Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Image: Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Will Monsanto finally get what they deserve for their crimes against humanity? The Miller Firm hopes to bring the corporate giant to their knees by pursuing a lawsuit that shows Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

And perhaps, in their pursuance of this litigation, the EPA will be taken down, too.

Email evidence indicates that not only did Monsanto help write the so-called cancer studies on Roundup, but that EPA officials colluded to keep reports on glyphosate’s carcinogenic status in favor of the industry. Former EPA scientist Marion Copley’s heartbreaking email not only illustrates the cancer-causing capacity, but that the EPA is riddled with corruption and greed.

Copley’s letter describes a host of ways in which glyphosate can cause cancer:

  • Endocrine disruption
  • Free radical formation and inhibition of free radical-scavenging enzymes
  • Genotoxicity — which is key in cancer onset
  • Inhibition of certain DNA repairing enzymes
  • Inhibiting the absorption of essential nutrients
  • Renal and pancreatic damage that may lead to cancer
  • Destruction of gut bacteria and suppression of the immune system

“Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen,’” Copley states. Copley passed away in 2014, before the IARC finally did come to reach this conclusion.

And as The Miller Firm notes, recent independent studies have shown that farm workers exposed to glyphosate or Roundup are at least twice as likely to develop lymphoma. Monsanto is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in deceptive marketing tactics by making claims that their deadly herbicide is “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” Worse still, several scientists have gone to federal prisons for falsifying data on the toxicity of glyphosate. According to The Miller Firm, the issues with Roundup’s safety testing date back to 1976. In spite of this, Monsanto has spent the last few decades convincing the public that glyphosate is totally safe.

Farm workers are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of glyphosate exposure. The Miller Firm has launched their lawsuit against Monsanto and taken aim at the EPA as well, citing that farmers were intentionally led to believe the cancer-causing chemical was safe — and if they had known the product was toxic, they’d have at least have known of the risks and been able to better protect themselves and further minimize contact with the herbicide.

The legal team also notes that Marion Copley’s letter points to corruption and collusion occurring between Monsanto and the EPA to protect glyphosate from being exposed as toxic.

“For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. The CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen,” Copley writes in her email to fellow EPA scientist Jess Roland.

Court documents have continued to point to a not-so-innocent relationship between Roland and Monsanto. UPI reports that emails between Roland and Monsanto scientist Dr. William Heydens reveal that Heydens offered to write a 2013 report on glyphosate for the EPA. Roland purportedly then used the reports to conclude glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.

Emails have also shown that Monsanto sought Roland out to stop the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — another federal agency — from investigating glyphosate further. A conversation relayed to coworkers by Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, Dan Jenkins shows that Rowland said,”If I can kill this I should get a medal.”

Bloomberg reports that the ATDSR never did publish a toxicological profile on the substance.

All signs point to one thing: both the EPA and Monsanto know glyphosate is toxic and carcinogenic, but they’re doing whatever they can to keep that fact under wraps.

Will The Miller Firm be able to convince the courts to mete out the appropriate punishment in the face of such corruption?  One can only hope.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Glyphosate.news

MillerFirmLLC.com

UPI.com

Bloomberg.com

Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine

Image: Coincidence? Monsanto patented glyphosate as an “antibiotic” drug, claiming weed killer is medicine
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 23, 2017

While you’d be hard pressed to find anyone willing to use a known herbicide for medicinal purposes, that hasn’t stopped Monsanto from patenting the star ingredient of their flagship herbicide, Roundup, as a type of antibiotic. In 2003, the corporate giant first submitted a patent for glyphosate as a parasitic control-type antimicrobial agent — or, in other words, a type of antibiotic.

The patent was granted in 2010, and you can view it here. Monsanto patented the combination of glyphosate and polyvalent anion oxalic acid as a method for preventing and treating pathogenic infections like malaria. As the patent explains, parasites from the phylum of Apicomplexa are often responsible for diseases in humans and other animals — and glyphosate is capable of inhibiting the growth of these parasites.

This patent certainly brings even more concerns about the impending Bayer-Monsanto merger, but  more importantly, it raises a significant question: is glyphosate contributing to the proliferation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria?

Study finds glyphosate causes antibiotic resistance

Recent research has revealed that the herbicide could indeed be a contributing factor to the “superbug” epidemic that is being seen around the world. Scientists from the University of Canterbury in New Zealand have piloted new research that shows glyphosate is not just an herbicide, but a potential vector for antibiotic-resistant disease.

The study is the first of its kind. Professor Jack Heinemann, from the university, says that while herbicides may be tested for their ability to kill bacteria, they are not tested for what other effects they may have on microbes.

