Source: RT
May 18, 2017
More than 700 lawsuits have been filed against Monsanto claiming that their popular weed-killer, ‘Roundup,’ is carcinogenic. The lawsuits bring attention to bogus studies and apparent collusion between Monsanto and the EPA, further damaging the credibility of the already embattled agency. RT America’s Manila Chan has the details. Then, Mike Papantonio, host of “America’s Lawyer,” joins “News with Ed” to offer his legal expertise and insights.
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:
“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.
Sources:
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017
Is the day we’ve all been waiting for finally on the horizon? Monsanto and the EPA have been caught red-handed in the midst of a legal controversy. Unsealed court documents have shown that not only is the EPA severely lacking in the standards department, but that the federal agency colluded with one of the nation’s most menacing companies, Monsanto. And in doing so, the EPA helped to keep Monsanto’s star product, Roundup, on store shelves and safe from being reviewed for its cancer-causing effects.
Court documents show that the EPA declared that Roundup was safe for use without ever testing the entire formulation’s effects, and instead relied on the industry testing done on just the key active ingredient, glyphosate.
As you can see in the graphic below, not only does the EPA not require testing of the actual product in its entirety, Monsanto itself as not conducted any studies on the chronic carcinogenic studies related to Roundup’s formulation. While this alone is certainly more than enough cause for concern — both about Roundup’s safety and the EPA’s apparent lack of integrity — this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.
(source: Zerohedge)
Recently, former EPA official Jess Rowland has come under fire for his collusion with Monsanto. The industry giant even reached out to Rowland to garner his assistance in putting the brakes on an investigation of glyphosate that was being pioneered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland said to a Monsanto employee, who then relayed the conversation to coworkers via email.
Another damning email shows that Monsanto executive William Heydens even conspired to “ghostwrite” a paper on glyphosate’s safety. Heydens claimed that having the company write their own research on key areas of the product’s safety would be “less expensive” and “more palatable.” It also appears that they were preparing for what may come of the IARC’s report on glyphosate, and how they would go about defending themselves. See below:
(source: ZeroHedge)
Heydens also noted that this same practice of ghostwriting and getting “independent” researchers to “sign their names” on studies is how they’d handled research on glyphosate’s safety in the past. And as NPR explains, while that earlier paper that is mentioned in the email did note that Monsanto helped to “assemble” the information, no Monsanto employees are noted as co-authors.
While the EPA contends that glyphosate is safe, the World Health Organization and numerous independent studies on the chemical’s safety seem to disagree. The WHO made tremendous waves when they declared that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, and several independent investigations of the product’s safety have shown that it’s linked to liver damage, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, digestive disorders and other ailments.
Monsanto, of course, has wasted no time defending their product and themselves. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, has reportedly said that it would be “remarkable” if the corporate giant was capable of manipulating the EPA under the Obama administration.
This comment surely must have been in jest, as the EPA’s corruption runs deep; impervious to the rules of reality, the EPA has continuously proven itself to either be an agency of sheer ineptitude or great deception — look no further than the Gold King Mine spill for proof of that.
Regardless, Partridge — like any corporate talking head — maintains that glyphosate is completely safe, and cites the EPA’s assessment as proof. But as the emails show, the EPA’s assessment is little more than a regurgitated form of Monsanto’s data. So, who’s really calling the shots here?
Sources:
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 22, 2017
Well, now it’s official, or rather, even more official than it was before, for new documents are revealing what appears to be massive collusion between agribusiness giant Mon(ster)santo and the goobernment, in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency, according to this article shared by Mr. B:
Predictably, documents have been “unsealed” that reveal that the government agency charged with protecting the environment … er… for greedy megacorporations did little independent scientific investigation of its own into the safety of said greedy megacorporation’s Roundup pesticide, but (surprise surprise) relied on said greedy megacorporation’s own science to clear approval for its use:
That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)….more on this later.
But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much). As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.
