Big Pharma Slapped with more Opioid Lawsuits

Source: RT
July 24, 2017

Mike talks with Alexis Pleus, Director of “Truth Pharm” about Big Pharma’s legal battles for destroying American lives with their opioids.

Advertisements

Ohio Shocker: 793 Million Opioid Drug Doses Prescribed In One Year

BigPharma
Source: NoMoreFakeNews.com | JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
June 6, 2017

The state government of Ohio has filed a lawsuit against five drug companies: Teva, Allergen, Johnson & Johnson, Purdue, and Endo.

The suit accuses these companies of unlawful marketing practices that have led to Ohio’s opioid addiction “problem.”

Here’s the big one: the suit states that, in 2012, a staggering 793 million doses of opioid drugs were prescribed to Ohio citizens. That translates to an average of 68 pills for each person in Ohio.

The suit accuses the drug makers of conspiring to influence opinion leaders and various medical groups. This marketing blitz resulted in deceptive treatment guidelines, false information delivered at medical conferences, and misleading “science” articles—all designed to minimize the dire effects of opioids.

Well, yes, these painkillers (e.g., OxyContin) do kill pain. In the process, they also creation addiction and turn minds to mush.

Apparently, Ohio is pretty much in a collective trance state. We’re talking Zombification. 793 million opioid doses in one year.

Don’t forget the doctors who prescribe the drugs. As a group, they can’t care about their patients’ state of mind. Just load people up to the eyeballs with chemical pacification.

If you think this over-prescription epidemic corresponds to the actual amount of physical pain Ohio citizens are experiencing, think again. The drugs are obviously being handed out for other reasons: to sustain and feed addiction; to “treat depression”; to “manage dissatisfaction with life.” In other words, drug companies are promoting an ongoing profit bonanza for themselves. The human consequences don’t matter.

Keep in mind that drug companies pour advertising money like water into television programming—including the news.

The effects of the news and the effects of opioid drugs are a marriage made for the ages.

They both deliver hypnosis.

What a marvelous coincidence, right? Contemplate it.

Just so happens that the news, with its outright lies, useless information overload, misdirection, omissions of vital facts, lack of context, refusal to investigate deep scandals, cultivation of Voices of Authority, attention-span shortening, and various other strategies designed for trance-induction and mental passivity…join together with an opioid chemical brain sledgehammer that wipes out the possibility of rational thought.

Both brought to you by your friend, Big Pharma.

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.

Victims of vaccine damage can sue manufacturers in the US

vaccines
Source: JonRappoport.wordpress.com
By: Jon Rappoport
May 7, 2017

(Note to our loyal readers: We’re working to restore NoMoreFakeNews.com. Meanwhile, this blog is fully operating. Posting continues. To join our email list, click here.)

Major media aren’t giving this story the coverage it deserves. I certainly am.

Short question: Can a person sue a US vaccine manufacturer?

Short answer: Under certain conditions, yes.

Note: I’m not framing this article as professional legal advice. I’m reporting what I’ve been able to dig up on a very explosive issue so far. I’ve communicated with two lawyers and a law professor. I’ve been pointed to an important passage on a federal web page.

Right now, lawyers and their clients are suing Merck, the manufacturer, for injuries incurred from Merck’s shingles vaccine, Zostavax.

Among the claimed injuries: contracting shingles; blindness in one eye; partial paralysis; brain damage; death.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys told me he has already filed two cases in California. Each case has 50 plaintiffs. He states he has 5000 clients waiting in the wings. There are other attorneys with other plaintiffs.

But wait. Isn’t there a federal law that bars people from suing vaccine manufacturers?

Isn’t that law the 1986 Childhood Vaccine Injury Act? Doesn’t it demand that people go to a special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” and plead for compensation from the government?

Aren’t vaccine manufacturers shielded from liability for causing injury?

Well, it turns out there are exceptions to the rule.

Adult vaccines are not part of the 1986 federal law.

The law shielding vaccine companies only applies to childhood vaccines.

The Merck shingles vaccine is only for adults.

The special federal “vaccine tribunal/court” is established as part of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP). This is where parents who claim their children were injured by vaccines must go, to ask for compensation from the government—not from vaccine manufacturers.

But on a web page of the US Dept. of Health and Human Services, under “Health Resources and Services Administration,” we see “Frequently Asked Questions.” And we read this rather opaque statement:

“In order for a category of vaccines to be covered, the category of vaccines must be recommended for routine administration to children by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention…” [Note: On this clumsy FAQ web page, you have to click on “View Answer” under the following question to see it: “If a new vaccine product is licensed, what needs to occur before the vaccine will be covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP)?”]

