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

Collusion: DEA bans plant medicines, then Big Pharma patents them for profits

Image: Collusion: DEA bans plant medicines, then Big Pharma patents them for profits

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
December 12, 2016

Is the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) really looking out for anyone’s best interests with their latest stand on natural, medicinal plants like cannabis and kratom? Most would tend to disagree with them, just on principal. But a deeper look into the matter reveals that their intent may be far more sinister than they want us to believe.

While the DEA consistently maintains that these plants work against the greater good, there are clearly a lot of questions about the agency’s integrity – especially when Big Pharma is involved.

Marijuana and THC – a well-known cannabinoid compound – are both illegal. And yet, as The Free Thought Project pointed out back in September, Big Pharma companies mass-produce and sell synthetic THC formulations, such as Marinol. Marinol is the brand name for dronabinol – the new name that the Big Pharma executives give to THC after it’s been synthesized in a lab. Marinol’s own website notes that THC is a naturally occurring compound found in cannabis. However, as Paul Armentano – the senior policy analyst for the marijuana legislation reform group NORML – notes, Marinol lacks many of the natural therapeutic compounds that are present in the cannabis plant. And because Marinol’s sole active ingredient is synthetic THC, and it’s taken orally, the psychoactive effects tend to be much stronger (and even problematic for some) compared to traditional cannabis. CBD, another beneficial compound, tends to help counteract the psychoactive effects of THC, and without it, you’re in for a whole different kind of ride.

Regardless of how one feels about Marinol and the fact that it offers only limited relief to patients in comparison to the plant it’s modeled after, it is exceedingly hypocritical of the FDA to approve of it while the DEA continues to prosecute marijuana to the fullest extent. It’s not just being blind to the facts or refusing to believe a plant could be medicinal; its outright sabotage at this point. The federal government has literally allowed Big Pharma to create medicine derived from the plant, and then made the plant itself illegal. It is simply mind-boggling how they can rationalize and justify such despicable behavior.

The DEA’s recent statement on kratom underlines the extreme lengths to which they will go to continue to assert that they are in the right, even if only to themselves. The agency filed a notice of intent declaring that they would “temporarily schedule the opioids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, which are the main active constituents of the plant kratom, into schedule I pursuant to the temporary scheduling provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.” The notice then explained, “This action is based on a finding by the Administrator that the placement of these opioids into schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is necessary to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety.”

As is typical of bureaucratic agencies, the notice of intent continued in a similar fashion with its convoluted explanation.

And, of course, three synthetic opioids have been synthesized from the kratom plant, namely MGM-9, MGM-15 and MGM-16. Unsurprisingly, these three synthetics were developed from the kratom alkaloids, Mitragynine and 7-Hydroxymitragynine – you know, the ones named by the DEA as an “imminent hazard to public safety.”

If these compounds are so dangerous, why on earth would Big Pharma be synthesizing them to make medicine? It just doesn’t seem to add up, but the federal agency continues to go along with their story of supposed danger to society, hoping we’ll all fall for it. It really tells you all you need to know about the DEA and their relationship with Big Pharma though, doesn’t it?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

AnonHQ.com

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

NORML.org

Veteran CDC Employer Resigns After She Was Caught Helping Coca-Cola Gain Political Influence Over Health Authorities

Corruption
Source: NaturalNews.com
Julie Wilson
August 1, 2016

America’s “health” authorities have again been caught conspiring with Big Food to ensure their products remain on the market and lucrative, despite mounting evidence of causing widespread, chronic illness among millions of people.

The latest example of collusion between the food industry and the U.S. government involves a veteran employee with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) who was caught helping Coca-Cola and a food industry front group gain political influence over the World Health Organization (WHO).

Emails obtained through a Freedom of Information request filed by U.S. Right to Know found that Dr. Barbara Bowman, who worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola before beginning a career with the CDC in 1992, was eager to help the beverage company gain approval for its sugary drinks, which are strongly linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes.

CDC employee tasked with reducing diabetes lends helping hand to sugary beverage maker

The communications show Bowman, director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, was eager to help her long time friend Alex Malaspina, a former top Coca-Cola executive and strategist who founded International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI), a Big Food industry front group.

The division led by Bowman is tasked with providing “public health leadership,” working to reduce the prevalence of obesity, diabetes, heart disease and stroke. However, Bowman had another interest – helping the food industry gain approval for its unhealthy products.