“EPA’s minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product – here, Roundup. Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate. As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup.” (All emphases in the original)
The whopper immediately follows:
Meanwhile, if that’s not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she “cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer” because “[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup.”
Following this little revelation, the article goes on to give an actual screen capture of an internal memo, in which a process of “doctoring” the independent World Health Organization study is clearly outlined:
That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn’t possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists. Instead, they decided to “ghost-write” key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just “sign their names so to speak.”
“A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”
(Emphases in the original)
Of course, such tactics only ultimately serve corporations like Mon(ster)santo, which like to wallow in the muck of immorality, poorly. All the sneaking around, buying off this scientist or that scientist, padding the wallets of a politician or two, fighting this GMO or that GMO labeling law, hauling farmers into court, does not do anything positive for what little image they have left.
To this end, we have a modest proposal for Mon(ster)santo, I.G. Farbensanto, DuPontsanto, and all the other agribusiness giants: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and simply throw aside all pretense? Why not buy off enough politicians to pass laws mandating that people eat nothing but GMOs: people would have to save their labels and grocery receipts, and present them to the public schools in order for their children to be allowed to attend. Getting together with Big Pharma on this could do you a lot of good, for you could combine your GMO crud with vaccine crud, and have the “food-like substances” you purvey become the vaccine, and that way, you could never be sued by anyone under current laws. Or, you could just buy off enough politicians and pass laws making it impossible for anyone to sue you who comes down with something due to eating GMOs, no matter what independent science studies say.
Our advice is: Start in the one-party socialist republic of Nuttyfornia, buy off a few very corrupt and kookoo politicians in the San Franfreakshow-Bay area (they have lots of them there) and the Hell-A area (they have lots there too), send some donations to Senator McInsane’s and Senator Graham Cracker’s next campaigns by way of Saudi Arabia, and that will get the job done. It would be a bi-partisan effort. And don’t forget to blame Vladimir Putin for all the anti-GMO hysteria and for hacking the contradictory science.
See you on the flip side…
Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________
Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
Jon Rappoport
March 16, 2017
The issue here is, who is going to decide whether the people of New Zealand are fluoridated? Who will be in charge? Communities, or the federal government?
From The NZHerald, 3/13/16—my comments are in CAPS:
“MPs are expecting furious opposition to proposals on fluoridated drinking water as public hearings kick off this week.”
“The first select committee hearings will be held tomorrow on the Government’s plan to transfer the responsibility for fluoridating water from councils to district health boards (DHBs).” [TRANSFER THE DECISION FROM LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO LARGER FEDERAL ENTITIES—A TAKEOVER.]
“In a rare move, Parliament’s Health Committee has agreed to hear from every individual or organisation that asked to make an oral submission.”
“In total, 60 organisations and 140 individuals are expected to give presentations, and the committee will be broken up into sub-committees in order to hear them all.” [IN OTHER WORDS, THE FULL COMMITTEE WON’T HEAR ANY INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION—A CLUE THAT THE “TOLERANCE” FOR EVERY POINT OF VIEW IS JUST A SHOW.]
“’The committee felt that hearing from everyone on this was important’, committee chairman and National MP Simon O’Connor said.”
“’It’s a passionate topic. People feel very strongly about it and we thought … the best way to manage that was to allow them to be heard’.” [YES, HEARD, BEFORE BEING IGNORED. THE COMMITTEE HAS ALREADY MADE UP ITS MIND.]
“Most of the submissions to the committee were against the law change, O’Connor said.”
“At present, territorial authorities decide whether to fluoridate the local water supply.” [JUST AS IT SHOULD BE.]
My further comments: right now, only 27 territories (out of a total of 67) in New Zealand have decided to fluoridate their water supplies. The majority of territories understand the toxicity of fluorides.
The federal government wants to take over and fluoridate everybody. The feds consider anti-fluoride activists the enemy and bunch of crazies.
