Aspartame poisoning President Trump, many others

Aspartame poisoning is back in the news because President Trump drinks 12 diet sodas a day.  People on both sides of the political aisle are concerned for the man’s health, especially as he now contemplates war with North Korea, a possible nuclear conflagration that could destroy us all.  The U.S. President’s mental and physical health is a topic that concerns every man, woman, and child in the U.S. (as well as the world); and this is not another media attack piece on President Trump.  (Let’s all please be adults on this subject.)

Mainstream media, or at least Newsmax (and to some extent the Washington Post and N.Y. Times) has recently brought the issue to the fore (again).  Outlets have covered the carcinogenic and neurodegenerative effects of the 12 Diet Cokes a day that President Trump drinks.  Many sane people hope the attention will finally force the FDA to take aspartame off the market.  Removing this poison is a real possibility if mainstream media sites (whether full of fake news or not) keep covering the subject.

If those publications sound too far left for you, please consider that the ultra right-wing preacher Pat Robertson has also warned his flock about the dangers of aspartame, and one of the world’s leading experts on the subject has also sounded the alarm about aspartame poisoning.

Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills
Perhaps most prominently, a Texas neurosurgeon named Dr. Russell Blaylock has said Mr. Trump’s aspartame consumption could lead to dementia and cancer.  Dr. Blaylock’s politics lean decidedly to the Right, so this is not, in any fashion, another concerted media attack on President Trump.  Dr. Blaylock’s book – Excitotoxins: The Taste that Kills – is arguably the most scientifically relevant treatise on the subject of aspartame.

Why an Aspartame Name Change?
Op-Ed News has noted, meanwhile, that ASPARTAME is being renamed AMINOSWEET by its makers AJINOMOTO.  Writer Stephen Fox legitimately asks, “What reason could Ajinomoto possibly have to rename ASPARTAME?”  Indeed.

NewsMax (with 1 million circulation in NYC) published an article by Sylvia Booth on Monday, Dec. 18, 2017.  Ms. Booth wrote:

“Media reports of President Donald Trump’s love of fast food, Diet Cokes, and extra desserts have dogged him since the primaries – a questionable diet he does little to deny. A recent New York Times article stated he drinks 12 Diet Cokes a day. Is Trump’s Diet Coke habit a real danger to his health? And if so, what business is it of ours? (She) inquired of the right person, Neurosurgeon Dr. Russell Blaylock, former professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Mississippi Medical School.”

Dr. Blaylock responded: “Yes, drinking Diet Coke, especially in the large amounts reported, is a definite danger to his health. And since he’s our president, his health is our business, too.  If I were President Trump’s physician, I’d advise him to do whatever it takes to ditch diet drinks.”

Aspartame Harms the Brain
Several studies have shown that aspartame used in Diet Coke harms the brain.  Additionally, Mr. Trump is 70 years old; the damaging effects can be more pronounced on older folks.

Mr. Trump will end Demented on Aspartame
“The evidence of the damage they do is profound, and if he doesn’t get off this stuff, he’s going to end up demented,” says Dr. Blaylock, adding that he has seen “people who had to be institutionalized with dementia because they drank large amounts of aspartame.”

Aspartame raises Cancer Risk
Besides causing neurological problems, aspartame also increases cancer risks.

Dr. Blaylock said, “Two big cancers, lymphoma and leukemia, are the two most associated with diet drinks, but another big danger is pancreatic cancer.  Pancreatic cancer is exploding because people are drinking tons of these drinks.

They don’t just drink one a day; they are swilling massive amounts of it. President Trump can break this addiction. All he needs is to be convinced that he’s killing himself, and that his habit may ruin his mind.”

Quitting Aspartame Improves Brain Power
Dr. Blaylock said he has weaned several people off of aspartame, “and they were amazed at how their brain power improved, and how much more clearly they could think.”

Many studies have found diet drinks increase the risks of many dangerous conditions, especially those associated with aging.

Aspartame increased the risk of many maladies, including:
•  cancer
•  obesity
•  diabetes
•  stroke
•  insomnia
•  cardiovascular disease
•  weakened bones

Some mainstream media have covered the dangers of aspartame in the past, and Mr. Trump’s diet soda habit has gotten many to turn away from the artificial sweetener, the excitotoxin with a taste that kills.  Mr. Trump is decidedly stubborn, but let’s hope that he finds a good doctor and takes helpful advice to save his brain and his health.  Our lives may depend on it.

Op-Ed News

Mr. Fox in an Op-Ed News piece hopefully points out that the aspartame alert has brought some mainstream media papers into the fold (pun intended).