“Emails from 2015 detail how Malaspina, representing the interests of Coca-Cola and the food industry, reached out to Bowman to complain that the World Health Organization was giving a cold shoulder to the chemical and food industry-funded group known as ILSI, which Malaspina founded in 1978,” says USRTK journalist Carey Gillam, writing for The Huffington Post.

“The email strings include reports of concerns about Coca-Cola’s new Coca-Cola Life, sweetened with stevia, and criticisms that it still contained more sugar than daily limit recommended by WHO.”

WHO issues warning about sweetened beverages

The WHO has been very vocal about the importance of eliminating sugary drinks from the diet in order to reduce the risk of childhood obesity, type 2 diabetes and other serious health problems.

“Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption is high in many parts of the world and is suggestive of poor dietary quality, as sugar-sweetened beverages contain added sugars such as sucrose or fructose, often in large amounts, which contribute to the overall energy density of diets,” said the WHO in January.

“The calories provided by sugar-sweetened beverages have little nutritional value and may not provide the same feeling of fullness that solid food provides. As a result, total energy intake may increase which can lead to unhealthy weight gain.”

This of course, infuriated Coca-Cola, prompting Malaspina to ask Bowman for help in setting up a conversation with the WHO to try and influence their recommendations on sugary drinks.

Coca-Cola: “The threat to our business is serious”

Several top executives with Coca-Cola and ILSI were copied on the emails sent to Bowman. They expressed grave concern regarding “negative reports about products with high sugar content, and sugary soda tax plans in Europe,” reports Gillam.

Actions by the WHO could have “significant negative consequences on a global basis,” said Malaspina in the email chain. “The threat to our business is serious.”

Included on the correspondence were Coca-Cola Chief Public Affairs and Communications Officer Clyde Tuggle and the company’s Chief Technical Officer Ed Hays. Malaspina told Bowman that “something must be done” about the WHO not wanting “to work with industry.”

CDC recommends beverage company contact Bill Gates

Bowman tells the Coca-Cola execs that either Bill Gates or “Bloomberg people” may be able to get him access to the WHO, suggesting they also reach out to someone at the PEPFAR program, a U.S.-backed program addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa.

“WHO is key to the network,” confirms Bowman, adding that she “will be in touch about getting together.” Malaspina proceeds to thank Bowman for the good leads before suggesting they meet for dinner soon.

The CDC has yet to assume any responsibility for the inappropriate communications. Bowman’s boss, Ursula Bauer, Director at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, said she doesn’t find the relationship a conflict-of-interest.

Though Bauer defended Bowman’s actions, she admitted in an email to staffers that Gillam’s article doesn’t bode well for the agency. The “perception that some readers may take from the article is not ideal,” said Bauer.

She reminded CDC employees that if they wouldn’t want to see it on the front page of the newspaper, they shouldn’t be doing it.

All of the emails but one were sent from Bowman’s personal account. Bowman announced a “late retirement” shortly after the emails broke, not mentioning the revelations about her Coca-Cola connections.

Bauer applauded Bowman’s work in another email sent to staffers, saying she “served with distinction and has been a strong, innovative, dedicated and supportive colleague.”

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ActivistPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

HuffingtonPost.com

WHO.int

Progressive Cozy Up To Big Pharma Lobbyists At DNC, Betraying Promise Tackle Drug Price Hikes

Democrats
Source: NaturalNews.com
Jonathan Benson
August 1, 2016

As if all the hypocrisy and corruption involving Hillary Clinton’s treasonous email scandal and Bernie Sanders’ selling out to the very system he preached against wasn’t bad enough, the Democratic Party reportedly welcomed with open arms lobbyists from the pharmaceutical industry at its recent convention in Philadelphia – the same convention at which sellout Bernie Sanders vocally condemned high drug pricing scams that bilk consumers out of billions of dollars.

On the way out of the Wells Fargo Arena, just minutes after The Bern announced, “The greed of the drug companies must end!” delegates attending the DNC were awash in drug lobbyists wining and dining senior Democratic officials, presumably negotiating special interest deals that would likely make even the most fair-weather Democrat cringe in bleeding heart dismay.

