−
–
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
For More Information, Explore The Following Links …
−
−
The Library Of Glyphosate References
- −
- −
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
−
−
Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism
−
−
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-complete-library-of-victories/
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary & Background Information
−−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
−
−
−
Statement ―
−
−
−
Can Bayer ⁄ Monsanto Ever Appease
Roundup-Hating Extremists, Undeserving
Plaintiffs With False-Cancer-Claims, &
Jackpot-Justice Plaintiff-Attorneys ?!?!
−
−
−
−
No Actual Risk Of Harm & Environmentally-Benign ―
−
−
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup herbicide, which has been manufactured by Bayer since June 7th 2018, when the Monsanto [ THE MANUFACTURER ] brand was discontinued.
−
National regulatory agencies & expert organizations have affirmed that there is NO ACTUAL RISK OF HARM to public health & the environment when used properly.
−
According to science-based evidence, glyphosate is ONLY toxic to plants because it is an herbicide.
−
There is no known biological mechanism by which glyphosate could cause cancer, therefore its carcinogenicity is NOT EVEN theoretically possible.
−
World-wide, science-based national regulatory agencies & leading experts have been siding with the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that glyphosate WILL NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK ― there is NO bio-medical & NO epidemiological evidence to support the FALSE-CLAIM that glyphosate causes cancer.
−
According to Dr Geoffrey C Kabat, cancer epidemiologist, FARMERS FAVOUR GLYPHOSATE because it is ENVIRONMENTALLY-BENIGN & has LOW TOXICITY ― the acute toxicity of glyphosate is LOWER than that of TABLE SALT.
−
−
−
−
Roundup Toxicity ―
−
−
Roundup is scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & will NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
Roundup is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to LD50 assessments ― the LOWEST toxicity for risk assessments.
−
Roundup Original Liquid Herbicide, which contains glyphosate, is PRACTICALLY NON-TOXIC according to the assessment of its acute oral toxicity, which has been estimated to be 5000+ mg / kg.
−
Roundup is LESS TOXIC THAN several HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ― • Aspirin • baking soda • caffeine • cannabis • nicotine • table salt • Tylenol.
−
[ NO-ACTUAL-RISK ] Roundup is about THREE TIMES LESS DEADLY than Tylenol, & THIRTY TIMES LESS DEADLY than caffeine.
−
Roundup is NO MORE TOXIC THAN several HOUSEHOLD ITEMS ― • ethanol ( an edible beverage constituent in beer, wine, & other intoxicating beverages ) • mouthwash ( i.e. Listerine ) • Vitamin C.
−
[ NO-RISK ] Roundup is ― • scientifically-safe • practically non-toxic • will cause NO harm to human health & the environment • will NOT cause cancer • will NOT cause irreversible damage if consumed orally.
−
The probable lethal dose for a person ingesting the concentrated form of [ NO-RISK ] Roundup is ONE LITRE, the volume of an entire milk carton.
−
By comparison, drinking SIX LITRES of water, which is considered HARMLESS, can lead to water poisoning or dilutional hyponatremia, which is a potentially fatal disturbance in brain functions.
−
In essence, water is only FIVE TIMES SAFER than Roundup.
−
Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & will NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
Marxist Socialism ―
−
−
The extremist-conspiracies against [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup are designed to impose MARXIST SOCIALISM.
−
These conspiracies are not only an attack against scientific innovation, they are also a means of imposing SOCIALISM.
−
In western countries, the slide towards SOCIALISM ( a.k.a. wealth re-distribution ) is taking root not only at the ballot box, but also from the GULLIBLE & IGNORANT JURORS.
−
In essence, the KANGAROO-TRIALS against Roundup are extremist-conspiracies that are designed to re-distribute wealth from innovative companies, like Bayer ⁄ Monsanto, to UNDESERVING PLAINTIFFS WITH FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS against Roundup ― all while attorneys are taking a healthy cut for themselves.
−
Can Bayer ⁄ Monsanto ever appease Roundup-hating subversive-extremists & their attorneys ?!?! NO !
−
−
−
−
Biden Administration Interference ―
−
−
President Joe Biden’s socialist-administration has been INTERFERING WITH the US Supreme Court by demanding that it NOT to hear Bayer ⁄ Monsanto’s APPEAL to dismiss claims by undeserving-plaintiffs who allege that Roundup causes cancer [ ?!?! ] .
−
Bayer has argued that the cancer claims against Roundup defy sound science & product clearance from the US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ).
−
Even the US EPA has affirmed & re-affirmed that glyphosate, the ingredient in Roundup, is NOT CARCINOGENIC & NOT A RISK to public health when used as indicated on the label.
−
Consequently, Roundup is scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & will NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trials & Bogus Lawsuits ―
−
−
Roundup trials ( i.e. cancer-trials ) have been text-book cases of KANGAROO-COURT-JUSTICE.
−
Roundup-hating extremists have subversively perpetuated false-cancer-claims, fraudulent science, imaginary danger, & enviro-terrrжrism against Roundup.
−
They are corrupt, fraudulent, politicized, & profit-hungry.
−
With these KANGAROO-TRIALS, the legal system has been IRRETRIEVABLY-CORRUPTED by this coordinated, well-funded attack by extremists, using FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS, as well as social media, intimidation, & confrontation.
−
Who are some of these Roundup-hating extremists ?!?! ― • PLAINTIFFS • ATTORNEYS • JUDGES • JURIES • CONSULTANTS.
−
• PLAINTIFFS ― Profit-hungry UNDESERVING PLAINTIFFS have been FALSELY-ALLEGING that they suffer from some form of cancer, usually non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ), often after years of exposure to Roundup.
−
• ATTORNEYS ― Jackpot-justice attorneys have been launching frivolous litigation against Roundup. During the California KANGAROO-TRIALS, the plaintiffs’ attorneys have manipulated the juries’ emotions by using FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS against Roundup in order to obtain verdicts that have led to UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT AWARDS. Their legal arguments defied scientific evidence & manipulated these juries into falsely-believing that Roundup causes harm [ ?!?! ] ― the logic of science-based evidence has been replaced with emotion & virtue signaling.
−
• JUDGES ― Kangaroo-trial judges have operated courts that condemn Roundup with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS, & have awarded JACKPOT-VERDICTS against the manufacturer of Roundup ― virtually ALL verdicts are under appeal. Moreover, the judges in the first three KANGAROO-TRIALS against Roundup let the plaintiff-attorneys BOMBARD the jury with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ). The FALSE-CLAIMS that Roundup is carcinogenic should NEVER be admitted as evidence in ANY trial.
−
• JURIES ― California’s GULLIBLE & IGNORANT JURIES tend to mandate UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT AWARDS to UNDESERVING PLAINTIFFS who have FALSELY-ALLEGED that they were dying of cancer because of their exposure to [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup.
−
• CONSULTANTS ― Self-appointed consultants have been used in trials to concoct FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS, FRAUDULENT SCIENCE, IMAGINARY DANGER, & ENVIRO-TERRRЖRISM against Roundup. For example, Christopher Portier, an allegedly-corrupt consultant for attorneys suing on behalf of plaintiffs who have falsely-alleged suffering from cancer after years of exposure to Roundup, an otherwise successful, innovative, & safe weed control product ― nonetheless, Roundup is NOT a carcinogen. Portier has also been a part-time employee at Environmental Defense Fund, a notorious anti-pesticide & environmental-extremist organization. Portier was also behind the failed-evaluation of glyphosate by the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ), a corrupt, fraudulent, politicized, anti-glyphosate, & environmental-extremist organization. He then served as an « INVITED SPECIALIST » for IARC, despite having no background in chemical research.
−
With Roundup kangaroo-trials ( i.e. cancer-trials ), the legal system has been IRRETRIEVABLY-CORRUPTED.
−
−
−
−
Examples Of Roundup Kangaroo-Trials & Bogus Lawsuits ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Boden V Manufacturer : |
Roundup bogus lawsuit in Canada with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Clark V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial & victory verdict in California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Gadd V Manufacturer : |
Roundup bogus lawsuit in Canada with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Hardeman V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial & partial victory in California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Hunter V Manufacturer : |
Roundup bogus lawsuit in Canada with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Johnson V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial & partial victory in California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Lindeblad V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial in California with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Miller & Smolnicki–V–Manufact.–: |
Roundup bogus lawsuit in Canada with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Penner V Manufacturer : |
Roundup bogus lawsuit in Canada with no reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Pilliod V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial & partial victory in California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Stephens V Manufacturer : |
Roundup kangaroo-trial & victory verdict in California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Roundup Causing Cancer Is A Myth ―
−
−
There is NO legitimate research that is disturbing about Roundup ( a.k.a. glyphosate ).
−
A classification of [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup with regard to carcinogenicity is NOT JUSTIFIED.
−
Roundup continues to survive the intense, periodic scientific scrutiny of the world’s most rigorous national regulatory bodies.
