J&J Deliberately Failed to warn consumers about Cancer link

Source: RT
August 22, 2017

A jury in California has ruled against multinational pharmaceutical giant Johnson and Johnson in the costliest decision to date for the company. J&J now must pay $70 million in compensatory damages and $347 million in punitive damages, after the jury sided with California resident Eva Echeverria, who says she developed ovarian cancer through her use of Johnson’s talcum baby powder for feminine hygiene. RT America’s Mike Papantonio, host of America’s Lawyer, explains how big corporations deliberately avoid warning consumers of cancer risks in their products.

DuPont’s Dumping of GenX Toxin in North Carolina Water Could Be the Next Flint

Source: RTAmerica
June 24, 2017

Description: Mike Papantonio discusses Dupont’s chemical called GenX that has been found in the drinking water of North Carolina residents and speaks with attorney, Chris Paulos about the case.

Food Evolution Movie nothing but chemical industry PROPAGANDA to poison our food

Source: TheHealthRanger
Mike Adams
June 23, 2017

Pioneering food scientist and top selling author Mike Adams reveals why the new movie called “Food Evolution” is pure propaganda and disinformation from the chemical industry that poisons our food. Read more about the film at FoodEvolution.news.

Dr. Mercola and Dr. Osmunson on the Dangers of Fluoride

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
June 7, 2017

Natural health expert and Mercola.com founder Dr. Joseph Mercola interviews Dr. Bill Osmunson about the dangers associated with water fluoridation. To find out more, visit Mercola.com.

Infographic: Vaccine industry science lies are nothing more than recycled Big Tobacco science lies

Big Tobacco
Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
May 17, 2017

You gotta love it when arrogant science devotees defiantly claim they alone have a monopoly on the “settled facts” of our reality. Throughout much of the 20th century, it turns out, these same sort of arrogant scientists claimed smoking was awesome for your health, too.

“More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette” was the headline of a full-page ad carried by the Journal of the American Medical Association. Doctors were paid by Big Tobacco to tout the amazing health benefits of smoking cigarettes, and any doctor who dared point out that smoking might be linked to cancer was subjected to the same industry blackballing, scientific censorship and verbal abuse that’s leveled today against honest researchers questioning the safety of GMOs or mercury in vaccines.

The real truth is that science never has a monopoly on facts, and science makes enormous mistakes (such as condoning smoking cigarettes) on a regular basis. Science is also for sale and easy corrupted by corporate interests.

Peer-reviewed science journals, too, are often little more than a collection of corporate-funded make-believe science tabloids. “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines,” writes the former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, Marcia Angell.

“I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine,” she says in Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption.

With that in mind, take a look at the similarities between Big Tobacco science lies and vaccine industry science lies:

Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $110 million to woman who developed cancer from using their talc baby powder

Image: Johnson & Johnson ordered to pay $110 million to woman who developed cancer from using their talc baby powder
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
May 9, 2017

Talc-containing powders have been used for decades for a variety of cosmetic purposes. You can find talc in baby powder, eye makeup and other products with relative ease, but is it really safe? Recently, a 62-year-old woman who had been using Johnson & Johnson products for roughly forty years developed cancer from the ingredient.

Lois Slemp, who resides in the state of Virginia, developed ovarian cancer from her near-daily use of Johnson & Johnson’s baby powder and their Shower To Shower product — both of which contain talc. Slemp was initially diagnosed in 2012, but her cancer has since returned and spread to her liver. Reports say that she is now being treated with chemotherapy.

Recently, a St. Louis court ruled in favor of Slemp, and awarded her a record-setting $110.5 million. The Missouri court concluded that Johnson & Johnson was 99 percent at fault, while their talc supplier, Imerys, was held just one percent of the blame.

In addition to the $4.5 million in compensatory damages, Johnson and Johnson has been ordered to pay an additional $105 million in punitive damages, while Imerys will pay out $50,000 to Ms. Slemp.