Except when push actually comes to shove, of course. Big Pharma was a namesake at the DNC, despite the party’s puppets giving lip service to pricing reform all along the campaign trail. Drug giant Astellas was one of the DNC’s cosponsors, and the Biotechnology Innovation Organization, a lobbying group based out of Washington, D.C., that represents the biotech industry, handed out free water bottles to DNC attendees bearing up through the 90-plus degree weather.

When all was said and done, nothing changed as far as the Democratic Party’s position on fighting against drug industry corruption, at least in any sort of practical sense. Heck, the drug reps themselves told STAT after the convention that they weren’t even aware of any resistance to their continued lobbying efforts, and that the Democratic Party is basically a longtime friend and ally.

“I’ve not really gotten any blowback about the industry at receptions,” one lobbyist from a major drug company told STAT, smugly adding, “but hopefully, people would realize that’s rude at a party.”

Another lobbyist, when asked about the Democrats putting their money where their mouth is when it comes to challenging drug industry collusion, added, “I really haven’t noticed it.”

Trump is right: Establishment politicians are all talk, no action

It’s actually quite humorous that the “party of the people” doesn’t actually have people within its ranks who possess enough character or integrity to fight the tide of Big Pharma corruption. And not only are the Democrats not fighting this corruption, but they’re joining right in on it over wine and cheese!

The Republican establishment is no better, of course, as the GOP has a long and sordid history of striking backroom deals with the drug industry at the expense of the people. But at least the Republicans haven’t been coy about it in the way the Democrats have – or in this case, literally walking out of a convention where such practices were condemned only to dive right in with the enemy.

If progressives hoping for real change are still siding with the Democrats at this point, they’re beyond the level of fools: they’re downright lunatics. The Democrats are quite literally laughing in the faces of their supporters at this point by talking the talk, only to saunter right off the stage and walk a completely different walk, right in front of everybody – and with no consequences.

Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is right: These people are all talk and no action. Except that they now pander to their true masters, multinational corporations pushing a globalist agenda, in full view of everyone, and with absolutely no shame or conscience. These are dark and evil days, folks.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Leaked DNC Emails Confirm Democrats Rigged Primary, Reveal Extensive Media Collusion

Source: ZeroHedge.com
July 23, 2016

There are three key findings to emerge from yesterday’s dump of leaked DNC emails released by Wikileaks:

  • There had been a plot designed to smear Bernie Sanders and to hand the Democratic nomination to Hillary on a silver platter
  • There has been repeated collusion between the DNC and the media
  • There has been questionable fundraising for both Hillary Clinton and the DNC

First, a quick recap for those who missed the original report, yesterday Wikileaks released over 19,000 emails and more than 8,000 attachments from the Democratic National Committee. This is what the whistleblower organization reported:

WikiLeaks releases 19,252 emails and 8,034 attachments from the top of the US Democratic National Committee — part one of our new Hillary Leaks series. The leaks come from the accounts of seven key figures in the DNC: Communications Director Luis Miranda (10770 emails), National Finance Director Jordon Kaplan (3797 emails), Finance Chief of Staff Scott Comer (3095 emails), Finance Director of Data & Strategic Initiatives Daniel Parrish (1472 emails), Finance Director Allen Zachary (1611 emails), Senior Advisor Andrew Wright (938 emails) and Northern California Finance Director Robert (Erik) Stowe (751 emails). The emails cover the period from January last year until 25 May this year.d

Subsequently, the Romanian hacker known as Guccifer 2.0 (who has denied he works with the Russian government), who has already released hundreds of hacked DNC emails previously, told The Hill he leaked the documents to Wikileaks.

An initial read of the thousands of emails in the data dump reveals top officials at the Democratic National Committee privately plotting to undermine Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign, confirming a long-running allegation by the Sanders campaign who has claimed that the DNC and Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz had tipped the scales in favor of Hillary Clinton during the party’s presidential primary. They also reveal instances of media collusion as well as various questionable instances of fundraising.

Plotting Against Bernie Sanders

In an email from early May, DNC CFO Brad Marshall wrote about a plot to question Sanders’s religion. While not naming the Vermont senator directly, it talks about a man of “Jewish heritage” Marshall believes to be an atheist. It makes reference to voters in Kentucky and West Virginia, two states that were holding upcoming primary elections.

“It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist,” the email says.

“AMEN,” DNC Chief Executive Officer Amy K. Dacey replied.

