Sandra Finley

May 172019
 

Thanks to Grant for sending in:

– – – — —

Written by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Story at-a-glance

  • August 10, 2018, a jury ruled in favor of plaintiff Dewayne Johnson in a truly historic case against Monsanto. Jurors found Monsanto was responsible for “negligent failure” by not warning consumers about the carcinogenicity of Roundup
  • The jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, $33 million of which was for noneconomic pain and suffering. In October, the judge upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the total award to $78 million
  • Bayer/Monsanto appealed. In its appellate brief, the company asks for reversal of the damages awarded based on the fact that Johnson is near death
  • Recent research shows glyphosate has multi-generational effects. Pregnant rats exposed to half of the no-observed-adverse-effect-level of glyphosate established by the European Food Safety Authority between the eighth and 14th day of gestation had offspring with higher rates of birth defects, obesity, and diseases of the kidneys, prostate, testes, ovaries and mammary glands (breasts)
  • Third generation males had a 30% higher rate of prostate disease than the controls, while third generation females had a 40% higher rate of kidney disease. Cancer increased in second-generation rats but not in the first and third generations

August 10, 2018, a jury found Monsanto (now owned by Bayer AG1,2) had “acted with malice or oppression” and was responsible for “negligent failure” by not warning consumers about the carcinogenicity of its weed killer, Roundup.3,4 The plaintiff in this historic case was 46-year-old Dewayne Johnson, who is dying from Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Johnson sprayed about 150 gallons of Roundup 20 to 40 times per year while working as a groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District in California, from 2012 through late 2015.5 His lawsuit, filed in 2016 after he became too ill to work, accused Monsanto of hiding the health hazards of Roundup.

The jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million in damages to Johnson, $33 million of which was noneconomic damages for pain and suffering. In October, the judge upheld the guilty verdict but reduced the total award to $78 million.6,7,8

Monsanto/Bayer Wants Damages Reduced on Grounds That Plaintiff Is Near Death

As expected, Bayer/Monsanto appealed. What’s shocking is the company’s argument for significantly reducing the damage amount further. In its appellate brief,9 the company asks for reversal of the damages awarded based on the fact that Johnson is near death. On page 87, the appeal states:10

“A jury may award future noneconomic damages only for pain and suffering that a plaintiff is reasonably certain to experience based on his ‘projected life span at the time of trial’ …

[‘[D]amages for future pain and suffering are based upon plaintiff’s probable life expectancy in his or her injured condition … [C]ompensation for pain and suffering is recompense for pain and suffering actually experienced, and to the extent that premature death terminates the pain and suffering, compensation should be terminated’] …

An award is excessive if it ‘suggest[s] the jury was influenced by improper considerations’ … At closing argument, Plaintiff’s counsel ignored these principles. He implored the jury to award $1 million per year for both past and future noneconomic damages, and asserted that Plaintiff ‘will live between two more to 33 years.’

In so doing, Plaintiff’s counsel urged the jury to disregard the evidence presented through his medical expert, Dr. Nabhan, that Plaintiff would not live past December 2019, or roughly one and a half years after trial …

He then asked for $33 million in future noneconomic damages: ‘[I]f he lives for only two years, then the remaining years that he doesn’t get to live is also a million dollars. So it doesn’t matter if he dies in two years or dies in 20 … [H]e deserves that money’ … [asking jury to award $33 million in future noneconomic damages based on Plaintiff’s ‘potential life expectancy over the years he won’t live’ … ]).

And the jury awarded Plaintiff exactly what his lawyer requested: $33 million in future noneconomic damages … The court posed two questions for the parties to address at argument:

‘Is the $33 million award for future non- economic damages based on Plaintiff’s argument to award $1 million for each year of lost life expectancy? If so, is this award improper as a matter of law?’ Yet the trial court declined to follow this line of inquiry to its inevitable conclusion …

Dr. Kuzel also suggested that Plaintiff ‘could be cured of this disease and live his normal life expectancy.’ But even under this hypothetical … the jury had no basis to award damages for pain and suffering occurring after Plaintiff was cured … In sum, the court should reverse the award of future noneconomic damages because that award is not supported by the evidence of Plaintiff’s projected life expectancy at the time of trial.”

The company is essentially guilty of killing Johnson 33 years before his time, if you assume he’d have a normal life span of 79, and now Bayer wants reduced damages because he’s only got less than two years to live! It’s a new low even for Monsanto, and clear proof of the company’s callous disregard for human life.

Second Lawsuit Ends in Guilty Verdict and $80 Million in Damages

March 19, 2019, a U.S. jury ruled Roundup was a substantial causative factor in the cancer of a second plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman.11,12 Judge Vince Chhabria had approved Monsanto’s motion to divide the trial into two phases, the first phase limiting evidence to that relating to causation only.

In the second phase, jurors heard evidence related to liability. March 27, 2019, the jury found Monsanto had acted with negligence and awarded Hardeman $80 million in damages, including $75 million in punitive damages.13

A third case against Monsanto (Stevick et al v. Monsanto) was originally slated to go to trial May 20, 2019. However, Chhabria recently vacated the trial date and ordered Monsanto/Bayer to begin mediation with all remaining plaintiffs in the federal multidistrict litigation overseen by him — some 800 in all.14 Aside from these, Monsanto faces roughly 11,000 additional plaintiffs who claim Roundup caused their Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.15

Plaintiffs Request Restraining Order Against Monsanto Advertising

In another Roundup trial, this one in Alameda County Superior Court of California, a married couple, Alva and Alberta Pilliod, claim they both developed Non-Hodgkin lymphoma after regular use of Roundup. As reported by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK):16

“Plaintiffs’ attorney Mike Miller asked judge Winifred Smith to issue a temporary restraining order against Monsanto for heavy advertising the company has been doing in defense of the safety of its herbicides, including a full-page ad in the Wall Street Journal on March 25, the day the voir dire for jury selection in the Pilliod case began.”

Monsanto’s legal team countered saying The Miller Firm has engaged in its own ad campaign in an effort to add more clients for its Roundup litigation. The firm also published an ad in the San Francisco Chronicle seven days before the Pilliod case began, in which they claimed Roundup exposure could double or triple the risk of Non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

Monsanto also argued 2,187 anti-Roundup ads have aired on TV and radio between December 1, 2018 and March 21, 2019 in the San Francisco market. In the end, Judge Smith denied the plaintiffs’ request to stop Monsanto from advertising Roundup as having 40 years of safe product use and science proving its safety.

Monsanto Documents Reveal Close Relationship With Reuters Reporter

In related news, documents unearthed during the many lawsuits against Monsanto (colloquially and collectively known as The Monsanto Papers17) reveal the company enlisted Reuters reporter Kate Kelland in its attempts to discredit the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), after IARC scientists reclassified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen in 2015.18,19 Investigative reporter for USRTK, Carey Gillam, writes:20

“Not only did Kelland write a 2017 story that Monsanto asked her to write in exactly the way Monsanto executive Sam Murphey asked her to write it (without disclosing to readers that Monsanto was the source), but now we see evidence21 that a draft of a separate story Kelland did about glyphosate was delivered to Monsanto before it was published, a practice typically frowned on by news outlets … The final version22 was published on April 13, 2017.”

Another email 23 suggests Monsanto was involved in the crafting at least two other Kelland reports that were critical of the IARC, including her “Special Report: How the World Health Organization’s Cancer Agency Confuses Consumers”24 story, published in April, 2016. According to Gillam, Kelland also “helped Monsanto drive a false narrative about cancer scientist Aaron Blair in his role as head of the IARC working group that classified glyphosate as a probable carcinogen.”

Internal company correspondence shows Murphey sent the narrative and talking points he wanted her to use and cover, including portions of a deposition Blair had given that was not filed in court. Kelland published the story,25 citing “court documents” as her source, when the source was in fact Monsanto.

“By falsely attributing the information as based on court documents she avoided disclosing Monsanto’s role in driving the story,” Gillam writes,26 adding, “When the story came out, it portrayed Blair as hiding ‘important information’ that found no links between glyphosate and cancer from IARC.

Kelland wrote that a deposition showed that Blair ‘said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis’ even though a review of the actual deposition shows that Blair did not say that. Kelland provided no link to the documents she cited, making it impossible for readers to see for themselves how far she veered from accuracy.”

This story was widely used by Monsanto in its efforts to discredit IARC and strip them of U.S. funding. Gillam adds, “On a personal note, I spent 17 years as a reporter at Reuters covering Monsanto and I am horrified at this violation of journalistic standards.”

According to Gillam, Reuters editor Mike Williams and ethics editor Alix Freedman both stand by Kelland’s story on Blair and have refused to issue a correction, to which she says, “It is particularly noteworthy that Alix Freedman is the same person who told me I was not allowed to write about many independent scientific studies of Monsanto’s glyphosate that were showing harmful impacts.”

EPA Is Just Another Monsanto Captured Agency

Emails and internal documents also show high-ranking officials at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have colluded with and protected Monsanto’s interests by manipulating and preventing key investigations into glyphosate’s cancer-causing potential. In other words, taxpayers’ money has been used to shield Monsanto from liability and obstruct consumers’ ability to prove damages.

Monsanto has defended Roundup’s safety in court by leaning on a 2016 EPA report that found glyphosate is “not likely to be carcinogenic” to humans.27 At the time, Jess Rowland was the deputy division director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Health Effects Division,28 and Rowland was a key author of that report.

The EPA’s conclusion, which runs counter to the IARC’s determination that glyphosate is probably carcinogenic, met with severe criticism — so much so, a scientific advisory panel was recently convened to evaluate the strength of the EPA’s decision. According to some of the members on this panel, the EPA violated its own guidelines by discounting and downplaying data from studies linking glyphosate to cancer.29

Email correspondence between EPA toxicologist Marion Copley and Rowland suggest Rowland colluded with Monsanto to find glyphosate noncarcinogenic.30,31 Copley cited evidence showing glyphosate is toxic to animals and accused Rowland of playing “political conniving games with the science” to help Monsanto. Rowland also warned Monsanto of the IARC’s determination months before it was made public,32 giving the company time to plan its defense strategy.

Email correspondence also showed Rowland 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, on Monsanto’s behalf.

In an email, Jenkins recounts a conversation he’d had with Rowland, in which Rowland said, “If I can kill this I should get a medal,”33,34 referring to the ATSDR investigation.

In correspondence35 between Daniel Jenkins, Monsanto’s manager for regulatory affairs, and Monsanto chief scientist William Heydens, Jenkins also confirms that Monsanto indeed had far more reason to worry about the ATSDR than the EPA, as the ATSDR had a reputation of being “VERY conservative and IARC like,” and “hazard based.”

Rowland Wasn’t the Only EPA Official Working on Monsanto’s Behalf

In a 2017 Huffington Post article,36 Gillam cites evidence showing Rowland was not acting alone. Other high-ranking EPA officials that also appear to have worked on Monsanto’s behalf include Jim Jones, assistant administrator for the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, who oversaw the EPA’s OPP, “a presidential appointee who carried significant clout,” Gillam writes,37 and OPP director Jack Housenger.

“Rather than encourage and assist the toxicology review of glyphosate, Monsanto and EPA officials repeatedly complained to ATSDR and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] that such a review was unnecessarily ‘duplicative’ and should take a back seat to an EPA review also underway,” Gillam writes.38

In her article, she presents a day-by-day timeline of correspondence (with links to the documents in question) taking place between May 19, 2015 and October 23, 2015, at which point the ATSDR review was “fully on hold.”

New Study Shows Glyphosate Causes Multigenerational Health Damage

In other related news, Washington State University researchers report39 glyphosate has multigenerational effects. Said to be the first study of its kind, the researchers found pregnant rats exposed to glyphosate between the eighth and 14th day of gestation had offspring with higher rates of birth defects, obesity and diseases of the kidneys, prostate, testes, ovaries and mammary glands (breasts).

Third generation rats also had significantly higher rates of certain pathologies. For example, third generation males had a 30% higher rate of prostate disease than the controls, while third generation females had a 40% higher rate of kidney disease.

