By Anna Von Reitz
By Anna Von Reitz
Is the vaccine business a profitable industry? You bet!1 Many vaccine pushers like to promote the idea that vaccine profits are slim, hence there’s no financial incentive behind the push for vaccinations. Two years ago, the blog Skeptical Raptor, just to point to one example, stated that ” … [T]he Big Pharma vaccine profits conspiracy is still one of most amusing myths of the antivaccination world.”2
In reality, Pfizer’s Prevnar 133 vaccine (which protects against common strains of pneumonia) actually made more money than Lipitor or Viagra in 2015, both Pfizer top-selling drugs,4,5 and the 2018 revenues for Gardasil 9 was $3 billion according to CNBC.6
As noted by Financial Times,7 profits from Prevnar 13 shot up in 2015, reaching $6.25 billion, nearly three times more than Viagra that year, thanks to the U.S. government recommendation to start using it in seniors over 65 and not just children. “The success of Prevnar shows [vaccines] can be as lucrative as any drug,” the article states.8
When you have a profitable business, you want to nurture and protect it, and promote its sustained growth. That’s normal in the world of business. What’s not normal is enlisting government to mandate the use of your product while simultaneously preventing the sharing of bad reviews that might impact sales and/or force you to improve the safety or effectiveness of your product.
And that’s exactly what’s happening in the vaccine industry. In recent months, the push to censor negative press about vaccines has been outright shocking. The “justification” given is that “misinformation” about vaccines is preventing people from making sound medical decisions.
But make no mistake about it; what’s really happening here is that Big Pharma and government are blocking parents of vaccine-injured children from sharing their stories and letting the truth be known that there are risks involved. It’s really a showdown between a largely pharma-run government and parents of vaccine injured children — not government against creators of fake news.
There’s nothing fake about vaccine injuries. There’s also nothing fake about data, oftentimes obtained from government documents, that are unfavorable for the vaccine manufacturers. The current censorship is blocking out those real-world stores of injury, and important data demonstrating that government and industry are not telling the whole truth about what is known about vaccines.
Speaking at a recent event at the World Health Organization’s annual assembly, Seth Berkley, CEO of the Global vaccine alliance GAVI, stated that doubts about vaccines spread across social media “at the speed of light,” and that the spread of “misinformation about vaccines,” is “not a freedom of speech issue,” and that “social media firms need to take it offline” because “it kills people.”9
He also stated there’s “a strong scientific consensus about the safety of vaccines,” referring to the spread of negative vaccine information as “a disease.” It’s well worth remembering that GAVIs primary mission is to “shape markets for vaccines and other immunization products.” Clearly that will not be as easy if people understand the risks.
The WHO and U.S. government are founding partners of GAVI, the Vaccine Alliance. In 2000, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation provided $750 million in seed money to spearhead the creation of GAVI, a public-private partnership and multilateral funding mechanism involving the WHO, governments, the vaccine industry, the World Bank, philanthropic foundations and civil society groups to “improve access to new and underused vaccines for children living in the world’s poorest countries.”10
Since 2000, GAVI has raised more than $15 billion to vaccinate the world’s children. The single biggest funding source for GAVI is the Gates Foundation, which has donated more than $3 billion, or 20 percent of GAVI’s total income.11
Between 2000 and 2013, only about 10 percent of total funding provided by GAVI ($862 million) was used to actually strengthen health systems in developing countries, such as improving sanitation and nutrition, while nearly 80 percent was used to purchase, deliver and promote vaccines.12
Several of my recent articles have discussed the rapidly progressing effort to vilify (if not outright criminalize) those who express concerns about vaccine safety and to shut down free speech about vaccine harms in the U.S., along with increasingly tyrannical measures, forcing people to get vaccinated or face significant fines or jail time. Here’s a summary of some of the most prominent examples:
The World Health Organization lists “vaccine hesitancy” as one of the top 10 global public health threats for 2019.13
In a January interview with CBS News,14 Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) did not tell the truth when he flat-out denied the fact that vaccines can cause injury or death.
The fact is, the federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) created under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 has paid out $4 billion in awards for vaccine damages and deaths, and that’s just 31 percent of all the injury petitions filed.15,16
February 27, 2019, Fauci also did not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth to the U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations at its “Confronting a Growing Public Health Threat: Measles Outbreaks in the U.S.” hearing.17
In his sworn testimony, he claimed childhood vaccines like the MMR are completely safe and do not cause encephalitis (brain inflammation) before the parents in the audience audibly protested and he was prodded into quickly adding the word “rare.”18 The facts are:
a. The MMR vaccine package insert19 published by Merck states that “Encephalitis and encephalopathy have been reported approximately once for every 3 million doses of M-M-R II or measles-mumps- and rubella-containing vaccine.”
b. The vaccine information statement (VIS), which doctors by federal law (under the 1986 Vaccine Injury Act) are required to give parents before their children receive a CDC recommended vaccine, states that “severe” adverse effects of the MMR20 and MMRV21 vaccines include “deafness; long-term seizures; coma; lowered consciousness; and brain damage.” One of the “moderate” adverse events listed as associated with the MMRV vaccine is encephalitis.
c. Studies have shown the MMR vaccine can cause encephalitis and encephalopathy (acute or chronic brain dysfunction).22
d. As noted in a 2015 paper in the journal Vaccine:23
Dr. Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, also misinformed Congress when she stated, “There are rare instances in children with certain very specific underlying problems with their immune system in whom the vaccine is contraindicated.”