I also suspect that money is an issue. Somebody close to the federal government is poised to make large profits from selling the chemicals, when the government decides the whole population should be toxified.
For the edification of New Zealand’s feds, who believe “the science is settled” and opposing activists are anti-science, here is a famous bombshell letter, written by the head of the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) union of in-house scientists, William Hirzy.
Quoting from a May 1, 1999, statement— “Why EPA’s Headquarters Union of Scientists Opposes Fluoridation”—written by William Hirzy, PhD, [Union of Scientists] Senior Vice-President, Chapter 280:
“…our opposition to drinking water fluoridation has grown, based on the scientific literature documenting the increasingly out-of-control exposures to fluoride, the lack of benefit to dental health from ingestion of fluoride and the hazards to human health from such ingestion. These hazards include acute toxic hazard, such as to people with impaired kidney function, as well as chronic toxic hazards of gene mutations, cancer, reproductive effects, neurotoxicity, bone pathology and dental fluorosis.”
“In support of this concern are results from two epidemiology studies from China that show decreases in I.Q. in children who get more fluoride than the control groups of children in each study. These decreases are about 5 to 10 I.Q. points in children aged 8 to 13 years.”
“Another troubling brain effect has recently surfaced: fluoride’s interference with the function of the brain’s pineal gland. The pineal gland produces melatonin which, among other roles, mediates the body’s internal clock, doing such things as governing the onset of puberty. Jennifer Luke has shown that fluoride accumulates in the pineal gland and inhibits its production of melatonin. She showed in test animals that this inhibition causes an earlier onset of sexual maturity, an effect reported in humans as well in 1956…”
“EPA fired the Office of Drinking Water’s chief toxicologist, Dr. William Marcus, who also was our local union’s treasurer at the time, for refusing to remain silent on the cancer risk issue. The judge who heard the lawsuit he [Marcus] brought against EPA over the firing made that finding—that EPA fired him over his fluoride work and not for the phony reason put forward by EPA management at his dismissal. Dr. Marcus won his lawsuit and is again at work at EPA.”
“…data showing increases in osteosarcomas in young men in New Jersey, Washington and Iowa based on their drinking fluoridated water. It was his [Dr. Marcus’] analysis, repeated statements about all these and other incriminating cancer data, and his requests for an independent, unbiased evaluation of them that got Dr. Marcus fired.”
“Regarding the effectiveness of fluoride in reducing dental cavities, there has not been any double-blind study of fluoride’s effectiveness as a caries preventative. There have been many, many small scale, selective publications on this issue that proponents cite to justify fluoridation, but the largest and most comprehensive study, one done by dentists trained by the National Institute of Dental Research, on over 39,000 school children aged 5-17 years, shows no significant differences (in terms of decayed, missing and filled teeth) among caries [cavities] incidences in fluoridated, non-fluoridated and partially fluoridated communities. The latest publication on the fifty-year fluoridation experiment in two New York cities, Newburgh and Kingston, shows the same thing. The only significant difference in dental health between the two communities as a whole is that fluoridated Newburgh, N.Y. shows about twice the incidence of dental fluorosis (the first, visible sign of fluoride chronic toxicity) as seen in non-fluoridated Kingston.”
“John Colquhoun’s publication on this point of efficacy is especially important. Dr. Colquhoun was Principal Dental Officer for Auckland, the largest city in New Zealand, and a staunch supporter of fluoridation—until he was given the task of looking at the world-wide data on fluoridation’s effectiveness in preventing cavities. The paper is titled, ‘Why I changed My Mind About Water Fluoridation.’ In it Colquhoun provides details on how data were manipulated to support fluoridation in English speaking countries, especially the U.S. and New Zealand. This paper explains why an ethical public health professional was compelled to do a 180 degree turn on fluoridation.”
“…mutation studies…show that fluoride can cause gene mutations in mammalian and lower order tissues at fluoride concentrations estimated to be present in the mouth from fluoridated tooth paste. Further, there were tumors of the oral cavity seen in the NTP cancer study…further strengthening concern over the toxicity of topically applied fluoride.”