−
Roundup causing cancer is a MYTH.
−
National regulatory agencies around the world agree Roundup is SAFE when used according to label directions.
−
Glyphosate-based products are the most widely used herbicides in the world, & these agencies have re-affirmed, over & over again, that Roundup is NOT carcinogenic.
−
These agencies include ― • European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ) • European Chemicals Agency ( ECHA ) • German BfR • Australian, Canadian, Korean, New Zealand, & Japanese regulatory authorities • Joint FAO / WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues ( JMPR ) • US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ).
−
Roundup will NOT CAUSE HARM.
−
People are killed by real carcinogens, such as alcohol & cigarettes, but NOT by Roundup or any other pesticides.
−
Roundup causing cancer is a MYTH.
−
Contrary to what pesticide-hating extremists lie about, there are NO pest control products that are known or probable carcinogens.
−
Prohibiting ingredients like glyphosate will prevent virtually NO CANCER-HARM.
−
Pest control products are nowhere near a leading cause of cancer-death, & there is NO chance that they will make you die of cancer.
−
In fact, there is NOT ONE known cancer-death from the proper use of these products used in the urban landscape & in agriculture.
−
Allegations that exposure to Roundup leads to cancer is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
−
Roundup is scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & will NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
No Association Between Glyphosate & Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma ―
−
−
In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded in May 2022 that consumers should be confident that there is currently NO EVIDENCE of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ).
−
The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate WITHOUT A CANCER WARNING LABEL.
−
The results also raise questions on the VALIDITY OF THOUSANDS OF PENDING LAWSUITS alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer.
−
Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & will NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
Cancer Is Inevitable, But Not Because Of Pesticides ―
−
−
Given that cancer is the number 2 leading cause of death, there is a good chance that you are going to die of cancer no matter what you do.
−
By contrast, pest control products, like Roundup, are nowhere near a leading cause of cancer-harm, & there is NO chance that they will make you die of cancer.
−
So, chill-out & have a drink, & forget about prohibiting ingredients like Roundup.
−
−
−
−
Appeasing Roundup-Hating Extremists ?!?! ―
−
−
Roundup-hating extremists will NEVER be appeased & their environmental-terrжr will NEVER end !
−
Bayer ⁄ Monsanto face hostile Roundup-hating extremists with lunatжc-doctrines that are fanatжcal in character, ruthless in purpose, subversive in method, & frivolous in nature.
−
In the 9|11 era of environmental-terrжr … extremist-conspiracies have now spread against agriculture ― & the golf industry will be next.
−
These conspiracies have attempted to prohibit Roundup, & other ingredients, from these hated industries.
−
Bayer ⁄ Monsanto must STRIKE BACK against Roundup-hating extremists !
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Complete Library Of Victories Against Anti-Glyphosate Terrжrism — LINK
−
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-complete-library-of-victories/
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer — Europe Says Glyphosate Is Safe — Farmers Have Less Cancer Overall Than The General Population — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Biden Administration Asks US Supreme Court To Shun Bayer Weedkiller Appeal — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliod V Manufacturer — $2-Billion Verdict Against Manufacturer In Roundup Case — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Questions Bayer’s Defense Attorneys — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — The Acute Toxicity Of Glyphosate Is Lower Than That Of Table Salt — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Sliding Towards Socialism — Using Cherry-Picked IARC Report To Make Bank With Gullible Juries — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — $289 Million Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — Cancer Is Biologically Impossible — Even The Judge Acknowledged There Was No Evidence Of Harm — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — The IARC Glyphosate-Gate — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE — The Entire Media History Of Glyphosate References — LINK
−
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/glyphosate-references/
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
California’s Proposition 65
−
−
−
−
Statements ―
−
−
−
California Wants A Cancer-Label Put On
Products That Contain Glyphosate [ ?!?! ]
−
US EPA Will Not Permit California To Put
A Cancer-Label On Glyphosate Products
−
US EPA Will Not Allow California’s
Proposition 65 To Dictate Federal Policy
−
−
−
−
Cancer-Label Warnings ―
−
−
California’s Proposition 65 is an EXERCISE IN MADNESS.
−
The law, which is officially titled « THE SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 », has nothing to do with water.
−
Proposition 65 was merely an excuse for PREDATORY TRIAL LAWYERS, to file LAWSUITS against companies, small & large, with the laughable goal of « PROTECTING THE PUBLIC » by SUING companies that fail to « WARN THE PUBLIC » with CANCER-LABEL WARNINGS for HARMLESS PRODUCTS, like bird feeders, purses, shoes, Starbucks coffee, & Tiffany lamps, as well as hotel rooms, & amusement parks.
−
California also wants a CANCER-LABEL WARNING put on [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] glyphosate. [ ?!?! ]
−
However, the US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ) DOES NOT see it that way when it comes to glyphosate.
−
The US EPA announced that it WOULD NOT PERMIT California to put a CANCER-LABEL WARNING on glyphosate.
−
The US EPA’s decision is SCIENTIFICALLY SOUND on every level.
−
According to US EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler ―
−
We will not allow California’s FLAWED PROGRAM to dictate federal policy.
−
The « EVIDENCE » supporting the use of a CANCER-LABEL WARNING for glyphosate is not only FLIMSY ― it is a product of FRAUDULENT RESEARCH by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
−
IARC is a corrupt, controversial, & fraudulent anti-glyphosate & environmental-extremist organization.
−
California’s Proposition 65 was based on IARC’s PHONY FINDINGS in its CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT.
−
Here is an excerpt from Dr Alex Berezow’s evaluation of the IARC HAZARD REPORT ―
−
We now have an answer …
−
The Times reports that Christopher Portier, a [ CORRUPT GLYPHOSATE-HATING ] key IARC advisor who lobbied to have glyphosate listed as a carcinogen, accepted $160 Thousand from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by SUING glyphosate manufacturers.
−
Mr Portier’s failure to disclose such an obvious CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST has exploded into a textbook case of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
−
−
−
−
Scientific Fraud ―
−
−
IARC is an organization that conspires against pest control products.
−
Fifty-two years after its inception, International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) has become a fringe group, seemingly more interested in scaring & terrжrizing people than identifying actual health threats.
−
Any organization like IARC, that declares bacon to be as dangerous as plutonium, may have entirely lost its way.
−
Things started to unravel for IARC over a popular herbicide called glyphosate, which IARC considers a « PROBABLE HUMAN CARCINOGEN ». [ ?!?! ]
−
Every major science & regulatory body DISAGREES with IARC, including US EPA & European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA ).
−
Even the World Health Organization ( WHO ), which is the parent of IARC, believes that glyphosate DOES NOT CAUSE CANCER.
−
What is going on ?!?!
−
We now have an answer.
−
Thanks largely to the investigative work of David Zaruk on Science 2.0, it has been reported that Christopher Portier, a key IARC-advisor who lobbied to have glyphosate listed as a carcinogen, ACCEPTED $160,000-DOLLARS from trial lawyers representing cancer patients who stood to profit handsomely by SUING glyphosate manufacturers.
−
Portier’s failure to disclose such an OBVIOUS CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST has exploded into a textbook case of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD.
−
Remember, glyphosate WILL NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — EPA — Reaffirms No Risk To Public Health — LINK
−
−
−
√ — EPA — States That Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer – Again — LINK
−
−
−
√ — EPA — Panel Finds Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Jackpot Kangaroo Court Justice — Fraud & Corruption Bring Big Payoffs — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Keep Fraudulent Science Out of Our Courtrooms — Dr Paul K Driessen — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Portier & Glyphosate-Gate — IARC’s Scientific Fraud — Dr Alex Berezow — ACSH — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Portier & Glyphosate-Gate — IARC’S Scientific Fraud — Dr Alex Berezow — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Portier & Blair & Glyphosate-Gate — Lies, Scientific Fraud, Pays-Off, Bribery, & Conspiracy — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PROPOSITION 65 — Bayer Cools Prospect Of Imminent Roundup Settlement — The EPA Grows A Pair & Takes A Stand On Glyphosate In California — American Council On Science & Health ( ACSH ) — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PROPOSITION 65 — EPA Grows A Pair & Takes A Stand On Glyphosate — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PROPOSITION 65 — Coffee & Meat Are Carcinogenic — IARC — Dr Geoffrey C Kabat — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
2021 – 2022
−
Various Sources
−
Re : Lawsuits Against Roundup
−
USA And Canada
−
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial &
Partial Victory In California
−
−
ALLEGATION
−
Plaintiff Alleges Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ] After
Years Of Exposure To Roundup During
Landscape Maintenance On A Property
−
−
PARTIAL VICTORY VERDICT
−
Jury Concludes That Roundup’s
Design Was Defective [ ?!?! ]
−
Product Lacks Sufficient Cancer-
Label Warnings [ ?!?! ]
−
Manufacturer Was Negligent [ ?!?! ]
−
Judge Slashes The Damages Awarded
From $80 Million To $20 Million
−
−
APPEAL
−
The Verdict Is Under Vigorous
Appeal At The US Supreme Court
−
Roundup Will Be Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
Partial Victory For Manufacturer
−
−
In 2019, a [ GULLIBLE & IGNORANT ] jury awarded Edwin Hardeman $80 Million in damages after the ruling his NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] was caused by his use of [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup. [ ?!?! ]
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
The damages later were reduced to $25 Million.
