Home | About | Donate

With "Mountainous" Evidence on Plaintiffs' Side, Hundreds of Cancer Cases Against Monsanto Get Green Light


#21

You have to stop these poisonous substances at their source, which in the case of Roundup, was in the laboratory and testing facilities.
It’s pretty naive to think " the applicators " are going to stop this chemical assault on the world.
Advertising works to overcome the truth and the science, but don’t expect Monsanto/Bayer to quit using the false equivalency ( on the other hand ) arguments our MSM thrives on for their $$$.
The EPA and the businesses they regulate are captured; as in, of the over 8000 dangerous chemical substances identified as " potentially hazardous " to public health, less than 1000 have been properly tested. Shortcuts abound, here.
And, Big Pharma is doing the same thing now, too. If you feel like a lab rat, you’re not delusional or paranoid, you are on to something.


#22

Same shameless argument cigarette and oil companies use to protect their deadly products over everything else.


#23

WTF did you just write?


#24

OMG, just one sniff of that deadly poison which it really is was enough for me to never ever consider using it for any purpose at all. The casual consumer, the users of roundup think they’re smart to avoid a little bending over to pull the weeds by the roots. They are not smart just fucking lazy. The farmers on the other hand are either terrified of Monsanto or foolishly think they’ll obtain higher yields.


#25

I would prefer not to blame individuals I don’t know, or to underestimate the dishonesty and pressures directed at farmers. We know plenty about Monsanto’s past lies and tactics - and that’s who needs to change first and foremost. The use of chemicals to “solve” “problems” is everywhere. To change it we need every possible ally. Alienating people who have been miseducated is, to use your word, lazy, and it’s bad tactics.


#26

I am so sorry to hear that. My husband was in Viet Nam as well. He built shelter camps for troops. He died an early death and is long since gone now.


#27

“…self-righteously posting in order to make myself feel good.”

But he’s right about “lesions,” FWIW.


#28

We will never see justice, because we’ve all been exposed, and even those who suffer no adverse effects were lied to in order to force us to accept the danger. There should be accountability for that alone, but there won’t be.

But I would at least like to see a skilled writer or team of writers delve into everything that will soon be uncovered about the decisions made by people working for Monsanto.

From the sound of it so far, the writer could call it Ordinary Businessmen’, a tribute to Christopher Browning’s ‘Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland’. Browning’s is a work that should be required reading in high school, because it teaches how social structures can influence humans in horrifying ways to do things that they otherwise probably would not.

It always bewilders me when government officials and corporate decision makers do things that put their own children in danger, too. We need an understanding of that human behavior, and what triggers it, and how to prevent it.


#29

Okay thanks point well taken


#30

I’m convinced it all stems from knowing that, in the natural order of things, their children will outlive them. Furious at their own inevitable mortality, they take out their anger and frustration on anybody, everywhere, while they still can.

“Apres moi, le deluge” is the perfect expression of this ultimate nihilism.


#31

Go organic. Go local. Go farmers market. If these precautions are not taken, then one is implicitly, trusting the corporation! If the cost seems too high, then one needs to evaluate which is more valuable - health and well-being or giving-up those insecticide-laden, herbicide-laden, tasteless, odorless poisons that bio-accumulate over one’s lifetime. Trusting the status-quo makes zero sense. Just living in an urban environment these days, one is risking cancers down the road.

Constant exposure with foul air and water is inescapable. So at minimum, eating organic or homegrown or joining a CSA, at least will reduce exposure. I have given-up living indoors to outdoors to afford the increased cost of organic foods. I buy organic rice and beans and pasta in bulk by the 10 - 25 lots. Confront stores that sell this monsanto crap. Confront yer family and friends, even if it means that they stop talking to you! That’s what has happened to me, lol But longterm, they will come around or die unexpectedly of weird diseases. Tough choice either way!


#32

Best wishes, no intent to be hurtful. Believe me, I understand the anger. and it’s so easy to feel cynical about my fellow citizens. It gets to me every day just looking around. I wish you the best in all things.


#33

Mike told me that many of his fellow soldiers used the empty barrels as bbq grills – I think it is absolutely unconscionable that no one told the soldiers how dangerous this crap is; but then, Vietnam (and Korea in '69) was a testing ground to see how well it worked – when $millions are at stake a few soldier peons don’t matter!


#34

Mike has been sick for quite a few years now – he’s now on dialysis and will never be able to get a transplant b/c his heart isn’t healthy enough. When I see a soldier I tell them I won’t thank them for their service b/c it just seems so trite, but I will tell them l think the best way to thank them is by stopping the wars; so to you I won’t tell you how sorry I am that you lost your husband, but that if we want their lives to count we will do our part to truly put an end to these GODDAMNED WARS!