“We found that exposure to some very common herbicides can cause bacteria to change their response to antibiotics. They often become antibiotic resistant, but we also saw increased susceptibility or no effect. In most cases, we saw increased resistance even to important clinical antibiotics,” Heinemann commented.

The professor went on to explain that their results were so surprising that they enlisted another researcher from a different institution to conduct the same exact experiments in a different environment and without knowing exactly what she was adding to the bacteria, to help ensure the validity of their findings. The research conducted at Massey University yielded the same results as that done by the University of Canterbury.

According to the researchers, the effects they uncovered would be relevant to people and animals who are exposed to pesticides used in similar concentrations to that of what was tested. While the amounts used by the team were of greater concentration than what is currently supposed to be allowed in food — as we all know, the amount of glyphosate residue in and on food often surpasses what is deemed “permissible.” [RELATED: Keep up with the latest herbicide scandals at Glyphosate.news]

As antibiotic resistance continues to grow, the threat that glyphosate poses simply cannot be ignored. The effects of herbicides like glyphosate can have on bacteria are very real — especially given the chemical’s tendency to be intentionally misused by farmers as a desiccant.

Does glyphosate alter healthy bacteria in the gut, too?

Pathogenic bacteria are not the only microbes susceptible to the ill effects of glyphosate. The bacteria that reside in the human gut can also be harmed by the toxic herbicide. The very same shikamate pathway that glyphosate uses to target weeds and pathogenic bacteria species is the same pathway it would use to destroy the friendly and beneficial bacteria that inhabit the intestinal microbiome. This, of course, would come with its own host of adverse health effects.

There is no reason to believe that if glyphosate is capable of killing or altering one type of bacteria, that it would not harm other bacteria via the same pathway. Some research has already alluded to the potential for glyphosate to wreak havoc on the human digestive system. Given that the microbiome is of great importance to overall human health, findings such as this are not surprising: if glyphosate is killing off intestinal bacteria, it stands to reason that may be the first point of disease. Furthermore, some research has shown that glyphosate is capable of altering gut bacteria in other animals — for example, in 2014 German scientists found that glyphosate negatively affected the gut bacteria of cows.

It seems that the more we learn about glyphosate, the more dangerous it becomes.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

NaturalHealth365.com

SustainablePulse.com

GMOFreeUSA.org

FoodDemocracyNow.org

Agrigator.nz

Flint official dodges jail time for concealing water contamination that killed 12 people … only has to write apology letter

Source: ZeroHedge.com
March 17, 2017

Authored by Nikhil Swaminathan via Grist.com,

This former official dodged jail time in the Flint water crisis, just has to write an apology letter.

A Michigan district court judge ordered that Corinne Miller, the former director of epidemiology at the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, publicly apologize to the residents of Flint for withholding information about the presence of the Legionella bacteria, the microbe that causes Legionnaires’ disease, in the city’s drinking water.

After pleading no contest to a charge of neglect, Miller also got a year’s probation and 300 hours of community service — essentially a slap on the wrist. She is cooperating with special prosecutors pursuing cases against several former employees of the health department and the state’s Department of Environmental Quality for their role in Flint’s water crisis.

Twelve Flint residents were confirmed to have died in 2014 and 2015 from Legionnaires’ disease, an extreme type of pneumonia. But in January, statistics released by Genesee County, where Flint is located, appeared to confirm public health experts’ suspicions that the city’s water in fact caused additional pneumonia deaths.

Miller’s attorney argued against her having to make a public mea culpa, but Judge Jennifer J. Manley said the demand was “perfectly appropriate in this case.” Considering that even more people were sickened than previously believed, it’s the least she could do.

*  *  *

WTF!

Read More At: ZeroHedge.com

Medical Doctors Accept Industry Payments—Oh Yes!

bigpharmabigmedica

Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine J. Frompovich
March 10, 2017

Taking ‘kickbacks’ from an industry one is a professional in, or involved with, has been classified in several ways.  The insurance industry calls it “rebating” [1].  Kickbacks also have been defined as “bribery” [2].  There’s an online site about “kickbacks in U.S. history” wherein the Cornhusker Kickback is mentioned.  That ‘affair’ involved congressional Democrats not having enough votes for ObamaCare to pass.  According to that website, Democratic Senator Ben Nelson’s vote supposedly was bought in exchange for some “pork” for his home state of Nebraska.  However, that ‘pork pie’ did not go over well, so the final upshot from congressional haggling was that all states would receive the same perks as Nebraska.