−
Back in July 2021, Bayer [ THE MANUFACTURER ] CEO Werner Baumann said, during a call with investors, that he believed the Hardeman V Manufacturer case offered the company’s best chance of receiving Supreme Court review.
−
−
−
−
Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer Asks For Review
−
−
Bayer petitioned the Supreme Court on August 16th, 2021, asking for REVIEW of the Hardeman V Manufacturer ruling.
−
The court has yet to render a decision on the petition.
−
On December 13th, 2021, the court asked the solicitor general to file a brief on the case.
−
A brief had not been filed as of April 14th, 2022.
−
−
−
−
From US EPA’s Amicus Brief Of Support – Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer Supported By US EPA
−
−
According to US Environmental Protection Agency’s ( US EPA’s ) Amicus Brief of Support ―
−
« DECISION OF EPA CORRESPONDS TO THE LONG-STANDING ASSESSMENTS OF LEADING INTERNATIONAL HEALTH AUTHORITIES », says Liam Condon, Bayer Board Member.
−
The AMICUS BRIEF of the US Department of Justice in the Hardeman V Manufacturer case also supports glyphosate’s safety.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
AMICUS BRIEFS ― Legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants with a strong interest in the subject matter. The briefs advise the court of relevant, additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.
−
−
−
The US EPA had already confirmed its position on glyphosate earlier in 2020.
−
Together with the US Department of Justice, on behalf of the US government, US EPA filed an AMICUS BRIEF in the Roundup Litigation in the Hardeman V Manufacturer appeal.
−
In this brief, both authorities are supportive of the company’s arguments.
−
In August 2019, the US EPA sent a letter to glyphosate registrants, which stated respectively that a CANCER-LABEL WARNING on products containing this active ingredient would be « INCONSISTENT WITH THE AGENCY’S SCIENTIFIC ASSESSMENT OF THE CARCINOGENIC POTENTIAL OF THE PRODUCT » and would be a « FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENT ».
−
−
−
−
From Bayer’s Settlements & Five-Point Plan – Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer’s Strong Legal Argument
−
−
According to Bayer —
−
The petition in Pilliod follows a similar filing in Hardeman.
−
The company believes there are STRONG LEGAL ARGUMENTS to support Supreme Court REVIEW AND REVERSAL of both the Hardeman and the Pilliod verdicts.
−
Monsanto [ THE MANUFACTURER ] has also WON the last two cases in the Roundup litigation to go to trial, Clark and Stephens, and has REACHED AGREEMENTS to resolve the VAST MAJORITY of claims.
−
Following these two recent trial wins and the request made by the Supreme Court for the views of the solicitor general in Hardeman, the company will be VERY SELECTIVE in entertaining FUTURE SETTLEMENT discussions.
−
Bayer has faced thousands of similar lawsuits connected to the glyphosate-based product.
−
−
−
−
From President Biden’s Administration – Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
Biden Administration Interference
−
−
On May 11th, 2022, President Joe Biden’s administration asked [ I.E. INTERFERED WITH ] the US Supreme Court NOT to hear Bayer’s bid to dismiss claims by customers who contend that Roundup causes cancer [ ?!?! ] .
−
Bayer has argued that the cancer claims against Roundup go against sound science and product clearance from the US EPA.
−
The US EPA has upheld guidance that glyphosate is NOT carcinogenic and NOT a risk to public health when used as indicated on the label.
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Roundup Defective, Insufficient Cancer Warnings, & Monsanto Negligent — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Biden Administration Asks US Supreme Court To Shun Bayer Weedkiller Appeal — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer Cools Prospect Of Imminent Glyphosate Settlement — Hardeman V Manufacturer — US EPA’s Amicus Brief Of Support — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer Settlements & Five-Point Plan — New Roundup Settlements Unlikely — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer Settlements & Five-Point Plan — Update On Path To Closure Of Roundup Litigation — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Hardeman V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial & Partial Victory In California ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Edwin Hardeman |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturer Monsanto Company |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ) after years of exposure to [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup during landscape maintenance on a property [ ?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Partial Victory : |
Unjustified jackpot-award of $80 Million reduced to $25 Million in partial victory for manufacturer |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Verdict Details : |
Gullible & ignorant jury found that Roundup’s design was defective, lacked sufficient cancer-label warnings, & its manufacturer was negligent [ ?!?! ] ― verdict was not supported by real science-based evidence at trial |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Presiding Judges : |
Vince Girdhari Chhabria Circuit Judges Michael D Hawkins, N Randy Smith, & Ryan D Nelson |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Courts : |
US District Court or Federal Court, California, & US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Judge’s Decision : |
Judge let the plaintiff-attorneys bombard the jury with false-cancer-claims by the hazard report from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
|
Judge’s Decision : |
Judge slashed damages awarded from $80 Million to $25 Million |
|
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Judge’s Interference : |
Judge actually blocked the introduction of US EPA analyses that concluded glyphosate was not likely to be carcinogenic in humans because he wanted to avoid wasting time or misleading the jury because the primary inquiry is what the scientific studies show, not what the US EPA concluded they show. [ ?!?!?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Attorneys : |
Aimee Wagstaff & Jennifer Moore of Andrus Wagstaff |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal : |
Verdict is under vigorous appeal at the US Supreme Court ― Roundup will be vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal Details : |
Manufacturer believes that serious errors were made in the case & should have never made it to trial ― there are strong legal arguments to support US Supreme Court review & reversal of both the Hardeman & the Pilliod verdicts ― a cancer-label warning would be false & misleading & should be pre-empted by federal law |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Biden Interference : |
President Biden’s administration has been interfering with the US Supreme Court by demanding a rejection of Bayer’s appeal |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
US EPA : |
In August 2019, the US EPA sent a letter to glyphosate registrants, which stated that a cancer-label warning on products containing glyphosate would be inconsistent with the agency’s scientific assessment of the carcinogenic potential of the product & would be a false & mis-leading statement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Distinction : |
This case is considered a « BELLWETHER » , i.e. a pace-setter, trial for hundreds of similar cases against [ NO-RISK- ] Roundup |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Roundup Defective, Insufficient Cancer-Label Warnings, & Monsanto Negligent — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Solicitor General Agrees Federal Pesticide Law Does Not Pre-Empt State Roundup Claims — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — US Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Biden Administration Asks US Supreme Court To Shun Bayer Weedkiller Appeal — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Judge Blocked The Introduction Of US EPA Analyses — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Judge Blocked The Introduction Of US EPA Analyses — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Bayer Cools Prospect Of Imminent Glyphosate Settlement — Hardeman V Manufacturer — US EPA’s Amicus Brief Of Support — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Hardeman & Others V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
False-Cancer-Claims ―
−
−
The judges in the first three KANGAROO-TRIALS against Roundup, Hardeman V Manufacturer, Johnson V Manufacturer, & Pilliod V Manufacturer, let the jackpot-justice plaintiff-attorneys BOMBARD the jury with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
−
In Hardeman V Manufacturer, US District Court Judge Vincent Chhabria BLOCKED the introduction of US EPA analyses that concluded ―
−
… GLYPHOSATE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE CARCINOGENIC IN HUMANS.
−
Judge Vincent Chhabria said he wanted …
−
… to avoid wasting time or misleading the jury because the primary inquiry is what the scientific studies show, not what the EPA concluded they show. [ ?!?!?!?! ]
−
However, IARC did not do any original studies either.
−
The IARC HAZARD REPORT simply concluded that glyphosate is …
−
… PROBABLY CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS – GROUP 2A …
−
This meant that the studies IARC reviewed found LIMITED EVIDENCE OF CARCINOGENICITY in humans, plus sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in lab animals that had been exposed to very high doses or lower doses for prolonged periods of time.
−
In other words, UNDER CONDITIONS THAT NO ANIMAL OR HUMAN WOULD EVER BE EXPOSED TO IN THE REAL WORLD.
−
The FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the glyphosate-hating IARC have been secretive, sloppy, bungled ― & perhaps even systematically & deliberately fraudulent.