Pwr 2 the SOLDIER peons!
GUILLOTINE ALL WARS!

And thank you for sharing your own Vietnam experience – we who stayed at home also fought.


#35

I think a lot people consider a war over when hostilities end, but it doesn’t. It can go on for a long time in the hearts and minds of people harmed. I have always felt this was particularly deceitful by those in charge. I’m glad your husband is getting good care. I agree we need to end these wars. All of them. Thanks to you as well.


#37

Monsanto continues to be getting into deep water with these issues. It’s remarkable that a product this wide spread is just now coming to light with all these potential problems. We really need an honest investigation and clear independent studies without Monsanto’s influence on the Roundup testing. According to the below article it looks like there are even possibly problems with dicamba as well which is another issue to keep an eye on. A number of family friends have been using these products and it’s incredibly worrisome because the general public needs to be protected.


#38

You are so right about the PTSD aspect of war – we just came thru a week of fireworks here in Omaha – Mike and I both seriously hate the 4th of July now b/c of what it’s like for Mike and the furbabies … I start giving them an antihistamine a week b4 the 4th just so it won’t drive them up the wall!

Eight years ago we had a furnace tech over to do a yearly check-up and he burned our house down! We all got out safely but we lost everything. The firemen had to call the gas company to shut off the gas b/c that was what caused the fire (the tech cut a wire on the furnace and did NOT turn the gas down). Every year for the entire month of January I am STILL off-kilter, and I honestly think it’s my own form of PTSD. But hey, the furnace company got to pay for my dream house! :slight_smile:


#42

PCB. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/09/monsanto-continued-selling-pcbs-for-years-despite-knowing-health-risks-archives-reveal

Agent Orange. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/

On Glyphosate we have conflicting assessments: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/04/150422-glyphosate-roundup-herbicide-weeds/

There’s a history here. Monsanto lies to protect markets, and sues to suppress whistleblowers.

But much more crucially, and utterly predictably, you ignore the actual thrust of my post: Monsanto wants control of the entire agricultural process, and the purpose of GMO is not human nutrition but chemical sales.

Your talking points, and their repetition in the face of arguments which look at the motives for the relentless GMO push, reflect the core issue with corporate science defenders - they somehow believe that profit and power have no effect on decisions, despite, you know, all of human history. In this one area we are asked to believe that people and institutions and processes are incorruptible. It’s either cynical, or touchingly sentimental. Either way it’s indefensible. Science is a method. Corporate science inherently has an agenda, and it’s based not in scientific theory but in shareholder value theory. Huge amounts of money change hands every year across multiple industries to defend shoddy research, cherry picked studies.

You are clearly not an honest broker because you refuse to acknowledge context. But even if you were right about glyphosate, one of the largest chemical experiments ever conducted with human subjects, you sneer at people who have a track record in front of them with regard to corporate USE of science.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/17/470679452/drug-company-payments-mirror-doctors-brand-name-prescribing

http://www.dwlr.com/blog/2011-05-12/rico-convictions-major-tobacco-companies-affirmed

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

It’s beyond foolish to allow roundup to be sprayed around like water. The agriculture industry has long abandoned concern for public health, from the dangers of overuse of antibiotics to deal with crowding, to the erosion of chemical laden soil into rivers and streams and wells, to the health of farm workers themselves. The rest of us don’t need to trust like small children when corporations assure us that this time it’s fine.

Liars for powerful organizations thrive on a lack of context. And it’s a particular feature of certain reflexive supporters of corporate science that they never accept what is absolutely critical for, say, historians, and should be in assessing any truth claim: the track record of the claimant, and its relation to the prior probability of a claim. Bayes’ Theorem is an excellent place to start for a corrective.

The pattern of science “fanbois” trying to close the door on new evidence is richly ironic but dangerous. The beauty of the method is that it allows claims to be continually contested. That’s what makes it different from religion. But again, power matters, and it is profoundly unscientific to pretend otherwise.


#45

Context matters. You refuse as expected to engage on questions of past behavior and present intent. Why glyphosate at all? Why the need to spend so much defending and marketing it as if it were candy? Explain to us why YOU trust Monsanto this time. Explain why WE need GMO, not some theoretically fed person on the planet.

The pattern is relentless - insult research, ignore history and context and power relations and then insult the speaker.

You say you don’t need to address anything not specifically about glyphosate’s toxicity. That’s not science in any real sense, it’s just cheerleading. Chemicals are applied to systems, and sold within an economic structure. Those may have no meaning to you, but they affect us every day, and are highly relevant here. The narrowness of your lens makes your assertions irrelevant.


#46

You’re just so obviously an obsessive. Let it go, drink some roundup… cuz it’s fine right? Go open a bottle and breathe deep.