One-third of second generation females also ended up having difficult births, and 2 in 5 third-generation rats were obese. Remarkably, the dose used (25 mg/kg of bodyweight per day) was half the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (50 mg/kg/day) established by the European Food Safety Authority in 2015.40,41

Cancer increased in second generation rats but not in the first and third generations. Curiously, delayed puberty affected first and second generation males, but not the third generation males, while in females puberty was delayed only in the second generation. According to the authors: 42

“The current study provides the first analysis of potential transgenerational impacts of glyphosate in mammals. The exposure of a gestating female directly exposes the F0 generation female, the F1 generation offspring, and the germline within the F1 generation offspring that will generate the F2 generation grand-offspring.

Therefore, the first transgenerational generation is the F3 generation great-grand-offspring not having any direct exposure, Fig. 7 …  

The impacts of environmental exposures on subsequent generations can be referred to as ‘Generational Toxicology,’ and suggests ancestral exposures can promote the onset of disease and pathology in subsequent generations. The mechanism involved is epigenetic transgenerational inheritance through epigenetic alterations of the germline.

Although many exposures can influence both the directly exposed individuals and transgenerational individuals, recent observations suggest some toxicants or exposures have negligible impacts on the direct exposed individuals, but can influence subsequent generations never having direct exposure …

The F1 generation offspring had negligible pathologies in any of the tissues analyzed. The only effects observed were on weaning weights in both males and females, and a delay in puberty in males. Therefore, classic toxicology analysis of the F0 and F1 generations demonstrated negligible toxicity or pathology from direct glyphosate exposure.

In contrast, the F2 generation grand-offspring, derived from a direct exposure F1 generation germline, had significant increases in testis disease, kidney disease, obesity, and multiple diseases in males.

The F2 generation females had significant increases in ovary disease, obesity, mammary gland tumors, parturition abnormalities, and multiple disease susceptibility.

The transgenerational F3 generation great-grand-offspring males had increased prostate disease, obesity, and single disease frequencies, while females had increased ovarian disease, kidney disease, parturition abnormalities, and multiple disease susceptibility.

A unique pathology observed with glyphosate exposure, and seldom seen in previous transgenerational studies, was the parturition [editor’s note: childbirth] abnormalities. Over 30% of the F2 generation female rats in the later stages of gestation died of dystocia and/or had litter mortality. This was also seen in the paternal outcross F3 generation gestating female rats.”

Dystocia is the medical term for difficult birth, typically resulting from an abnormally larger or improperly positioned baby. Having a small pelvis can also be at play, or the uterus or cervix might not contract and expand normally, making the delivery difficult.

According to the researchers, these underlying pathologies may be at play in the “premature birth rates and infant abnormalities seen today.” While not mentioned, it’s also worth noting that the U.S., where glyphosate-contaminated foods are extremely common and widely consumed, also has the highest maternal mortality rate in the developed world.43

How to Test Your Glyphosate Level and Eliminate It From Your System

Considering the possible dangers of glyphosate, it would make sense to minimize your exposure, and if you have high levels already, to take steps to detoxify it.

HRI Labs has developed home test kits for both water and urine, and if you have elevated levels, you can drive out the glyphosate by taking an inexpensive glycine supplement.  They will very shortly also be offering a hair test for glyphosate, which will be a better indicator of your long-term exposure.

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, and expert in metal and environmental toxicity, recommends taking 1 teaspoon (4 grams) of glycine powder twice a day for a few weeks and then lowering the dose to one-fourth teaspoon (1 gram) twice a day. This forces the glyphosate out of your system, allowing it to be eliminated through your urine.

Biotech Companies Are Gaining Power by Taking Over the Government

There is no doubt in my mind that GMOs and the toxic chemicals used along with them pose a serious threat to the environment and our health, yet government agencies turn a blind eye and refuse to act — and the reason is very clear: They are furthering the interests of the biotech giants.

It is well known that there is a revolving door between government agencies and biotech companies like Monsanto-now-Bayer. Consider the hypocrisy of the FDA. On paper, the U.S. may have the strictest food safety laws in the world governing new food additives, but this agency has repeatedly allowed GMOs and their accompanying pesticides and herbicides like Roundup to evade these laws.

In fact, the only legal basis for allowing GE foods to be marketed in the U.S. is the FDA’s claim that these foods are inherently safe, a claim which is patently ridiculous. Documents released as a result of a lawsuit against the FDA reveal that the agency’s own scientists warned their superiors about the detrimental risks of GE foods. But their warnings fell on deaf ears.

The influence of the biotech giants is not limited to the U.S. In a June 2017 article, GMWatch revealed that 26 of the 34 members of the National Advisory Committee on Agricultural Biotechnology of Argentina (CONABIA) are either employed by chemical technology companies or have major conflicts of interest.

You may be aware that Argentina is one of the countries where single-crop fields of GE cotton, corn and soy dominate the countryside. Argentina is also a country facing severe environmental destruction. Argentines are plagued with health issues, including degenerative diseases and physical deformities. It would appear that the rapid expansion of GE crops and the subsequent decline in national health indicators are intrinsically linked.

Don’t Be Duped by Industry Shills!

Biotech companies’ outrageous attempts to push for their corporate interests extend far beyond the halls of government. In a further effort to hoodwink the public, Monsanto/Bayer and their cohorts have been caught zealously spoon-feeding scientists, academics and journalists with questionable studies that depict them in a positive light.

By hiring “third-party experts,” biotech companies are able to take information of dubious validity and present it as independent and authoritative. It’s a shameful practice that is far more common than anyone would like to think. One notorious example of this is Henry Miller, who was thoroughly outed as a Monsanto shill during the 2012 Proposition 37 GMO labeling campaign in California.

Miller, falsely posing as a Stanford professor, promoted GE foods during this campaign. In 2015, he published a paper in Forbes Magazine attacking the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, after it classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen. After it was revealed that Miller’s work was in fact ghostwritten by Monsanto, Forbes not only fired him, but also removed all of his work from its site.

Industry front groups also abound. The Genetic Literacy Project and the American Council on Science and Health were both Monsanto-funded before Bayer bought Monsanto. Whether that funding continues under Bayer is left to be seen, but other “trusted” sources were also caught taking Monsanto money.

For example, WebMD, a website that is often presented as a trustworthy source of “independent and objective” health information, was exposed acting as a lackey for Monsanto by using its influence to promote corporate-backed health strategies and products, displaying advertisements and advertorials on Big Biotechs’ behalf, furthering the biotech industry’s agenda — all for the sake of profit.

But even with underhanded tactics to peddle their toxic products, biotechs are now unable to hide the truth: Genetic engineering will in no way, shape or form make the world a better place. It will not solve world hunger. It will not increase farmers’ livelihoods. And it most certainly will not do any good for your health — and may in fact prove to be detrimental.

There’s No Better Time to Act Than NOW — Here’s What You Can Do

So now the question is: Will you continue supporting the corrupt, toxic and unsustainable food system that Big Biotech, Monsanto/Bayer and their industry shills and profit-hungry lackeys have painstakingly crafted? It is largely up to all of us, as consumers, to loosen and break their tight hold on our food supply. The good news is that the tide has turned.

As consumers worldwide become increasingly aware of the problems linked to GE crops and the toxic chemicals, herbicides and pesticides used on them, more and more people are proactively refusing to eat these foods. There’s also strong growth in the global organic and grass fed sectors. This just proves one thing: We can make a difference if we steadily work toward the same goal.

One of the best things you can do is to buy your foods from a local farmer who runs a small business and uses diverse methods that promote regenerative agriculture. You can also join a community supported agriculture (CSA) program, where you can buy a “share” of the vegetables produced by the farm, so you get a regular supply of fresh food. I believe that joining a CSA is a powerful investment not only in your own health, but in that of your local community and economy as well.

In addition, you should also adopt preventive strategies that can help reduce the toxic chemical pollution that assaults your body. I recommend visiting these trustworthy sites for non-GMO food resources in your country:

Organic Food Directory (Australia) Eat Wild (Canada)
Organic Explorer (New Zealand) Eat Well Guide (United States and Canada)
Farm Match (United States) Local Harvest (United States)
Weston A. Price Foundation (United States) The Cornucopia Institute
Demeter USA American Grassfed Association

Monsanto, Bayer and their allies want you to think that they control everything, but they do not. It’s you, the masses, who hold the power in your hands. Let’s all work together to topple the biotech industry’s house of cards. Remember — it all starts with shopping smart and making the best food purchases for you and your family.

May 172019
 

(There’s a video newscast at  https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/bayer-s-us-2b-roundup-damages-boost-pressure-to-settle-1.1258169)

 

It’s the largest jury award in the U.S. so far this year and the eighth-largest ever in a product-defect claim, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The verdict prompted some analysts to boost their estimates on the value of a settlement.

Bayer’s third Roundup court loss comes two weeks after shareholders disavowed Chief Executive Officer Werner Baumann at a meeting in Germany, lambasting his handling of the US$63 billion Monsanto Co. acquisition. The verdict puts the onus on Bayer to alter its defense course and consider a settlement: litigation concerns have eroded Bayer’s value by more than 40 per cent since the deal was sealed in June.

The stock declined 2.3 per cent Tuesday after initially dropping to a seven-year low. Analysts at Bloomberg Intelligence raised their estimate for a settlement value to as much as US$10 billion, up from a peak of US$6 billion.

“The company has got to come to the table with a viable plan to resolve these cases, or the losses are going to mount,” Micah Dortch, managing partner at the Potts Law Firm in Dallas who has filed dozens of Roundup cases, said by email. “This outcome should make Monsanto realize the seriousness of these claims and how a jury perceives the evidence.”

Bayer vowed to challenge Monday’s ruling, calling it “excessive and unjustifiable.” Bayer has defended the safety of Roundup’s active ingredient glyphosate since inheriting the product from Monsanto.

‘Drink It’

The verdict “conflicts directly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s interim registration review decision released just last month,” Bayer said. “The consensus among leading health regulators worldwide that glyphosate-based products can be used safely and that glyphosate is not carcinogenic.”

A jury in state court in Oakland, California, issued the verdict after two other California trials over the herbicide yielded combined damages of US$159 million against the German company. Bayer is scheduled to defend against similar claims this summer in St. Louis.

When the company’s lawyer asked a juror after the verdict what the panel wanted to hear from Bayer, the juror responded that he wanted proof the chemical was safe: “I wanted you to get up and drink it.” The juror declined to be identified.

The jurors agreed that Alva and Alberta Pilliod’s exposure to Roundup used for residential landscaping was a “substantial factor” in their non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. In addition to US$1 billion for each spouse, the jury awarded damages of about $55 million for the couple’s medical bills and pain and suffering.

The verdict will be vulnerable to a legal challenge by Bayer because courts have generally held that punitive damages shouldn’t be more than 10 times higher than compensatory damages.

Monsanto is the named defendant in similar U.S. lawsuits filed by at least 13,400 plaintiffs.

“The verdict in this trial has no impact on future cases and trials, as each one has its own factual and legal circumstances,” Bayer said.

“Near-term sentiment is terrible,” Peter Verdult and Andrew Baum of Citigroup wrote in a note to clients. The legal risks priced into the stock have reached about 30 billion euros, they said.

Markus Mayer, an analyst at Baader Bank AG, said the ruling increases the probability that Bayer becomes vulnerable to a takeover or a target for more activist investors like Paul Singer’s Elliott Management Corp. pushing for a split between agriculture and health assets.

While it was a “risky move” to ask for an award of more than US$1 billion — and the damages will probably be reduced by the judge — the three verdicts against Bayer show jurors are convinced by evidence against the company, said Anna Pavlik, senior counsel for special situations at United First Partners LLC in New York.

“There appeared to be more detailed evidence damaging to Monsanto, which strengthens plaintiffs’ cases down the pipeline even further,” said Pavlik, who has followed the trials.

The Pilliods’ lawyer urged jurors to punish the company for covering up the health risks of the herbicide for decades. Brent Wisner told the panel his punitive damages request was roughly based on the gross profit of US$892 million recorded in 2017 by Monsanto’s agricultural-chemicals division.

After the verdict, the attorney said the evidence showed that “from day one, Monsanto has never had any interest in finding out whether Roundup is safe.”