The Washington Post ran a story on the subject, albeit a minor one.  WaPo did at least mention the aspartame connection to stroke and dementia, writing:

“People who drank diet soda daily were three times more likely to develop stroke and dementia than those who consumed it weekly or less, according to a study published in April in the journal Stroke. The study found those who consumed at least one artificially sweetened drink a day, compared to less than one a week, were three times as likely to have an ischemic stroke from blood vessel blockage. They were also three times as likely to be diagnosed with dementia due to Alzheimer’s disease. The effect of diet sodas persisted even if the researchers controlled for factors such as diabetes or high blood pressure.”

But of course WaPo had to follow with the obligatory disclaimer defense from industry lobbying groups like, the American Beverage Association, which said, “Low-calorie sweeteners have been proven safe by worldwide government safety authorities as well as “hundreds of scientific studies.”

Those “hundreds of studies” were virtually all done at the behest of the beverage industry, but the Post failed to point out that little fact, the same way it consistently fails to point out misleading material behind Monsanto defense statements about the company’s carcinogenic Roundup. Monsanto, coincidentally, formerly owned aspartame through its G.D. Serle affiliate. Monsanto has been in the business of poisoning food for a very long time.

Some things never change.


•  Aspartame gets Mainstream Coverage

•   Monsanto Lawsuit

•  Roundup Cancer Lawsuit

•  Fox News on Aspartame Poison

•  Aspartame poisoning President Trump, many others


Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive

Another talc asbestos case was recently settled by Colgate-Palmolive. On October 30, 2017, the consumer products giant once again chose to pay for the link between the company’s Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder and deadly asbestos exposure.

The New York-based company was sued by a Pennsylvania woman who developed mesothelioma after using the talcum powder product for more than 20 years.  According to court filings, Colgate-Palmolive avoided a trial in a New Jersey state court by reaching the undisclosed settlement.

Plaintiff Carol Schoeniger alleged that Colgate-Palmolive failed to warn her of risks associated with using Cashmere Bouquet.  She claimed that inhaling the asbestos-contaminated talc product caused her cancer.

Ms. Schoeniger’s case is the latest of several in which talc users accuse talc product makers of selling them products that pose serious health risks.

More than 170 Talc Cancer Mesothelioma Cases
Colgate-Palmolive faces more than 170 lawsuits from people who claim the company sold them talcum powder that contained asbestos.  The company has resolved 43 talc asbestos cases so far in 2017, according to Bloomberg News.

Talcum powder was routinely in American homes for more than 100 years. Colgate-Palmolive made Cashmere Bouquet from 1871 to 1985, marketing it until 1995.

Moisture Phobia drives Talc Sales
Some sort of moisture phobia appears to lurk behind the human craze for talc.  Despite this talc asbestos lawsuit and others involving a talc link to ovarian cancer, talc is still sold today and used in many products.  People seem drawn to its ability to absorb moisture and soften the skin in some areas.

Talc with Asbestos
Prior to the 1970s, reports showed some talc products contained traces of asbestos dust, a result of talc and asbestos minerals often appearing near each other in the natural world.

Long Latency Period for Mesothelioma

Inhaling or ingesting asbestos fibers can lead to serious health problems, including asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma.  The latency period for these diseases is usually decades. It may take 20-30 years or more for people exposed to asbestos-contaminated talc products to exhibit symptoms of talc-related problems.

Related:  Talc Powder Mesothelioma Lawsuit

Judith Winkel Case Precedent
In 2015, a California jury awarded Judith Winkel $13 million over her mesothelioma claim tied to Cashmere Bouquet.  That was the first verdict against Colgate-Palmolive for asbestos exposure from commercial talcum powder.  But few know what she was actually awarded in damages, as Ms. Winkel later agreed to a confidential settlement with the company.

Cashmere Boquet Talc
Cashmere Bouquet contained talc mined by Imerys Talc North America, the world’s leading talc producer.  Imerys’ Yellowstone open-cast mine in Montana is the country’s biggest talc mining operation.

Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive

A spokeswoman for Imery’s, Gwen Myers, told Bloomberg in an email: “Imerys’ firm position is that talc is safe, and that position is backed by the consensus of government agencies and professional scientific organizations that have reviewed the safety of talc.’’

Colgate-Palmolive Files Motion with Philadelphia Court
The company has asked a judge to reconsider dismissing the first asbestos-related talc case in Philadelphia after the court rejected the testimony of two key experts for the plaintiffs.  Colgate-Palmolive filed a motion for summary judgment Oct. 23.