What does “covered” mean? It means “covered exclusively by the federal compensation program.” It means a parent who believes her child has been injured by a vaccine goes to the special federal “court.” The vaccine must be FOR CHILDREN. However, an adult seeking compensation for vaccine injury, FROM AN ADULT VACCCINE, would, with a lawyer, argue his case in ordinary state or federal court. That adult would sue the vaccine manufacturer.

This message from the federal government is clear. The ban against suing vaccine manufacturers only applies to vaccines recommended for children (and pregnant women). The ban does not apply to adult vaccines.

Naturally, adults are going to be interested in seeing a list of adult vaccines, because in the case of vaccine-injury, these people can and must go to ordinary state or federal courts and sue the vaccine manufacturer. And they can sue for punitive damages. This is what scares vaccine manufacturers. Punitive-damage money can soar into the stratosphere.

Here, from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) is the list of adult vaccines: Influenza; Td/Tdap; MMR; VAR; HZV (shingles); HPV Female; HPV male; PCV13; PPSV23; HepA; HepB; MENACWY/MPSV4; MenB; Hib.

However, some of the vaccines on this list are recommended for both adults and children. When a vaccine is recommended by the CDC for both adults and children, adults seeking compensation for vaccine-injury would not be permitted to argue their cases in ordinary courts and sue the manufacturer. Instead, they would have to go to the special federal vaccine “court” and try to obtain compensation from the government.

It will be very important to see what happens as these lawsuits against Merck and their shingles vaccine move forward. Many tactics will be deployed. Right now, in one suit filed in Philadelphia, Merck is arguing for a change of venue. Change of venue often signals an attempt to find a more friendly court.

We’re in the beginning stages of a struggle.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys have high hurdles to climb. Among them: causation. How do you prove a vaccine “caused” an injury? I’m not talking about truth, common sense, or even conventional medical standards. I’m talking about legal proofs, and what is admissible in court. That territory is a Twilight Zone of complexity.

Stay tuned.

Lawsuits for vaccine injury, against one of the biggest pharmaceutical companies in the world (Merck), are sprouting like weeds. Will judges find a reason to cut them off, or will they proceed to trial? Will these lawsuits inspire other attorneys and their clients to sue vaccine manufacturers for injury from other adult vaccines?

Is this going to build to a tsunami?

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.

New United Airlines policy offers $10k compensation for forfeiting seat

New United Airlines policy offers $10k compensation for forfeiting seat
Source: RT
April 27, 2017

United Airlines will offer up to US$10,000 compensation to passengers who voluntarily give up their seat when a flight has been overbooked. The new policy comes weeks after a man was dragged from one of the company’s planes, sparking a PR disaster.

The company has also vowed to reduce its level of overbooking, insisting that customers already seated give up their spot only in cases where passengers’ safety and security is at risk.

David Dao was forcibly removed from a United Airlines plane by three Chicago aviation police officers on April 9 after the airline overbooked the flight. Disturbing footage of the man’s ordeal went viral, resulting in widespread condemnation of the airline.

Dao suffered a “significant” concussion, a “serious” broken nose and lost two front teeth in the ordeal, according to his lawyers.

United has since reviewed the incident and published an action report, detailing “10 substantial changes to how it flies, serves and respects its customers.”

“We can never apologize enough for what occurred and for our initial response that followed. United Airlines takes full responsibility for what happened,” reads the opening statement of the report.

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz was criticized for his initial apology which described the violent removal as simply an effort to “re-accommodate” passengers. However, he followed it up with another apology after the company’s stocks took a nosedive – at one point dropping by over $800 million.

Munoz has described the overhaul of policy as a “turning point” to becoming a “more customer focused airline.”

“Every customer deserves to be treated with the highest levels of service and the deepest sense of dignity and respect.

Two weeks ago, we failed to meet that standard and we profoundly apologize. However, actions speak louder than words. Today, we are taking concrete, meaningful action to make things right and ensure nothing like this ever happens again.”

United’s revised policy to increase the compensation to as much as $10,000 for customers willing to volunteer to take a later flight will come into effect on April 28. Passengers on Dao’s flight were offered only $800 in travel credit plus the cost of meals and hotel accommodations for the evening.

The move follows the example of Delta Airlines who changed its incentive policy earlier this month to offer up to $10,000 to passengers who give up their seats.

The United scandal has also prompted Southwest Airlines – the US airline with the highest forced bumping rate, to review its policy. The company announced, Thursday, that it will stop overbooking flights “very shortly.”

United has already implemented aspects of the new policy, including limiting use of law enforcement officers to safety and security issues and requiring all crew members traveling for work to book in at least 60 minutes before departure.