Sadly, Slemp is not the only person to be harmed by the company’s baby powder or other talc-containing products. Three other St. Louis juries have awarded a total of $197 million in damages to plaintiffs with similar complaints. Despite Johnson and Johnson’s claim to fame as “the world’s largest healthcare group,” lawyers say that the corporation failed to accurately warn consumers about the risks posed by the talc in their products. In fact, the company has faced thousands of lawsuits for allegedly ignoring studies that linked its baby powder and Shower To Shower products with ovarian cancer.

So far, at least 2,000 women have filed lawsuits over similar concerns about the ramifications of using Johnson & Johnson baby powder or other talc-containing products. Several other women have developed cancer as a result of using J&J’s baby powder or Shower To Shower. After years of using baby powder, Deborah Giannecchini from California was diagnosed with ovarian cancer in 2012 as well. She was recently awarded $70 million in damages.

In early 2016, the family of Jaqueline Fox was also awarded $72 million in damages after a jury concluded that her daily use of talc-containing powder contributed to her cancer and subsequent death. Fox had reportedly been using the product for approximately 50 years. Fox’s son, Marvin, stated that the company should have made consumers aware of the risk.

“It has to be safe. It’s put on babies. It’s been around forever. Why haven’t we heard about any ill effects? People were using something they thought was perfectly safe. And it isn’t. At least give people the choice. J & J didn’t give people a choice,” he reportedly commented.

In spite of the mounting lawsuits and consistently being found at fault, Johnson & Johnson has continued to maintain their innocence, and stated that they would be preparing to appeal and dispute the evidence. “We are preparing for additional trials this year and we continue to defend the safety of Johnson’s Baby Powder,” the company said.

Evidence has shown that talc can increase the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancers by about 30 percent. While some experts say that it’s just a “small increase for a rare cancer,” why take the risk? There are plenty of alternatives, which many manufacturers are turning to. Cornstarch, silk powder and finely milled oats are some options to be on the look out for when purchasing a talc-free powder.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

News.com.au

Independent.co.uk

Yahoo.com

Skin care expert reveals the 20 most toxic chemical ingredients in beauty products… are you poisoning yourself?

Image: Skin care expert reveals the 20 most toxic chemical ingredients in beauty products… are you poisoning yourself?
Source: NaturalNews.com
Earl Garcia
April 25, 2017

Renowned skin care expert Dr. Trevor Cates lists 20 of the most toxic chemicals found in personal care products. “What we put on our skin should be as clean as what we eat. But for most people, it’s not. Even in tiny amounts, many of the chemicals commonly found in our cosmetics can have a tremendous health and hormonal impact, and we are only beginning to understand the consequences,” Dr. Cates writes in DailyMail.co.uk.

  1. Fragrances – According to Dr. Cates, fragrance mixtures may contain hundreds of individual chemicals that may trigger allergies and disrupt certain hormones. He suggests avoiding fragrances unless in their natural form such as pure essential oils.
  2. Formaldehyde – Nearly one in five personal care products contain this chemical. This toxic chemical can be found in hair care products, adhesives and nail products. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), formaldehyde is a carcinogenic chemical associated with the onset of various forms of cancer.
  3. Ethanolamines – According to the skin care expert, impurities in these chemicals may trigger the onset of certain types of cancer.
  4. Mineral oils – These oils, along with petroleum, are key ingredients in cosmetic products such as foundation, moisturizers and cleansers. However, these chemicals contain dioxane. According to Dr. Cates, dioxane is found to be carcinogenic in various animal studies.
  5. Oxybenzone – This harmful chemical is commonly found in lip balms, sunscreens, and other products that contain SPF. Oxybenzone is found to be easily absorbed in the bloodstream, and is associated with the onset of early puberty in girls.
  6. Parabens – Parabens are commonly used preservatives in various beauty products. The chemical is linked to breast cancer cell growth in women and lower testosterone levels and sperm count in men.
  7. Hydroquinone – According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), hydroquinones may cause ochronosis, a skin disease characterized by disfiguring and irreversible lesions on the skin. Hydroquinones are also found to be carcinogenic.
  8. Coal tar – Coal tar is a known carcinogenic. The chemical can be found in dandruff shampoos, creams, soap, and ointments.
  9. Toluene – According to Dr. Cates, toluene is a potent neurotoxic chemical and may trigger impaired breathing and nausea. Toluene is commonly found in nail care products.
  10. Butylated hydroxyanisole – BHA is a waxy compound that is used in various cosmetics and personal care products such as eye shadow and lipstick. The U.S. National Toxicology Program has identified BHA as a potential carcinogen, while the European Union (EU) classified the chemical as an endocrine disruptor.
  11. Triclosan and triclocarban – These chemicals are commonly used as antibacterial agents in personal care products. Both chemicals are known endocrine disruptors.
  12. Mica, silica, talc, and nanoparticled titanium dioxide – According to Dr. Cates, these minute particles may lead to lung disease when they accumulated in the body over time.
  13. Heavy metalsHeavy metals — such as mercury, lead, arsenic and aluminum —  can cause brain and nervous system impairment and hormone disruption. These heavy metals are also known carcinogens.
  14. Carbon black – Carbon black is a commonly used pigment in make up and nail polish. This chemical is known to cause cancers.
  15. P-phenylenediamine – This chemical is commonly found in hair dyes. Exposure to this chemical may lead to organ toxicity, adverse skin reactions, and cancer.