She lied when she said the MMR vaccine “does not cause brain swelling and encephalitis” in healthy children, and that parents would know if their child was at risk beforehand, because their child’s doctor would tell them if this were the case.24
In February 2019, FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb threatened state legislators with federal government intervention if they do not eliminate vaccine exemptions.25,26,27
California state Sen. Dr. Richard Pan, D-Sacramento, is urging the U.S. Surgeon General to push mandatory vaccinations to the top of the federal public health agenda.28,29 According to Pan, mandating vaccines, as was done for smallpox during the Revolutionary War, would “protect our right as Americans to be free of preventable diseases.”
In March 2019, a bill was introduced in Washington, D.C., allowing minor children of any age to get vaccines in the city without a parent’s knowledge or consent after a doctor says the child is “mature” enough to make the decision.30
March 27, 2019, Rockland County, New York, barred any infant, child or teen under the age of 18 who is not vaccinated against measles from entering “public places” until the state of emergency is lifted in 30 days or until they get an MMR shot. (A New York Supreme Court judge lifted the state of emergency April 5, saying the number of measles cases did not meet the legal requirement for an emergency order.)
April 9, 2019, health officials ordered residents in four Williamsburg, New York, zip codes — 11205, 11206, 11211, 11249 — to get vaccinated for measles within 48 hours or face a $1,000 fine or six months in jail.
April 25, 2019, Rockland county issued another emergency order that banned anyone with measles or who has come in contact with a measles case from appearing in public for up to 21 days or face a $2,000 per day fine.
May 12, 2019, KUTV reported Washington state will no longer accept a philosophical exemption from the MMR vaccine for children seeking to attend daycare or school.32
In recent months, media have also been flooded with reports of how tech platforms and social media are fueling “anti-vax” fears and spreading misinformation, and not doing everything possible to prevent sharing of vaccine safety-related material between users.33
Art Caplan, a bioethics professor and head of the division of medical ethics at New York University School of Medicine, has stated that “companies cannot allow themselves to be ‘vehicles for misinformation contagion,'” and must take steps to censor information that might lead people to avoid vaccination.34 In response:
YouTube has demonetized “anti-vaccine” channels, barring them from advertising on the platform.35
Facebook is “hiding” vaccine critical content and barring “ads that contain misinformation about vaccines.”36
Pinterest is blocking search terms related to vaccines, as well as “memes and pins from sites promoting anti-vaccine propaganda.”37
Amazon has removed films critical of vaccine safety from its Prime Video streaming service, including the award winning 2011 documentary “The Greater Good,”38,39 as well as books discussing vaccine risks and failures and/or biomedical and holistic health treatments for autism.40
Google is burying content and videos relating to vaccine safety issues.41
Instagram is blocking vaccine-related hashtags such as #vaccinescauseautism and any hashtag found to be “spreading misinformation” will be added to an ever-growing list of banned hashtags.42,43
To this ever-growing list we can now add Twitter, which on May 10, 2019, announced44 users searching for vaccine-related Tweets will immediately be directed to “a credible public health resource,” namely the vaccines.gov website, which is run by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
“Noncredible commentary and information about vaccines” will not be included in auto-suggested queries. Twitter is also planning on expanding this censorship tool to include “other important public health issues …”
And that’s the crux of the problem, isn’t it? Let’s face it, the censorship will not be restricted to vaccine information. There are many toxic but profoundly profitable industries out there, and before you know it, we won’t be allowed to read about any number of toxic and dangerous issues.
Even if, right now, you think it “might be a good idea” to restrict information about the risks and failures of vaccines, it won’t be long before the censorship train stops at your station and suppresses information you are interested in and need to know about to take control of your health. Censorship, which is a threat to freedom of thought, speech and conscience, is always a slippery slope.
If the vaccine thought police prevail today, tomorrow you easily could be prevented from reading or sharing information about another health topic near and dear to your heart — be it pollution, climate change, water fluoridation, toxic cosmetics, dangerous infant products, pesticide-contaminated and GMO-altered food or any number of other contentious issues that can impact an industry’s bottom line.
Once censorship takes root as an acceptable norm, there will be no end to it. The fact of the matter is, the federal government’s vaccines.gov website does not spell out the whole truth about what is known, scientifically, about vaccines. For example, in a May 16, 2019 post, The Highwire points out the fallacies proclaimed on vaccines.gov with regard to aluminum adjuvants in vaccines,45 and that’s just one example of many.
According to the vaccines.gov website, aluminum in vaccines is safe, stating that “For decades, vaccines that include aluminum have been tested for safety — these studies have shown that using aluminum is safe.”
In reality, aluminum has been used in vaccines for decades without any safety testing having been done. It has simply been assumed that aluminum was safe, because the addition of aluminum to vaccines provokes a stronger inflammatory response in an effort to create longer lasting artificial immunity.
However, as noted in a 2011 paper in Current Medicinal Chemistry, titled “Aluminum Vaccine Adjuvants: Are They Safe?”:46
“Experimental research … clearly shows that aluminum adjuvants have a potential to induce serious immunological disorders in humans. In particular, aluminum in adjuvant form carries a risk for autoimmunity, long-term brain inflammation and associated neurological complications and may thus have profound and widespread adverse health consequences.”
Or how about this 2018 study,47 which found high amounts of aluminum in the brains of autistic patients. According to the authors:
“The aluminium content of brain tissue in autism was consistently high. The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) ?g/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively.
These are some of the highest values for aluminium in human brain tissue yet recorded and one has to question why, for example, the aluminium content of the occipital lobe of a 15 year old boy would be 8.74 (11.59) ?g/g dry wt.?”
This study goes on to note that one known source of aluminum that children would be exposed to is vaccines, and that “their burgeoning use has been directly correlated with increasing prevalence of ASD.”