“So, in addition to our concern over the toxicity of fluoride, we note the uncontrolled — and apparently uncontrollable — exposures to fluoride that are occurring nationwide via drinking water, processed foods, fluoride pesticide residues and dental care products…For governmental and other organizations to continue to push for more exposure in the face of current levels of over-exposure coupled with an increasing crescendo of adverse toxicity findings is irrational and irresponsible at best.”
“We have also taken a direct step to protect the [EPA] employees we represent from the risks of drinking fluoridated water…the union filed a grievance, asking that EPA provide un-fluoridated drinking water to its employees.”
“The implication for the general public of these calculations is clear. Recent, peer-reviewed toxicity data, when applied to EPA’s standard method for controlling risks from toxic chemicals, require an immediate halt to the use of the nation’s drinking water reservoirs as disposal sites for the toxic waste of the phosphate fertilizer industry.”
That last sentence lets you know where the fluorides are coming from.
So…an employees’ union of scientists within the EPA has made its position clear.
Quite clear.
The mainstream press has refused to cover this story in any significant way for 17 years.
The federal government of New Zealand doesn’t care about any of this.
They just want to give the gift of poison to whole population of the country, and call it science.
Read More At: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________________________
Jon Rappoport
The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.
Source: TheCorbettReport | MediaMonarchy
James Corbett | James Evan Pilatto
March 16, 2017
Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:
Story #1: To Cut Climate Money, Fake Right Has To Find Where Fake Left Stashed It
http://bit.ly/2n2mJ1q
Judith Curry Explains Climate Modeling to the Layman
http://bit.ly/2n2h4Zr
EPA Deputy Accused Of Working With Monsanto To Kill Cancer Study
http://bit.ly/2nqDh4d
Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer
http://bit.ly/2mvyLNc
Story #2: New Bill Would Let Companies Force Workers To Get Genetic Tests, Share Results
http://bit.ly/2mM7bgf
Story #3: Need a Pothole Fixed? Maybe a Portland Anarchist Can Help!
http://bit.ly/2mRRbuQ
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 15, 2017
Fluoride is an ubiquitous chemical that has penetrated public water supplies across the United States. The CDC reports that about two-thirds of the population has fluoridated public water. And for those of us served by community water systems, that number climbs up to about 74 percent.
Historically, fluoride been added to water in the name of preventing tooth decay and cavities. However, it is now widely known that fluoride is not an essential nutrient in any sense, and therefore is not actually necessary to keep teeth healthy.
While proponents of fluoride continue to say that it is “safe and effective,” detractors of fluoride say that there are several substantial issues with the substance’s addition to public water. And finally enough people have woken up to the dangers of fluoride to begin putting pressure on the EPA to put a halt to this controversial practice.
A coalition of environmental, medical, and health groups, along with Fluoride Action Network, are urging the EPA to end fluoridation of the public water supply. The coalition has presented the EPA with a petition, featuring some 2,500 pages of scientific documentation of fluoride’s ill effects on human health.
The document explains that “the amount of fluoride now regularly consumed by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas exceeds the doses repeatedly linked to IQ loss and other neurotoxic effects; with certain subpopulations standing at elevated risk of harm, including infants, young children, elderly populations, and those with dietary deficiencies, renal impairment and/or genetic predispositions.”
Beyond the negative health effects of fluoride, there is also a rather concerning, almost “Big Brother-esque” feel to public water fluoridation. The concept of the government practicing mass medication on the majority of the U.S. population is quite frightening, if you stop to think about. There is no way to obtain consent from every individual when it’s in the water supply and often, no way of escaping it. Furthermore, putting fluoride in the water prevents controlled dosage. Some people drink more than others, and there are plenty of other avenues of exposure besides water.