−
These FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS should NEVER have been allowed in court.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Judge Blocked The Introduction Of US EPA Analyses — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Hardeman V Manufacturer — Judge Blocked The Introduction Of US EPA Analyses — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Why Do National Government Regulators In America, Germany & Canada Conclude That It Is Safe While Only IARC Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial &
Partial Victory In California
−
−
ALLEGATION
−
Plaintiff Alleges Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ] After
Years Of Exposure To Roundup During
Landscape Maintenance On A Property
−
−
PARTIAL VICTORY VERDICT
−
Jury Finds Omission Of Cancer
Warning On Roundup Label [ ?!?! ]
−
Judge Slashes The Damages Awarded
From $2.055 Billion To $87 Million
−
−
APPEAL
−
The Verdict Is Under Vigorous
Appeal At The US Supreme Court
−
Jackpot Verdict Violates The Constitution
−
Roundup Will Be Vindicated
−
−
−
−
From $2-Billion Verdict Against Manufacturer In Roundup Case – Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
Partial Victory For Manufacturer
−
−
Bayer scored a PARTIAL VICTORY in its long-running legal battle over allegations that its Roundup pesticide causes cancer [ WRONG ! ], after a California judge SLASHED THE DAMAGES AWARDED in the most costly case so far for the German chemicals and pharmaceuticals group from $2.055 Billion to $87 Million.
−
The decision reverses ― at least in part ― an [ UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT ] VERDICT handed down in May 2019 that shocked Bayer investors and triggered yet another sharp slide in the group’s share price.
−
It was the third ruling in a row that found a causal link between Bayer’s glyphosate-based weed killer and cancer, and the biggest legal setback so far.
−
The two earlier rulings, Hardeman V Manufacturer & Johnson V Manufacturer, also made by California juries, had imposed much lower damages.
−
The latest case involves Alva and Alberta Pilliod, an elderly US couple suffering from NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] after years of exposure to Roundup.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
In May 2019, the [ GULLIBLE & IGNORANT ] jury awarded them app $1 Billion each in punitive damages, as well as millions of dollars to cover medical costs and non-economic damage.
−
In a statement, Bayer said it welcomed the judge’s decision as a « STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION », but that it would still file an APPEAL to have the entire verdict overturned.
−
The German group has insisted all along that glyphosate-based pesticides are SAFE FOR USE.
−
According to Bayer ―
−
The court’s decision to reduce the punitive, non-economic, and future medical damage awards is A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, but we continue to believe that the VERDICT and DAMAGE AWARDS are NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE at trial and conflict with the EXTENSIVE BODY OF RELIABLE SCIENCE AND CONCLUSIONS OF LEADING HEALTH REGULATORS WORLD-WIDE.
−
A REDUCTION IN THE DAMAGES AWARD in the Pilliod V Manufacturer case had been widely expected.
−
The US Supreme Court has ruled in the past that PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD NOT EXCEED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES by a factor of more than NINE.
−
In the Pilliod V Manufacturer case, the PUNITIVE DAMAGES ― $2.055 Billion in total ― EXCEEDED THE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES of $55 Million by a factor of THIRTY-SEVEN.
−
Bayer’s shares LOST MORE THAN A THIRD OF THEIR VALUE over the previous 12 months, largely as a result of the legal risk associated with Roundup.
−
−
−
−
Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer Asks For Review
−
−
For the second time in eight months, Bayer [ THE MANUFACTURER ] petitioned the US Supreme Court to REVIEW A VERDICT in a Roundup product liability case.
−
The new petition, filed in March 2022, however, is the first Roundup challenge filed by Bayer alleging a California jury’s awarding of $87 Million in damages to cancer victims VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION.
−
The new petition asks the court to REVIEW the verdict in Pilliod V Manufacturer.
−
In August 2021, a California state appellate court upheld the [ UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT ] VERDICT that awarded $87 Million in damages to Alva and Alberta Pilliod of Livermore, California.
−
The couple had used [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup at home for about 30 years — later the Pilliods developed similar types of cancers, according to court documents.
−
As it did in the Hardeman V Manufacturer petition, Bayer’s new petition in the Pilliod V Manufacturer case argues the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA, BARS STATES FROM ADDING NEW LABEL REQUIREMENTS such as CANCER-WARNING LABELS.
−
In addition, Bayer said the US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ) has found —
−
… NEITHER ROUNDUP NOR ITS ACTIVE INGREDIENT, GLYPHOSATE, CAUSES CANCER IN HUMANS.
−
According to the company’s brief in the Pilliod V Manufacturer case —
−
EPA has authorized Roundup for sale, repeatedly approved Roundup’s labeling WITHOUT A CANCER-WARNING, and informed pesticide registrants that including a CANCER-WARNING on the labeling of a glyphosate-based pesticide would render it « MISBRANDED » in VIOLATION of federal law.
−
According to the brief, the Pilliods were AWARDED THE DAMAGES because a jury …
−
… found that the omission of a CANCER-WARNING from Roundup’s label VIOLATED STATE LAW. [ ?!?! ]
−
Bayer said the $87 Million award to the Pilliods VIOLATES THE 14TH AMENDMENT’S DUE-PROCESS CLAUSE because the company « ACTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCIENTIFIC AND REGULATORY CONSENSUS » regarding the safety of its product.
−
Brook Duer, staff attorney with the Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law, has stated there is a reason why Bayer’s second appeal to the Supreme Court came nearly eight months after the petition on the Hardeman V Manufacturer case.
−
Bayer was required to wait 90 days after the California Supreme Court’s DENIAL OF BAYER’S APPEAL on the Pilliod V Manufacturer case on November 17th, 2021, Duer said, before filing the March 2022 appeal to the Supreme Court.
−
−
−
−
From Bayer’s Settlements & Five-Point Plan – Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer’s Strong Legal Argument
−
−
According to Bayer —
−
The petition in Pilliod follows a similar filing in Hardeman.
−
The company believes there are STRONG LEGAL ARGUMENTS to support Supreme Court REVIEW AND REVERSAL of both the Hardeman and the Pilliod verdicts.
−
Monsanto [ THE MANUFACTURER ] has also WON the last two cases in the Roundup litigation to go to trial, Clark and Stephens, and has REACHED AGREEMENTS to resolve the VAST MAJORITY of claims.
−
Following these two recent trial wins and the request made by the Supreme Court for the views of the solicitor general in Hardeman, the company will be VERY SELECTIVE in entertaining FUTURE SETTLEMENT discussions.
−
Bayer has faced thousands of similar lawsuits connected to the glyphosate-based product.
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — Monsanto Ordered To Pay $2 Billion — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — Justia Opinion Summary — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — $2-Billion Verdict Against Manufacturer In Roundup Case — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer — Cools Prospect Of Imminent Roundup Settlement — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer — Settlements & Five-Point Plan — New Roundup Settlements Unlikely — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Bayer — Settlements & Five-Point Plan — Update On Path To Closure Of Roundup Litigation — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial & Partial Victory In California ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiffs : |
Alva & Alberta Pilliod |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturer Monsanto Company |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Partial Victory : |
Unjustified jackpot-award of $2.055 Billion reduced to $87 Million in partial victory for manufacturer |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Verdict Details : |
Gullible & ignorant jury found that Roundup lacked sufficient cancer-label warnings [ ?!?! ] ― verdict was not supported by real science-based evidence at trial |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Presiding Judge : |
Winifred Smith
Judge Ioana Petrou replaced |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Court : |
Judicial Council of California Proceedings |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Judge’s Decision : |
Judge let the plaintiff-attorneys bombard the jury with false-cancer-claims by the hazard report from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
|
Judge’s Decision : |
Judge slashed damages awarded from $2.055 Billion to $87 Million |
|
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
|
Attorneys : |
Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman |
|
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal : |
Verdict is under vigorous appeal at the US Supreme Court ― the lawsuit should be dismissed because federal regulators consider [ NO-RISK- ] Roundup safe ― Roundup will be vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal Details : |
Manufacturer believes that serious errors were made in the case & should have never made it to trial ― jury’s awarding of millions in damages to cancer victims violates the US Constitution ― there are strong legal arguments to support US Supreme Court review & reversal of both the Hardeman & the Pilliod verdicts |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Investors : |
One-third drop in manufacturer’s share values occurred during 12 months in 2018-2019 ― this reflected investor concern about the legal risk associated with Roundup |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — Cancer Is Biologically Impossible — Even The Judge Acknowledged There Was No Evidence Of Harm — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — Monsanto Ordered To Pay $2 Billion — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Pilliods V Manufacturer — Justia Opinion Summary — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Pilliod V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
False-Cancer-Claims ―
−
−
In Pilliod V Manufacturer, the plaintiff-attorneys were MAKING BANK on a CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT issued by the controversial, corrupt, & fraudulent International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ), an affiliate of the World Health Organization ( WHO ).
−
The judge let the plaintiff-attorneys BOMBARD the jury with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the HAZARD REPORT from the IARC.
−
In ALL BUT ONE of its 900 EVALUATIONS, IARC’s flawed methodology led it to identify a chemical ( caprolactam ), as NOT CARCINOGENIC TO HUMANS.
