.  But anyway, I paid the fine – and supposed to be done with, I hope.”

200,000 Acres of Crop Damage
The maximum fine then was just $1,000.  But a farmer could save tens of thousands of dollars by using the cheap Dicamba.  In 2016, farmers in the region saw damage on nearly 200,000 acres of crops – millions of dollars’ worth.  And Mike Wallace continued to speak out.

Mr. Wallace’s complaint to the Plant Board that summer led investigators to another neighboring farm. That farmer contested the accusation and refused to give over his pesticide records.  Tensions were still high after harvest, when farmers find out how much the damage is worth.  It was then that for reasons Mike’s family members say they don’t know, Mike got a phone number for an employee of that second farm.  The two men met to talk on a quiet county road, and Mike wound up dead.

Arkansas Farmer killed in Monsanto Feud

A man in Mississippi County was arrested for Mike’s murder.  Mike’s wife Karen said that more than a thousand people showed up for his funeral at their church.

Monsanto Lawsuit over Dicamba

Arkansas is now raising its fines for illegal spraying, and fighting to ban it altogether during certain growing periods.  Monsanto is, of course, fighting any ban.  Missouri’s biggest peach farmer is suing Monsanto for selling Dicamba-tolerant seeds without the new spray to go with it.  Monsanto claims the suit is baseless, that it’s not Monsanto’s fault if someone sprayed a chemical they weren’t supposed to.

Monsanto did warn people not to use the spray.  (But how else were they going to use the seeds they were sold?)  Meanwhile, a new, approved Dicamba has hit the market.  The new Dicamba is not supposed to “drift so much,” according to NPR, but how much is too much?  Crop damage is already being reported, whether from legal or illegal use of Dicamba.  Weed scientists’ concerns are that once everyone starts using Dicamba like they used Roundup, the pigweed will grow immune again.  Monsanto’s answer will again be to spray yet greater amounts of poison on the land and crops, into the air, onto the people.  Monsanto lawsuits have already been filed by the hundreds for people exposed to cancerous Roundup who were diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Arkansas and other states are moving to ban Dicamba for certain growing periods.  Arkansas held a hearing this summer on the poison subject.  The most impassioned plea for banning Dicamba came from an Arkansas’ beekeeper, who said he has lost at least half his hives from Dicamba poisoning the land.  It’s now a well-known fact that pesticides are playing a major role in massive bee die offs.  Einstein said humanity wouldn’t last four years if our pollinator bees died off.  If true, we are now about halfway down the road to extinction.

Related

Share

One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One EPA Scientist calls out another for Monsanto Support

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

More on that later.  Stay tuned. . .

Related

Share

Flu Shots Weaken Immune Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Share

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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

Related

Share

The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate Hazardous to Crops, Soils, Animals, People

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

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

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth About Monsanto

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

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

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

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

Related

 

Share

Glyphosate devastates Brain Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Related

Share

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

Actemra was introduced to the public with all the usual glowing recommendations from people paid to promote it. Actemra ads called it a “unique” breakthrough that would “transform expectations” for patients and doctors. A young woman happily boating crowed in one blurb: “If I knew then what I know now about rheumatoid arthritis, I would have been more proactive.”

Actemra Falsely Promoted?

Treatments for an estimated 1.5 million Americans afflicted with arthritis can have terrible side effects. Therefore, doctors and patients were understandably excited when Actemra hit the U.S. market in 2010. Actemra was promoted as not being linked with heart attacks, heart failure, or life-threatening lung complications, unlike competing arthritis drugs.  Was Actemra falsely promoted?

Hundreds Dead after taking Actemra
Despite the promises that it was safer than competitors’ similar drugs, hundreds of people who took Actemra died from the very same problems.  Many others have suffered harm. STAT (statnews.com) analyzed more than 500,000 side-effect reports on rheumatoid arthritis drugs. It found clear evidence that the risks of heart attacks, strokes, heart failure, and other conditions were as high or higher for Actemra patients than for patients taking competing drugs.

No Warning for Actemra
Most of those other arthritis medications warn about those risks on their labels. Actemra does not warn about those risks.

What is Actemra?
Taken by injection or intravenously, Actemra is primarily used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, an autoimmune disease that causes pain, swelling, and stiffness in joints. Doctors also prescribe Actemra “off-label” for about 60 other conditions for which it has not completed testing for safety and efficacy. Actemra has been given to more than 760,000 patients worldwide. It generated sales of $1.7 billion in 2016 for Roche, becoming the company’s fifth highest-grossing drug.

1,128 Deaths Follow Actemra Use
People are peppered every day with drug ads tailed by laundry lists of so-called “side effects.” (They’re REAL effects all right, despite the euphemism.) Nevertheless, STAT’s investigation shows that risks to patients may be greater than they are led to believe. The FDA has received reports on 1,128 people who died after taking Actemra. Considering that it is a well-known fact that just 1-10% of adverse events are ever reported to FDA, the real Actemra death toll could easily top 10,000. Curiously, FDA has reviewed Actemra’s safety profile several times since the drug was approved, and has never proposed a label change. Sadly, the agency doesn’t have the tools to determine whether Actemra was the cause of, or a mere coincidence in, all those (reported) deaths.