The EPA could put an end to mass fluoridation of the U.S. population, through the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), which grants them the ability to forbid the use of a chemical that puts public health at risk. Fluoride certainly fits the bill — the petition notes that the EPA’s own guidelines would encourage fluoride prohibition.
Collective Evolution explains that the petition states the EPA’s Guidelines for Neurotoxicity Risk Assessment reveals that fluoride can be neurotoxic, and that the “reference dose” needed to offer protection from such neurotoxicity is “incompatible with the doses now ingested by millions of Americans in fluoridated areas.”
The petition also notes that swallowing fluoride actually provides little to no benefits to humans, rendering the risk associated with fluoride consumption completely and entirely unnecessary. The petition also states “there is little justification in exposing the public to any risk of fluoride neurotoxicity, particularly via a source as essential to human sustenance as the public drinking water and the many processed foods and beverages made therefrom.” (RELATED: Learn how to protect yourself from Fluoride poisoning)
The EPA has reportedly requested that the National Resource Council (NRC) review the data. Back in 2006, the NRC concluded that fluoride can indeed inhibit brain function. Research published in the journal Lancet Neurology has even confirmed that fluoride is one of 12 substances known to cause developmental neurotoxicity. And in 2012, Harvard scientists concluded that children exposed to fluoridated drinking water had lower IQs.
Another pitfall of water fluoridation is the development of dental fluorosis. Mild fluorosis is characterized by white streaks on the teeth, while more severe cases feature brown stains, pitting, and broken enamel. This is the stuff they are putting in the water supposedly to protect teeth — and yet, it actually destroys them. The CDC reported in 2010 that 41 percent of children between the ages of 12 and 15 had some form of dental fluorosis. That alone should be enough to tell you (and the EPA) that fluoride doesn’t belong in the water supply.
Will the EPA finally be compelled to do their jobs and ban water fluoridation? Who knows.
Sources:
Source: NaturalNews.com
Lance D. Johnson
March 5, 2017
A multi-district cancer lawsuit is currently underway in San Francisco, California. The suit alleges that Monsanto failed to warn the public about Roundup’s cancer risk to humans. Sixty plaintiffs, many suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, are accusing Monsanto of covering up evidence that Roundup herbicide could cause cancer. A former EPA official, Jess Rowland, is set to testify in the case and could reveal the EPA’s buried science linking Roundup (glyphosate) to cancer.
U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria is looking forward to Rowland’s deposition: “My reaction is when you consider the relevance of the EPA’s reports, and you consider their relevance to this litigation, it seems appropriate to take Jess Rowland’s deposition,” he said.
Due to regulatory concerns, this case is currently holding Monsanto back from a $66 billion mega merger with German pharmaceutical company, Bayer AG.
According to Bloomberg, the plaintiff’s lawyers see Rowland’s upcoming deposition as a potential trap, mainly because Rowland enjoyed a “highly suspicious” relationship with Monsanto through the years. The plaintiff’s attorneys are concerned that Rowland could remain silent, not disclosing evidence of Roundup’s cancer link. After all, Rowland is a close ally to Monsanto and the chair of an EPA committee that gave glyphosate a free pass.
In May 2016, Rowland chaired the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC). At the time, CARC determined that glyphosate was “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.” Suspiciously, Rowland left her chair position just days after CARC’s pro-glyphosate report was leaked to the press.
The mainstream media used CARC’s pro-glyphosate conclusion as a rebuttal to the contrasting scientific conclusion that was reached a year earlier at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This independent team of scientists (IARC) had previously reported through the World Health Organization that glyphosate was a probable human carcinogen.