Another example of what the government’s vaccines.gov website isn’t telling you is the documented evidence48 that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been sitting on since 1978, showing the MMR vaccine causes gastrointestinal problems and upper respiratory infection in roughly HALF of all children.
This 1978 MMR vaccine’s licensing data were recently obtained via Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the Informed Consent Action Network.49 These documents raise several other safety questions as well. For example, they show that:
Does the vaccine.gov website tell you this about the MMR? No, it does not. Instead, this very real news, based on official documents from the FDA showing the actual science underpinning the licensing of this vaccine, is now labeled “noncredible vaccine commentary.”
The pro-vaccine lobby is very quick to label anyone who questions the safety of vaccines as “anti-science.” Yet, what most vaccine safety critics are trying to do is to reveal the science the pro-vaccine lobby doesn’t want to share with the public. So, just who are the science deniers?
The pro-vaccine lobby is working hard to get laws passed that will force everyone to use every vaccine the pharmaceutical industry produces and the federal government recommends. If forced vaccination lobbyists get their way, only studies confirming preconceived notions that all vaccines are safe and effective in all instances will be deemed “real science.” Everything else is “pseudoscience” or plain “misinformation.”
Not only is this censorship trend endangering public health by hiding reality, it’s also endangering the very foundation of the field of science by ushering in a highly-radicalized form of faith-based science, where you form an opinion and only allow studies that support that opinion to see the light of day. That’s already happening, but we’re bound to get much more of it if we continue down this path.
We cannot make sensible decisions about our health and that of our children when all we get is half the story. The video below, “Our Girls Are Not Rumors — Stories of the HPV (Gardasil) Vaccine,” is a perfect example of the devastation wrought by incomplete vaccine disclosures. Yet media, largely owned by Big Pharma, tries to write these real-world effects off as nothing but fake news.
According to the vaccine lobby, information highlighting the lack of safety is too dangerous to be read. You should just trust the vaccine industry, the makers of these lifesaving marvels.
The problem with that is that most of them have been found guilty in civil courts of engaging in unethical, even criminal, behavior. Why should we trust companies with shoddy ethics that engage in criminal behavior? In my view, this is an unreasonable demand.
Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and Baxter International have all graced AllBusiness’ Top 100 Corporate Criminals List, along with 13 other drug companies. For example, at the height of the bird flu pandemic of 2009, Baxter “mistakenly” mixed the lethal, live, biological weapon/virus, H5N1, with seasonal flu, then sent it to labs around Europe.
In the largest health care fraud settlement in history, Pfizer was ordered to pay $2.3 billion to resolve criminal and civil allegations that the company illegally promoted uses of four of its drugs, including the painkiller Bextra, and GlaxoSmithKline was found to have spent 11 years covering up trial data showing Avandia was a risky drug for the heart.
In 2012, Pharmaceutical-technology.com reported50 GlaxoSmithKline was in hot water again after a court in Argentina found the company mismanaged a Synflorix vaccine trial that killed 14 babies. Synflorix is a pediatric vaccine against pneumonia and meningitis, much like Pfizer’s blockbuster vaccine Prevnar. According to Pharmaceutical-technology.com:
“The firm was fined $93,000 for failing to obtain parental consent to conduct the trials on 15,000 Argentine babies, and an additional 9,000 babies from Colombia and Panama, between 2007 and 2008.
The children were recruited from poor families. Evidence from Argentina’s medical regulator said that, in some cases, GlaxoSmithKline pressured parents and grandparents to sign lengthy consent forms that they couldn’t understand … GlaxoSmithKline was also criticised [sic] by Judge Marcelo Aguinsky for keeping inadequate records of the children’s ages and medical histories.”
The sad truth is that GlaxoSmithKline’s “mismanagement” was not a one-off event. As reported by Collective-Evolution,51 while under oath, “Dr. Stanley Plotkin, known as one of the fathers of vaccines, reveals … testing vaccines on orphans, colonial ruled populations, babies whose mothers are in prison, and mentally handicapped children.” In a letter to the editor of “Ethics on Human Experimentation,” Plotkin wrote:
“The question is whether we are to have experiments performed on fully functioning adults and on children who are potentially contributors to society or to perform initial studies in children and adults who are human in form but not in social potential?”
A short outtake of his testimony covering these specific points is in the video above. The full nine-hour video testimony can be found on Youtube.52 I also suggest reading through “The 6 Top Thugs of the Medical World… As Ranked by ‘Top 100 Corporate Criminals List” for a general overview of the companies you’re being told to trust blindly and without question.
What we have here is a highly profitable vaccine industry, which has no civil liability for any of the health problems caused by the use of their products, that lobbies government to mandate vaccines, while simultaneously insisting on censoring criticism of vaccine safety and effectiveness, and blocking parents from publicly describing real-life experiences about how their healthy children were injured or died after vaccinations, and refusing to conduct well-designed scientific research that investigates evidence of harm.
The end result cannot be anything other than mounting public distrust, because this simply isn’t how honest corporations and industries who conduct business with transparency and integrity go about making a profit. There’s no need for censorship when you have nothing to hide and are willing to address shortcomings or product risks to ensure safety and effectiveness.
On top of it all, we now also have an up-cropping of self-appointed arbiters of truth and trustworthiness, such as NewsGuard — a company that right out of the gate failed to adhere to one of its own tenets of trustworthiness: transparency. From the outset, NewsGuard “declined to disclose” the size of its revenue stream in its U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing.53
You can learn more about NewsGuard and its funders in “Beware: New Plan to Censor Health Websites” and “Ghost in the Machine Part 6: Mainstream Media Censors News That Threatens Its Financial Interests.”