−
The corrupt & fraudulent IARC concocted a treachery-picked conclusion that glyphosate is « PROBABLY » carcinogenic to humans, which was particularly TAINTED.
−
IARC peddles in FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Questions Bayer’s Defense Attorneys — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Sliding Towards Socialism — Using Cherry-Picked IARC Report To Make Bank With Gullible Juries — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Glyphosate-Gate — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Why Do National Government Regulators In America, Germany & Canada Conclude That It Is Safe While Only IARC Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Cancer-Harm
−
−
−
−
Roundup Causing Cancer Is A Myth ―
−
−
Pest control products like Roundup will NOT CAUSE HARM.
−
People are killed by real carcinogens, such as alcohol & cigarettes, but NOT by pesticides.
−
Contrary to what pesticide-hating extremists lie about, there are NO pest control products that are known or probable carcinogens.
−
Prohibiting these products will prevent virtually NO ACTUAL RISK OF CANCER-HARM.
−
Pest control products are NOWHERE NEAR a leading cause of ACTUAL RISK OF CANCER-HARM, & there is NO chance that they will make you die of cancer.
−
In fact, there is NOT ONE known cancer-death from the proper use of these products used in the urban landscape & in agriculture.
−
A pesticide will only be approved if it will NOT REPRESENT ANY ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
Common CANCER-HARMS are most likely NOT caused by pesticides.
−
Regulatory agencies world-wide, such as US Environmental Protection Agency ( US EPA ) & Health Canada, will only grant a registration for legal pesticide use when there is NO ACTUAL CANCER RISK to humans.
−
There is neither strong nor consistent data supportive of a positive association between occupational pesticide exposure & the five most common types of CANCER-HARM ― breast, colorectal, lung, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, & prostate cancer.
−
Animal toxicology study findings have NOT corresponded to the few epidemiology studies that may have suggested a link between pesticides & ACTUAL CANCER-HARM.
−
Ingredients like [ NO-RISK- ] glyphosate are scientifically-safe, will CAUSE NO HARM, & REPRESENTS NO ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
Seventeen reviews conducted by national regulatory agencies around the world, such as US EPA & Health Canada, have reached the same conclusion that a classification of Roundup with regard to carcinogenicity is NOT JUSTIFIED.
−
Pest control products like Roundup causing CANCER-HARM is a MYTH.
−
−
−
−
No Association Between Glyphosate & Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma ―
−
−
Independent Scientific Panel Review
Challenges Activist Cancer Claims
−
−
In an independent critical scientific review of the existing meta-analyses of studies on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists expressed LOW CONFIDENCE that any of the studies demonstrated a causal relationship between glyphosate exposure & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ).
−
This consistent score of LOW CONFIDENCE — an average of 3 on a scale of 1-10, with no score going above 5 — indicates that consumers should be confident that there is currently NO EVIDENCE of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ).
−
This is one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the topic to date, & the findings support the most recent actions taken by the US EPA to allow the continued use of glyphosate WITHOUT A CANCER WARNING LABEL.
−
Further, the results raise questions on the VALIDITY of thousands of pending lawsuits claiming that glyphosate exposure causes cancer.
−
According to Joseph Annotti, board member & former President and CEO of Center for Truth in Science ―
−
We hope this research brings clarity to the ongoing and contentious debate about glyphosate exposure.
−
The findings of these independent and unbiased experts increase the likelihood that future policy outcomes on glyphosate will be based on validated science.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Does Not Cause Cancer — Europe Says Glyphosate Is Safe — Farmers Have Less Cancer Overall Than The General Population — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — Contrasts With Alcohol & Other Real Carcinogens — Pesticides Are Nowhere Near A Leading Cause Of Cancer Death — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP & CANCER — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP & CANCER — Bayer Invests $5.6 Million To Repair Its Reputation — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Causes Cancer [ ?!?! ] — Activists Are Commanded By Russia [ ?!?! ] — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Will Not Cause Cancer — Victories Against Glyphosate-Cancer Conspiracies — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate & Coffee Will Not Cause Cancer — Coffee Not Classifiable As To Carcinogenicity — Glyphosate Is Unlikely To Cause Cancer In People — Hot Water Causes Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Herbicide Will Not Cause Cancer — Glyphosate Vindicated Around The World — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — Glyphosate Herbicide WILL NOT Cause Cancer – Why Do National Government Regulators In America, Germany & Canada Conclude That It Is Safe While Only IARC Claims It MAY Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — There Is No Evidence That The Safe Application Of Agricultural Pesticides Causes Cancer — Dr Leonard Ritter — Prince Edward Island — Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Rates — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — Myth-Busting — The Myth Of Cancer — LINK
−
https://pesticidetruths.com/toc/cancer/
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & DAVID SUZUKI — Attack Against The Golf Industry — CBC Documentary — Pesticides On Golf Course May Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Stephens V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial &
Victory Verdict In California
−
−
ALLEGATION
−
Plaintiff Alleges Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ]
After 30 Years Of Exposure To Roundup
−
−
VICTORY VERDICT
−
Jury Rejects The Claim That
Roundup Caused Cancer
−
Manufacturer Was Not
Negligent In Designing Roundup
−
Roundup Has Been Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Stephens V Manufacturer
−
Victory Verdict For Manufacturer
−
−
In December 2021, a California jury ruled [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup DID NOT CAUSE THE CANCER in Yucaipa resident Donnetta Stephens.
−
−
−
−
Selected Link
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Stephens V Manufacturer — Jury Rejected Claim That Roundup Caused Cancer — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Stephens V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial & Victory Verdict In California ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Donnetta Stephens |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturers Monsanto & Wilbur-Ellis |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ) after 30 years of exposure to Roundup [ ?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Victory Verdict : |
Jury rejected the claim that [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup caused cancer-harm ― Roundup has been vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Verdict Details : |
Manufacturer was not negligent in designing its product, nor did it know that it was likely to be dangerous |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
|
Presiding Judge : |
Gilbert Ochoa |
|
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Court : |
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda of San Bernardino |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Settlement : |
No reported settlement ― Roundup should be vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Stephens V Manufacturer — Jury Rejected Claim That Roundup Caused Cancer — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Clark V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial &
Victory Verdict In California
−
−
ALLEGATION
−
Plaintiff Alleges Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ] After
Exposure To Roundup At The Family’s Residence
−
−
VICTORY VERDICT
−
Jury Rules In Favour Of The Manufacturer
−
Verdict Finding Personal Exposure To
Roundup Was Not Enough To Be A
Substantial Factor In Disease Development
−
Roundup Has Been Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Clark V Manufacturer
−
Victory Verdict For Manufacturer
−
−
In October 2021, another California jury RULED IN BAYER’S FAVOR in a lawsuit filed by Los Angeles County, California, resident Destiny Clark on behalf of her daughter Ezra Clark who was born in May 2011 and diagnosed with NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] in 2016.
−
Bayer won its first court decision amid a seemingly endless trail of allegations that its non-selective herbicide ROUNDUP IS TO BLAME FOR CAUSING CANCER [ ?!?! ] in thousands of litigants.
−
In a decision that left both sides claiming victory, a Los Angeles jury ruled against plaintiff Destiny Clark, who claimed that Roundup was to blame for the Burkitt’s lymphoma that killed her son [ ?!?! ] , Ezra, attorneys said October 5th, 2021.
−
According to court documents, Ezra Clark was 4 years old when he was diagnosed in 2016 with Burkitt’s lymphoma, a rare form of NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] .
−
Destiny Clark said her son often accompanied her when she applied Roundup to the family residence.
−
She sued Bayer for FAILING TO ADEQUATELY WARN HER OF THE CANCER RISKS [ WITH CANCER-WARNING LABELS ] of using glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup.
−
Roundup has been blamed for causing NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] in thousands of people since Bayer bought Roundup’s maker, Monsanto, in 2018 for $63 Million.
−
According to Bayer ―
−
While we have great sympathy for Ezra Clark and his family, the jury carefully considered the science applicable to this case and determined that ROUNDUP WAS NOT THE CAUSE OF HIS ILLNESS.
−
An attorney for Clark said they will consider an APPEAL.
−
According to Fletcher Trammel, an attorney for the defense, said in published reports ―
−
We’re disappointed for the boy and his family.
−
We have multiple Roundup cases set across the country over the next year and look forward to trying them.
−
In 2020, Bayer settled more than 100,000 of those cases for $11 Billion, and set aside another $4.5 Billion for potential future settlements, that currently count in excess of 30,000 additional claims.
−
So far, four trials have been decided by jury.
−
The Clark case is the first to be decided in Bayer’s favor.