Glyphosate toxicity to humans: an overview explains that the chemical disrupts the “shikimate pathway” of both plants and important microorganisms in the human gut and can even accumulate in bones. Glyphosate scientists Dr. Channa Jayasumana, wrote that “Glyphosate acts as a carrier or a vector of these heavy metals to the kidney.” By disabling protective gut microorganisms, glyphosate becomes a vector, by which other toxins weaken one’s immunity. For this reason, Sri Lanka’s president banned herbicides containing glyphosate in 2014. (RELATED: For more, visit Glyphosate.News)
When IARC’s findings came out on glyphosate, Monsanto insisted that glyphosate was 100 percent safe with no link to cancer. Not long thereafter, Rowland’s pro-glyphosate conclusion came out through CARC. According to US Right to Know, Monsanto shared close ties with Rowland. Even after leaving CARC, Rowland continued to work as the deputy division director in the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). Working with Rowland, Monsanto could readily control the scientific conclusions for agrochemicals, especially since Rowland operated within the health effects division of the OPP.
Marion Copley, an EPA scientist of 30 years, has accused Rowland of “playing political conniving games with the science” to give favor to Monsanto and other pesticide companies. Correspondence dated March 4, 2013, taken from a February 10th court filing, found Copley calling Rowland out for intimidation tactics. Copley said Rowland and another EPA official “intimidated staff” to change the reports on glyphosate findings. “It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer,” Copley stated, citing various animal studies that have been buried.
Sources include:
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)
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.
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?
Sources:
Source: NoMoreFakenews.com
Jon Rappoport
January 3, 2017
I’m taking another look because I have a new statement about a related case: Melaney Parker, a woman found dead on the railroad tracks in Marfa, Texas, in 2013, after a train hit her.
The same judge who inexplicably decided Scalia needed no autopsy, after he died in Texas, in 2016, came to the same conclusion in the Melaney Parker case.
That Texas judge is Cinderela Guevara.
Heavy.com summarizes the questions surrounding the 2013 death of Melaney Parker and Guevara’s role:
“Liz Parker, Melaney’s mom, questioned how Guevara handled the investigation of her daughter’s death, The Daily Kos reported. Melaney was hit by a Union Pacific Railroad train and, Liz wrote, a Union Pacific representative told her that it appeared that her body had been placed on the tracks while she was unconscious. Liz asked the Justice of the Peace and the Sheriff to open the case as a homicide investigation, but they would not. Guevara, who was a Justice of the Peace at the time, did not order a rape kit or an autopsy, Liz wrote, because a doctor at the scene said the cause of death was obvious.”
“Liz later wrote a letter to the editor, published in Big Bend Now, in which she said that Guevara had asked for God to give her an answer [!] about whether Melaney’s death was suicide. Liz wrote that Guevara told her: ‘Yes, this was a tragedy, but the true tragedy was that she died without accepting Jesus Christ as her savior’.” [!!]
“Big Bend Now also published a story about the controversial investigation. Melaney’s cousin, Aspen Parker, wrote a letter to Fox News in 2013 saying that Guevara’s cause of death ruling mentioned that Melaney had submitted a letter of resignation to her employers before her death. Aspen wrote that he called Melaney’s employers and they said that wasn’t true.”
The death of Melaney Parker sounds like a case begging to be reopened. I now have a new statement on it.
According to someone with knowledge of the investigation (or non-investigation), the crime scene was a mess. The day after the police initially visited it, Melaney Parker’s eyeglasses were still there. They hadn’t been picked up as evidence.
Pieces of Parker’s flesh were there as well. The engineer of the train that hit Parker said Parker had been positioned with one arm above her head, which suggested she might have been killed somewhere else and then dragged to the railroad tracks.
After toxicology tests were completed, Parker’s remains were cremated without her family’s permission.
If all this is true, Judge Guevara’s decision to skip an autopsy and accept the ruling of suicide is even more suspect.
And then three years later, when Justice Scalia dies, Guevara issues the same long-distance ruling, on the phone. No autopsy necessary.
Here is what I originally wrote about Scalia’s death. It’s extensive. Six articles. Some of the information overlaps:
ONE: “’Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was the senior member of the U. S. Supreme Court and one of the 10 most important public servants in the country. For better or worse over the course of his 29 years on the Court, he was arguably the most influential person in America’.” Eric Mink, Huffington Post, 2/17.