Bayer acquired Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion, a purchase Bayer CEO Werner Baumann said would further their goal of creating a leading agriculture company.1 Bayer is now the largest seed and pesticide company in the world, but it might not stay that way for long, as lawsuits mount against the chemical giant over Roundup herbicide’s cancer link.
At least 13,400 lawsuits have been filed from people who claim exposure to their glyphosate-containing Roundup caused them health problems, including cancer. The first three lawsuits have already ended in favor of the plaintiffs, leaving Bayer saddled with billions in damages — and that’s only the beginning.
Now some experts are calling Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto “the worst deal ever,”2 and the company is scrambling to appeal and trying to convince courts to toss out the lawsuits because U.S. regulatory agencies continue to side with industry and assert glyphosate is safe.3
In August 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Johnson — the first of the cases pending against the chemical company — claimed Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and the court agreed, ordering Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, an amount that was later reduced to $78 million.
Bayer asked the court to throw out the judgment in April 2019 and reverse the damages awarded because Johnson is near death.4 In the second case, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Bayer to pay more than $80 million.
The jury agreed that Edwin Hardeman’s repeated exposures to Roundup, which he used to kill weeds on his 56-acre property, not only played a role in his cancer diagnosis but also that the company did not warn consumers that the product carried a cancer risk.5
The case was particularly noteworthy because it was split into two phases, with jurors first finding the chemical to have caused the cancer on purely scientific grounds and the next phase finding that Bayer is liable for damages.6 Ultimately, Hardeman was awarded $75 million in punitive damages, $5.6 million in compensatory damages and $200,000 for medical expenses.7
The third case involved a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who claimed they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The pair had been using Roundup since the 1970s, stopping only a few years ago.
The jury heard 17 days of testimony and deliberated for less than two days before deciding in the Pilliods’ favor and ordering Bayer to pay $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages.8 As for what compelled the possibly-disastrous Monsanto acquisition in the first place, The Telegraph’s deputy business editor Ben Marlow states it was part arrogance and greed:9
“On one side was Bayer’s uber-ambitious new boss Werner Baumann, who seemed determined to start his promotion to the top job with an almighty bang, unveiling Germany’s biggest ever takeover, a mere four weeks into the job.
Meanwhile, his opposite number at Monsanto, Hugh Grant, had a mind-boggling $226m (£173m) in shares and severance pay resting on the merger. Perhaps that explains why the boards of both companies were prepared to overlook the financial and legal risks of the tie-up.”
The likelihood that Bayer will ultimately have to offer a settlement to the tens of thousands of people who say Roundup caused their cancer grows ever stronger — and the company is no stranger to settlements. Bayer and Johnson & Johnson recently agreed to settle more than 25,000 U.S. lawsuits alleging their blood thinner drug Xarelto causes uncontrollable bleeding, severe injury and death for $775 million.10
In the case of the glyphosate lawsuits, however, Bayer is not going down without a fight. Their latest argument is that the $2 billion jury award, along with pending lawsuits, should be thrown out because of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) favorable stance toward glyphosate.11
In their latest review of glyphosate, the EPA released a draft conclusion April 30, 2019, stating the chemical poses potential risks to mammals and birds that eat treated leaves, as well as risks to plants,12 but poses “no risks of concern” for people and “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”13
Reuters quoted one of Bayer’s lawyers, William Hoffman, who stated, “We have very strong arguments that the claims here are preempted … and the recent EPA registration decision is an important aspect of that defense.”
The news outlet continued, “Preemption is generally regarded as a ‘silver bullet defense’ because it stops claims across the board, said Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.”14
In stark contrast, in March 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) determined glyphosate to be a “probable carcinogen” based on evidence showing the popular weed-killing chemical can cause Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lung cancer in humans, along with “convincing evidence” it can also cause cancer in animals.
In 2015, following IARC’s glyphosate cancer ruling, the EPA, rather than taking immediate steps to protect Americans from this probable cancer-causing agent, decided to reassess its position on the chemical and, after doing so, released a paper in October 2015 stating that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.15
In April 2016, the EPA posted the report online briefly, before pulling it and claiming it was not yet final and posted by mistake. The paper was signed by Jess Rowland (among other EPA officials), who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC).
Email correspondence showed Rowland, who at the time was the EPA’s deputy division director of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention and chair of the Cancer Assessment Review Committee (CARC), helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), which is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), on Monsanto’s behalf.
In an email, Monsanto regulatory affairs manager Dan Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”16 referring to the ATSDR investigation, which was put off for years. The final draft conclusion is the report that was finally released in April 2019, stating the chemical “is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”17
Another internal email between Rowland and the late Marion Copley, a former EPA toxicologist, suggests Rowland colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate noncarcinogenic.
In Marion’s correspondence to Rowland, she cites more than a dozen reasons why she believes glyphosate to be carcinogenic, and states “it is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer” and “the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen.”18
She then pleads with Rowland to “for once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus,” continuing:19
“You and Anna Lowit [science advisor in the EPA’s Office of Pesticides] intimidated staff on CARC and changed HIARC [Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee] and HASPOC [Hazard and Science Policy Committee] final reports to favor industry.
Chelators [which glyphosate was originally designed to be] clearly disrupt calcium signaling, a key signaling pathway in all cells and mediates tumor progression.
Greg Ackerman [Branch Chief, Office of Pesticide Programs] is supposed to be our expert on mechanisms, but he never mentioned any of these concepts at CARC and when I tried to discuss it with him he put me off. Is Greg playing your political games as well, incompetent or does he have some conflict of interest of some kind?”