May 172019
 

Dear members of The Current (CBC Radio) team,

 

Today’s segment of The Current regarding Roundup was prompted by

1. 3 recent, very large Court awards in California against Monsanto-Bayer’s chemical Roundup.
2. The class action lawsuit in Saskatchewan against Monsanto-Bayer.

 

A CRITICAL factor that should have been raised, “The Monsanto Papers” (the process of “disclosure”  (INSERT: “discovery/disclosure”) in the trials). Evidence that thoroughly condemned Monsanto was contained in documentation that came from Monsanto itself.

Trials involve “disclosure”  (INSERT: “discovery/disclosure”)  – – the stage of the litigation process when each party is required to disclose the documents that are relevant to the issues in dispute to the other party. … Disclosure is intended to ensure that the parties show their hands in respect of documentary evidence at an early stage.

Trials in a democracy are open to the public. Transparency means that the documents provided through Disclosure (INSERT: “discovery/disclosure”)  enter the public sphere.

The Disclosure provided by Monsanto in the first trial came to be known as “The Monsanto Papers”.  “The Papers” expanded with Disclosure from the 2nd and 3rd trials.

A compelling reason for the guilty verdicts, accompanied by large financial awards to the plaintiffs, is the information provided by Monsanto itself.

The papers document what Monsanto has known about the toxicity of Roundup for a very long time, and the steps it has taken to prevent the information from becoming known.   Relationships between Monsanto, regulators and media are also documented.

(INSERT:  The latter sentence is addressed in    2019-05-07   Monsanto Argues Roundup Cancer Victim Should Receive Less Money Because of Imminent Death, Mercola)

The second and third trials each had their own independent disclosure. The legal teams for the Plaintiffs in those cases, already had access to the Disclosure provided through Trial #1.  They didn’t just do a repeat of the strategy that was successful in Trial #1; variations meant that Monsanto’s Disclosure had to vary from what was provided in the first Trial.   So yet more documentation about Monsanto’s shenanigans through the years entered the public domain.

Coverage of the Roundup issue is seriously deficient if it fails to address what Monsanto had to reveal because of “Disclosure”.

Disclosure also explains why Corporations like SNC Lavalin, and their collaborating government officials will do anything they can to avoid going “to Trial”.

If the Media remains silent on the role of Disclosure in the court awards against Monsanto, the public has no way of appreciating the effects of Legislation that allows Corporations to circumvent going to Trial (public, transparent).

For Monsanto, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Yours truly,
Sandra Finley

P.S. As I see it, THE CONUNDRUM FOR CANADIAN MEDIA IN THE ROUNDUP CASES:
We are uncomfortable acknowledging the corruption in our institutions.

WHO on The Current team lined up Keith Solomon to speak to “the science” of Roundup? Any background check would surely identify him as an industry shill, known for well over a decade. Discredited to the point where the industry (CropLife Canada) stopped trotting him out. You discredit the CBC by using him as a source.

May 162019
 
Bank of Montreal lifted its performance-based compensation 5.2 per cent to $2.51 billion, an increase slightly higher than last year’s.

Canada’s six biggest banks set aside $15.2 billion for bonuses in a “polarizing” year likely to bring joy to investment bankers and a little less cheer for traders and analysts.

The companies lifted variable-compensation pools by 6.5 per cent from last year, down from the jump of almost 11 per cent in 2017 but a bigger increase than in the previous two years, according to financial disclosures for the fiscal year. Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Royal Bank of Canada had the biggest gains in performance-based pay, while Bank of Nova Scotia had the smallest, the filings show.

“This year is going to be a polarizing one, where some firms pay well and others do not,” said Bill Vlaad, president of Vlaad & Co., a Bay Street recruitment firm that monitors compensation trends. “Firms that managed to not have large hiccups outside of Canada in 2018 should lead the way in bonuses.”

Canada’s lenders pay bonuses based on performance, with most of the variable compensation going to capital-markets employees such as investment bankers, research analysts and those in sales and trading. Variable compensation reflects the amount reserved, not paid out, and doesn’t include base salaries. Bonuses are typically distributed in December.

This year’s gain comes as banks posted a record $25.4 billion of revenue from their capital-markets operations for the fiscal year ended Oct. 31, with $4.88 billion gleaned from investment-banking fees and record trading revenue of $10.9 billion.

“The winners this year are investment bankers,” Vlaad said. “The losers continue to be those in sales, trading and research as changing regulations and technologies make their business more and more challenging to be profitable.”

Those in investment banking at most firms should see a 15 per cent to 20 per cent bump in their bonuses, extending a trend of higher payouts during the previous three years, according to Vlaad & Co. Those in sales, trading and research may see bonuses shrink by an equal amount, deepening a three-year downward trajectory for those employees.

Collective annual profit at Canada’s six biggest banks rose 7.4 per cent to a record $45.5 billion for the fiscal year. While that may help bring decent bonuses, shareholders haven’t been so lucky, with the eight-company S&P/TSX Commercial Banks Index falling 5.7 per cent this year along with flagging global markets.

Royal Bank

Royal Bank, which has the biggest capital-markets operations among Canada’s lenders, set aside $5.6 billion for variable compensation, up 7.6 per cent from a year ago and the highest amount of any of the companies. That represents a decline from 2017, when bonuses jumped 13.5 per cent. The bigger pool comes as the Toronto-based bank added 3,660 employees this year, including more than 110 senior investment bankers in the U.S. and Europe for its RBC Capital Markets division.

“It’ll be a good year,” chief financial officer Rod Bolger said in a Nov. 28 phone interview. “Where bankers have done well, and have done it from a good risk perspective and conduct perspective, they’ll be rewarded.”

Toronto-Dominion

Toronto-Dominion Bank, the country’s largest lender by assets, set aside $2.59 billion for incentive compensation, up 5.6 per cent but less than half of last year’s increase.

Bonuses “are quite driven by revenue performance in the wholesale bank, and in aggregate the bank did so much better, so I expect they’ll be up slightly,” CFO Riaz Ahmed said in a phone interview, adding that the lender also added employees, which is reflected in the increase.

Scotiabank

Scotiabank, Canada’s third-largest lender, said performance-based compensation rose 1.6 per cent to $1.62 billion, less than half of last year’s 4 per cent increase. The gain comes in a year when Scotiabank made acquisitions at home and abroad, swelling its employee ranks, while exiting other countries and businesses and scaling back its metals-trading business. Capital-markets revenue at the Toronto-based bank declined 2.1 per cent this year as investment-banking fees slid.

The company declined to comment on bonus payouts.

Bank of Montreal

Bank of Montreal lifted its performance-based compensation 5.2 per cent to $2.51 billion, an increase slightly higher than last year’s. As at Scotiabank, revenue at Bank of Montreal’s BMO Capital Markets division fell, with the 4.7 per cent decline coinciding with a drop in trading and investment-banking fees.

“We had a good year from an income-growth perspective and, with that, some of the performance-compensation numbers will be up,” CFO Tom Flynn said in a Dec. 4 phone interview. The bank also added employees through hiring and the acquisition of New York-based broker-dealer KGS-Alpha Capital Markets. “We’ve got a bigger pool of people who are being paid out of that bucket of money as well, and that’s contributing to some of the growth.”

CIBC

CIBC boosted its performance-based pay by 13 per cent to $1.97 billion, its second straight year of double-digit increases. The gain comes as the Toronto-based lender expanded further in the U.S. with its June 2017 takeover of Chicago-based PrivateBank.

“We had good performance, so compensation will be in line with that,” CFO Kevin Glass said in a Nov. 29 phone interview. “The big jump you see is more year over year as a result of PrivateBank and the fact that we’ve been with them for a full year.”

National Bank

National Bank set aside $941 million for variable compensation, up 2.8 per cent. Last year, the increase was 17 per cent. The Montreal-based company’s National Bank Financial division outperformed larger rivals in gains from capital markets, with revenue rising 7.7 per cent. The firm was the only one among its peers with a gain in investment-banking fees, and also had the biggest jump in trading, with a 14 per cent increase.

The bank declined to comment on its bonus payouts.

May 152019
 
Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.—“Many of the things I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they weren’t true. And, if they are not true, then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that. And they won’t do that because in the United States, truth is an absolute defense against slander.” 

 

This must-watch video details the many problems with the development and safety of Merck’s third-highest grossing product, Gardasil. Children’s Health Defense (CHD) and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., CHD’s Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel, ask that you watch and share this video so that you, and others, may make an informed decision of whether or not to give your child, boy or girl, a Gardasil vaccine. It can also be a useful tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine, that is actually causing health problems with young people, could have been approved by FDA and then recommended by CDC. The video is full of jaw-dropping facts about Gardasil and the clinical trials leading up to its release upon an unsuspecting public.

Transcript of “The Science” presentation:

Download “The Science” Transcript

Children’s Health Defense and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.—Science Day Presentation for Gardasil

Hi, I’m Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and I’m making this video for the sake of parents who are trying to make an informed decision of whether or not to give their child, their boy or girl the Gardasil vaccine.

I’m also making this video as a tool for pediatricians who are trying to understand how this vaccine—if it’s actually causing all of these problems with young girls—could have been approved by FDA and then mandated by CDC.

Virtually all of the things that I’m going to talk about in this video are available to the public on public documents as I’m going to show.

Finally, I want to say this about Merck which is the company that makes the Gardasil vaccine.

Many of the things that I’m going to say today would be slanderous if they were not true. And if they’re not true then Merck should sue me. But Merck won’t do that and they won’t do it because in the United States truth is an absolute defense to slander. And second of all Merck knows that if they sue me, I’m going to immediately file a discovery request, and many, many, more documents are going to emerge that illustrate even more fraud by this company on the American public and the people all over the world.

Finally, as a footnote I’m not going to talk today about the specific biological mechanisms that allow this vaccine to cause harm in human beings. That information is out there it’s in dozens of peer-reviewed, published scientific documents. Many of these are described on our website and I urge people to go to the Children’s Health Defense website to educate themselves on those issues.

Today we’re going to talk about the clinical trial about Merck’s fraud in that process…and this is Merck’s claim:

The HPV vaccine will “eliminate cervical cancers and other HPV associated cancers.”

The danger of dying from HPV cancer in this country is 1 death in 43.5 thousand people.

Imagine you have a deck of cards but instead of 50 cards. There’s 43,500 on a on a big, big table and one of those cards is a black card. If you get that, you die.

So, Merck’s deal is that it’s going to remove that black card from the deck. But in order to play the game and make sure that Merck removes the black card, everybody who participates has to put in $420 because that’s the cost of the three-dose Gardasil vaccine.

So, here’s Gardasil by the numbers. So, the cost of the three-jab series average is about $420. There are 76 million children who essentially have been mandated by CDC to receive these vaccines. A blockbuster product from Merck, and global revenues from this vaccine today are about $2.3 billion dollars. It’s the third largest product in the company’s inventory.

The cost of saving one American life is 18.3 million dollars. People could argue whether or not that’s a reasonable value of a human life. What I would say was is that the criteria that we should use for evaluating reasonableness—is there a cheaper way to save more lives? And people would argue that Pap smears are the most effective way that 80 percent of cervical cancer deaths have already been eliminated by Pap smears. And this is the most effective technology.

Incidentally in another context HHS has already put a value on human life and the value is $250k. That is the maximum number that the vaccine compensation program will pay for killing an American citizen.

Prior to marketing the vaccine, the FDA licenses the vaccine, and in that licensing process Merck had to show that the vaccine was safe. According to Federal regulations the word “safety” means “relative freedom from harmful effects, taking into consideration the character of the product in relationship to the condition of the recipient at that time.”

So, what is the condition of the recipients of that target group for this vaccine. And this vaccine targets millions of preteens and teens, for whom the risk of dying from cervical cancer is practically zero. Cervical cancer’s median age of death is 58. It is first diagnosed at age 50 (median).

A teenage girl or boy has zero chance of dying of this illness. Which means the threshold for giving this medication is very, very high.

Secondly it is mandated in some jurisdictions So the government is actually—government officials are actually—coming in and ordering people to take this medical intervention. So, we have to be sure that the threshold for risk, “the risk profile” for that medical intervention should be very, very low.