Marshall did not respond to a request for comment. But he did tell The Intercept, which first noticed the email, “I do not recall this. I can say it would not have been Sanders. It would probably be about a surrogate.”

* * *

In an email that concerned Sanders out-polling Clinton in Rhode Island, where the state reportedly only had a fraction of voting stations open, one staffer took a contemptuous tone of Sanders’ supporters,  speaking about them more as a nuisance than an arm of the party. “If she outperforms this polling, the Bernie camp will go nuts and allege misconduct,” the staffer writes, “They’ll probably complain regardless, actually.”

* *  *

Another email shows similar ‘us and them’ language being directed at Sanders supporters. “We have the Sanders folks admitting that they lost fair and square, not because we ‘rigged’ anything,” the email said. “Clinton likely to win the state convention with a slim margin and we’ll send a release with final delegate numbers.”

* * *

An email titled ‘Bernie narrative‘ sent by DNC National Press Secretary Mark Paustenbach to Miranda indicates that top officials in the party were trying to find an angle to disparage the Vermont senator in the media.

“Wondering if there’s a good Bernie narrative for a story, which is that Bernie never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess,” Paustenbach wrote in the May 21 message. “Specifically, [Debbie Wasserman Schultz] had to call Bernie directly in order to get the campaign to do things because they’d either ignored or forgotten to something critical.”

“It’s not a DNC conspiracy, it’s because they never had their act together,” Paustenbach suggested.

* * *

Wasserman Schultz seemed to have already counted Sanders out of the race in a May 21 email, when there were still nine primaries to go. “This is a silly story,” the chairwoman said. “He isn’t going to be president.”

* * *

In another email, Paustenbach informed her that Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver said the candidate should continue to the convention, Wasserman Shultz said: “He is an ASS,” referring to Weaver. The chairwoman made her opinion clear about Sanders in an message concerning the candidate alleging that the party hadn’t been fair to him.

“Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do,” she said.

Collusion with Clinton and the media

A communication from late May laid out the pros and cons of DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz accepting an invitation to CBS’s ‘Face the Nation’, and indicated that the DNC was plotting its moves based on what would be amenable to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Clinton campaign is a mess, they’re afraid of their own shadow and didn’t like that we engaged,” DNC communications director Luis Miranda wrote. “But they’ll be unhappy regardless, so better to get out there and do some strong pivots and land good punches on Trump. They can’t tell us NOT to do TV right now, we shouldn’t pull ourselves out until they actually do.”

“It’s clear that Bernie messed up and that we’re on the right side of history,” Miranda wrote in another bullet point, referring to the Nevada convention.

“Let’s take this offline,” Wasserman Schultz said in response. “I basically agree with you.”

Wasserman Schultz and Miranda brainstormed ideas to attack Sanders’ position on the Israel/Palestine conflict with her communications team in one thread, with Wasserman Schultz saying that “the Israel stuff is disturbing” in reference to Sanders’ platform committee appointees attempts to include language denouncing the occupation of Palestinian territory in the Democratic platform.

The chairwoman says that the idea “HFA,” or Hillary For America, originally proposed the idea of using Israel/Palestine as “an ideal issue to marginalize Sanders on,” suggesting that the DNC were exchanging communications about anti-Sanders strategies with the Clinton campaign.

* * *

The DNC also made a secret “agreement” with Kenneth Vogel, an influential report for Politico. An email from late April with the subject line “per agreement… any thoughts appreciated” shows that Vogel sent an advanced copy of a story about Hillary Clinton’s fundraising to the DNC even before his editor even saw it.

“Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn’t share it,” DNC press secretary Mark Paustenbach wrote to  Miranda. “Let me know if you see anything that’s missing and I’ll push back.”

The published version of the story did not appear to have any significant edits from and was not favorable to the Clinton campaign, but the sending of a full, advanced copy to the subject of a story is considered to be a violation of journalistic ethics.

A source with familiar with the interaction between Politico and the DNC told RT America that the message was sent to officials to ensure accuracy in the story, and that it would have been difficult to ask for piecemeal clarifications due to its complexity. The “agreement,” in fact, referred to the DNC promising not to pass the story to a more favorable news outlet who might publish before  Politco.

* * *

Another email released in the Friday leak indicates that the DNC was in close contact with news websites on articles related to the Democratic Party. A Real Clear Politics article said that Sanders supporters were causing a lack of unity at the Nevada Democratic Convention.