We start here—from the NY Post:
“Lethal poisoning could have left Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s body in virtually the same condition in which it was found, a top forensic pathologist told The Post on Wednesday.
“’It would look like he’s asleep. It [poisoning] doesn’t show anything on the body,’ said Dr. Michael Baden, who spent 25 years in the city’s chief Medical Examiner’s Office.
“Still, Baden stressed that natural causes was a plausible explanation.”
However, the official pronouncement of natural causes carries a burden with it. The burden of some semblance of proof. In this case, there was none.
And if you think “none” should be SOP in the case of a US Supreme Court Justice, you need to think again.
Judge Cinderela Guevara, miles away from Scalia’s body, sitting on the phone, rendered the judgment of natural causes after talking with marshals, none of whom had forensic training; and after talking with Scalia’s doctor, who was a few thousand miles from the Texas ranch where Scalia died.
Apparently, Scalia’s doctor told Judge Guevara that Scalia had a heart condition. Yes? And? This is proof a US Supreme Court Justice died of a heart attack?
Guevara, like a true bumbling amateur (or was something more ominous going on here?), decided no autopsy of the body was necessary. She decided she was too busy (doing what?) to climb in her car and drive to the ranch, to oversee the situation and talk to people at the scene.
So she said, on the phone, “Natural causes. No autopsy.”
In the case of a US Supreme Court Justice. In the biggest moment of Judge Guevara’s professional life.
And the Department of Justice, the FBI, the President, and all the members of US Congress immediately bought it.
No objections. No questions. No outrage.
Just the silence of the lambs.
In a city where blabbermouths never stop talking, suddenly—silence.
Paralysis.
And thereafter: no chain of custody for bodily evidence.
The body of a US Supreme Court Justice wasn’t put on a plane, from the mile-long airstrip at Cibolo Ranch, under supervision, and flown back immediately to Washington DC for analysis. No.
Instead, it was driven to the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, 230 miles from the Ranch. It could have been driven 65 miles to the Alpine Memorial Funeral Home in Alpine, but it wasn’t.
At the Sunset Funeral Home in El Paso, it was promptly embalmed—ruling out the possibility of a conventional autopsy. Even then, forensic pathologist Michael Baden states, toxicology tests could be done by sophisticated analysis. According to Wayne Madsen, reporting for Infowars, no bodily fluids were collected at the funeral home for later analysis.
Roughly 10 hours after the embalming, Scalia’s body was loaded on a plane and flown to Virginia, where Scalia’s family lives.
But “most people think Scalia died of natural causes.” That argument, for impaired minds, carries the day. Nothing more to see, nothing more to know.
“Old man, in ill-health, heart condition. He dies. What else could it possibly be? Natural causes.”
As reported by Eric Mink at the Huffington Post (2/17), in an excellent piece, there were 35-40 guests at the Cibolo Ranch on the weekend Scalia died. Who were they? Was this merely a quail-hunting outing? Or was it another kind of get-together?
No word. Silence. Why haven’t any of those guests spoken to the press? Do they know something that would shed a different light on the official story? Are they afraid? Did someone at the federal level throw a blanket over them?
Judge Cinderela Guevara spoke to a lawyer representing the Scalia family. He said the family didn’t want an autopsy. Who is he? Why hasn’t his name surfaced? Since when is a client’s lawyer’s name a secret?
Scalia traveled to the ranch with a friend. No one is saying who the friend is. That’s also a state secret?
Does the Cibolo Ranch have medical personnel on staff? If so, were any of them called when Scalia was discovered dead in his room?
The official narrative is: old man, long-time public servant, dies peacefully in his sleep of natural causes. This is the thin gloss that prevents any Washington politician with clout from demanding an investigation? This quiets and paralyzes the entire federal establishment, including eight Justices of the Supreme Court?
Cowards and lambs.
Not an ounce of conscience among them.