Third, unlike other medical interventions Gardasil recipients are perfectly healthy. So, when you give medication to a healthy individual you have to make sure that the risk profile is practically zero. And in order to determine risk, there is a standardized protocol. And it’s called double-blind placebo studies. What does that mean?

It means that the drug company that’s trying to license this product gives the medication to one group of people, maybe 5,000 or 10,000 people, and gives a placebo, an inert placebo, either an identical looking pill that is inert—it’s either saline or sugar—to a similarly situated group of 5,000 or 10,000 people and it’s double blind meaning that neither the patients nor the researchers knew who got the placebo and who got the actual medication.

And you can see here, here’s what the NIH says about the National Institute for Health placebos: an inactive substance that looks like a drug.

So here are typical examples:

Lipitor was given during its study phase to about 17k subjects. Half of them received Lipitor half of them received a sugar pill that looked identical to Lipitor and they were observed and studied for up to 3.3 years.

Why for so long? Because many of the injuries that are caused by medication are latent—they don’t show up for two or three or four or five years cancer for example may not show up for four or five years after the exposure. Autoimmune diseases and allergies and these kind of things take a long time to diagnose. Enbrel for that reason was delayed for 6.6 years and against a control group that received a saline injection.

Botox, there was a national emergency to get Botox to market so people could get their wrinkles cured, was studied for 51 weeks and it was studied against a saline injection.

Now I’m going to show you one of the really outrageous frauds that Merck committed during the clinical trials. This is an insert that is part of every vaccine package. And you can go on the Internet right now and look up that Merck product and search and find these two tables.

In the initial table you can see a there are three columns and this is a table that just looks at injuries at the vaccine site for redness and itching and bruising and pain at the vaccine site and they use one…there were 5,000 girls—5,088 girls who got the Gardasil vaccine.

Number two, there were 3,470 girls who got the AAHS control, what is that? That is the adjuvant in the vaccine. That is a toxic neurotoxin, that’s put in the vaccine to make it more long-lasting to provoke an immune response in the subject of the vaccine.

And most people believe that it is that aluminum adjuvant that is causing all of these injuries in the girls who are getting the vaccine. And there were 3,470 people who received just the neurotoxin with no antigens and no other vaccine components.

And you have a third group which is the placebo group. What I want you to look at is at these numbers. That in the Gardasil and AAHS control there is virtually the same number of injuries.

And when you get to the saline placebo, that injury rate is cut in half.

Now let’s go to the table where they talk about real systemic injuries…autoimmune diseases, and instead of showing us real science, which is to show us what happened to the saline group, they hide the saline group as a way of fooling you, your pediatrician and the regulatory agency by compressing it into the aluminum group and they never tell us. They say this is a combination of the aluminum adjuvant and the saline placebo. They don’t tell us how many in each category were compressed there. The real thing that you need to watch here is what happened.

These are all very, very serious injuries. These are injuries that in some cases people would feel were worse than death—and that affect people and debilitate for a lifetime in many cases.

And if you look at the bottom of the Gardasil group an astonishing 2.3 percent of the girls in the clinical study who received the Gardasil vaccine got ill from autoimmune diseases, many within seven months of taking the vaccine.

And look what happened in the aluminum group—the same number exactly. 2.3 percent.

Nobody, no parent would allow their daughter to take a substance that had a one-in-40 chance of giving them a lifetime disability.

World Health Organization says that using a spiked placebo, or a faux-cebo as Merck did with Gardasil, puts you at a methodological disadvantage that “it may be difficult or impossible to assess vaccine safety.”

Dr. Stanley Plotkin, who developed the polio vaccine…who developed the pertussis vaccine, who developed the rotavirus vaccine—the Stanley Plotkin award is the Nobel Prize of vaccinology it’s given to the top vaccinologist every year—and what he says is:

Unless you have a true control group you are in LA LA LAND.

Finally, the American Medical Association says the absence of double-blind placebo testing and short-term studies of chronic disease are “the indicia of marketing masquerading as science.”

And that’s what Merck gave us.

The Cochrane Collaboration—thirty thousand scientists from all over the world who came together to create an independent assessment of medical protocols which they saw as being increasingly controlled by the industry—The Cochrane Collaboration said the use of active comparators probably increased the occurrence of harms and the comparative group thereby masking harms created by the HPV vaccine.

And that indeed was Merck’s point…to hide those harms.

So, if you do the math women are 100 times more likely to suffer serious adverse events from the Gardasil vaccine than they are to be protected from cervical cancer.

So now we have a very different bargain in this card game that we’re playing with Merck.

If 43 thousand cards and the black card—the death card is gone—but now, there are a thousand blue cards which if you pick one of those by mistake you have a good chance of getting an autoimmune disease. Nobody would take that bargain.

So, in order to get the FDA license to market this vaccine Merck did a number of studies, which are called protocols. We don’t know how many they did because they’re not telling us they never disclosed it.

The one we’re most concerned with is protocol 18. The reason protocol 18 is critical is because that was the basis for FDA giving Merck the license to produce and market the vaccine.

Why is that? Because protocol 18 is the only one in which the target audience for this vaccine. 11- and 12-year old girls was actually tested, and had a control group. The other ones looked at big cohorts of women were 16 to 25-year old and 16 to 26-year old women.

Protocol 18 looked at girls and boys from ages 9 to 15. It was a total of 1200 children. and almost 600 controls. That is a very, very, tiny group of people to study in order to determine the safety of a product is going to be marketed to billions of children around the world.

Now I’m going to show you one of the key fraudulent flimflams that Merck used to get this license. FDA said they approved Gardasil based on protocol 18 because protocol 18 was of particular interest because it’s the only protocol in which Merck used a true saline placebo instead of the aluminum adjuvant as a control.

That’s what Merck told FDA and the CDC but Merck was lying. It actually did not use a true saline placebo. It used what Merck called the “carrier solution.” Which is all of the components of the vaccine except for the aluminum and the viral particles the antigen.

Among the compounds that we know were in the carrier solution are Polysorbate 80 which we have no idea what the safety profile is because it’s never been tested for safety independently in vaccines. Sodium borate which is borax which is banned by FDA in food products and all food products in the United States, and is banned altogether in Europe, genetically modified yeast, (there’s no safety test ever been done on it in vaccines) L-histidine, the same, and possibly DNA fragments.

I say possibly because we know there are DNA fragments in the final vaccine, we don’t know how they got there. And Merck has lied about the DNA fragments from the outset.

And despite these potentially toxic components of compounds that are in the vaccine, the 596 children that were given the carrier solution fared much better in the other than any other cohort in the study. The girls and boys who receive the carrier solution were the only significant cohorts with no serious adverse events for the first 15 days.

And here’s another one of the gravamen of the fraud that Merck committed in its Gardasil trials, but it turns out in the protocol 18 study, it appears Merck cut the amount of aluminum that was given to the vaccine group in half. They tested a completely different formulation. If true, we theorize that they took the aluminum out to reduce the number of injuries and to mask the really bad safety profile of this vaccine.

And since the protocol 18 data are not based on the Gardasil vaccine formulation, the trial itself constitutes rank scientific fraud.

Here’s another bag of tricks that was used by Merck in order to skew the clinical trials results in favor of Gardasil.

Merck and its researchers use what they call exclusion criteria—for example people who had zero allergies, people who had prior genital infections were thrown out of the clinical trials. People who had over four sex partners in their entire lives were excluded from the trials. Anybody who had a history of immunological or nervous system disorders, people with chronic illnesses and seizure disorders, people with other medical conditions, people who had reactions to vaccine ingredients including the aluminum, yeast and the benzonase. or anybody with a history of alcohol and drug abuse.

If you really wanted to know whether the vaccine was helping people—if it was effective—wouldn’t you want those people in your study wouldn’t you want people who had a genetic vulnerability to cancer in your study to see if it actually was capable of preventing cancer.

Then Merck had one catch all exclusion category which was any condition which in the opinion of the investigator might interfere with the evaluation of the study objectives. Well, that gave Merck and its paid investigators complete control to throw people out of the study who they thought might make the study look not successful. All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit the study to people who were like All of these exclusionary categories gave Merck the ability to limit this study to people who were like an elite club of superheroes…the people who get the vaccine are not the same people they tested on. They tested it on the Avengers. They didn’t test it on, you know, Joe Bag-of-Donuts … the people are actually receiving this vaccine in day to day life. And by doing that they were able to mask whatever injury might show up in a larger and more vulnerable population who are actually receiving the vaccine.

Experts used an arsenal of sloppy protocols to again, hide vaccine injuries. Among these, Merck gave report cards—the daily journal report cards— only to 10 percent of the people who they tested the vaccine on and told those people only make reports for 14 days after the injection. And the report cards were only designed to collect jab site information. So, redness, itching, bruising, fever.

And they ignored altogether the autoimmune diseases and menstrual cycle problems and fertility problems and pain and dizziness and seizures and all of the other things that we’ve now seen are associated with the vaccine. In fact, there are numerous girls who report that they were injured that they attempted to report those injuries to Merck, and that Merck rebuffed them.

Furthermore, Merck gave extraordinary discretion to its researchers to determine what was a vaccine injury in what was not a vaccine injury and because there was no inert placebo, it was completely within their discretion. If a girl came back with seizures or autoimmune disease or menstrual cycle problems they could just say to the girl, well that’s not related to the vaccine.

In some cases, we know that Merck actively covered up and lied about injuries that it had a duty to report to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. For example, in the case of Christina Tarsell, a Maryland girl, who died from the Gardasil vaccine, Merck lied about that death in its official reports of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. It told the system that Christina’s doctor had told Merck that her death was the result of a virus.

And the doctor adamantly denies that. Merck has refused to remove the misinformation from the VAERS system.

Furthermore, Merck lied to the girls who participated in these studies, telling them No.1, that the placebo was saline and that it contained no other ingredients. And No. 2, that the study in which they were participating was not a safety study. They were told that there had already been safety studies and that the vaccine had been proven safe.

What did this do for Merck? It made it so the girls were less likely to report injuries associated with the vaccine. Because they believed that the vaccine that they were receiving had already been proven safe and that any injuries they did experience maybe a month or two months or three months after the vaccine must be simply coincidental and had nothing to do with the vaccine.

Despite all of these efforts by Merck to discourage those from reporting vaccine injuries during the clinical trials, half of the girls in the Gardasil group and half of them in the aluminum adjuvant group reported serious injuries after receiving the vaccine.

In order to conceal the link between these injuries and the vaccine, Merck invented a brand new medical metric that had never been heard of before called “new medical conditions” and it dismissed all of these new injuries which affected 50 percent of the girls who received the vaccine and the adjuvant as “new medical conditions”, unrelated to the vaccines, simply sad coincidences.

Many of these diseases were serious diseases—blood lymphatic diseases, anemia, endocrine diseases, autoimmune diseases, G.I., Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, vaginal infections musculoskeletal injuries, arthritis, neoplasm, Hodgkin’s disease, neurological diseases, psychiatric diseases, depression, reproductive and breast disorders, menstrual irregularities, and pain. Over 3 percent of the girls—1 in 30—in both groups required surgical and medical procedures.

So, this card game that we’re playing with Merck has now become a really bad bet.

Merck has removed the one black card but you now have a 1 in 40 chance of drawing a blue card and getting an autoimmune disease that may afflict you for the rest of your life and you have a 1 in 2 chance of having some other serious medical condition.

So now let’s look at Merck’s central claim which is that the Gardasil vaccine will prevent cervical cancer.

Merck’s in a sweet position here, let’s face it because the target group vaccine is 11-year olds, and the median age of death for cervical cancer is age 58. Merck essentially is making this bargain.

It’s telling the 11-year old girl if you take our vaccine 47 years from now you won’t die of cervical cancer. And of course, that truth is you can’t make a vaccine that proves that it’s going to prevent cancer 47 years from now. There’s no way to test for that.

So, Merck used a shortcut. It said we’re going to prove that it prevents these what it called surrogate end points. The best thing that Merck had come up with was CIN2 and CIN3 lesions which it called precancerous lesions even though most of those lesions never mature into cancer.

So how can you call something precancerous when it was never going to turn into cancer?

And here’s what a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology said about Merck’s scheme: CIN3 is an imperfect diagnosis of precancer, and an intermediate surrogate for cancer.