Other toxic chemicals commonly found in personal care products include resorcinol, methylisothiazolinone and teflon as well as phenoxyethanol and acrylamide.

“The personal care products industry is inundated with extremely toxic, cancer-causing chemicals,” explains the Health Ranger, founder of the Health Ranger Store which formulates and retails hundreds of non-toxic personal care products. “The average consumer poisons themselves with over 300 synthetic chemicals before they even leave the house each morning, and these chemicals are deliberately added to personal care products by manufacturers that care more about profit than consumer safety,” he adds.

Personal care products — such as cosmetics, body washes and hair and skin care products — have been subject to scrutiny for years due to potentially hazardous chemicals that most of them contain. These chemicals, when in contact with human body, may cause adverse health effects. In fact, a study by Herb Research Foundation reveals that the skin may absorb up to 60 percent of toxic chemicals found in personal care products.

Read More at: NaturalNews.com

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

OSHA.gov

Did Bayer AG Do A Sly Deal On Glyphosate With The European Union Commission?

Did Bayer AG do a Sly Deal on Glyphosate with EU Commission?

Source: WilliamEngdahl.com
F. William Engdahl
January 24, 2017

There is growing evidence that the EU Commission’s extraordinary ruling of June 29, 2016 granting the toxic weed-killing agent Glyphosate a reprieve of 18 months until December, 2017 was made in order to allow sufficient time for Bayer AG, the new owner of Monsanto since December time to bring its substitute weed-killer on the market once the merger is complete. The issue is highly controversial not the least owing to a determination from an agency of the Geneva WHO that glyphosate is a “probable carcinogen.” The EU Commission ignored that WHO determination, relied on a fraudullent German government safety assessment and ignored the will of a majority of EU Governments to give glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s world-leading weed-killer, Roundup, an artificial life extension.

Early in 2016, the EU Commission recommended re-approval for another 15-years of the license for the controversial glyphosate toxin, the most widely used weed-killer in the world, the main ingredient in Roundup of Monsanto. The Commission, a decidedly anti-democratic, non-elected body of faceless bureaucrats, declared then that their “yes” decision was based on the determination by the EU’s European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) that there was no reason to believe glyphosate is a carcinogen. That all was before the decision by Germany’s Bayer AG to takeover Monsanto.

The snag in that early EU Commission decision to renew for another 15 years glyphosate lies in the fact that the EFSA refused to make open disclosure of the relevant health and safety studies EFSA claimed to rely on. Most alarming in that initial EU decision to renew was the fact that EFSA’s decision went totally against the 2015 determination by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) that glyphosate, was a “probable human carcinogen.” In lay terms that means odds greater than 50% are that it causes human cancers on exposure. Glyphosate presence has been tested in ordinary drinking water or in food crops sprayed with Roundup of other glyphosate-based weed-killers.