The company will also provide annual ongoing training for employees to help them deal with difficult situations, beginning in August.

Read More at: RT.com

Monsanto back in court over misleading Roundup ads

Image: Monsanto back in court over misleading Roundup ads
Source: NaturalNews.com
Ethan Huff
April 27, 2017

A new lawsuit claims that Monsanto, the world’s most evil corporation, has been lying about the nature of its Roundup herbicide by claiming that it only targets an enzyme found in weeds, but not in people or pets. Challenging the very basis upon which Roundup was even granted approval in the first place, this latest suit represents yet another among many alleging that the chemical and GMO giant has been falsely advertising its products, putting the public at risk.

Now that Roundup is being detected at “extreme levels” in the nation’s food supply, it is more critical than ever that the truth be revealed about the world’s most widely used chemical herbicide, glyphosate. Filed in the Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, D.C.), this latest suit could be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

Plaintiffs in the case, which include the D.C.-based advocacy group Beyond Pesticides and the Minnesota-based Organic Consumers Association, point to scientific evidence published back in 2013 showing that glyphosate, the primary active ingredient in Roundup, does, in fact, act upon enzymes in the human body contrary to what Monsanto claims. This research, entitled “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases,” is published in the peer-reviewed journal Entropy.

According to the paper, glyphosate’s inhibition of this important human enzyme, which also goes by the name of CYP, represents “an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals” because CYP’s role in human biologics is a critical one. For one, CYP’s purpose is to detoxify the body of xenobiotics, which is basically just a fancy word for describing any foreign chemical substance that’s not supposed to be in the body.

The paper goes on to explain how glyphosate’s interference with CYP manifests over time as a gradual buildup of inflammation throughout the body, including within the various cellular systems that support life. This interference with CYP, the paper explains, “acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport.”

The result? Serious chronic illness, including almost every major condition that people living in areas where Roundup is sprayed now suffer – conditions like gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, infertility, depression, autism, dementia, and cancer.

“It is now beyond any scientific doubt that glyphosate is extremely hazardous to human health,” explains the Health Ranger, lab science director of CWC Labs and producer of the Health Ranger Science podcast. “The mass poisoning of the food supply must be halted, or the costs to humanity and the ecosystem will be devastating.”

full abstract of this damning study is available to view online.

Fact: Monsanto has been LYING to the public for years about Roundup’s toxicity to humans

This is all a very stark detraction from the advertising claims long made by Monsanto that Roundup and glyphosate are completely safe, and that people shouldn’t be making such a big deal about them because doing so is just “anti-science.” Such an argument won’t fly anymore now that real scientific evidence conducted by independent scientists is proving, without a doubt, that Roundup is a serious threat to people and the environment.

This latest lawsuit intends to convey to the courts that Monsanto has been blatantly lying about this fact as it continues to rake in billions of dollars in profits based on false information. If the court agrees, such an indictment could – and should – lead to serious consequences for Monsanto, not the least of which include the company’s undoing. In a just world, Monsanto executives and anyone else complicit in perpetuating these lies, will also be prosecuted to the full extent of the law and sent to prison.

“Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets,” the suit definitively declares. “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers.”

Sources:

ActivistPost.com

EWG.org

MDPI.com

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Monsanto Sued About False, Misleading Roundup Ads


Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
April 14, 2017

Finally, Monsanto, the giant chemical company which produced Agent Orange and other horrendous environmental and health-damaging herbicides including its ‘star’ GMO-agriculture and harvest staging product Roundup®, has been sued alleging “it actively advertises and promotes its Roundup Products as targeting an enzyme ‘found in plants but not in people or pets’. These claims are false, misleading, and deceptive [1],” according to a draft of the complaint and lawsuit filed in Superior Court in the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).

The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs Beyond Pesticides (Washington, DC) and Organic Consumers Association (Finland, MN) due to “false and labeling of the company’s flagship product, Roundup herbicide.” [2]

The plaintiffs cite as scientific evidence the 2013 research study published by Samsel and Seneff in the journal Entropy “Glyphosate’s Suppression of Cytochrome P450 Enzymes and Amino Acid Biosynthesis by the Gut Microbiome: Pathways to Modern Diseases.” [3] The Abstract for that paper states:

Abstract:

Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup®, is the most popular herbicide used worldwide. The industry asserts it is minimally toxic to humans, but here we argue otherwise. Residues are found in the main foods of the Western diet, comprised primarily of sugar, corn, soy and wheat. Glyphosate’s inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes is an overlooked component of its toxicity to mammals. CYP enzymes play crucial roles in biology, one of which is to detoxify xenobiotics. Thus, glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body. Here, we show how interference with CYP enzymes acts synergistically with disruption of the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids by gut bacteria, as well as impairment in serum sulfate transport. Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease. We explain the documented effects of glyphosate and its ability to induce disease, and we show that glyphosate is the “textbook example” of exogenous semiotic entropy: the disruption of homeostasis by environmental toxins.   [CJF emphasis]