Their own attorneys told them for these products, the indication is the surrogate, not the ultimate.  Promotion cannot make any claim, vis-a-vis the ultimate end point, based upon the fate of a surrogate endpoint.

Merck has another problem. Recent peer reviewed scientific studies indicate that perhaps only a third of cervical cancer cases are even associated with the HPV vaccine. That would completely put the lie to Merck’s claims that Gardasil is going to eliminate cervical cancer altogether.

So now we have a really dubious deal because we need to put that black card back in the deck because now, we have doubts about whether or not this vaccine can prevent cervical cancer at all.

But the news gets worse. Gardasil may actually cause cancer. Gardasil’s insert states Gardasil has never been evaluated for potential to cause carcinogenicity or genotoxicity. And Gardasil’s ingredients include possible carcinogens including human DNA.

And look at this…This is Merck’s own pre-clinical trial records and those records show that girls or women, who already had HPV—had been exposed at some point in their life to it—actually had a negative efficacy of 44.6 percent.

What is negative efficacy? It means those girls had a 44.6 increased risk of getting those precancerous lesions. To make things even worse, there are recent scientific studies that suggest a phenomena of what is known as type replacement—some 200 different strands of HPV, some of them are more cancerous than others, and the current HPV vaccine goes after 9 of those 200 viral types. What these studies indicate is by eliminating those particular strains of the virus it opens up an ecological niche in the woman so that more lethal and virulent viruses can actually colonize that spot and dramatically increase the risk of cervical cancer.

So now Merck’s deal is looking really grim. Not only do we have a one-in-40 chance of getting an autoimmune disease and a 50 percent chance of getting some serious medical condition but now the cancer risk has been reinserted and actually amplified.

And now let’s look at some of the non-cancer injuries that Merck found in its preclinical studies.

The miscarriage rate in the preclinical studies after Gardasil doubled the background rate. The birth defects in the Gardasil group were five times the rate of birth defects from the control group. As to reproductive disorders an astonishing 10.9 percent of the women in the pool group reported reproductive disorders within seven months of receiving Gardasil compared to 1.2 percent in the placebo group. The death rate in the Gardasil group and the clinical trials was 8.5 per 10 thousand.

Death risk from this vaccine according to Merck’s own studies is 37 times the risk of dying from cervical cancer.

Oh, now look at the deal that Merck has offered us they’ve actually increased our risk of dying by 37 times.

So now let’s look at post-licensing surveillance. So, Merck can argue that we might have missed something in our pre-licensing studies but surely if there were any injuries being caused by this vaccine we would see them in post-licensing surveillance.

And the problem with that is that the post-licensing surveillance system, the principle one, is called the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. The system is a voluntary system that simply does not work. It’s broken. In fact, in 2010 HHS hired another federal agency the agency for healthcare research quality and a group of Harvard researchers to study Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System and those researchers found fewer than 1 percent of adverse events of vaccines are ever reported.

But even under that system, Gardasil has distinguished itself as the most dangerous vaccine ever invented.

In fact, when you compare it to Menactra which is a meningitis vaccine that’s given to the same age group—teenagers—Gardasil had an 8.5 times more emergency room visits, 12.5 times more hospitalizations, 10 times more life-threatening events and 26.5 times more disabilities than Menactra.

The vaccine court which is within HHS has made awards for numerous deaths and very, very serious injuries from the Gardasil vaccine. So, HHS itself admits that this vaccine kills people and it’s given compensation to the families that were injured.

The same wave of serious injuries and deaths that have been seen in nations around the globe, when they adopt mandates for the Gardasil vaccine. Even Gardasil’s own insert, the package insert that the company provides, acknowledges that the injuries that can be caused by this vaccine include death, pancreatitis, fatigue, malaise, immune system disorders, autoimmune diseases, anaphylaxis, musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, nervous system disorders, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis, that’s brain injuries, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and other neuron diseases, paralysis, seizures, Transverse myelitis, and vascular disorders.

In Australia, in 2015, the Australian Department of Health Therapeutic Goods Administration reported that the adverse rates in girls is 17 times the incidental rate for cervical cancer throughout their lifespan. The country only looked at a handful of conditions including demyelinating disorders, complex regional pain syndrome and premature ovarian failure. There are many, many other injuries that included hospitalizations that were not subject to that study.

India suspended its Gardasil trials after numerous deaths and serious injuries.

A south Asian Journal of Cancer found that “a healthy 16-year old is at zero immediate risk of dying from cervical cancer but is faced with a small, but real risk of death or serious disability from a vaccine that has yet to prevent a single case of cervical cancer.”

Japan de-recommended Gardasil three months after it had added the vaccine to the immunization schedule. Japan’s health ministry discovered adverse events reported after Gardasil’s approval were many times higher than other vaccines on the recommended schedule—these included seizures severe headaches partial paralysis complex regional pain syndrome and an undeniable causal relationship between persistent pain and the vaccination.

Japanese researchers found that the adverse event rate for the HPV vaccine was as high as nine percent and that pregnant women injected with the vaccine aborted or miscarried 30 percent of their babies.

In 2015 the Japanese Association for Medical Sciences issued official guidelines for managing symptoms of injuries caused by the Gardasil vaccine and the association announced there was no proof that this vaccine even prevents cervical cancer.

Alarmingly Merck’s own studies indicate that the Gardasil vaccine may disproportionately impact Asian women. For example, in protocol 19 there were 8 deaths among 3800 women and 7 those were Asians. That was 87 percent for Asian women, while only 31 percent of study participants were Asian.

Denmark in 2015 announced the opening of five new HPV clinics to treat women who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine. The day that they announced that opening there were 1300 applicants for treatment in those clinics.

In Colombia in 2014 800 girls in the town Carmen de Bolivar were grievously injured by Gardasil vaccine. Protests erupted all over Columbia. The attorney general of Colombia ordered the National Health Service of that country to immediately begin treating girls who were injured by the Gardasil vaccine and 2017 Colombia’s highest Constitutional Court ruled that the HPV vaccine would no longer be considered mandatory in Colombia and ordered that girls who showed symptoms after receiving the vaccine be given appropriate medical care.

Pompilio Martinez, who now teaches at the National University of Colombia, described the HPV vaccine as “a crime against humanity.”

Recent studies have shown that in nations with robust HPV vaccination programs and heavily vaccinated populations—in the UK and Sweden and Australia—were actually seeing dramatic upticks rises in the rate of cervical cancer rather than the downtrends that Merck promised everybody.

Now I’m going to show you some of the reasons why your pediatrician is insisting despite all of this evidence that your daughter or son gets the HPV vaccine. And the reason is the pediatrician is getting his information from agencies that have compromised through financial entanglements with Merck.

This is what the FDA is telling the public about vaccine safety:  it says that vaccines are regulated by FDA and undergo a rigorous review of laboratory and clinical data to ensure the safety efficacy and purity and potency of these products.

But this is a very different story the FDA is acknowledging in-house, (and this comes from a 2007 document—this is the year that Gardasil got its license from the FDA), FDA’s inability to keep up with scientific advances mean that American lives are at risk. FDA is evaluations and methods have remained largely unchanged over the last half century. The world looks to FDA as a leader today. Not only can the agency not lead, it cannot even keep up with the advances in science.

But, the most troubling problem at FDA is it has nothing to do with incompetence. It has to do with corruption. The panel within FDA that licenses new vaccines and anoints them as safe is called the Vaccine and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, the acronym is VRBPAC. And in 2000 Congress investigated VRBPAC because of charges of corruption from outside the agency.

And here’s what the congressional committee found: the overwhelming majority of members, both voting members and consultants have substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.

Conflicts of interest rules employed by FDA have been weak enforcement has been lax. Committee members with substantial ties to pharmaceutical companies are given waivers to participate in committee proceedings. In many cases significant conflicts of interest are deemed to be in conflict at all.

And here are some specific examples of the conflict of the advisory committee that approves vaccines:

  • Three out of five FDA advisory committee members who voted to approve the rotavirus vaccine in December of 1997 had financial ties to the pharmaceutical companies that were developing different versions of the vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members had a 9 plus million dollar contract for a rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members was the principal investigator for a Merck grant to develop the rotavirus vaccine.
  • One of the five voting members received approximately a million dollars from vaccine manufacturers toward vaccine development.

Once they get by FDA, vaccine companies then go to CDC, where another committee, which is called ACIP Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, will then take that vaccine that FDA has licensed and they will put it on the recommended list which means it becomes essentially mandatory for 76 million American children.

A listing on CDC’s recommended list is the holy grail for vaccine companies. It means a bonanza of wealth for those companies. If ACIP votes to add your vaccine to the recommended list, it means:

  • mandating the vaccine to millions of American children, (half of those are paid for by the government);
  • Immunity from liability for the manufacturers so nobody can sue them no matter how dangerous that vaccine is, no matter how toxic its components no matter how grievous your injury, you cannot sue that vaccine manufacturer for damages liability;
  • Inclusion of the Vaccine for Children’s program which is a program that guarantees that half the vaccines that you manufacturer are going to be purchased by the CDC at full cost.

This means billions of dollars for companies that are fortunate enough to get their vaccines listed on this recommended list. It means that you’re going to sell 74 million vaccines to people who have no choice—you have no marketing cost you have no advertising cost, you have limited testing expenses, and you have no liability for injuries caused by your vaccine.

In 2006 and 2007 while Gardasil was getting its approvals, ACIP did not pretend to base its recommendations on scientific evidence. It only adopted evidence-based standards in 2011.

But what did it base its recommendation on? It turns out it was mainly just friendships and money.  The conflicts at ACIP are as bad as the conflicts within the FDA.

This is from the same year—2000— investigation by Congress quote the CDC grants blanket waivers to ACIP members each year that allow them to deliberate on any subject regardless of their conflicts for the entire year. ACIP members are allowed to vote on vaccine recommendations even when they have financial ties to the drug companies related to similar vaccines.

The ACIP’s prolific use of working groups to track vaccine policy is outside the specter of public scrutiny, opens the door to special interest access. ACIP’s policy of allowing government employees to vote encourage the system where government officials make crucial decisions affecting American children without advice or consent of the governed.

Here is a typical committee panel that approved Merck’s rotavirus vaccine. The majority of ACIP’s members were conflicted and their most recent vote. Again, this is Congress’s words not mine.

  • The chairman served on Merck’s immunization Advisory Committee the same committee that approved Merck’s vaccine.
  • Another member who shares the patent on a vaccine underdeveloped for this same disease at $350,000 grant from Merck to develop this vaccine and was a consultant from Merck.
  • Another member was under contract with the Merck Vaccine Division.
  • Another member received salary from Merck and other payments.
  • Merck another member was participating in vaccine studies with Merck.
  • And another member received grants from Merck.

And unfortunately, that congressional investigation had virtually no impact on the way CDC does and continues to do business. For example, a 2009 report by the inspector general of HHS on the same conditions existed at CDC had systematic lack of oversight. Ninety seven percent of committee members’ conflict disclosures had omissions. 58 percent had at least one unidentified potential conflict. 32 percent of the committee members had at least one conflict remained unresolved and the CDC continues to grant waivers.

This shows that CDC is really just an arm of the vaccine industry it shouldn’t be regulating the industry. It’s part of it.

This is CDC’s entire budget $11.5 billion, and almost half of that almost 5 billion dollars goes to purchasing and promoting vaccines. And this little sliver here is the Immunization Safety Office.

That’s how much money, less than 1 percent of the total goes to vaccine safety.

Not only that but Merck exercises control over CDC through the CDC Foundation. Merck contributes millions of dollars every year to the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation has received six hundred and twenty million dollars from Merck and other pharmaceutical companies to pay for 824 programs at the CDC.

Merck representative sit on the CDC Foundation Board and control the agency activities.

This is what the British Medical Journal said about those conflicts:

“Most of us were shocked to learn that the CDC takes funding from the industry. It is outrageous that industry apparently is allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has the potential to cut into profits.”