“This headline needs to be changed,”  Wasserman Schultz wrote to Miranda.

“We need to push back… Patrice, what happened, DNC had nothing to do with this, right?” Miranda replied, referring to DNC Director of Party Affairs Patrice Taylor. Taylor responded saying that the article should be changed the event was run by the state party and the disorder “sounds like internal issues amount [sic] Sanders supporters.”

“Walter, please connect with Stewart and get him to push back,” Miranda wrote. The last email on the thread says: “Done. Article has been updated.”

* * *

Further evidence of the DNC’s extensive “content control” over mass media was revealed when Wasserman Schultz sent an email to NBC anchor Chuck Todd with the subject line “Chuck, this must stop,” and set up a time for the two to talk about MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski calling on Wasserman Schultz to step down.

In another email chain, Miranda said Brzezinski was willing to talk with Wasserman Schultz. “She’s already served as a judge and jury without even bothering to talk to me. Not sure why I should trust having a conversation with her would make any difference. Or that she even matters, to be frank,” Wasserman Schultz wrote back after a brief exchange.

In response to a New York Times story about Sanders’s defiance in the wake May’s unruly Democratic state convention in Nevada, Wasserman Schultz wrote: “Every time they get caught doing something wrong, they use the tactic of blaming me. Not working this time.”

* * *

To be sure, there has been a long trail of instances that confirmed Wasserman Schultz’s clear and repeated bias, as noted most recently in “DNC Head Threatened To Kick Michigan Mayor Out Of Debate For Cheering Bernie Sanders“, however this is the first time primary sourced evidence has justified such allegations.

There seems to be clear bias in the aggregate as well. Searches of the database shows an apparent bias by DNC officials against Sanders just by how closely either campaign was monitored. A search of “Sanders supporters” yields 306 messages, while a search of “Clinton supporters” shows only 65 results. A search of “his campaign” yields 780 messages, while “her campaign” only brings up a paltry 120 results.

Questionable Fundraising

According to the Daily Beast, the DNC blocked Roy Black from hosting a potential Barack Obama fundraising event. Black is the lawyer of billionaire and level-three sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, after reports on Epstein’s trial from The Daily Beast and other outlets. The email states the DNC would still allow Black to donate and attend future events.

In an email thread from May 12th of this year, titled “Host for POTUS in Miami,” DNC finance assistant Karina Marquez originally asked the committee’s vetting team to “vet the following folks for POTUS please.” The list of six possible hosts for the event included Black and his wife Lea, who is a star on Real Housewives of Miami.

Continue Reading At: ZeroHedge.com

CDC Collusion: CDC Executive Resigns After Being Caught Colluding With Coca-Cola To Salvage Soda Market

Source: Mercola.com
Dr. Mercola
July 14, 2016

I’ve often written about the collusion between industry and our regulatory agencies, and how industry-funded research tends to simply support and promote the industry agenda rather than shed truthful light on the benefits or risks of any given product.

Recent media reports have now revealed devastating evidence showing a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) executive aided a Coca-Cola representative in efforts to influence World Health Organization (WHO) officials to relax recommendations on sugar limits.1

In March 2015, WHO published a new sugar guideline that specifically targeted sugary beverages, calling them out as a primary cause for childhood obesity around the world, especially in developing nations, where the soda industry is now aggressively expanding its reach.

WHO’s recommendation to limit soda consumption was a huge blow to an already beleaguered soda industry, struggling to maintain a declining market share amid mounting evidence identifying sweetened drinks as a primary contributor to the obesity and diabetes epidemics.

The damning email correspondence between Coca-Cola and the CDC was obtained by the nonprofit consumer education group U.S. Right to Know (USRTK).2 According to PhillyVoice:3

“The emails were between Barbara Bowman, Ph.D. director of the CDC’s Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, and Dr. Alex Malaspina, a former Coca-Cola scientific and regulatory affairs leader and the founder of a food industry-funded group, International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI).

They allegedly show Bowman’s multiple attempts to aid Malaspina’s relationship with WHO leaders whose actions (think soda tax) were hurting the beverage industry.

According to the report, Bowman — whose job is to try to help prevent obesity, diabetes and other health problems — ‘appeared happy to help the beverage industry cultivate political sway with the World Health Organization.'”