As the evidence of potential collusion between an EPA agency staffer and Monsanto grew, Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., requested that an investigation be conducted into whether such collusion took place. The inspector general responded in 2017, stating that he asked the EPA’s Office of Investigations (OIG) to “conduct an inquiry into several agency review-related matters.”20
The question now, two years later, is what were the findings from the investigation? The EPA’s OIG shows no mention of such a report on their news releases and inspector general statements page.21 Back in 2017, Bart Staes, a Belgian member of parliament, told HuffPost of increasing evidence relating to Monsanto’s manipulation of science and regulatory agencies:22
“We are now getting some written proof of collusion between scientists and Monsanto, which has these scientists like puppets on a string … More and more, the debate is about corporations controlling the science, and then this science is used by the regulators.”
Another example occurred in 2015, when Henry Miller, who was outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California, published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking IARC’s findings after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. Later it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto.
At Bayer’s annual general meeting in Bonn, Germany, 55.5% of shareholders voted against ratifying the management’s actions, in large part due to the Monsanto acquisition.23 Marlow called the move “a rare act of defiance in conservative Germany,” even though the vote was symbolic in nature only and won’t legally change anything.24
“But having forced through the Monsanto takeover without a vote,” Marlow added, “Bayer has already made it quite clear what it thinks of shareholders. Salvaging something from this ruinous deal will take a heroic act.”25
The next Bayer Roundup case will go to trial in August 2019. The plaintiff is Sharlean Gordon, who used Roundup for 15 years and was diagnosed with Non-Hodgkin lymphoma in 2006. The trial will take place in St. Louis, Missouri, just miles from Monsanto’s former world headquarters.
One of Gordon’s attorneys, Eric Holland, said that not only has the human toll been tremendous in this case, but Monsanto’s behavior is also atrocious. “This evidence against them, their conduct, is the most outrageous I’ve seen in my 30 years of doing this,” Holland said. “The things that have gone on here, I want St. Louis juries to hear this stuff.”26
If you’re curious how much glyphosate is in your body, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide. In order to avoid this chemical as much as possible, choose organic or biodynamic foods, and install a filter on your drinking water.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup herbicide, has been making headlines for its potential to cause cancer, but another serious disease has also been linked to this ubiquitous chemical: nonalchoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD), particularly the most advanced cases.
Staggering amounts of glyphosate have been applied worldwide in recent decades. Since 1974, for instance, more than 1.6 billion kilograms (or about 3.5 billion pounds) of glyphosate have been used in the U.S. alone, accounting for 19% of its overall usage worldwide.
Two-thirds of the total volume of glyphosate applied in the U.S. from 1974 to 2014 was applied in the last 10 years1 — a time during which rates of NAFLD also increased.
As more and more glyphosate has been sprayed on agricultural lands, parks and backyards, entering our food and water supplies, NAFLD rates have trended upward, from a prevalence of 15% in 2005 to 25% in 2010.2 Is there a connection? The answer increasingly appears to be yes.
Researchers from the University of California San Diego School of Medicine analyzed urine samples from 93 patients who had been diagnosed with NAFLD.
Those with a more severe form of NAFLD called nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, or NASH, had significantly higher residues of glyphosate in their urine, an association that held true regardless of other factors in liver health, such as body mass index, diabetes status, age or race.3,4
That exposure to glyphosate may lead to more severe forms of liver disease is concerning, since those with NASH are at increased risk of liver cirrhosis, liver cancer and higher liver-related and non-liver-related mortality than the general population.5
In a UC San Diego news release, lead study author Paul J. Mills, Ph.D., explained “There have been a handful of studies, all of which we cited in our paper, where animals either were or weren’t fed Roundup or glyphosate directly, and they all point to the same thing: the development of liver pathology. So I naturally thought: ‘Well, could it be exposure to this same herbicide that is driving liver disease in the U.S.?’”6
According to Mills, “The increasing levels [of glyphosate] in people’s urine very much correlates to the consumption of Roundup treated crops into our diet,”7 although he acknowledged that we’re exposed to many synthetic chemicals on a regular basis, and the study only measured one. Still, it’s not the first time glyphosate has been linked to problems with liver health, including NAFLD and NASH.
A number of animal studies have linked glyphosate to liver damage, including one that dates back to 1979, which showed the chemical could disrupt mitochondria in rat livers.8
Glyphosate is also known to trigger the production of reactive oxygen species, leading to oxidative stress. As noted in Scientific Reports, “Elevation in oxidative stress markers is detected in rat liver and kidney after subchronic exposure to GBH [glyphosate-based herbicides] at the United States permitted glyphosate concentration of 700??g/L in drinking water.”9,10
Researchers from King’s College London also showed an “ultra low dose” of glyphosate-based herbicides was damaging.11 The study involved glyphosate exposures of 4 nanograms per kilogram of body weight per day, which is 75,000 and 437,500 times below EU and U.S. permitted levels, respectively.12
After a two-year period, female rats showed signs of liver damage, specifically NAFLD and progression to NASH. The authors noted that glyphosate may bring about toxic effects via different mechanisms, depending on the level of exposure, including possibly mimicking estrogen and interfering with mitochondrial and enzyme function.
“Glyphosate is also a patented antibiotic (Patent No.: US 7771736),” the researchers said, “and can inhibit the growth of susceptible bacteria by inhibition of the shikimate pathway and could cause dysbiosis in the gastrointestinal tract,” and added:13
“Our observations may have human health implication since NAFLD is predicted to be the next major global epidemic. Approximately 20-30% of the population in the United States carry extra fat in their livers. NAFLD is associated with the recent rapid rise in the incidence of diabetes, obesity, and metabolic syndrome.