Corruption is systemic at FDA too shockingly 45 percent of FDA’s budget comes from the industry. Pharmaceutical companies pay billions of dollars in fees annually to FDA to fast track drugs. Between 2000-2010 pharmaceutical companies paid 3.4 billion dollars to FDA to get drug approvals, and those payments by industry have caused FDA and CDC to treat the vaccine makers not as a regulated entity but as partners and clients and friends.

According to Michael Carome, who is a former HHS employee “Instead of a regulator and regulated industry, we now have a partnership that relationship has tilted the FDA away from public health perspective to an industry friendly perspective. And that’s why your doctor does not know the truth about Gardasil.”

This is another thing your doctor probably doesn’t know. The government agency NIH actually developed the key component for the Gardasil vaccine and NIH owns part of the patent and receives royalties on it. Not only does NIH the agency receive millions and millions of dollars annually from the vaccine, but also the individual scientists who worked on the vaccine within the agency are entitled to make one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year in royalty payments from Merck.

Oh, every time your pediatrician sells one of those four hundred and twenty dollar vaccines to your child or you, NIH scientists and HHS scientists and the agencies themselves are making money on that transaction. And that’s why your doctor doesn’t know what’s happening because he’s getting his information or her information from those agencies.

So, there are many, many, other shocking conflicts that I don’t have time to talk about today between Merck and the other regulated vaccine makers and the industry that’s supposed to be protecting the public from that regulated industry.

I just want to talk for a moment about one example. From 2002 to 2009 Julie Gerberding was the director of CDC and she oversaw all, all of this crooked science that went into the approvals in 2006 and 2007 of Merck’s Gardasil vaccine. She was rewarded by Merck.

When she left the agency in 2009, she was hired by Merck as the president of its vaccine division and Merck gave her a salary of 2.5 million dollars a year, and 38 million dollars in stock options. And that kind of dough buys a lot of loyalty from regulators.

They know what’s at the end of the line for them if they behave and if they do what Merck and the other company has asked them to do. And these are the reasons that your pediatrician, who’s giving your daughter that Gardasil vaccine believing that it may someday save her life doesn’t know about the risk and perils and the inefficacy that are attended to that vaccine cause that regulators from whom he’s getting or she’s getting her information have been corrupted by this company.

And most of you probably know this is a difficult issue for people like myself who are concerned with vaccine injuries to address, because the press will not cover these issues because there’s 5.4 billion dollars that go from these companies to advertising on TV and radio and newspapers and on the web every year and nobody wants to lose advertising revenue. And the Congress has been bought off the regulatory agencies have been captured and we can’t use the courts because you can’t sue a vaccine maker for injuring yourself or your child.

We’ve figured out ways around those laws and we’re going to sue Merck. And if you are Merck and you’re listening to this tape.

We’re going to come for you and we’re gonna get justice for these girls and these boys who you’ve injured because of your greed.

And if you’re a mother or a father who are listening to this, we’d like your support. It’s just the fact that the more monetary support the Children’s Health Defense has, the more of these cases that we can bring and we’re going to get justice. And we’re going to bring these cases, and sue companies like Merck until we get that justice. We want your money and we want your support and we want your membership.

But more than anything, we want you to protect your child on this vaccine and for other injuries and for that reason we made this tape. Not only so that you can be informed about the science and you can ask the questions of your pediatrician or you can give him a copy of this tape and ask him to watch it and respond to it.

And if you’re a pediatrician I would ask you to actually look at the science and not resort to appeals to authority because, to say “well I know it’s safe because CDC says it’s safe”, or WHO says it’s safe or the AAP says it’s safe because all of those agencies and organizations have been corrupted by pharmaceutical industry money. You need to actually look at the science.

And you need to read the science critically and if you do that, you’ll find that the things that I’ve talked about in this tape are real. That these injuries are real and that we have got to save our children from this cataclysm.

I want to thank you for listening to this video and urge you to join Children’s Health Defense.

Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

May 152019
 

A Moose Jaw, Sask., farmer who was diagnosed with cancer five years ago is leading a class action lawsuit against Bayer and Monsanto.

The lawsuit, filed in Saskatchewan, contends that exposure to Roundup herbicide contributed to his cancer and the cancer of other Canadians participating in the class action.

As well, the suit claims Monsanto, which Bayer acquired in 2018, withheld information about the safety of its herbicide.

Merchant Law Group, a firm best known for the $1.9 billion residential school settlement, has already filed a motion for the class action.

“We have sued in Saskatchewan. We’ve applied to have a judge and we’re ready to go forward with certification (for the class action),” said Tony Merchant, founder of Merchant Law Group, which has six offices in Saskatchewan and 19 across Canada.

“We have people (members of the class action) in Western Canada, particularly, because Roundup is used (there) so commonly, people who have cancer.”

The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a man who farms near Moose Jaw and was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma five years ago.

The farmer contacted Merchant Law Group last September.

“He’s a relatively young man. He’s in his 50s,” Merchant said.

“From the early 1990s he (did) custom spraying, and he took safety courses in pesticide use…. In 1997 he began spraying Roundup on pre-seeding to control weeds. He used Roundup a minimum of two times per year.”

Merchant didn’t provide the identity of the lead plaintiff, but his name will likely be released this summer.

“Probably in six weeks or so.”

Bayer Canada, in an email to The Western Producer, said the company is aware of the statement of claim in Saskatchewan and the proposed class action lawsuit related to glyphosate, which is the active ingredient in Roundup.

“As this is a legal action, we’re not able to discuss the details of this matter publicly,” the email said.

“Bayer firmly stands behind the safety of glyphosate-based products. Glyphosate has been extensively studied and the research shows it is not carcinogenic.”

Over the last nine months there’s been three major court decisions in California regarding the safety of Roundup. Most recently, on Monday a California jury awarded US$2 billion to a couple who claimed that Roundup caused their cancer.

In March a San Francisco jury awarded $80 million to another California man who said Roundup caused his cancer. As well, last August a jury ordered Monsanto to pay $289 million to a California groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

These California cases are just a few of the thousands of legal actions in America related to the safety of glyphosate.

“(Bayer) faces more than 13,400 U.S. lawsuits over the herbicide’s alleged cancer risk,” Reuters reported Monday.

The potential class action in Saskatchewan and the U.S. lawsuits stem from a 2015 World Health Organization decision.

In March of that year, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a division of WHO, classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.”

Dozens of toxicologists and a number of national regulatory bodies, including Health Canada and the European Food Safety Authority, criticized the IARC decision as biased and flawed. In January, Health Canada issued the results of a scientific study on glyphosate, reviewing its 2017 evaluation of the herbicide’s safety.

Health Canada said its 2017 decision “will stand” — glyphosate is not a risk to human health.

“Our scientists left no stone unturned in conducting this review. They had access to all relevant data and information from federal and provincial governments, international regulatory agencies, published scientific reports and multiple pesticide manufacturers,” the department said in January.

“No pesticide regulatory authority in the world currently considers glyphosate to be a cancer risk to humans at the levels at which humans are currently exposed.”

Health Canada may believe glyphosate is safe, but its stance will not be the final word on this topic.

Lawyers could be litigating its safety in a Moose Jaw or Regina court by next January.

“Early 2020,” Merchant said. “It could be November-December of 2019.”

May 142019
 

 

FRANKFURT (Reuters) – Bayer said on Saturday it did not accept “unethical behavior” following a French investigation into a suspected file assembled by the German company’s seed making unit Monsanto to influence various personalities in France.

The French prosecutor said on Friday it had opened the probe after a complaint was filed by daily newspaper Le Monde.

According to the newspaper and other French media, Monsanto built up a file of some 200 names that includes journalists and lawmakers in the hope of influencing their positions on pesticides.

The file, Le Monde reported, dates from 2016 and was leaked by U.S public relations and marketing agency FleishmanHillard.

In an emailed statement, Bayer declined to comment on the investigation, saying it did not know which documents the allegations referred to.

“We stand for openness and a fair treatment of all interest groups. We do not accept any unethical behavior in our company,” it said. “That applies obviously for the data privacy regulations in the respective countries as well.”

FleishmanHillard said on Friday it would investigate the allegations in Le Monde. The company will “examine the questions raised by certain media outlets about the lists of stakeholders that included publicly available information,” it said in a statement.

Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in a $63 billion deal last year, faces mounting litigations over its weedkiller Roundup, a systemic, broad-spectrum glyphosate-based herbicide.

A U.S. jury in August 2018 found the company liable because Monsanto had not warned users of alleged cancer risks linked to Roundup.

Bayer suffered a similar defeat over the weedkiller last month, while more than 13,000 plaintiffs are claiming damages. The company said last month it intended to defend itself in all lawsuits.

(Reporting by Douglas Busvine in Frankfurt; Editing by Richard Lough and Clelia Oziel)

May 092019
 

THE LAST EMAIL SENT OUT:

2019-04-16    For your selection, April 16. Jody Wilson-Raybould. Life in a different paradigm. Julian Assange.

FOR YOUR SELECTION, TODAY, MAY 9:

 

= = = = = = = = = = =

2019-05-07 Census Lockheed Martin StatsCan: reply to Chris’ “I’d dearly love to hear your take on the 2019, just out, Census ‘Test’.…”

Are we already back to the “next” Census?!  The 4th one since we started?!

Hang on tight to your Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.   The Statistics Act is revised.  The Chief Statistician decides which of the personal information demanded is mandatory or voluntary.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24402

= = = = = = = = = = = =

2019-04-28 How is it possible to talk about climate change in Canada, and not address corruption of our institutions, the petro-state, the deep state? Some corporate mapping. Billionaires, Tar sands, Mining, Banks and a University.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24379

= = = = = = = = = = =

JULIAN ASSANGE, PRESS FREEDOM

There is an international rebellion in support of Assange.  His removal from the Ecuadorean Embassy to a London jail may have been a good thing.   People once again have access to him.   There are many too many reports to post.

It would be fantastic if Canada could get on the right side of this one, stop pandering to the U.S..

– – – – –

United Nations Torture Official To Visit Julian Assange In Jail   (not re-posted on this log)

https://10daily.com.au/news/world/a190508bghmp/united-nations-torture-official-to-visit-julian-assange-in-jail-20190508 

– – – – –

2019-05-01 Assange’s lawyer Jennifer Robinson; brief video clip, good. Plus teleSUR coverage.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24374

– – – – –

Major civil liberties, media freedom, and human rights groups speak out against the arrest of Julian Assange  Nations Torture Official To Visit Julian Assange In Jail

“Common Ground”, Vancouver     (not re-posted on this blog)

– – – – –

2019-04-16 Julian Assange Wins 2019 EU Journalism Award, teleSUR

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24361

– – – – –

2019-04-27 Ecuador Embassy Staff Contradicts Allegations Against Assange, teleSUR

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24359

– – – – –

Canadian Arnold August,  EXCERPT:

now that Julian Assange is in prison the analysis in this piece on “freedom of expression” is even more valid.  . . .

. . .    the catch-all American “freedom of expression” mantra as applied to political systems in countries other than the U.S.  This is nothing new, but there is a novel twist.

It is now applied to artistic endeavours (the artist is “expressing” and so has freedom of expression). The campaign targets the sector of the Cuban society dedicated to culture, hoping to win over who those who critically support the new statute in order to create division among individuals involved in culture.

2019-04-15 Politics of Culture in US: ‘The Invisible Hand of the Market’? by Canadian Arnold August, teleSUR

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24372

 

= = = = = = = = = = =

VENEZUELA

I dunno.  Between Assange and Venezuela, it appears that all the world knows how the U.S. functions.  And they aren’t willing to stand by any longer.

Social media has helped unspin the propaganda, as fast as the U.S. military manufactured it.   It’s looking as though Maduro may have managed to hold onto power.   The U.S. and its allies, including Canada, may be  thwarted from installing a usurper puppet, Guaido, as President.   Which would quite possibly lead to civil war in Venezuela, with Guaido’s forces financed by America and its allies.   It’s a recognized pattern.

2019-05-02 Maduro Marches With Army: The Future of Venezuela Is Peace, teleSUR

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24364

 

= = = = = = = = = = =

2019-04-18 Jimmy Carter Lectures Trump: US Is ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’, teleSUR

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24370

Logic:   I can say “Males who abuse children do life-time harm”.   I can say “Fewer females abuse children.”  It does not mean that I condone female abuse of children.