Soda Politics

This kind of political maneuvering and back scratching is covered at length in Marion Nestle, Ph.D.’s book “Soda Politics.” I interviewed Nestle, a professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University, last year.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1YmS_WiR0U

In response to the CDC-Coke scandal, she says:4

“[T]he fact that a high-level U.S. health official is communicating in this way with a beverage industry leader appears improper,” adding the emails “suggest that ILSI, Coca-Cola and researchers funded by Coca-Cola have an ‘in’ with a prominent CDC official.

The official appears to be interested in helping these groups organize opposition to ‘eat less sugar’ and ‘disclose industry funding’ recommendations.

The invitation to dinner suggests a cozy relationship … This appearance of conflict of interest is precisely why policies for engagement with industry are needed for federal officials.”

Nestle’s book reveals the soda industry is well aware of the connection between soda consumption and obesity and obesity-related diseases.

Soda companies are by law required to inform the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about vulnerabilities, and for the last decade Coca-Cola has been telling the SEC that obesity is the most significant threat to soda industry profits.

In short, Coca-Cola knows that once the truth about soda’s influence on obesity becomes fully recognized, their jig is up.

Exposed CDC Official Steps Down

For many years now, health advocates have warned people about the connection between sugary drinks and obesity, and the message has slowly but surely started to take hold.

U.S. soda sales have dropped 25 percent since 1998,5 no doubt due to successful public health advocacy, and this makes the current scandal all the more scandalous, as it’s an attempt by a high-level health official to undo all the work that’s already been done to protect the public health. According to USRTK:6

“Alex Malaspina was able to ask for and receive regular input and guidance from a top official at the … CDC on how to address actions by the World Health Organization that were hurting the food and beverage industry.

The emails … reveal that … Bowman … tried to help Malaspina find inroads to influence WHO officials to back off anti-sugar talk. Bowman suggested people and groups for Malaspina to talk to, and solicited his comments on some CDC summaries of reports … ”

Surprisingly, Bowman had the good sense to immediately vacate her post once her betrayal of the public trust was exposed.

According to The Huffington Post,7 Bowman “announced her immediate departure from the agency … two days after it came to light that she had been offering guidance to a leading Coca-Cola advocate who was seeking to influence world health authorities on sugar and beverage policy matters.”

Perfect Example of Why Revolving Door to Industry Needs to Be Shut

While Bowman didn’t mention her public disgrace as a factor in her resignation, saying she’d made the decision to retire “late last month,” her boss, Ursula Bauer, Ph.D., confirmed Bowman’s dealings with Coca-Cola in an internal email to CDC staff.

In it, Bauer states the “perception that some readers may take from the article [revealing Bowman’s dealings with Malaspina] is not ideal,” adding that the situation “serves as an important reminder of the old adage that if we don’t want to see it on the front pages of the newspaper then we shouldn’t do it.”8

Bowman’s connections to Coca-Cola actually dates back decades,9 and it’s anyone’s guess as to how those ties may have slowed down the path to truth and influenced public health policy. She’d been at the CDC since 1992; she was appointed director of the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (DHDSP) in February 2013. But earlier in her career, Bowman worked as a senior nutritionist for Coca-Cola.

This just goes to show the power of the corporate and federal regulatory agency revolving door allegiances. Public servants must choose the hard road of doing what is best for the public, not their former bosses and acquaintances.

Few have that kind of integrity, it seems, and this case is a perfect example of why the door between private industry and public health and regulatory agencies needs to be more closely monitored. This is not a new problem and is pervasive in Washington for other industries. Yet the U.S. Congress and Senate continually fail to pass legislation to address this glaring loophole that decimates public health.

Philadelphia Imposes Soda Tax and Other Bad News for Big Soda

This scandal comes on the heels of a number of blows against the soda industry. Aside from WHO Director General Dr. Margaret Chan announcing soda is a key contributor to child obesity and suggesting restrictions on sugary beverages, Philadelphia recently decided to implement a soda tax to cut consumption.

Mexico imposed a soda tax in 2014, and San Francisco requires ads for sugary drinks to include a health warning as of last year. Many cities around the world are also considering similar measures to restrict soda sales. However, the stance against sugar taken by WHO was perhaps considered one of the most serious. In a June 2015 email to Bowman, Malaspina expresses worry about negative publicity related to sugar-rich products and European soda tax plans.