FDA Limitations
The FDA is charged with monitoring the safety of prescription drugs, but the agency does not verify the side-effects’ reports it receives. The documents often lack crucial information. In the case of Actemra, they don’t prove the drug caused the deaths. But close inspection of some reports can allow one to reasonably determine the cause of a death or injury.

Two Deaths Causally Linked with Actemra
In one striking example – found through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Charles Piller for STAT – the reporting doctor said, “[N]o factor other than the drug could have explained a 73-year-old man’s fatal brain bleed two days after he received an intravenous Actemra treatment.”  Another reported on a 62-year-old German woman’s heart attack in 2014: “The company assessed fatal myocardial infarction as related to (Actemra).”  That company was Roche, Actemra’s maker.

Despite these and other reports, neither Roche nor the FDA has ascted to change Actemra’s label to alert patients and doctors that potential risks have turned up, along with clinical studies completed after Actemra hit the market in 2010.

Actemra and Heart Failure, Pancreatitis
Experts who examined the data at STAT’s request said the FDA should immediately consider warnings for heart failure and pancreatitis – an inflammation of the pancreas that in its acute form can kill up to half of patients. They said the evidence that Actemra might increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes, and interstitial lung disease – a potentially fatal scarring of lung tissue – is less convincing, but it warrants further review.

The failure to warn the public, experts say, highlights the FDA’s inability to adequately scrutinize the safety of drugs after they have been approved, and to act promptly when potential danger signs appear.

“The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are linked up to keep it broken.”   – Dr. Vinay Prasad, Oncologist, Medical Ethicist.

Actemra Deaths, Injuries Unreported

“We’ve done a very good job of making it easier to approve drugs, often based on very preliminary evidence. But we haven’t ramped up the standards of post-marketing surveillance to make sure that what’s been out there for several years is safe and effective,” said Dr. Vinay Prasad.  The  oncologist and medical ethicist at the Oregon Health and Science University added:  “The system is broken, and all the financial incentives are lined up to keep it broken.”

Related

Share

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study

A journal editor was secretly on Monsanto’s payroll when he retracted a damning Roundup cancer study.  A. Wallace Hayes was being surreptitiously paid by Monsanto when he retracted the now famous Gilles Seralini rat cancer study.  That groundbreaking research showed that rats fed corn grown with glyphosate developed hideous tumors and also died quicker than (more fortunate) rats who drank untainted water and ate non-GMO corn.

Monsanto Threatened by Cancer Study
The Seralini study was, and is, so dangerous for Monsanto, because it threatens the company’s entire business model.  Monsanto’s herbicide (pesticide) products earned the company $1.9 billion in gross profits in 2015.  Consequently, Monsanto acted quickly when the Seralini study began to pull back the dark GMO curtain that hides the awful truth.

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

The Seralini study gives the lie to the notion that GMO foods are safe.  This is why Monsanto went immediately into overdrive to discredit and destroy it.  Monsanto also dispatched its minions in the press (like Stanford academic Henry I. Miller) and blogosphere to destroy the messenger.  It was the same ploy the nasty biotech industry had pulled with Italian researcher Dr. Arpad Pustzai and any others who have found serious health problems linked with GMO foods.

GMO Foods are the New Cigarettes
In the book, Seeds of Deception, Jeffrey M. Smith records these alarming quotes from Dr. Arpad Pusztai, who was roundly attacked and discredited (by biotech minions) after he tested GMO foods and began telling the truth about them.  Dr. Pusztai compares the current GMO food deception with the tobacco industry deception that dragged on for decades. That subterfuge was largely made possible with the help of medical doctors (along with hucksters like Morris Fishbein and propaganda promoter Edward Bernays).  The Journal of the American Medical Association even used AMA doctors to promote cigarettes.

Dr. Pustzai: GM Problems may be Irreversible
“The problems with GM foods may be irreversible and the true effects may only be seen well in the future,” said Dr. Pusztai.  “The situation is like the tobacco industry.  They knew about it but they suppressed that information. They created misleading evidence that showed that the problem wasn’t so serious.  And all the time they knew how bad it was.  Tobacco is bad enough. But genetic modification, if it is going to be problematic, if it is going to cause us real health problems, then tobacco will be nothing in comparison with this.  The size of genetic modification and problems it may cause us are tremendous.”

GMO Freak Show
Dr. Pustzai also blew the whistle on early GMO experiments which continue on us all today:
“In 1985 pigs were engineered with a human gene that produces human growth hormone. The scientists’ goal was to produce a faster-growing pig. What they got was a freak show… In one of the first litters born with the growth hormone genes, a female piglet had no anus or genitals. Some of the pigs were too lethargic to stand. Others had arthritis, ulcers, enlarged hearts, dermatitis, vision problems, or renal disease.”

GMO foods are a hydra-headed monster that undoubtedly contribute substantially to all those maladies in humans today.  Several studies have already linked Roundup with kidney and liver problems. The World Health Organization has announced that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen, triggering thousands of Monsanto Roundup Cancer Lawsuits.