Jimmy Carter makes correct statements regarding the U.S. and war, and comparison statements about the Chinese and American economies.   Logic:  because Carter points out something bad about the U.S. and  makes a comparison statement about China, does not mean that he condones everything China does.

= = = = = = = = = = =

2019-05-02 ‘ContraPoints’ Is Political Philosophy Made for YouTube (Natalie Wynn) – The Atlantic

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24381

My Mother will be offended by the language.   She should skip this one.

= = = = = = = = = = =

1996-09-04 The Rule of Law: “Eclipse and Enlightenment”, a legal opinion by Bruce Clark

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24351

= = = = = = = = = = =

2019-05-08 Letter to CBC, re interview, Tuberculosis “in northern Inuit communities”. Far away?

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=24409

May 082019
 

Sent to CBC,  The Current,  re the first interview on May 8th (link not yet working).

“It’s not fair that TB is still in Canada.”  One Nunavut woman on life with the disease.

 

MY FEEDBACK TO THE CBC:

Jen Skerritt,Winnipeg Free Press, did a 6-part series on tuberculosis in 2009.

There are shocking statements and facts, for example in this one: (http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4394).

I offer one excerpt, but urge you to read the article. Nothing has changed.

“In 1937, TB officials noted that overcrowded homes and poor living conditions on reserves contributed to the high rate of disease among First Nations. In 2009, as many as 18 people are crammed into three-bedroom houses at Lac Brochet.

The community recorded some of the highest TB rates in the world – more than 600 cases per 100,000, more than 100 times what it should be. By comparison, the national rate in Canada is five cases per 100,000. In developing countries such as Bangladesh, the rate is slightly below 400 cases per 100,000. . . .”

Canadians neglect other Canadians at their own peril. Disease organisms travel invisibly. Skerritt’s article reveals that we are kept largely in the dark. My experience (2005) with the disease (educated middle class urban white privileged, living a healthy life style) reinforces what Skerritt documents. The disease is not contained “in the North”, far from it.

We have a dysfunctional Health Canada; if they were doing their job, your guest would not have been on the radio.

We are a population that suffers from ignorance; we do not understand that we are an inextricable part of a larger whole. My experience is ample evidence: it is worth the while of all of us to pitch in and help as we may.

I read back in 2005 that 30% of the population walks around with the TB organism; I think it’s like the HIV organism. You can carry it all your life, your immune system if healthy, will hold it in check. It’s why societies have learned to be careful with dead bodies. The immune system is gone, organisms like tuberculosis can multiply in wild abandon in the fertile fields of the corpse.

Our malaise will not be cured by more drugs. The evidence is clear. I am old enough to remember the Tuberculosis van that came to every distant community in Saskatchewan (maybe not First Nations communities?). It was pre-emptive action to identify, isolate and care for the community and its members. My grandmother-in-law when a young Mother, lived for 2 years in a TB sanitorium, recovered and lived robustly to age 84. Tuberculosis “disappeared”, hence my disbelief when I was told I had TB, not yet contagious.

There is NO NEED to become afraid to breathe the air because we might contract TB . . . IF we would just get to work helping to look after fellow Canadians. The Government has known for 100 years about TB in First Nations communities. Big Pharma is influential in Health Canada and in our Universities. They “care” about profits. Our faith is misplaced if we think “things will change” under the current regime.   . . .  100 years, give me a break.

= = = = = = =

For my own record:

From: Skerritt, Jen
Sent: February 21, 2012
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: RE: TB

Hi Sandra,

Thanks for your note. I haven’t covered health for more than a year, but I can tell you that the series prompted parliamentary hearings on TB, and the federal government pledged to create a new action plan on TB.

I just pulled up the latest TB stats (from Nov. 2011) and there were more than 100 reported cases in Manitoba between January and November last year.

I hope this helps answer your question !

Jen

– – – – – – – – – – – –

From: Sandra Finley
Sent: Sat 2/18/2012
To: Skerritt, Jen
Subject: RE: TB

Hello Jen Skerritt,

I believe I congratulated you back in 2009 when your series of articles on TB ran in the Wpg Free Press.

What was the outcome?   Did things get better?

A village in Guatemala might have TB  in its midst.   I was asked for my input.

I included postings of 3 of your articles because they make the case so well.  See appended.

Many thanks,

Sandra Finley

= = == = = = = == = = = = = = = =

APPENDED

Hi Pam,

IMPORTANT:  I am not a medical doctor.  Most allopathic doctors will disagree with me.  I am providing to you my own personal experience.  No doctor can argue with that.

I worked as a member of a 3-person team with the head of TB Control and with a naturpathic doctor.

ALSO IMPORTANT:  my case was diagnosed early in its development, before it became contagious.

Basicly:

  1. Dealt with things that, unbeknownst to me, were weakening my immune system.
  2. Took/did things to boost my immune system.

A quick message on “the cure”:

–          The community should not let itself get afraid and panicked.    Fear is a great stressor that will weaken their ability to regain health.  Everyone in their community will be healthier if they deal with this together.

FROM MY POINT-OF-VIEW, your friend is on the right path (resistant organisms).   But the non-drug approach is not straight-forward and not without pitfalls.

The community has alternatives:

  1. Use the drug protocols
  2. Be mindful of resistant organisms which means trying some non-drug approaches with some people
  3. Other ideas they may figure out themselves

In order for a non-drug approach to work – if it can work – –  there has to be a buy-in from the community – – for example, people need to agree to be quarantined if their case is contagious.

If the community chooses a non-drug approach,  they should know why they are NOT choosing the drug approach.

I would recommend that, as a first step, the community discuss the drug approach in detail – what they know.   Add to it the following, what I know, and other sources of info.

The second step would be to consider the non-drug approach  – – what they already know, coupled with what has worked for others.

= = = = = = = == = = = =  = = = = = = =

I had an active case of TB, diagnosed before it became contagious.  The old doctor who was head of TB Control in Saskatchewan at the time was agreeable (gave his encouragement) to trying a non-drug approach because the TB wasn’t yet contagious.  We had time.  If it didn’t work, I could still go on the drugs.

I was motivated to experiment, and as I discussed with the doctor :

For the reason you cite (development of resistant organisms) the drug approach to TB is not the best approach, the way I see things.  Nature’s organisms will always evolve so as to survive the current poison we use to kill them.  That is exactly what is happening – – the community you refer to in Guatemala is experiencing it.

This posting includes a list of countries where drug-resistant TB has evolved.   (By 2005)

2005-06-02 Health, Follow-up on: I have tuberculosis. Includes incidence and history.

The problem is that new drugs, in order to combat the disease have to become more and more toxic, parallel with the more virulent organism.   We arrive at a point where “the cure” is temporary  AND toxic to the point that it does great harm to the human patient, too.

Neither do I think it is rational to develop more and more expensive drugs, when the people afflicted by the disease are largely people with compromised immune systems BECAUSE OF poverty.   As the Canadian example illustrates so well – – tuberculosis has been an identified and serious problem in First Nations communities for more than a hundred years.  Alarms re-surface periodically through the years.  NOTHING changes, except that the risk for everyone increases.

People are foolish if they think the disease can be contained within distant communities, in local shelters for the homeless, addiction treatment centres,  and hospitals.   Which is, in fact, where TB is growing in Canada.   But we prefer “hush”, to dealing effectively with the disease, which means dealing with racism and poverty.

It assumes that we are incapable of developing some other way to combat the organism.

The TB programme does not serve the patient because the drugs do not address what is at the root of the health problem.  The drugs might provide a fix.  But in time, whatever is underlying (causing weakened immunity) is likely to manifest in some other form of ill health.   There is a good chance that the TB patient will have continuing health problems and a reduced life span.

Keep in mind that a significant percentage (30% is the number I’ve seen) of people walk around with the TB organism;  it is not a problem for them because their immune system keeps it in check.  Our insides are full of little creatures, some good, some not-so-good.

 

As mentioned, I worked as a team with an allopathic doctor, head of TB Control (regular check-ups) and a naturpathic doctor.

My case of TB demonstrates:  if we neglect poverty (where TB resides) we do it at our own peril.  TB is on the rise, it will spread to the not-poor.

Also, the drug-company efforts to find the “next cure” are immoral.  They use people in 3rd world countries to test their new concoctions.  The Government of Nigeria brought criminal charges against Pfizer for killing Nigerians who were used for drug testing.  The case was settled out-of-court.

Here is the information I have circulated (as of 2009) regarding tuberculosis.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4372   2005-06-02  Health,  Follow-up on:  I have tuberculosis.  Includes incidence and history.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4374    2005-06-23  Tuberculosis  –  TB patient jailed and other articles

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4381   2005-10-28  Related: pharmaceuticals in h2o supply, resistant organisms, myco toxins, Tuberculosis

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4369   2007-06-01  Tuberculosis story improbable ??  Also, Nigerian Government brings criminal charges against Pfizer.

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4394   2009-10-31  Tuberculosis explodes on northern reserves

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4397   2009-11-03  ‘Things are falling apart’, number of TB cases in Manitoba is on the rise, . . .

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=4390   2009-11-07  Tuberculosis The Forgotten Disease – Part 6 – Winnipeg Free Press.htm

http://sandrafinley.ca/?p=1105.   2009-11-19   H1N1 (or nukes or gmo’s or energy) in the context of “Selling Out”: the larger issue. Immune systems. TB. Constant Gardener.

(For the last posting, see item #5.   Also  #6, the Nigerian case.   It includes reference to the book/movie “The Constant Gardener” which is all about Big Pharma’s interest in tuberculosis.)

 

THE QUESTION ?

The approach used was:  why didn’t my immune system deal with the TB organism?   (many healthy people carry the organism, it doesn’t become active)

/Sandra

– – – – – – – – – –

From: Pamela
Sent: February-13-12
To: Sandra Finley
Subject: TB

Hi Sandra;

. . .   A friend of mine is working with people in Guatemala and they are experiencing possibly an outbreak of Tuberculosis. I thought that you told me that you had TB once in your lungs and had treated it herbally? If so, can you tell me what you used? My friend would be very interested in this, as sometimes the people don’t use the medication properly and then the disease is drug resistant.

Thanks for your help!

Pam

May 072019
 

Chris writes:

I’d dearly love to hear your take on the 2019, just out, Census ‘Test’.  Again, another mandatory (or is it?) survey… or rather ‘test’ (?) A precursor to the yet to come 2021 all citizen Census. An attempt to see just how far they can push the types of questions they ask. This time they take aim at our gender, our sex, our religious beliefs, our mental state and yes, just for fun… our need for repairs required to our homes (You’ll have to ask them). All of which, in my simple mind combined or in part, amount to a lot of NONE OF THEIR DAMN BUSINESS!! I absolutely fail to see how any of that information can be useful in any capacity to accomplish that which they state in their opening paragraph on the Census Test itself. If you thought the 2016 Census was a hit to our freedoms under the charter then you have got to see this one. Absolute, pure, unadulterated voyeurism.

Sandra speaking:

NOTE 1:  you may have missed this posting.  It contains the link to the Globe&Mail article about StatsCan’s plan to demand the banking records of 500,000 Canadians.  As far as I know, outrage dissuaded them!

2018-11-16   the BLIND SPOT in Privacy Commissioner’s investigation of StatsCan (getting our personal data (like bank records) from the private sector)

 

NOTE 2:   The Census ‘Test’,  Chris’ question.   It’s new to me – – thanks to Chris for drawing it to attention, and providing the information:

Hi Sandra,  I’ve included a couple of links to view.

Besides the questions on this ‘test’ being what I consider irrelevant to any government function they are highly personal and can not legally be asked by anyone else (e.g. employers, etc…)  such as what sex I was at birth, my gender now, my religion, how much I think my home is worth if I sold today and what sort of repairs it currently needs, how many sick days I took off of work during a specified period and if I was paid for that time, my parents birth places (what if I don’t know???).

I’m horrified.  I really don’t want to answer anything on this ‘test’.  According to the second link provided below, they are calling this a survey.  Surveys, as I understand it, are not MANDATORY.  Yet I’m being told both by them by phone and on the first link provided – that this IS indeed a mandatory ‘test’.