−
According to Bayer, about 90 per cent of all lawsuits originated in the consumer market.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Clark V Manufacturer — Jury Ruled In Monsanto’s Favour — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Clark V Manufacturer — Jury Sides With Bayer In Roundup Cancer Case — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Clark V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial & Victory Verdict In California ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Destiny Clark on behalf of her son Ezra Clark |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturer Bayer ⁄ Monsanto |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from Burkitt’s lymphoma, a rare & aggressive form of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ), after exposure to Roundup [ ?!?! ] at the family’s residence |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Victory Verdict : |
Jury ruled in manufacturer’s favour ― Roundup has been vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Verdict Details : |
Jury found that the child’s personal exposure to [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup was not enough to be a substantial factor in the development of his Burkitt’s lymphoma |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Court : |
Superior Court of the State of California of County of Los Angeles |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal : |
The plaintiff’s attorneys may decide to appeal the judgement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Clark V Manufacturer — Jury Ruled In Monsanto’s Favour — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Clark V Manufacturer — Jury Sides With Bayer In Roundup Cancer Case — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Johnson V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial &
Partial Victory In California
−
−
ALLEGATIONS
−
Plaintiff Alleges Being Drenched Twice By
Roundup [ ?!?! ] & Suffering Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ]
−
−
PARTIAL VICTORY
−
Jury Found That Roundup
Caused Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ]
−
Manufacturer Failed To Warn
About Health Hazard [ ?!?! ]
−
Manufacturer Acted With Malice,
Oppression, Or Fraud [ ?!?! ]
−
Damages Awarded Of $289 Million
Slashed To $78.5 & Then $20.5 Million
−
−
APPEAL
−
Manufacturer Will Not Seek Supreme Court
Review Of Nation’s First Roundup Verdict
−
−
EXTORTION
−
Plaintiff’s Attorney Charged With Extortion
−
−
−
−
Johnson V Manufacturer
−
Partial Victory For Manufacturer
−
−
A California jury awarded Johnson a $289 Million [ JACKPOT ] VERDICT in 2018, REDUCED to $20.5 Million on appeal.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
ROUNDUP SOCIALISM ― The Roundup ( i.e. glyphosate ) kangaroo-trials, like Johnson V Manufacturer, are designed to impose socialism through jackpot-verdicts. The conspiracy against [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK ] Roundup is not only an attack against scientific innovation, it is also a means of imposing socialism. In western countries, the slide towards socialism ( a.k.a. wealth re-distribution ) is taking root not only at the ballot box, but also from the jury box. In essence, the Roundup kangaroo-trials are campaigns to re-distribute wealth from innovative companies, like Bayer, to undeserving plaintiffs who allege suffering from cancer because of their exposure to Roundup ― all while their attorneys are taking a healthy cut for themselves. Polls indicate that a majority of Americans think socialism would be a bad thing for the country. Roundup-socialism extremism MUST end !
−
−
−
−
−
−
Johnson V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer Will Not Ask For Review
−
−
Bayer WILL NOT APPEAL a $20.5 Million Roundup verdict — the first Roundup verdict in the nation — to the US Supreme Court, the company announced March 10th, 2021.
−
The decision will end the litigation brought by Dewayne Johnson against Bayer’s Monsanto [ THE MANUFACTURER ] over claims its [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup pesticide caused his NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] .
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
−
From Juris Dr Paul K Driessen – Johnson V Manufacturer
−
Plaintiff Alleges Being Drenched
−
−
Grounds-keeper Dewayne Johnson has said he somehow got « DRENCHED » twice by glyphosate.
−
But, in each case, Johnson failed to take a shower or wash the chemical off, follow other standard or specific detoxification procedures, or seek immediate medical attention.
−
Perhaps Johnson’s legal team could make a plausible argument that getting « DRENCHED » twice constituted the extremely high doses that are often cited as carcinogenic by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
−
−
−
Background Information
−
IARC’s FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS ― IARC is the only major science body that attacks against Roundup with false-cancer-claims, fraudulent science, & imaginary danger [ ?!?! ] . IARC has been caught … • cherry-picking low-value studies • doctoring documents • excluding relevant safety data • manipulating evidence • undermining the safety findings of every respected national regulatory agency & organization world-wide. IARC conducts bad & fraudulent science, which is, on occasion, promoted by its fanatжcal-officials who receive pay-offs to undermine Roundup. Jackpot-justice plaintiff-attorneys use the IARC’s false-cancer-claims to MAKE BANK with gullible juries in kangaroo-trials against Roundup. Only one [ ?!?! ] chemical has ever been evaluated by IARC as non-carcinogenic ― this has proved that IARC is a corrupt, fraudulent, & politicized organization with ridiculously flawed evaluations. IARC’s fraudulent science must be kept out of our courtrooms ! IARC’s claims should never be admitted as evidence in any trial, especially in kangaroo-trials against Roundup.
−
−
−
−
−
−
However, IARC’s SECRETIVE, SLOPPY, BUNGLED ― or even SYSTEMATICALLY AND DELIBERATELY FRAUDULENT SCIENCE ― the handling of its glyphosate review makes even that possibility little more than PSEUDO-EVIDENCE that should be barred from [ PLAINTIFF ] Johnson’s case, the pending Edwin Hardeman case, and all other glyphosate [ KANGAROO-TRIALS ] .
−
−
−
Background Information
−
FRAUDULENT SCIENCE ― The Roundup-cancer trials have been textbook cases of kangaroo-court justice. With these kangaroo-trials, the legal system will be irretrievably corrupted by this coordinated, well-funded attack by extremists, using glyphosate-cancer litigation, as well as social media, intimidation, & confrontation. The false-claims that glyphosate represents a risk of cancer-harm should never be admitted as evidence in any trial. We must keep fraudulent science out of our courtrooms !
−
−
−
−
From Roundup Litigation Attorney Charged With Extortion – Johnson V Manufacturer
−
Plaintiff’s Attorney Charged With Extortion
−
−
With Roundup kangaroo-trials ( i.e. cancer-trials ), the legal system has been IRRETRIEVABLY-CORRUPTED with con-artist attorneys.
−
Attorney Timothy Litzenburg has been charged by federal prosecutors with attempted extortion of $200 Million from another manufacturer involved in the production of Roundup.
−
Litzeburg was an attorney who represented the plaintiff in the first lawsuit against glyphosate, Johnson V Manufacturer.
−
Litzenburg has been accused of plotting to extort a $5 Million settlement, in addition to $200 Million in consulting fees paid-off to him & his two partners in exchange for the attorneys making a liability lawsuit go away.
−
If successful, Litzenburg would have been able to shift litigation to focus on chemical suppliers who provide materials to produce herbicides, such as glyphosate.
−
Litzenburg states that he enjoys holding uncaring companies accountable for the reckless products they release that can leave consumers vulnerable.
−
In reality, he & his associates have operated as con-artists attempting to shake down companies in order to receive pay-offs.
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Bayer Not Seeking Supreme Court Review — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Kangaroo-Trial-Attorney Jailed For Extortion — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Litigation Attorney Charged With Extortion — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Fraud & Corruption Bring Big Pay-Offs — Dr Paul K Driessen — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Kangaroo-Trials — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — $289.2 Million Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289.2 Million Over Cancer Claims — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Roundup Caused NHL — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Glyphosate-Gate — Lunatжc-Liars Blair & Portier — Lies, Scientific Fraud, Pays-Off, Bribery, & Conspiracy — LINK
−
−
−
√ — IARC — Kangaroo-Trials In California That Attack The Roundup Manufacturer — False-Cancer-Claims — Reversing $2-Billion-Verdict — Roundup-Hating Socialism Attacks — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Johnson V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial & Partial Victory In California ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Dewayne « Lee » Johnson |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturers Monsanto & Wilbur-Ellis |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
|
|
|
|
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ) after exposure to Roundup [ ?!?! ] as a grounds-keeper |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Noteworthy : |
The plaintiff said he somehow got « DRENCHED » twice by Roundup, but, in each case, he failed to take a shower or wash the chemical off, follow other standard or specific de-toxification procedures, or seek immediate medical attention |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Partial Victory : |
Unjustified jackpot-verdict of $289 Million verdict in 2018, reduced on appeal to $78.5 Million & then $20.5 Million in partial victory for manufacturer |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Verdict Details : |
Gullible & ignorant jury found unanimously that Roundup caused NHL [ ?!?! ] & that manufacturer failed to warn about health hazard [ ?!?! ] ― jury also found that manufacturer acted with malice, oppression, or fraud [ ?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Presiding Judge : |
Vince Girdhari Chhabria, who acknowledged that there was no evidence of harm from Roundup |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Court : |
State Court, San Francisco, California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Judge’s—— |
The judge let the plaintiff-attorneys bombard the jury with false-cancer-claims by the hazard report from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ) |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Attorneys : |
Plaintiff’s team of attorneys was from a Virginia-based Miller Firm, which included Timothy Litzeburg, who has been charged by federal prosecutors with extortion against the manufacturer Bayer |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Appeal : |
Manufacturer vigorously appealed the verdict several times, but lost ― finally decided to stop appealing the verdict, March 19th, 2021 |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Distinction : |
The first lawsuit to proceed to trial over Roundup supposedly causing cancer |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Bayer Not Seeking Supreme Court Review — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Fraud & Corruption Bring Big Pay-Offs — Driessen — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — $289.2 Million Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Monsanto Ordered To Pay $289.2 Million Over Cancer Claims — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Roundup Caused NHL ? — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Johnson V Manufacturer — Kangaroo-Trial-Attorney Jailed For Extortion — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Questions Bayer’s Defense Attorneys — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Jackpot Justice & Cancer Link In Co-Ordinated Well-Funded Attack On America With Kangaroo-Trials — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP LAWSUITS — Kangaroo-Trials In California — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Johnson & Others V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
False-Cancer-Claims ―
−
−
The judges in the first three KANGAROO-TRIALS against Roundup, Johnson V Manufacturer, Hardeman V Manufacturer, & Pilliod V Manufacturer, let the jackpot-justice plaintiff-attorneys BOMBARD the jury with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
−
With Johnson V Manufacturer, California jury mandated an UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT AWARD to a school grounds-keeper who FALSELY-ALLEGED that he was dying of NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ( NHL ) because of his exposure to [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup.
