- View FabulousFlyingNina’s profile on Facebook
- View fabulousflying’s profile on Twitter
- View fabflynina’s profile on Pinterest
- View nina-anderson-atp-c-nlp-spn-reiki-ii-99695b4’s profile on LinkedIn
- View LJBPiper’s profile on YouTube
- View user55889343’s profile on Vimeo
- View 102638827669152843080’s profile on Google+
Our Sponsor: Daily Metrix. full spectrum, non GMO liquid vitamins.
A Barnstormer Aviator. True story about the AntiAginglady’s barnstormer father.
Blog Catalog Approved
Anti Aging Lady413-229-9042Eastern time zone USA
Monthly Archives: June 2015
In the lawsuit filed in California, Monsanto is accused of: The deliberate falsification to conceal the fact that glyphosate is harmful to humans and animals. The class action lawsuit (Case No: BC 578 942) was filed in Los Angeles County, California against biotechnology giant Monsanto. It alleges that Monsanto is guilty of false advertising by claiming that glyphosate, the active ingredient in their best-selling herbicide, Roundup, “targets an enzyme only found in plants and not in humans or animals.” You can see this statement marked clearly on some of Monsanto’s products sold in the state. The lawsuit attests that the enzyme in question, EPSP synthase, is found in the microbiota that reside in our intestinal tracts, and therefore the enzyme is “found in humans and animals.” Due to the disruption of gut flora by glyphosate, Monsanto’s chemicals do indeed affect humans.“. . . glyphosate is linked to stomach and bowel problems, indigestion, ulcers, colitis, gluten intolerance, sleeplessness, lethargy, depression, Crohn’s Disease, Celiac Disease, allergies, obesity, diabetes, infertility, liver disease, renal failure, autism, Alzheimer’s, endocrine disruption, and the W.H.O. recently announced glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic’.” Glyphosate is found in various weed killers, including the brands listed below:
Translation: the US FDA and Health Canada, and the Australian TGA, and the New Zealand MEDSAFE, and the medical regulatory agencies of Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, and Peru will: declare dangerous drugs to be safe. Together. On behalf of the corporations who manufacture them. Among other corporate benefits, the TPP will allow pharmaceutical companies to extend the life of patents on drugs. And those drugs will be exported and imported, from country to country, with far less oversight re their destructive health effects, because, in phase one, drug companies will be able to sue governments, in private tribunals, for “restraint of free trade,” when the specter of drug-dangers is raised and drug-imports are refused and turned away.
Case in point. One out of hundreds. Vioxx, a drug to treat pain and arthritis. Manufacturer: Merck. Approved by the US FDA as safe and effective in 1999. Before it was withdrawn from the market in 2004, Merck pocketed in the vicinity of $12.5 billion in global sales. Finally, after 10,000 individual suits were filed against Merck, and 190 class-actions, and a 2010 US federal case, Merck paid out roughly $8 billion in judgments.Once Vioxx was taken off the market, it was revealed it had caused between 88,000 and 140,000 cases of heart disease—and between 30 and 40 percent of these cases were probably fatal. These are very conservative estimates. How had that mass destruction happened? In America it was through the efforts of the US FDA, the agency responsible for certifying medicines as safe and effective before they are released for public use. Once the FDA decides a drug is safe and effective, the US company that manufactures it can, under the TPP, demand that every other TPP country accept that judgment as well. For instance, if the US FDA claimed Vioxx was safe, then Merck, the US company that manufactured it, could sell it to the 12-member countries of the TPP, and if there were any government refusals on the grounds of safety, Merck could sue the refusing government in a secret corporate court and win. Even though Vioxx is deadly.
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” (Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)
excerpted from: http://bit.ly/1AGequY