German Government Corrupt Science

EFSA based its initial early 2016 glyphosate renewal approval solely on a report by Germany’s Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), which in turn took its decision from a clearly biased report by Monsanto and other agrochemical industry groups. Using the Monsanto-linked assessment for glyphosate, the German BfR went against the professional and highly-respected WHO International Agency for Research on Cancer, stating, again using Monsanto’s self-interested claim, that glyphosate was “unlikely” to pose a cancer risk. IARC used only data that was in the public domain, but the corrupt German BfR based its report on secret industry studies by Monsanto and other agrichemical firms that it refused to release to IARC or to the public

Public pressure, the objections of several EU states and an EU-wide petition signed by more than one million EU citizens demanding an end to glyphosate use as well as a letter of protest signed by almost one hundred leading scientists to EU Health and Food Safety Commissioner (also known as DG SANTE) Vytenis Andriukaitis, were ignored.

The fact that the member states of the EU were unable to reach a required Qualified Majority vote in favor of renewing glyphosate, allowed the decision, through an EU Commission technical loophole, to fall to the clearly biased Vytenis Andriukaitis.

To little surprise, Andriukaitis ruled to extend. Until now however, the bizarre aspect was that he stated a renewal for only 18 months and not the 15 years requested by Monsanto and approved by him only a few months before.

Bayer Swallows Monsanto

The EU Commission extrordinary ruling flew in the face of the widely-accepted and even EU law that requires decisions based on the “precautionary principle,” namely that when there is the slightest doubt about health risks of a crop or chemocal, err on the side of precaution and ban.

Notably, Andriukaitis’ ruling for limited renewal of glyphosate was made on June 29 just as the boards of the German pesticide giant, Bayer AG and Monsanto were finalizing weeks of discussion of a friendly $66 billion takeover of Monsanto to create the largest agribusiness leviathan on the planet, with an alarming 29 percent of the world’s seeds, most of the market share of GMO patented seeds, and 24 percent of its pesticides and agrichemicals.

To make the situation more alarming for those of us seeking a healthy diet, in 2016 a huge cartelization of world agrichemicals and GMO seed makers took place. In addition to the Bayer swallow of Monsanto, ChemChina, a China state chemical company bought the large Swiss GMO and pesticide company, Syngenta. And the two other US GMO and agrichemical giants, Dow Chemical and DuPont, have also merged in the past twelve months. The Swiss company fended off that offer only to agree later to a takeover by China’s state-owned ChemChina. The effect is that these now three giant behemoth companies control nearly 70 percent of the world’s pesticide market and 80 percent of the U.S. corn-seed market, most all the latter GMO seed.

Bayer Takes Liberty

At this point, since the WHO determination that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen,” glyphosate’s days were clearly numbered. Now once the technical corporate takeover by Bayer of Monsanto is completed, expected towards the end of this year, 2017, just as the renewal for glyphosate expires, Bayer AG plans to push its fast-growing substitute for glyphosate known by the trade name, Liberty and Basta, a so-called systemic Glufosinate weed-killer similar to glyphosate but without (so far) the WHO stigma of carcinogenic.

Moreover, since the Monsanto patent on glyphosate-based Roundup expired, other companies have been flooding the market globally with cheap substitutes. Three Chinese companies — Jiangsu Sevencontinent, Hebei Veyong, and Sichuan Lier — have been aggressively exporting glufosinate since 2015. Production of glufosinate on the other hand is far more limited allowing Bayer AG, minus Roundup, to emerge as the dominant weed-killer giant. Moreover, by offering to sell off its Roundup busiess, the new Bayer AG appears to be making a noble sacrifice in the interest of reducing anti-trust concerns.

There is no aspect of the Bayer AG takeover of Monsanto that is positive for the world. To mention “anti-trust” violations is putting it mildly. Government anti-trust, certainly in the agribusiness sector is a dead letter. True protection of consumer health and safety is a dead letter, certainly in Brussels. How the Trump Presidency and his Agriculture Secretary nominee, former Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, weigh in on this will be more than interesting to see. After all, Bayer-Monsanto is not “America First,” but a German company.