Nevertheless, how many healthcare consumers are aware their medical doctors also take kickbacks or get perks from Big Pharma?  Medical Press published the article “What’s the real extent of industry payments to doctors?”, which ought to enlighten patients and consumers as to why they may be taking so many prescription drugs and why parents are bombarded with mandatory vaccines for their children or else become ‘divorced’ from their family doctor’s practice.

A survey was taken with the results published in the Journal of Internal Medicine.  That survey, according to Medical Press, indicates “more than three in every five Americans see a doctor who receives some form of payment from industry.” [3]

One of the provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, was that pharmaceuticals and medical devices manufacturers must report gifts and payments made to healthcare providers, which is publicly available on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments website.

That survey claims 65 percent of respondents visited a practitioner who took payments or kickbacks.

A 2016 survey regarding payments to dermatologists published in JAMA Dermatology [October 5, 2016. DOI: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.3037] indicates 8,333 dermatologists received 208,613 payments totaling $34 Million in 2014 [4].

The top 15 companies were all pharmaceutical manufacturers and they paid dermatologists $28.7 million, which was 81 percent of the total amount disbursed, according to the study. [4]

So how much do you think was paid to pediatricians, the medical professionals who push vaccines and vaccinations on infants, toddlers, teens and their parents?  According to Clinical Pediatrics:

Between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2014, 35 697 pediatricians received payments amounting to $30,031,960. [That’s million!]

General pediatricians received the majority of payments (71%). Median payment was $15 (interquartile range = $12-$24), mostly in the form of noncash items and services (84%). Significant diversity was observed in median payments among specialty providers. In conclusion, 42% of US pediatricians received industry payments in 2014.

That’s over $30 MILLION given to 35,697 pediatricians.  Let’s do some math.  $30,031,960 divided by 35,697 equals an average of $841.30, not $12 to $24!

Another way of doing the math is 35,697 multiplied by $24 [the highest payment in the $12-$24 range] equals $856,728; not $30 Million plus!  Is there a discrepancy variance of $29,175,232, or is my calculator wrong?

What’s going on; is someone messing with the math?

Well baby visits certainly seem profitable for pediatricians—doesn’t that seem so?  Those visits are the unfortunate times when pediatricians administer up to nine vaccines at once to infants weighing less than 25 pounds during one office visit. Outrageous!  That practice ought to be considered medical malpractice, especially injecting so many neurotoxic chemicals into a defenseless child whose immune system, for all intents and purposes, is harmed—or ‘castrated’ by all the toxins injected.  Isn’t that chemical child abuse?  Where’s legislation to deal with medical-toxic-vaccine [1] child abuse?


We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years.

It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries.

David Rockefeller, 1991 Bilderberg Meeting, Baden, Germany

Read More At: ActivistPost.com

Reference:

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

Resource:

CDC’s Vaccine Excipient & Media Summary
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

References:

[1] http://www.saracaldwellpa.com/newsletters/elder-law/unfair-and-deceptive-insurance-practices-rebating/
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kickback_(bribery)
[3] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-03-real-extent-industry-payments-doctors.html
[4] https://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-10-industry-payments-dermatologists.html

 

65% of doctors are getting cash “kickbacks” from big pharma

Image: 65% of doctors are getting cash “kickbacks” from big pharma
Source: NaturalNews.com
Thomas Dishaw
March 9, 2017

Two-thirds of Americans are currently in the care of a physician that is being paid by a drug company, and they may not even realize it. A study conducted by Genevieve Pham-Kanter, Ph.D., surveyed more than 3,500 adults and linked their doctors to data from Open Payments, a government website that reports pharmaceutical and device industry payments to physicians.

The results of the study revealed that about 65% of the people surveyed had visited a doctor within the past year that had received payments or gifts from pharmaceutical or medical device companies. Even more shocking is that only 5% knew that their doctors had been given these incentives. Patients who were visiting an orthopedic surgeon or OBGYN doctor were shown to have the highest percentage of being under the care of a physician receiving some kind of incentive. Pham-Kanter said, “Patients should be aware of the incentives that their physicians face that may lead them to not always act in their patients’ best interest. And the more informed patients are about their providers and options for care, the better decisions they can make.” (RELATED: Get all the news Google is trying to hide from you at Censored.news)

The Open Payments website is a federal program that collects information about payments drug and device companies make to physicians in the form of travel, research, gifts, speaking fees, and meals. It also includes any ownership interests that doctors or their immediate family members may have in these companies as well. While most physicians receive payments averaging about $193, it does add up over time. Between August 2013 to December 2015 Genetech, Inc. ,the maker of drugs such as the allergy drug Xolair and anti-viral drug Tamiflu, made payments totaling $727 million to doctors and research hospitals.