Plaintiffs allege, By deceiving consumers about the nature and effects of Roundup, Monsanto is able to sell a greater volume of Roundup, and to command a higher price for Roundup.” [1, Pg.2 (10)]

Furthermore, “Monsanto affirmatively states that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate is not found in people and pets, and fails to disclose to consumers the material information that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate, and the shikimate pathway it’s designed to inhibit, are found in people and pets.” [1, Pg.3 (13)]

Clauses 15, 16 and 17 allege:

  1. Monsanto intended for consumers, including consumers throughout the District of Columbia, to rely on its representations, and reasonable consumers did, in fact, so rely. As a result of its false and misleading labeling, and omission of fact, Monsanto was able to sell Roundup to the general public of the District of Columbia and realize sizeable profits.
  2. Monsanto’s false and misleading representations and omissions violate the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act (“DC CPPA”), D.C. Code §§ 28-3901, et seq.
  3. Because Monsanto’s labeling and advertising of Roundup tend to mislead and are materially deceptive about the true nature of the product, Plaintiffs bring this deceptive advertising case on behalf of the general public and seek equitable relief for the sale of Roundup Products in the District of Columbia.

In Complaint clause 56, we find something that may not be very surprising, “Monsanto omits the material fact that peer-reviewed scientific research studies have shown that the enzyme targeted by glyphosate in fact is present in human and animal gut bacteria.”

However, the crux of the lawsuit, in my opinion, can be found in clause 58, “Consumers have been deceived into believing that Roundup targets an enzyme found only in plants and not in people or pets.”  That allegation also should be filed against all federal government alphabet agencies involved in the ‘approval’ processes regarding safety and environmental impact studies, if any were done, prior to saturating the globe with an apparent disastrous herbicide, which now has become ubiquitous.

Its main active ingredient, glyphosate, has been found in ground, well and drinking water [6] sources—including human breast milk [6]; as residues in foods [4]; in vaccines [7]; and in 93% of urine samples tested [5].   Regarding human blood cells, erythrocytes (red blood cells that transport oxygen and carbon dioxide to and from human body tissues), this 2014 study about glyphosate’s effects explains “The results clearly show that the changes induced in the erythrocytes can occur only as a result of poisoning with these compounds,” apparently referring to glyphosate’s metabolites and their impurities.

Complaint clause 78 states, “Monsanto misrepresented the nature of Roundup and/or failed to adequately disclose the fact that Roundup’s key ingredient targets an enzyme found in the gut bacteria of people and pets, which was and is false, misleading, and/or likely to deceive reasonable consumers,” an apparent serious health hazard plus chronic-disease-inducing factor for unsuspecting consumers—something not only the legal and court systems in the USA have to address, but federal and state public health agencies everywhere in the world!

According to Seattle Organic Restaurants’ website, here are the top ten environmental and chemical harms that are Monsanto’s legacy:

  1. Low calorie sweeteners, aspartame and saccharine
  2. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)
  3. DDT
  4. Roundup
  5. Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH)
  6. Genetically Modified Crops (GMOs)
  7. Dioxin and Agent Orange
  8. Polystyrene
  9. Monsanto influence and domination over seeds and foods!
  10. Monsanto was involved in the Manhattan Project that produced the atom bomb and nuclear weapons of mass destruction!

Don’t you think the federal government should be called to account for approving such horrific toxic chemicals being allowed to be sold as part of consumer products?

The plaintiffs BP and OCA request a jury trial.  What do you think a jury of twelve Americans will do?

Will their decision depend upon how much Roundup® they use, since everyone probably thinks it’s as ‘safe’ as water?

How much Roundup® do you use?

Read More At: ActivistPost.com
__________________________________________________________________________

References:

[1] https://www.organicconsumers.org/sites/default/files/roundup_dc_complaint_final_1.pdf
[2] OCA Newsletter Organic Bytes, April 13, 2017 “Trouble in St. Louis?”
[3] http://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/15/4/1416/htm
[4] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carey-gillam/tests-show-monsanto-weed_b_12950444.html
[5] http://www.ecowatch.com/glyphosate-found-in-urine-of-93-percent-of-americans-tested-1891146755.html
[6] http://www.momsacrossamerica.com/glyphosate_testing_results
[7] http://www.activistpost.com/2016/09/another-vaccine-bombshell-glyphosate-think-monsantos-roundup-confirmed-in-most-vaccines.html

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available