−
With Pilliod V Manufacturer, another California jury mandated an UNJUSTIFIED JACKPOT AWARD to a couple who FALSELY-ARGUED that [ NO-RISK- ] Roundup caused their CANCER-HARM. [ ?!?! ]
−
−
−
−
Cancer Is Biologically Impossible ―
−
−
In California’s Johnson V Manufacturer, the plaintiff alleged that his cancer was due to exposure to Roundup, even though that is BIOLOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
−
During the trial, the plaintiff’s attorneys manipulated the jury’s emotions by using FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS against Roundup in order to score a jackpot $289.2 Million verdict.
−
Their legal argument trumped scientific evidence & tricked a [ GULLIBLE & IGNORANT ] jury into believing that Roundup causes harm with NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ( NHL ) ― which is FALSE.
−
Even the judge acknowledged that there was NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL RISK OF HARM.
−
Nonetheless, the judge let the plaintiff-attorneys BOMBARD the jury with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS by the CHERRY-PICKED & POLITICIZED HAZARD REPORT from the controversial International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC ).
−
According to the scientific evidence, & because it is an herbicide, Roundup is ONLY toxic to plants.
−
There is no known biological mechanism by which Roundup could cause CANCER-HARM, therefore its carcinogenicity is NOT EVEN THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE.
−
World-wide, national regulatory agencies & leading experts have been siding with the overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrating that Roundup REPRESENTS NO ACTUAL CANCER RISK ― there is NO bio-medical & NO epidemiological evidence to support the claim that Roundup causes CANCER-HARM. [ ?!?! ]
−
Nonetheless, the plaintiff’s attorneys’ legal arguments trumped scientific evidence because logic & data have been replaced by emotion & virtue signaling.
−
America cannot remain #1 in the world for scientific research if society allows attorneys to bleed companies dry over crimes they never committed.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Reversing $2-Billion-Verdict Against Manufacturer — Roundup-Hating Socialism Attacks — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Johnson V Manufacturer — $289 Million Jackpot Verdict That Defies Science — Cancer Is Biologically Impossible — Even The Judge Acknowledged There Was No Evidence Of Harm — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Questions Bayer’s Defense Attorneys — Judges In The First Three Cases Let The Plaintiff-Lawyers Bombard The Jury With False-Cancer-Claims By IARC — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — California Lawsuits — Sliding Towards Socialism — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Farmers & Cancer-Harm ?
−
−
−
−
Agriculture Does Not Increase Cancer Risk ―
−
−
The researchers at US National Cancer Institute ( US NCI ) concluded that ― glyphosate, the ingredient in Roundup, was NOT statistically significantly associated with ACTUAL CANCER-HARM.
−
This large long-term research was published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute ( JNCI ) on November 9th, 2017.
−
This was the largest research study of agricultural workers in history, a gold standard, over the longest period of time.
−
50,000 + LICENSED PESTICIDE APPLICATORS, the people with the greatest potential exposure to pesticides, were followed for more than 20 years, & there was NO ASSOCIATION found between glyphosate-based herbicide use & cancer, according to the US NCI & its Agricultural Health Study.
−
It definitively demonstrated in a real-world environment that glyphosate REPRESENTS NO ACTUAL CANCER RISK.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Link …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Vindicated By US National Cancer Institute — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
California Lawsuit :
−
Lindeblad V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial In California
With No Reported Verdict Or Settlement
−
−
ALLEGATION
−
Plaintiff Alleges Suffering Cancer-Harm
[ ?!?! ] & Significant Economic & Non-Economic
Damages [ ?!?! ] While Working At A Golf Courses
−
−
OUTCOME
−
No Reported Verdict Or Settlement
−
Roundup May Still Be Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Lindeblad V Manufacturer
−
Manufacturer Will Ask For Settlement
−
−
The most recent SETTLEMENT comes about a month after a golf professional in the Spokane, Washington area FILED A LAWSUIT CLAIMING THAT [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] ROUNDUP CAUSED HIS CANCER [ ?!?!?!?! ] .
−
On August 3rd, 2020, Gary Lindeblad FILED A LAWSUIT against Bayer and Monsanto, saying it caused his cancer [ ?!?!?!?! ] .
−
According to the LAWSUIT, Lindeblad « SPRAYED ROUNDUP ON A REGULAR BASIS » beginning in the 1970s.
−
He was diagnosed with NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] in 1999.
−
He has since incurred « SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC AND NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES », according to the LAWSUIT.
−
Lindeblad worked for 31 years at the Indian Canyon Golf Course.
−
Most recently, he has worked at the Kalispel Golf and Country Club.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
FALSE-GOLF-CANCER-CLAIMS ― Playing on a golf course does not increase cancer risk. There is not one known case of cancer-harm from the proper use of pest control products used on any golf facility. This lawsuit advances the extremist-conspiracies to arbitrarily eliminate pest control products from the hated golf industry. Golf is next.
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Roundup Suits Gone Wild — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Roundup Suits Gone Wild — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & DAVID SUZUKI — Attack Against The Golf Industry — CBC Documentary — Pesticides On Golf Course May Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Lindeblad V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Kangaroo-Trial In California With No Reported Verdict Or Settlement ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Gary G Lindeblad |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturer Bayer ⁄ Monsanto |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ), & incurring significant economic & non-economic damages [ ?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Noteworthy : |
According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff sprayed [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup on a regular basis beginning in the 1970s at Indian Canyon Golf Course & Kalispel Golf & Country Club |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Presiding Judge : |
Vince Girdhari Chhabria |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Court : |
US District Court for the Northern District of California |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Judge Assignment : |
Notice of Judge Assignment, Judge Salvador Mendoza, Jr, assigned to case, August 3rd, 2020 |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Case Transfer : |
From Eastern Washington US District Court |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Golf Is Next : |
This lawsuit advances the extremist-conspiracies to arbitrarily eliminate pest control products from the hated golf industry |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Outcome : |
No reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Expectation : |
Roundup may still be vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Fact : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Roundup Suits Gone Wild — Kangaroo-Trial-Attorney Jailed For Extortion — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Litigation Attorney Charged With Extortion — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Bayer Surrenders To Extortion — Dr Geoffrey C Kabat — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Justia Dockets & Filings — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Golf Employee Has Sued The Manufacturer Over Supposed Harm By Roundup — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Lawsuits — Lindeblad V Manufacturer — Justia Dockets & Filings — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & DAVID SUZUKI — Attack Against The Golf Industry — CBC Documentary — Pesticides On Golf Course May Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
―――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
Golfers & Cancer-Harm ?
−
−
−
−
Playing On A Golf Course Does Not Increase Cancer Risk ―
−
−
Pesticides on golf courses may cause cancer ?!?!
−
Really ?!?!
−
Under the false-pretext of stopping cancer, golf businesses are being attacked by golf-hating extremists like David Suzuki.
−
Suzuki’s anti-golf campaign includes a documentary with FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS against pesticides used on golf courses.
−
In fact, Suzuki has found ONLY ONE person who MAY have been afflicted.
−
However, photos of this person clearly show him as being bloated, fat, pale, stressed, & totally out-of-shape ― the perfect candidate for cancer.
−
Does Suzuki’s documentary represent any evidence of CANCER-HARM because of golf ?!?!
−
NO !
−
Do golf courses cause cancer ?!?!
−
NO !
−
Is golf making people sick ?!?!
−
NO !
−
In fact, there is NOT ONE KNOWN CASE OF CANCER-HARM from the proper use of pest control products used on ANY golf facility.
−
In essence, Suzuki HAS NOTHING !
−
Sadly, this kind of reckless anti-golf campaign will inevitably lead to terrorized & destroyed golf businesses, lost jobs & hardship for golf employees, & weakened communities.