Malaspina says WHO’s actions can have “significant negative consequences on a global basis,” and that “the threat to our business is serious.” He also notes that WHO officials “do not want to work with industry,” adding that, “something must be done.” In response to Malaspina’s request for suggestions on how to get an audience with WHO, Bowman replies that “someone with Gates or ‘Bloomberg people’ may have close connections that could open a door at WHO,” USRTK writes.

“She also suggests he try someone at PEPFAR program, a U.S. government-backed program that makes HIV/AIDS drugs available through the sub-Saharan Africa. She tells him that ‘WHO is key to the network.’ She writes that she ‘will be in touch about getting together.'”

Clearly, the soda industry is struggling to stay alive. But at what cost should they be allowed to promote their business? It’s equally clear that the price for their unrestricted success is disease and death of its consumers, which is why these kinds of backdoor dealings are so unpalatable.

Continue Reading At: Mercola.com

What The Biotech & Vaccine Giants Have In Common: Extreme Secrecy COmbined WIth SCientifice Fraud, Censorship, Intimidation & Media Collusion

Big Pharma

Source: NaturalNews.com
J.D. Heyes
May 5, 2016

The world’s biggest biotech and Big Pharma companies have a nearly unlimited supply of cash, so they can essentially purchase whatever they desire – and more than anything, they desire the ability to continue to sell their products to the world.

And nothing perpetuates that endless cycle of sales like manipulation of the media and so-called “official” sources of information, as well as government agencies and academia.

For instance, as noted by the Center for Research on Globalization, the biotech sector loves to scream “peer-review” when anti-GMO factions refer to scientific analyses and research-based findings in order to state their case. But even when such research is published in peer-reviewed journals, the industry unleashes its attack shills (like Jon Entine) to discredit and ruin the individual researchers, the methodology of the research, and anything else related to the study.

Other ‘concerns’ outweigh those of public safety

As the center notes further:

“Peer review or no peer review, it seems to matter little to the biotech sector when research findings have the potential to damage its interests. In any case, peer review is only for the sector’s critics. It doesn’t seem to apply much to it. For instance, in the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientists had continually warned regulators that GM crops could create unpredictable and hard to detect side effects, including allergies, toxin production, nutritional problems, and new diseases. They recommended that long-term studies were needed to fully assess the effect of GM foods on other crops, the ecosystem, and animal and human health, but these warnings were ignored.”

And why? Because in nearly every instance, financial concerns outweigh any related to public safety. For this industry – and, really, for Big Pharma as well – “Commercial interest, political strategy and lobbying, not science, is what really counts,” the center observed.

Monsanto, Syngenta and other biotech giants collude with government agencies and officials to “educate” the public about GMO products (meaning manipulate the public), while Big Pharma does the same when it comes to getting vaccines and other drugs that have not been properly vetted or tested to the market.

These companies use the media as well as key reporters – Entine being a case in point – to propagandize and misinform about their products. These kinds of tactics are the same ones that are currently being used against the explosive new documentary, VAXXED: From Cover-up to Catastrophe, which exposes the legitimate link between autism and vaccines, and even features Centers for Disease Control and Prevention whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who admitted that his agency covered up that link. Powerful pro-vaccine forces have so far managed to censor the film by having it removed from the list of films to be screened at various festivals, including the recent Tribeca Film Festival. The showing at the annual event, which was co-founded by Hollywood mega-star Robert De Niro (that story is here), was cancelled, even though De Niro has an autistic child and was initially very interested, in the interest of fairness and science, in the film’s content.

‘Astroturf’

“A much-awaited and explosive documentary film … was suddenly pulled from Robert De Niro’s Tribeca Film Festival following an intense censorship effort waged by the vaccine-pushing mainstream media and pharma-funded media science trolls,” Mike Adams, author of Food Forensics, science lab director of CWCLabs.com, editor of NaturalNews.com and creator of Medicine.news, initially reported.

“The vaccine totalitarians and media science trolls who demand absolute obedience to the fraudulent narrative that vaccines are ‘safe and effective’ have zero tolerance for any intelligent conversations about vaccines,” Adams wrote, noting that after De Niro scheduled the film, he was forced to change his mind and pull the film.