Overall, it is acknowledged that NAFLD is mostly caused by excess caloric intake, but also from the consumption of processed foods … as well as sedentary lifestyles.
However, many suffer from NAFLD but which do not have any high risk factors and thus other contributors to disease, such as exposure to physiologically active environmental pollutants via contaminated food, cannot be excluded.”
NAFLD is the most common chronic liver disease in developed countries,14 characterized by a buildup of excess fat in your liver that is not related to heavy alcohol use. NAFLD can progress to NASH, which involves inflammation of the liver and liver cell damage in addition to the buildup of fat.15
People with NASH may go on to develop fibrosis, or scarring, of the liver, as well as cirrhosis of the liver, which in turn is linked to an increased risk of liver cancer (rates of liver cancer have been increasing over the last two decades).16,17
NAFLD often has no symptoms, although it may cause fatigue, jaundice, swelling in the legs and abdomen, mental confusion and more. In the early stages, NAFLD may be reversed by careful attention to diet and exercise, and choline intake may also play a significant role.
Choline, an essential nutrient, supports normal liver function and liver health, helping it to maintain membrane integrity and manage cholesterol metabolism, including low density lipoproteins (LDL) and very low density lipoproteins (VLDL), helping to move fat out of your liver.18,19
By enhancing secretion of VLDL in your liver, required to safely transport fat out, choline may protect your liver health.20 An estimated 90 percent of the U.S. population is deficient in choline.21 You can increase your intake by consuming more choline-rich foods, such as organic pastured egg yolks, grass fed beef liver, wild-caught Alaskan salmon and krill oil. Arugula is also an excellent source.
In the case of NAFLD, glyphosate may be one contributing factor, but diet is another. With NAFLD, the fatty liver occurs in the absence of significant alcohol consumption, and is driven instead by excess sugar, which is why this condition is now found even in young children.
Most importantly, you need to eliminate processed fructose and other added sugars from your diet. Fructose affects your liver in ways that are very similar to alcohol. Unlike glucose, which can be used by virtually every cell in your body, fructose can only be metabolized by your liver, as your liver is the only organ that has the transporter for it.
Since all fructose gets shuttled to your liver, if you consume high amounts of it, fructose ends up taxing and damaging your liver in the same way alcohol and other toxins do. The way your liver metabolizes fructose is also very similar to that of alcohol,22 as both serve as substrates for converting carbohydrates into fat, which promotes insulin resistance, dyslipidemia (abnormal fat levels in the bloodstream) and fatty liver.
Fructose also undergoes the Maillard reaction with proteins, leading to the formation of superoxide free radicals that can result in liver inflammation similar to acetaldehyde, an intermediary metabolite of ethanol. Reducing carbs to 50 grams for every 1,000 calories and increasing your intake of healthy fats is a powerful way to support your liver health.
In the video below, Dr. David Unwin, a low-carb advocate in the U.K., discusses the health improvements patients in his practice have experienced in liver function (and Type 2 diabetes) as they follow a low-carbohydrate diet.
Aside from NAFLD, glyphosate’s link to cancer continues to grow stronger as the first three lawsuits alleging the chemical caused the plaintiffs’ cancer have been ruled in the victims’ favor. In August 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson, who claimed Roundup caused his Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Monsanto was ordered to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, although the award was later reduced to $78 million.
In a second case, a judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Bayer to pay more than $80 million to Edwin Hardeman, who claimed repeated exposures to Roundup, which he used to kill weeds on his 56-acre property, were responsible for his cancer diagnosis.23
The third case involved a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, who claimed they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. The pair had been using Roundup since the 1970s, stopping only a few years ago.
The jury heard 17 days of testimony and deliberated for less than two days before deciding in the Pilliods’ favor and ordering Bayer to pay $2 billion in punitive and compensatory damages.24
At least 13,400 lawsuits are still looming from people who claim exposure to Roundup herbicide caused them health problems, including cancer. If the science continues to support a link between glyphosate and NAFLD, it’s very possible that another round of lawsuits could come down on Bayer due to the chemical’s toxic legacy.
Bayer was even caught making a hit list, after French media raised accusations about Monsanto’s 2016 “stakeholder mapping project.” Monsanto had compiled lists of supportive and critical stakeholders, including personal information including their addresses and opinions in relation to Monsanto, which may have violated both ethical principles and legal regulations.25
Just how much glyphosate is the average individual getting, if they’re eating a primarily processed nonorganic food diet every single day of the week? No one knows at this point, but the evidence suggesting liver disease may occur, even from very low doses, should have public officials scrambling to find out. Glyphosate has been detected in everything from drinking water to Cheerios cereal to disposable diapers.26
The best way to reduce your exposure is to choose organic or biodynamic foods as much as possible. Interestingly, the authors of the featured study plan to put patients on an organic diet for several months, which would presumably lower their exposure to glyphosate and other chemicals, to see how it affects biomarkers of liver disease.27
If you want to find out how much glyphosate is in your body, the Health Research Institute (HRI) in Iowa developed the glyphosate urine test kit, which will allow you to determine your own exposure to this toxic herbicide.
While honoring the troops on Memorial Day is a heartfelt and respectful endeavor, we must do so by protecting those who have not yet sacrificed their lives.
By Carey Wedler,
Every Memorial Day, Americans pay their respects to soldiers who have died while fighting for the US military. Though the good intentions and courage of those who enlist in the armed forces are admirable, the best way to honor those individuals on this holiday—and every day—is to stop sending them to war.
Scaling back the size and scope of military programs is not only respectful to troops but also a necessary measure to preserve liberty and freedom.