Editor on Monsanto’s Payroll Retracted Roundup Cancer Study
Prior to Gilles Seralini’s study on GMO-fed rats, as well as other studies which are beginning to leak out, Monsanto had been the world’s biggest winner in the suicidal pesticide-based farming methods in vogue since the end of WWII.  The ever-growing problem is that runaway chemical farming dumps greater and greater amounts of cancer-causing pesticides on the earth and into the groundwater. In addition, Monsanto’s pesticide-based farming methods, along with the company’s toxic seeds, deplete soils of necessary nutrients.  Meanwhile, farmers around the world have sadly dumped greater and greater amounts of Roundup and glyphosate into the earth, as pesticide-based farming has given rise to bigger and bigger “superweeds” that have overwhelmed thousands of acres of once-rich farm land.

Editor in Chief a Monsanto Shill
And now recently released court documents reveal what many people have long suspected: Monsanto reverse engineered the retraction of Dr. Seralini’s groundbreaking study on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate.

The Editor in Chief of the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology was being secretly paid by Monsanto when he oversaw Seralini’s damning study’s retraction.  Monsanto may have gotten away with this subterfuge had their lawyers succeeded in preventing internal company documents from being released.  Monsanto lawyers tried to stop the documents’ release in a lawsuit filed against Monsanto by people who claim they were stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or other cancers as a result of using Roundup.

Mainstream News Misinformation
Bill Gates, a heavy Monsanto shareholder, was one of the first to point to the Monsanto-engineered retraction as proof that GMOs are safe and its detractors are misinformed.  Mr. Gates failed to mention (perhaps he didn’t know) that the retraction was engineered by Monsanto. A google search of the subject will show google’s own corporate agenda in line with biotech’s.  Google search engine results coyly downplay Monsanto collusion and promote the phony story that the Seralini study retraction was somehow legitimate.

Editor paid $400 per hour by Monsanto
The documents disclosed in a Roundup cancer lawsuit show that the journal’s editor, A. Wallace Hayes, had been involved in a consulting agreement with Monsanto prior to his involvement in the Seralini study’s retraction.  Mr. Hayes was paid $400 an hour by Monsanto for his “services.” The documents show that he was contracted to help establish a network of “experts,” participate in meetings, and deliver a seminar about regional issues in Latin America related to glyphosate toxicology.

Mr. Hayes hid his Monsanto ties. He failed to recuse himself from involvement in the Seralini study. Instead, he oversaw a “review” of the study that was carried out by unnamed parties who also failed to disclose whether or not they, too, were paid by Monsanto, or had some vested interest in helping the company. Mr. Hayes then used the findings of these unnamed parties to retract the Seralini study.

Monsanto.News.com
Monsanto.News.com reported that in a letter to Seralini, Hayes, the journal’s Editor in Chief at the time, wrote that although the study’s results were not fraudulent, he felt they were “inconclusive, and therefore do not reach the threshold of publication.”  His conclusion came despite the fact that the study had passed a thorough peer review process prior to being published in the first place.

Monsanto Fears Long-term Glyphosate Studies
Further emails show Monsanto felt the Seralini study’s publication would leave Monsanto vulnerable to the possibility of other scientists and regulators calling for long-term studies on the effects of GM crops and the pesticides used to proliferate them.

Monsanto employee Dan Goldstein expressed concern that a third party would set out to verify the Seralini study’s red flags.  Why would that be a concern to Mr. Goldstein unless he felt that further studies could further damage Monsanto?  If the Seralini study really were as flawed as Monsanto minions claimed, why would the company not welcome other parties to perform further studies that could disprove it, or show the Seralini study to be an aberration?

Mr. Hayes’ relationship with the journal was not tarnished, however.  The publication now names him an “emeritus editor”.  Monsanto money for hungry writers, like its glyphosate gift to the world, is something that just keeps on giving, apparently.

Monsanto MO: lie, bribe, bully, deny, deceive
The truth revealed in the Monsanto Roundup lawsuit documents show a systematic effort by the corporation to deceive people into believing Roundup is not carcinogenic. Monsanto has and will use any means possible to defend its flagship product.  Monsanto will pay off scientific journal authors (like the unconscionable shill Henry I. Miller), editors (like A. Wallace Hayes), and so-called expert panel members. Monsanto will counter negative comments on social media with fake science.  Monsanto will smear the reputation of real journalists (like Mike Adams and many others), and it will smear real researchers (like Dr. Armed Putszai and Dr. Gilles Seralini).  There is almost nothing Monsanto won’t do to anyone who threatens the company’s bottom line, which depends on the continued poisoning of the land, people, and civil discourse.

Monsanto’s maneuvering is helping show more and more people that Roundup is indeed toxic and terrible for the earth and for us all.  If Roundup were as safe as Monsanto claims, the company wouldn’t need to lie, bribe, bully, deny and deceive the public.  And farmers and homeowners stricken with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and other cancers would not need to take the pesticide king to court.

Related

Share