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Idee Fox barred the experts from testifying in October in the case of Brandt v. Colgate-Palmolive.  The Philly-filed lawsuit alleges Sally Brandt developed mesothelioma from using asbestos-contaminated talcum powder from 1954 to 1970.

California Appeals Court Reverses Summary Judgment
In a separate but related case, a California appeals court reversed a summary judgment Oct. 20 in a Colgate-Palmolive asbestos lawsuit.

The three-justice panel of the California Court of Appeal, First District, Division 3, ruled the trial court made a mistake in granting Colgate-Palmolive summary judgment over allegations that Cashmere Bouquet contained asbestos and caused plaintiff Mary Lyons to develop mesothelioma. Ms. Lyons was diagnosed in October 2015.

In the unanimous decision, the appeals court ruled Ms. Lyons had provided enough evidence to warrant a trial, which is pending.

“All or most of the Cashmere Bouquet that [Lyons] used almost daily for 20 years contained harmful asbestos,” said Justice Stuart Pollak in the 3-0 ruling.  Judge Pollak also noted there was no evidence Ms. Lyons had been exposed to asbestos from any other source.


•  Talcum Mesothelioma Cancer Lawsuit

•  Talc Powder Ovarian Cancer Link

•  Talcum Powder Cancer Attorney

•  Talc Asbestos Case settled by Colgate-Palmolive



Onglyza Heart Failure Warning leads to Lawsuits

In 2016, the FDA called for stronger heart-failure warnings on the Onglyza label of AstraZeneca’s Type 2 diabetes drug. Since then, AstraZeneca and Bristol-Myers Squibb (AZ’s former partner) have been hit with 14 lawsuits over Onglyza’s heart-failure risks.

Filed in the District of New Jersey, the lawsuits claim the drugmakers failed to warn users that Onglyza and a related combination product called Kombiglyza XR can cause cardiac arrest, congestive heart failure and death.

The New Jersey Law Journal reports plaintiffs charge that the Big Pharma duo began marketing Onglyza in 2009 before conducting clinical trials to see whether the drug increased users’ cardiac risks. Plaintiffs say the two ignored 2008 FDA guidance that urged drug companies to “demonstrate that” new therapies “will not result in an unacceptable increase in cardiovascular risk.”

An AstraZeneca spokeswoman said in a statement that the company “is confident in the safety and efficacy of Onglyza, when used in accordance with the FDA approved label, which has been established through clinical trials. We will vigorously defend against the allegations made by the plaintiffs.”

Some 150 to 200 Onglyza cases are pending so far across the U.S., but that number could eventually reach the thousands.

Onglyza Heart Failure Warning leads to Lawsuits
Onglyza’s heart risks most recently made the news in April 2016 when the FDA insisted the drug’s label include a warning of increased heart-failure risk. It wasn’t the only drug that regulators targeted, however. The FDA also required Takeda to update the labels for fellow DPP-4 Nesina and combinations Kazano and Oseni.

Januvia Outcomes Study for Merck
Merck’s DPP-4 drug Januvia did not suffer the same fate as Onglyza. A 2015 outcomes study seemed to exonerate Januvia. Later in 2015, a new analysis of the trial called TECOS – showed that even Type 2 diabetes patients with cardiovascular disease and a history of heart failure could take Januvia without increasing their risk of CV complications.

In April 2017, however, the FDA shot down Merck’s attempt to add the TECOS results to the labels of Januvia and combination drugs Janumet and Janumet XR.

DPP-4 is not the only diabetes class where AstraZeneca’s drugs face heart-related questions. The company is now running an outcomes study designed to show whether its SGLT2 drug Farxiga can match rival Jardiance (from Eli Lilly and Boehringer Ingelheim) at cutting the combined incidence of heart attack, stroke, and cardio-vascular-related death in high-risk patients.

•  Onglyza Lawsuit

•  Onglyza Diabetes Drug linked to Heart Failure

•   Onglyza Heart Failure Warning leads to Lawsuits

•  Onglyza Heart Warnings Needed, says FDA

•  Dangerous Drugs


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.



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. . .



Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Monsanto tries to Dismiss Roundup Lawsuits

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



The Truth About Monsanto

Glyphosate Hazardous to Crops, Soils, Animals, People

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

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

Related:  Monsanto Lawsuit | Lawyer

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

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

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

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

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

The Truth About Monsanto

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

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

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

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




Glyphosate 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.



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 ( 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.”



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. 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.