−
Pest control products DO NOT REPRESENT AN ACTUAL CANCER RISK !
−
Suzuki has NO REAL evidence of CANCER-HARM, just FALSE-CANCER-CLAIMS intended to harm the golf industry.
−
Health Canada & US EPA, & NOT Suzuki, has the essential expertise on the subject of pest control products used by the golf industry.
−
Even Canadian Cancer Society has STATED REPEATEDLY that scientific research does NOT provide a conclusive link between pest control products and cancer.
−
Suzuki & other extremists must get off the grASS of the golf industry !
−
Prohibiting golf course pesticides will prevent NO CANCER-HARM.
−
−
−
−
Explore The Following Selected Links …
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & DAVID SUZUKI — Attack Against The Golf Industry — CBC Documentary — Pesticides On Golf Course May Cause Cancer ?!?! — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — No Conclusive Link — Canadian Cancer Society — LINK
−
−
−
√ — PESTICIDES & CANCER — There Is No Direct Proof Pesticides Cause Cancer — Canadian Cancer Society — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
2021 – 2022
−
Various Sources
−
Re : Class Action Lawsuits Against Roundup
−
USA And Canada
−
Selected And Adapted Excerpts
Edited For Length & Clarity
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
Canada Lawsuits :
−
Class-Actions Against Roundup
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
No Reported Verdicts
−
No Reported Settlements
−
Roundup Will Be Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Canada Lawsuits
−
False-Farm-Cancer-Claims
−
−
Two law firms have now launched CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS involving HUNDREDS of Canadians, mostly from the Prairies ― Diamond & Diamond Lawyers and Merchant Law Group.
−
Roundup lawsuits are multiplying in Canada.
−
At least 360 Canadians have contacted these law firms, asking to join CLASS-ACTION LAWSUITS against Bayer and Monsanto.
−
This spring, Merchant Law Group filed the first class-action lawsuit in Canada regarding the safety of [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup, which contains the ingredient glyphosate.
−
The lawsuit contends that exposure to Roundup contributed to the CANCER-HARM [ ?!?! ] of a Saskatchewan FARMER and the cancer of other Canadians.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
DEBUNKING FALSE-FARM-CANCER-CLAIMS ― According to several large population studies around the world, farmers have less cancer overall than the general population. Living on a farm does not increase cancer risk. Furthermore, an Agricultural Health Study conducted by US National Cancer Institute ( US NCI ) found no glyphosate-cancer link. Four decades & 3,300 studies by respected national regulatory agencies & organizations world-wide have concluded that glyphosate is safe & non-carcinogenic, based on assessments of actual risk. Overall, the data do not support the false-claims that glyphosate is carcinogenic.
−
−
−
−
−
−
In June and July 2021, Diamond & Diamond Lawyers, a firm with offices in Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, FILED A STATEMENT OF CLAIMS against Bayer and Monsanto in those three provinces.
−
The majority of people who contacted Merchant Law Group have NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] .
−
It’s a cancer of the body’s lymphatic system, which fights off disease.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
The number of lawsuits in Canada related to the safety of Roundup are small when compared to the United States.
−
Approximately 18,000 cases are before the courts in that country.
−
Attorneys in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta have launched a $500-Million CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT against the makers of [ NO-RISK- ] Roundup for allegedly WITHHOLDING INFORMATION [ ?!?!?!?! ] that Roundup CAUSES CANCER [ ?!?!?!?! ] .
−
Attorneys in Vancouver, Toronto, and Edmonton announced on November 20th, 2019, the legal action against numerous manufacturers including Bayer, Monsanto, and Intertek Group.
−
The statement of claim accuses the manufacturers of CONCEALING [ ?!?! ]
…
−
… studies from regulatory authorities in Canada and the world that proved [ NO-RISK- ] Roundup was causing or materially contributing to DEVELOPING CANCER [ ?!?!?!?! ] .
−
Basil Bansal, a Diamond & Diamond attorney in Edmonton, said Health Canada WAS NOT INCLUDED in the CLASS-ACTION LAWSUIT because the government body was TRICKED [ ?!?! ] by the manufacturers into believing their product was safe.
−
He wouldn’t comment on whether criminal action should be taken.
−
−
−
−
Canada Lawsuits
−
Manufacturer Supported By Health Canada
−
−
According To Health Canada ―
−
In January 2019, Health Canada concluded ―
−
After a thorough scientific review, [ CONCERNS ABOUT GLYPHOSATE SAFETY ] could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data .
−
Health Canada also noted that the 20 scientists who conducted the review, who had NOT been involved in its 2017 re-evaluation of glyphosate …
−
… left no stone unturned [ AND ] had access to all relevant data and information from federal and provincial governments, international regulatory agencies, published scientific reports and multiple pesticide manufacturers.
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Canada Lawsuits — More Glyphosate Lawsuits Planned In Canada — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Canada Lawsuits — Attorneys File $500 Million Class-Action Lawsuit Against Makers Of Roundup — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Bayer Cools Prospect Of Imminent Glyphosate Settlement — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Health Canada Statement On Glyphosate — Reference — HIGHLIGHTED — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE — Health Canada Granted The Continued Registration Of Glyphosate — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Conspiracy Against Roundup
−
Canada Lawsuit :
−
Gadd V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Statements
−
−
−
Roundup Bogus Lawsuit In Canada
With No Reported Verdict Or Settlement
−
−
ALLEGATIONS
−
Farmer-Plaintiff Alleges Cancer-Harm [ ?!?! ] After
Exposure To Roundup At The Family’s Residence
−
Alleges People Were Wronged [ ?!?! ]
−
Roundup Is A Dangerous Product [ ?!?! ]
−
−
SETTLEMENT
−
No Reported Verdict Or Settlement
−
Roundup Will Be Vindicated
−
−
−
−
Gadd V Manufacturer
−
Roundup Caused Cancer-Harm ?
−
−
The lead plaintiff for the Merchant Law Group lawsuit in Saskatchewan is Garry Gadd, a FARMER from Moose Jaw who is in his early 60s.
−
Gadd was diagnosed with NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA [ NHL ] five years ago.
−
−
−
Background Information
−
DEBUNKING FALSE-FARM-CANCER-CLAIMS ― According to several large population studies around the world, farmers have less cancer overall than the general population. Living on a farm does not increase cancer risk. Furthermore, an Agricultural Health Study conducted by US National Cancer Institute ( US NCI ) found no glyphosate-cancer link. Four decades & 3,300 studies by respected national regulatory agencies & organizations world-wide have concluded that glyphosate is safe & non-carcinogenic, based on assessments of actual risk. Overall, the data do not support the false-claims that glyphosate is carcinogenic.
−
−
−
−
−
−
Background Information
−
NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & NON-HODGKIN’S LYMPHOMA ― In one of the most comprehensive analyses of existing research on the potential health hazards of exposure to glyphosate, a panel of six senior scientists concluded that consumers should be confident that there is currently no evidence of a relationship between glyphosate & non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ). The findings support the actions taken by the US EPA & Health Canada to allow the continued use of glyphosate without a cancer warning label. The results also raise questions on the validity of thousands of pending lawsuits alleging that glyphosate exposure causes cancer. Glyphosate is scientifically-safe, will cause no harm, & will not represent an actual cancer risk.
−
−
−
−
−
Selected Links
−
−
√ — ROUNDUP — Canada Lawsuits — Gadd & Others V Manufacturer — More Glyphosate Lawsuits Planned In Canada — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
√ — GLYPHOSATE & CANCER — No Association Between Glyphosate & NHL — Meta-Analyses Of NHL — Expert Panel Conclusions & Recommendations — Reference — LINK
−
−
−
−
−
――――――――――――――――――
−
−
−
−
Summary
−
Gadd V Manufacturer
−
−
−
−
Roundup Bogus Lawsuit In Canada With No Reported Verdict Or Settlement ―
−
−
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Plaintiff : |
Garry Gadd of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Defendant : |
Manufacturer Bayer ⁄ Monsanto |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Nature of Suit : |
Personal injury product liability ― complaint against Bayer, & its subsidiary Monsanto, with other plaintiffs in a class action |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Allegation : |
Suffering from non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma ( NHL ) after exposure to [ NO-ACTUAL-RISK- ] Roundup while working on a farm [ ?!?! ] |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Exposure : |
According to several large population studies around the world, farmers have less cancer-harm overall than the general population |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Attorneys : |
Merchant Law Group |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Requests : |
Get compensation for the people who were wronged & alert the farm world that this is a dangerous product [ ?!?!?!? ] that needs to be handled carefully |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Settlement : |
No reported verdict or settlement |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Expectation : |
Roundup will be vindicated |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
Facts : |
Roundup will not cause harm & represents no actual cancer risk |
– |
|
– |
– |
– |
– |
|
– |
– |