This pro-peace sentiment is often conflated with disrespect for the troops: If you don’t support the government’s wars, you must not support the soldiers fighting in them. However, considering the great cost to human life inflicted by military conflicts—the immense suffering soldiers, their families, and civilians in battleground countries endure—scaling back the size and scope of military programs is not only the best way to respect the troops but also a necessary measure to preserve liberty and freedom.
Though America was founded on the principles of limited government and skepticism of the state, popular political discourse and the politicians who perpetuate it too often fail to apply this wise distrust to militarism, which is an extension of government. Indeed, Memorial Day was established following the Civil War, where as many as 750,000 Americans died fighting each other on behalf of their splintered governments.
According to one 2015 estimate by PBS, over 1.1 million Americans have died fighting in wars throughout US history. In recent decades, especially, these wars have been spurred by state corruption. As General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower cautioned when he left office in 1961, observing the build-up of the defense industry following World War II:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
In the subsequent years, an arms industry dependent upon government funds grew bigger and increasingly powerful, gobbling up taxpayer dollars in the form of deals with the Department of Defense. In September 2018 alone, Boeing received 20 contracts worth $13.7 billion. In November 2018, Lockheed Martin scored a nearly $23 billion contract for F-35 jets. As with all big government programs, inefficiency, waste, and corruption have plagued this state-subsidized industry.
From the military paying $300,000 for coffee mugs or a projected $1.5 trillion over 55 years for Lockheed’s notoriously faulty F-35s, there are hardly any better examples of the perils of intrusive government than the current military establishment. In one instance, the Pentagon could not account for over $21 trillion dollars in “unsupported journal voucher adjustments,” a term that “refers to improperly documented accounting adjustments that are made when different financial ledgers do not match,” as the New York Times explains.
Further, a 2018 analysis by Neta Crawford, a Boston University professor of political science, found that by the end of fiscal year 2019, the US government will have spent $4.9 trillion dollars on wars since 9/11. This is particularly tragic when considering that all of the economic investment and human energy and innovation that goes into waging wars and sowing destruction could be better and more productively applied to peaceful endeavors that increase prosperity.
As former Congressman Ron Paul has said,
War is never economically beneficial except for those in position to profit from war expenditures.
Unsurprisingly, following President Trump’s airstrikes in Syria in 2017, for example, defense stocks spiked. Any company that is dependent upon government handouts and favors for success is not fit for competition in a truly free market, and perpetuating this paradigm, which drives a manufactured demand for violent conflict, does a dishonor not only to our founding principles but also to the troops we are told have died for them.
The consequences of America’s addiction to militarism and interventionism are not just economic. Troops are shipped overseas on multiple tours, experiencing trauma that often stays with them for a lifetime. The rate of veteran suicides remains staggeringly high. Though current death tolls from ongoing wars in the Middle East (6,900 troops had died fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of 2018) may seem small in comparison to the 58,220 American soldiers who died during the Vietnam War or the staggering figures from the Civil War, most Americans who profess to support the troops would likely agree that even one death is one too many. This is to say nothing of the soldiers injured, often permanently, in wars or the high numbers of civilian deaths and displacements in the countries plagued by intervention.
The urgency of this quite literal life-or-death situation is further highlighted by the US government’s continual saber-rattling. Whether some political leaders are hinting at the possibility of military intervention in Venezuela or the Pentagon is suggesting sending 120,000 additional troops to the Middle East over sensationalized fears about the Iranian threat, war is always looming—and so is potential lost life. Ultimately, though politicians assure us these wars are for our safety or the good of mankind, they serve to expand government power, costing us dearly in life and treasure.
Ron Paul—a powerful voice for peace—received markedly more contributions from members of the military than any other candidate.
While honoring the troops on Memorial Day is a heartfelt and respectful endeavor, we must do so by protecting those who have not yet sacrificed their lives. And it seems they would appreciate our doing so: in the 2012 presidential election, Ron Paul—perhaps the most powerful voice for peace in a generation—received markedly more contributions from members of the military than any other candidate.
Honoring the troops in this way also honors our most cherished principles. As Paul, who often criticizes the unconstitutionality of modern wars, warned lawmakers just two weeks after 9/11:
How many American troops are we prepared to lose? How much money are we prepared to spend? How many innocent civilians, in our nation and others, are we willing to see killed? How many American civilians will we jeopardize? How much of our civil liberties are we prepared to give up? How much prosperity will we sacrifice?
By Honest Paws,
Have you ever taken a look at the potential adverse reactions associated with your pet’s conventional medications? Trust us when we say it’s pretty scary. Possible kidney failure from seizure medicine. Relief from chronic pain but at the risk of severe gastrointestinal issues. Potential liver damage from just about any drug you can think of. The list goes on. Therefore, it only makes sense that pet owners actively began seeking out all natural alternatives for their furry companion’s ailments. However, it couldn’t be just any supplement. The alternative had to not only be safe, but equally effective. That’s where CBD oil comes into play.
Every day, more and more people are using CBD (Cannabidiol). CBD oil is changing the ways in which individuals can manage and treat their own health conditions. It was only a matter of time before pet owners began to consider whether CBD oil could also serve their four-legged friends.
If you haven’t already heard, we are thrilled to be the ones to share the news. CBD oil can be safe for dogs and cats. While this may seem like a recent study, it’s far from it. In fact, experts have been researching its effects on animals for well over three decades, yet only in the past five years has CBD oil become readily available for purchasing.
With the enormous hype surrounding CBD oil and the conversation growing every day, there are a few important facts that pet owners must be aware of. The good news that comes along with the supplement gaining so much attention is that it is available for purchase with a click of a button. Unfortunately, that also presents potential bad news. We’ll explain.