Media people who are honest with readers and the American people in general know all about the tactics used by biotech giants and Big Pharma, and that includes former top CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson, author of the book, Stonewalled. In a recent TED talk, she discussed one of the propaganda techniques, “astroturfing,” an artificial, bought-and-paid for “reality” that supplants the truth.

“Astroturf seeks to manipulate you into changing your opinion by making it seem as if you’re an outlier–when you’re not,” she says in her talk.

“Hallmarks of astroturf and propaganda include use of inflammatory language such as quack, crank, nutty, pseudo, paranoid and conspiracy. Beware when an interest addresses an issue by controversializing or attacking the people, personalities and organizations surrounding the issue rather than the facts. That could be astroturf.”

Continue Reading At: NaturalNews.com

The Breakaway Guide To The CDC – [Part 1]

CDC Protocol

By: Zy Marquiez
December 17, 2015

“Trust is the glue of life.  It’s the most essential ingredient in effective communication.  It’s the foundational principle that holds all relationships.”
– Stephen Covey

A lot of citizens are currently concerned about a possible Ebola pandemic scenario. Who could blame them? Most are taught as younglings to believe that government is good while also taught to trust authority. Police, Firemen, Nurses, Teachers, Bankers, are just some of the examples of positions which people surrender authority too without thinking twice.

When was the last time you, or anybody else for that matter, when in a position of emergency actually bothered to check someone’s credentials verifying them with the local Police Station, Hospital, etc.? Absolutely nobody. People just assume the individuals that seem like a person of authority are in fact that.

Usually that happens when the dilemma is a vital one, correct? Except, nobody knows what skeletons any of those individuals might be hiding in their proverbial closets. And in the days where priests – again, another position of authority – can be part of pedophile rings, anything is possible.

Which brings me to my next point: the all-knowing Centers for Disease Control [CDC].

The notorious CDC, which was founded in 1946, claims that it wants its healthcare workers to be ‘safe and prepared’.   Who doesn’t want that? With such rosy words being bandied about by this private organization, once again, many people are quick to trust those in positions of authority.

Simply because someone, or something – such institution for instance – is in position of authority does not mean that they know what they are doing, and it certainly does not mean they are trustworthy.

Surely, there are many great individuals in places of authority, but these points are not about them. It is about the blind trust that is taught to children, who whence turned into adults are unprepared to critically think and evaluate each scenario that arises in their lives with a fine-toothed comb, so to speak.

Now, everyone makes mistakes. We progress and learn from them on a case by case basis. Institutions, corporations and business are no different. But Government entities, business, and corporations should be held by high standards because they have the ability to affect tens of millions of people. With such power should come greater responsibility/accountability.

We are not seeing that with the CDC, however. What we are witnessing are incomprehensible actions that leave you nigh breathless in respect to their slated dictum.

One would figure such an institution would have the public’s well-being at heart. Such is not the case though.

Would a trustworthy institution in a position of authority collude with Big Pharma to conceal data on 3,500 miscarriages that took place from the H1N1?

Would a trustworthy institution in a position of authority misrepresent raw milk data, which has the ability to help tens of thousands of individuals?

Would a trustworthy institution in a position of authority continue the fallacy of antibody theory, which was exposed nigh five decades ago, and keep advocating for vaccinations when there is ample evidence of their extensive dangers?

Would a trustworthy institution in a position of authority opt to patent Ebola? A patent basically not only allows the person/institution that patented the invention to profit from it, but it also grants exclusive rights to them, thus preventing others from exploiting such ventures.

As they say, the plot thickens.

Knowing the above information, should we not be concerned?

Weigh the above carefully in your mind.   Ponder about what the ramifications are, because they are only the tip of the iceberg.  Keep in mind, the above examples are simply but a select few of a much larger collection of ‘mishaps’.

With that in mind, would YOU bet your LIFE and those of whom you love on such an institution?

As always, the choice is yours.

————————————————————-

Sources:
http://www.infowars.com/pope-francis-1-in-50-clerics-is-a-pedophile/
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/08/02/merck-flu-vaccine-conflicts.aspx
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/01/cdc-misrepresents-raw-milk-statistics.aspx
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/study-disproves-cdcs-primary-justification-vaccination
http://www.naturalnews.com/046290_Ebola_patent_vaccines_profit_motive.html
https://www.google.com/patents/CA2741523A1?cl=en