Doctors have long disputed claims that the payments they receive from pharmaceutical companies have any relationship to how they prescribe drugs. An analysis created by ProPublica in 2016, however, found that doctors who received money or even just a meal from drug and device makers prescribed a higher percentage of brand-name drugs overall than doctors who didn’t. According to ProPublica, the analysis doesn’t prove industry payments sway doctors to prescribe particular drugs or even a particular company’s drugs, but it does show that payments are associated with an approach to prescribing that in the end benefits pharmaceutical companies’ bottom line.

Transparency sites like Open Payments not only keep patients informed, but it may influence physicians to think twice before taking incentives. Pham-Kanter surmised that even if patients don’t know about the information, physicians could be more likely to shy away from taking industry payments if they know the information will be made public. She says “Transparency can act as a deterrent for doctors to refrain from behaviors that reflect badly on them and are also not good for their patients.”

Read More: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Sciencedaily.com

Propublica.org

Cms.gov

Propublica.org

Possibly Thousands More Pedophile Cases to Come to Light in U.K. Amid Independent Investigation


Source: TheMindUnleashed.com
Christina Sarich
March 8, 2017

In a just released, internal investigation report into child sexual abuse, it has been revealed that numerous agencies, including both public and private in the U.K., have been grossly inadequate at reporting child sexual abuse, and that a startling number of additional pedophilia rings, aside from the recently disclosed, are still at large.

The report states that public hearings already conducted are central to the Inquiry’s work to examine and expose institutional failures to report child sex trafficking. During 2016, 11 preliminary hearings and 205 core participants were designated across seven investigations.

The Inquiry sent legal requests to hundreds of institutions likely to have relevant information asking them to submit evidence of sexual transgressions. More than 86,000 documents have been received thus far.

These investigations will look more deeply into allegations of child abuse against the Roman Catholic Church (Pope Francis has recently refused to punish pedophiles), the Chichestor Diocese Case (Rev. Bishop George Bell is an example of a recent pedophilia scandal), and the Anglican Church (Rev. Russel Nicolle, 50, an Anglican minister from Elliot Lake, Ontario, received 8 months in jail for “repulsive, disgusting and degraded” sexual abuse of a 12 year old and 16 year old boy. Judge M.C. DiSalle said he “seriously breached” his position of trust as rector of St. Peter the Apostle Anglican Church, is yet another example of many within this institution.)

The inquiry will look into child molestation allegations against U.K. football clubs (a dedicated hotline was set up to report child sex abuse running rampant within these institutions), and child migration programs that sent children to Wales and England as well as into children’s residential care, custodial institutions and schools.

In short, no stone will be left unturned to uncover pedophilia that has been suspected to run rampant in Europe and the U.S., as well as other countries around the world.

The report states that they are to:

  • “consider the extent to which state and non-state institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation;
  • to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed;
  • to identify further action needed to address any failings identified;
  • to consider the steps which it is necessary for state and non-state institutions to take in order to protect children from such abuse in future; and
  • to publish a report with recommendations.

We will examine the failure of institutions to protect children from sexual abuse, and recommend the changes needed to ensure that children are better protected from sexual abuse. Both tasks are of critical importance. Neither is more urgent, valuable or significant than the other.”

This inquiry is long overdue, considering that in 1986, the head of Britain’s intelligence agency MI5 penned a letter to Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet secretary noting that a serving member of Parliament was sexually abusing children — or, as he put it, displaying a “penchant for small boys.”

The degree of government cover-up to reduce the political scandal around this topic both in the U.K. and the U.S. will likely be devastating for the public at large.

Recent investigations unearthed a British paedophile who targeted children as young as six months old while posing as a volunteer in Malaysia . Richard Huckle, from Ahford, Kent is now facing multiple life sentences for a catalogue of horrific sex crimes which he acted out between 2006 and 2014.

As this independent investigation continues, more like Huckle will likely be tried, and if the Deep State in the U.S. and the Cabal families are to be penetrated in the U.K., these investigations need to continue all the way up into the highest ranks of the political food chain.

Those who publicized the Inquiry’s intentions published the first anonymized summaries of experiences from victims who have taken part in the Truth Project, which gives a voice to those who have been subjected to sexual violence and are often stigmatized and shamed for what they have gone through.

Drusilla Sharpling, Inquiry Panel member and Head of the Truth Project said:

“The courage of victims and survivors who have come forward and will come forward to the Truth Project should not be underestimated. They play a vital role in our work to establish what went wrong in the past and why it went wrong – if we are to improve child safeguarding practices in future, we must listen and learn.”

Read More At: TheMindUnleashed.com
________________________________________________
Image: © Futureceylon.com, source