You see, with the growing popularity comes certain CBD companies producing products with one thing in mind: money. Many companies are developing CBD oil and CBD treats that are far from what we consider to be the necessary standards. This is concerning for a number of reasons. For starters, purchasing CBD oil that isn’t of the highest quality is a waste of money. Plain and simple. However, perhaps more troubling is that when the product doesn’t end of working (which will inevitably be the case), pet owners are left no choice other than to resort back to using conventional medications.
Luckily, there are a few essential ways to ensure that you are purchasing the best CBD oil possible.
First and foremost, the CBD oil that you purchase for your dogs and cats must be hemp extract derived from the hemp plant. In most states, this won’t be an issue due to the fact that CBD derived from the marijuana plant is still not legally sold. However, if you live in a state like California and choose to purchase CBD from your local dispensary, make sure that you only buy hemp derived CBD. CBD derived from the other species of the cannabis sativa plant (marijuana) will contain trace amounts of THC. While THC certainly has its medical benefits for people, it isn’t safe for canines or felines, even in small amounts.
To learn more about the key differences between THC and CBD and additional benefits of hemp oil products, click here.
Next, it is imperative that the CBD oil that you purchase is all natural, all the time. This means that the hemp product was not treated with any pesticides, fungicides, or solvents. Think about it. The reason why pet owners are avoiding conventional medications is because they are chemically-based and, therefore, can cause a slew of adverse reactions. Yet, if you are treating your pet’s ailments with hemp treated with chemicals, it is essentially negating the purpose of choosing an all natural alternative.
Additionally, in order to ensure you are purchasing the very best CBD oil, ask to see the company’s Certificate of Analysis(CoA). Any reputable CBD brand should be able to easily provide it. The Certificate of Analysis shows an in-depth lab report of exactly how much CBD their product contains. It proves that the product has not only been lab tested, but is actually something that you want to buy. Some companies are marketing their product as being CBD oil, yet it only contains trace amounts of CBD. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Ensuring the CBD levels are up to the necessary standards is an essential way to make sure your pet benefits from the hemp plant.
Furthermore, it is important for pet owners to understand the differences between CBD isolate and full spectrum CBD and how the different extraction methods can truly alter the ways in which it benefits your pet.
It was once believed that CBD isolate reigned supreme over full spectrum CBD. Experts thought that CBD isolate was a concentrated, more potent version of the cannabis plant. However, this thought process was proved incorrect in a 2015 study that showed full spectrum CBD has substantially greater effects on the body as it contains strains that work together for stronger, longer lasting relief.
With the information widely available regarding full spectrum CBD versus CBD isolate, you may want to ask yourself why so many companies are choosing to use the latter. The answer is simple. It’s cheaper for the CBD company. Therefore, companies can use the cheaper CBD (CBD isolate) and compete with the prices of companies using full spectrum CBD all while profiting at substantially higher rates. It’s one of the unfortunate truths that come with the rise in popularity of a product like CBD.
Furthermore, companies that are using CBD isolate are not going to be forthcoming with the information. Therefore, it is imperative that pet owners know to ask for the Certificate of Analysis. The lab test will show exactly what form of CBD their product contains. We highly recommend only purchasing full spectrum CBD oil.
To learn more about CBD isolate and full spectrum CBD, click here.
This may go without saying, but it is extremely important to only give your cats and dogs CBD oil products from hemp extract that are formulated for animals. If you own a vape pen, do not blow the smoke into your pet’s face or ears. It will not get them high and can ultimately cause irritation and harm. Vaping CBD is fine for people, but certainly not for our animals.
When it comes to CBD oil, you truly get what you pay for. Due to the high demand and even higher amount of competition, you may find price points that vary quite a bit. We encourage our readers to ask themselves why this may be the case. Is the cheaper CBD oil using full spectrum CBD? Likely not. Is the company able to provide a Certificate of Analysis? Is the product really something that you want to give to your beloved furry companion?
In the same breath, it is important for pet owners to understand that CBD oil should be affordable. Like most great things in life, CBD oil works best with consistency. Therefore, purchasing an extremely expensive product but not being able to continue with providing the supplement ultimately isn’t the best use of your money. CBD oil from Honest Paws will cost pet owners roughly $2 a day. That’s less than a trip to Starbucks.
We know that your dogs and cats mean the world to you. Here at Honest Paws, we are all animal lovers. Therefore, we know just how daunting a trip to the veterinarian can be. Medications you’ve never heard of. Tests and examines you can’t pronounce. Not to mention, the price tag on it all. Sadly, most traditional veterinarians still won’t recommend CBD oil over conventional drugs. When it comes to CBD oil, you have nothing to lose and truly everything to gain.
At the end of the day, we know that you want the very best for your furry friend and, in our humble opinion, that should mean only the very best CBD oil. That means oil solely derived from hemp, all natural 100% of the time, lab tested, and full spectrum. If your thoughts align with ours, look no further than CBD oil from Honest Paws. The oil comes in tincture form rather than in capsules and makes it easy for pet owners to have total control over how much product their four-legged friend receives. Additionally, the CBD treats from Honest Paws contain only the best ingredients.
Pope Francis recently called for global governance to fight climate change, asserting, “The nation state cannot be considered as an absolute.”
During an address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, the Pope condemned “growing nationalism that neglects the common good” and called for more globalism.
“The nation state cannot be considered as an absolute, as an island with respect to the surrounding context,” he said, adding, “The nation state is no longer able to procure the common good of its populations alone.”
(Zero Hedge) You’d think they would have learned after the Covington fiasco…
The post Fake Trump Quote Goes Viral After Left-Wing Journos Mindlessly Retweet appeared on Stillness in the Storm.