Read More At: WilliamEngdahl.com
__________________________________________________

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”

Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe

Image: Pesticide linked to Parkinson’s disease being sold in US, already banned in Europe
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
January 20, 2017

Like other pesticides, paraquat has been the subject of controversy for some time now. In Switzerland, for example, the toxic substance has been banned since 1989. The rest of the European Union has followed the Swiss’ lead, including England — even though there is still a factory there where paraquat is manufactured for export. (RELATED: Follow more news headlines on pesticides at Pesticide.news)

Even China has phased out the use of paraquat. In 2012, the Chinese government announced that the pesticide would no longer be used in order to “safeguard people’s lives.” China is not a nation that is recognized for its environmental protection policies. If they’re concerned about this pesticide, it stands to reason we should be too.

And yet, for some reason, paraquat is still available in the United States — even in spite of the growing body of research that suggests it is an extremely harmful chemical that likely causes Parkinson’s disease.

You’d think that as Europe and China ceased to use paraquat, the US would follow suit. But instead, use of this pesticide has only begun to increase. Last year, some 7 million pounds of paraquat were used on 15 million acres of land. To make matters worse, more weeds are becoming resistant to more popular pesticides like Roundup, and paraquat is being marketed as a substitute.

(Related: Learn more about glyphosate at Glyphosate.news)

The Paraquat Controversy

Paraquat first became heavily scrutinized for its use in suicide attempts; just a single sip of this stuff can be lethal. But now, a wave of research on this contentious product has shown that there are less-immediate effects of exposure to paraquat — like Parkinson’s disease.

The New York Times has even reported that the Environmental Protection Agency made note of paraquat’s toxicity in a recent regulatory filing. The EPA itself said, “There is a large body of epidemiology data on paraquat dichloride and Parkinson’s disease.” The Times writer Danny Hakim writes that the EPA is currently debating on whether or not the pesticide should still be allowed to be sprayed on our country’s farmland. A decision is not expected to be reached until sometime in 2018.

Europe is known for their cautious approach to pesticides; several bans and moratoriums on a number of different products have taken place over the years. While often criticized by industry officials, paraquat shows that caution is truly necessary when dealing with toxic chemicals — even if they supposedly not intended to be toxic to humans.

Research on paraquat and Parkinson’s disease

Perhaps what is most disturbing about paraquat is that science has indicated that the pesticide was possibly linked to Parkinson’s disease for more than twenty years. Over the last five years, however, research on the matter has grown more extensive.

In 2011, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) led a study that found two pesticides — rotenone and paraquat — were linked to a substantially higher risk of Parkinson’s disease. The study found that use of either pesticide were 2.5 times more likely to develop the condition. The research was a collaborative effort that included National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), which is part of the National Institutes of Health, and the Parkinson’s Institute and Clinical Center in Sunnyvale, CA.

Freya Kamel, Ph.D. is a researcher in the intramural program at NIEHS and co-author of the paper appearing online in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. She stated that “Paraquat increases production of certain oxygen derivatives that may harm cellular structures. People who used these pesticides or others with a similar mechanism of action were more likely to develop Parkinson’s disease.”

A meta-analysis that was published in 2013 by the journal Neurology also found that exposure to paraquat and other similar pesticides could increase Parkinson’s disease risk. In their conclusion, the team states that current literature supports the theory that pesticide exposure increases Parkinson’s disease risk.

In 2000, which was almost 2 decades ago, research confirmed a potential link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson’s. Later, a 2006 study would show that exposure to paraquat resulted in a 70 percent higher chance of developing Parkinson’s disease. Research has been indicative of paraquat’s dangers for the last 20 years or so, and more recent research has only confirmed these suspicions.

The call to ban paraquat in the US has been a long time coming, but will the EPA listen?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NYTimes.com

Neurology.org

NIH.gov