Neutered.
And/or told to stay silent.
In the wake of this titanic silence, the narrative is quickly and expertly shifted to the question of who will replace Scalia on the bench. That’s the certified subject of chatter. Should Obama appoint a nominee, or should nomination wait for the next President? What is the rule? The Republicans cross swords with the Democrats. Precedents are cited. The man isn’t in his grave, and the hangars-on and petty power players are arguing over his successor. It’s a B movie. Pundits prepare talking points, clean their suits, see their hair stylists, and sidle into their minutes of face time on news shows. The shows deliver filler between commercials.
This is the wet concrete that sets over the death of a US Supreme Court Justice.
The one man who could have swept aside all objections, and ordered an investigation, visits the flag-covered casket in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, stands before it for 30 seconds, moves to a painted portrait of the deceased Justice, lingers there for one minute, and then goes home, to the Oval Office, to vet nominees, a herculean task that will unfortunately prevent him from attending the funeral.
Omerta.
TWO: Four days before he died, Supreme Court Justice Scalia voted to stall Obama’s plan to force drastic EPA climate-change rules on the American economy. The vote was 5-4.
With Scalia now gone, the vote would be 4-4.
With a new Obama Supreme Court appointee, if Obama could ram his choice through, the vote would be 5-4 in the President’s favor. Ditto, if the next President shares Obama’s position. And the climate-change agenda would roll ahead.
We’re not talking about small climate-change rules. We’re talking about the Big Ones.
And note: such rules could very well dovetail with the Brave New World spelled out in the upcoming TPP (the Trans-Pacific Partnership).
It’s a wedge formation, a squeeze play, a pincer movement featuring new EPA climate-change regulations on one side, and new draconian possibilities embedded in the TPP.
If Scalia was murdered, the above agenda was sufficient reason, because the climate agenda has the force to transform life on the planet.
If Scalia’s murder were a movie, he would have been told, as a warning: “You have no idea how big this thing is; you really don’t understand the forces you’re messing with.”
Of course, most Americans don’t believe a political murder along this line could happen in real life. They can only accept it in a movie, where it makes perfect sense. That tells you something about the schizoid nature of the public mind:
Adrenaline-driven in front of a screen; tranquilized and programmed to be passive and accepting of recognized authority, otherwise.
“Don’t be silly. Scalia, murdered, and murdered for that reason? It couldn’t happen. That’s so…barbaric. We’re civilized.” That opinion and $6 will get you a rainbow smoothie.
Obama’s climate-change plan uses the EPA to act out international agreements signed at the recent Paris summit. But in order to, yes, scam these agreements into force in the US, the EPA has to stretch and bend and distort already-existing US law. And it has done so.
However, a number of states have sued to stop the EPA, which wants to make all states cut CO2 emissions from electrical power production by 32% in the next 15 years. Aimed mainly at coal-burning plants, these regulations would create deep reductions in the overall US energy supply and output—a primary mission of the economy-wrecking Rockefeller Globalists.
The US Supreme Court, four days before Scalia’s death, with his vote, declared a narrow 5-4 halt to the Obama plan, pending a lower-court decision on the issue. The 5-4 vote didn’t knock out the plan, but it stalled it. And if Scalia had stayed alive, his vote going forward on the Obama plan could have remained crucial.
The pending TPP, another Globalist trade treaty, contains a section that allows endless changes and additions in the text as years pass. In other words, the passion for cutting energy production for the US, and the rest of the planet, can easily be folded into the treaty.
The TPP also reveals a cynical attitude toward the “humanitarian goal of saving the planet from CO2 death.” Major corporations that burn coal and employ other ways of releasing CO2 can relocate to far-off lands (e.g., Vietnam) and spew CO2 to their hearts’ content, without messy environmental controls.
In other words, the true underlying Globalist scheme, vis-à-vis climate change has nothing to do with messianic rescue: it has to do with lowering energy production.
TheBreakAway 