I also call into question their selection process for the 250,000 homes they targeted (excellent choice of wording here because that’s exactly how I feel) as I ALWAYS get any so called random sampling test, survey, etc… that they come up with.  Add to this that I always get any long form (1 of 4 homes) as well.  I have not done anything with this test yet.  Not sure what I will do at the moment.

https://www.statcan.gc.ca/eng/survey/household/3901 

 https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/consultation/test2019/index-eng.cfm

Thanks for giving me a place to go where someone is actually listening to my concerns,  Chris

 

= = = = = = = = = =

MY TAKE

A quick look at “the test” – – does it say that “the test” is not mandatory,  but it IS mandatory if you receive the “invitation” to supply the requested information?  I invite interpretation by others.

The second URL contains a link to the Statistics Act.   Section 7, copied below.  Look at the bold, highlighted “Marginal note:”.  Looks like the Chief Statistician became God.  I wonder how God liked it when even the Banks said “no” to the demand for the banking records of 500,000 people?

Chris – – in spite of the “Marginal note”, you still have a Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.   A bureaucrat does not have the power to take that away.   Constitutional Law requires that the Government apply to the Courts,  present arguments to satisfy the criteria set out in the Oakes Test, and get a Court Ruling that says  “We agree, StatsCan needs to have an over-ride of the Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.  If you don’t answer the questions, you will be prosecuted.”  StatsCan cannot take away the Charter Right of citizens, without a Court Ruling.

I have some thoughts on what should be done, but I need to make inquiries first.

The Statistics Act, Section 7:

Rules, instructions and requests for information

  •  (1) The Chief Statistician may prescribe the rules, instructions and, subject to subsection 21(1), requests for information that he or she considers necessary for conducting the work and business of Statistics Canada, the collecting, compiling and publishing of statistics and other information and the taking of any census authorized by this Act.

  • Marginal note:Clarification

    (2) For greater certainty, any rule, instruction or request for information prescribed under subsection (1) is not a regulation for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

  • R.S., 1985, c. S-19, s. 7;
  • 2017, c. 31, s. 5.

Marginal note:  Mandatory or voluntary requests for information

  •  (1) The Chief Statistician (God) shall determine whether a request for information is mandatory or voluntary, with the exception of the census of population and census of agriculture, both of which are mandatory.

The following integrates a larger picture that I think is important to see.   Follow one high-level bureaucrat, Anil Arora.   He moves from one Government Agency or Department to another – – implementing an agenda.  The agenda is international and corporate.   Arora is one of the quislings.

– – – – – –

You reminded me,  good grief!   . . . the “next Census” already peeps over the horizon.   It will be the FOURTH one since the beginning of our efforts.  I doubt that any one of us foresaw the longterm need for attention.   At the beginning we understood very little of what we know now.   We tackled the Government because it was not hard to understand, intuitively, that StatsCan was intent on taking us down a very dark road (discussed elsewhere on this blog).

Also unforeseen, the greatest amount of work has arisen from what StatsCan does IN BETWEEN censuses, the surveys.

Two important contribution we’ve been able to deliver to Canadians:

  1. solid documentation of the lies told by StatsCan.
  2. The vulnerability of our Charter Right to Privacy of Personal Information.   Citizens are the only ones who will fight to defend it.  It is not in the interests of (Lockheed Martin Corp) the military-industrial-government-surveillance economy, for Canadians to have the Charter Right to Privacy.

 

The second point (Charter Right) is addressed comprehensively in other postings.

I’ll elaborate on the first point, documentation of the lies and half-truths, and where that takes us.

  1. It probably begins with   (2010-01-17):   My trial is not selective prosecution – – ? Is the Government applying the law equally? StatsCan witness, Anil Arora, under oath says those who didn’t comply were referred for prosecution; 64 people in all of Canada were charged. – –  Whereas thousands did not comply.

2.  Important parts of the Credibility Gap” (StatsCan’s record on truthfulness) is summarized near the end of, “Does Lockheed Martin have a role in the 2016 Census?”.

The Nazis were masters of using lies to reassure people.  And they were masters of the Census as a tool of the terrorist state, ultimately for the extermination of millions of people.    I am reminded – – “By Chance Alone,  A Remarkable True Story of Courage and Survival at Auschwitz  by Canadian Max Eisen, 2016.

Max was a 15-year old at Auschwitz.  His description makes real the use of the lies,  the role they play in the persuasion that reduces your wariness during the period when the subjugation is beginning.  During that time, the tyranny cannot risk a rebellion – – there are too many of you, they can be overthrown.  The lies disarm rebellion, long enough for the tyrants to reduce people to the point where their power to resist is obliterated.

As mentioned, Anil Arora was the StatsCan witness at my trial.   And I had a 45-minute telephone conversation with him at the time of the 2006 census-taking.   He had phoned to persuade me to fill in my census form.   I found his responses to my serious concerns lacking in substance.   He was a facile parrot for StatsCan and Lockheed Martin Corp, unable to hear or process what I was saying.  (I still have the recording of that conversation.)

The following may seem off-topic.   To me,  it is important to see Arora in the larger context, to understand better the operation of our Government.

Arora came from Health Canada to StatsCan where he performed under a couple of titles, including at one time “Director General” of StatsCan.  I first came across his name in Shiv Chopra’s “Health Canada, Rotten to the Core”.   Arora is a bureaucrat, not a long trained statistician with long experience, as former heads of StatsCan had been.   He disappeared from StatsCan for a time after my trial.   And reappeared again later at StatsCan.   He did a stint in Natural Resources Canada, and in Science and Policy Integration.   I wn’t comment on those assignments.

Arora is now back at Health Canada.   And I’m holding in my hand a brochure that calls on Canadians to fight back against what his sub-section of Health Canada is doing.  “These bureaucrats need to hear from you”.   The first one listed is Anil Arora.   According to NHPPA (Natural Health Products Protection Assoc),  Health Canada will move natural supplements to fall under the same regulations as chemical drugs, after the Federal Election in October.

I phoned NHPPA:  why is Anil Arora listed on the brochure? 

A well-informed woman referred me to their website and a specific document.  (I don’t have time at the moment to find the link.  Will put it here, later.)   In short,  the NHPPA has every reason to be challenging Health Canada on process, in my opinion.    (Just as StatsCan was challenged on their outrageous attempt to demand the banking data on 500,000 Canadians from the banks.)

Arora’s online Government bio is glowing.  The reason Arora is currently at Health Canada  – – –   leading a complex organization overseeing regulation of food, drug and health products for Canada – – –

might be explained by the last sentence from his “government/management” bio:   He also served as chair of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities.

(I wonder why the bio is not on a Health Canada URL?  maybe they have all the government “management” people in one silo?):

https://www.canada.ca/en/government/management/anil-arora.html

Excerpt, minus the accolades:

In 2010, Mr. Arora joined Natural Resources Canada as Assistant Deputy Minister of the Minerals and Metals Sector, and in 2013 was appointed Assistant Deputy Minister of Science and Policy Integration. He moved to Health Canada in 2014, becoming Assistant Deputy Minister of Health Products and Food Branch and leading a complex organization overseeing regulation of food, drug and health products for Canada. He also served as chair of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities.

RE:   He also served as chair of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities  (source URLs are appended)

I think it’s pretty well understood that the American Regulatory Authorities of Medicines are run by Big Pharma.    My documented experience leads to the same conclusion regarding the situation in Canada.

Arora chaired this (from the website):

voluntary, executive-level entity of worldwide medicines regulatory authorities set up to provide strategic coordination, advocacy and leadership  . . .

Website designed by Swissmedic and maintained by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency

The website design credits are the names of Government Regulatory Agencies in Switzerland and Japan, respectively.

I have no idea of their relationship with Big Pharma, whether they are bona fide regulators or not.  All I know is that Switzerland is where Cameco set up a storefront shop to avoid paying taxes in Canada.

My direct experience of  Health Canada is with the PMRA (Pest Management Regulatory Agency).  I didn’t find it surprising to see “Rotten to the Core” in a book title.   I went to Ottawa years ago to meet with the then-head of the PMRA (Karen Dodds) and her second-in-command, Connie, because I wanted to hear answers to my questions about the regulation of ag chemicals (pesticides) from the horse’s mouth.   I was appalled by their responses and remain so.   The public interest in health was not to be found.  Health Canada’s PMRA is run by and for corporate interests.   It’s why Canada continues to stonewall in the face of overwhelming evidence of the great harm being done by ag-chemicals for example.   The forecasted extinctions of insects and songbirds does not phase them, let alone the disease levels in humans and animals.

I think the evidence is clear:  it is not only the American Medicine Regulatory Authorities that are run by Corporations,  the Canadian ones are, too.   Anil Arora was chair of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities.

StatsCan?   Member of an international organization to harmonize census operations in various countries, under the steerage of Lockheed Martin Corp.   A revised Statistics Act gives the Chief Statistician the power to decide whether we will be prosecuted for personal information we fail to supply, if it is demanded.

International Trade Deals with “Chapter 13” secret Tribunals to decide how much we are going to pay to satisfy corporate complaints that Canadian laws prevented  them from making the money they claim they can make in Canada?

Seems pretty clear.  Our own Laws are subservient.  There are people in Government whose job it is to (Anil Arora at Health Canada) -manage a complex organization overseeing regulation of food, drug and health products for Canada.  

He was not working on behalf of citizens at StatsCan.  Charter Rights be damned.  Revise the Statistics Act to ensure power and control is in the hands of the Chief Statistician.  Under “the steerage” of Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Chair of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities?  And what’s happening now under his management at Health Canada?  Dump what took years to accomplish in Canada.  In whose favour?  

Back to my experience:  you may imagine that I lent an ear and gratitude to Shiv Chopra,  one of three Health Canada whistle-blowers in the case of attempted bribery by Monsanto to get Bovine Growth Hormone registered in Canada.   I also happened to meet one of his fellow whistleblowers at a “Prevent Cancer NOW” workshop in Ottawa,  Michelle Brill-Edwards.   These are fine people who work in the public interest (Shiv is now deceased).

But Health Canada – – actually the corporations they serve – –  will not countenance those who dare to challenge and expose.  The attack campaigns against whistle-blowing scientists in Canada and in the U.S. has been worthy of a police state.  (Documented elsewhere on this blog.)

Elected Members-of-Parliament and Provincial Legislative Assemblies, working with the Canadian Senate are not “the Government”, in a number of cases.   As the documentation vis-à-vis StatsCan and the PMRA illustrates, lies and vague information are a large factor in the manipulation of the Canadian public.   Documentation regarding the petro-chemical industry shows the same reality.

Lies, half-truths, propaganda, vagueness, reassurances from the Government produce gullible people.  Easy prey.

Thank-you Chris, for connecting with us.  I hope “My Take” is a useful contribution to

decisions we need to make

about actions we will take.

Yes, some of us should focus on StatsCan.  By doing so, we are in solidarity with, and supporting the work being done by other Canadians vis-a-vis other manifestations of the same problem in the Government that is no longer our Government.

P.S.  I am having a good chuckle at StatsCan’s communications strategy for “the test” census.   You receive “an invitation” to participate.   I am reminded of the very funny phrase they came up with to describe the money they make from selling data – – it’s “respendable revenue”.   Hilarious!

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

APPENDED

SOURCE URL’s for THE MEDICINES REGULATORY AUTHORITIES

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/partners-networks/international-activities/multilateral-organisations-initiatives/international-coalition-medicines-regulatory-authorities

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is a member of the International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA). ICMRA is a voluntary, executive-level entity of worldwide medicines regulatory authorities set up to provide strategic coordination, advocacy and leadership.  Nov 20, 2014

http://www.icmra.info/drupal/   

The International Coalition of Medicines Regulatory Authorities (ICMRA) is a voluntary, executive-level, strategic coordinating, advocacy and leadership entity of regulatory authorities that work together to  . . .  (etc.  down to)

Website designed by Swissmedic and maintained by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency

Content as at May 7, 2019 is as recent as:

About Us

1 day 19 hours ago

Innovation

1 day 20 hours ago

    Strategic Initiatives

1 day 20 hours ago

Crisis Management

1 day 20 hours ago

Related activities’ official websites

1 day 20 hours ago