Monsanto loses lawsuit and $289 million

by Jon Rappoport

August 13, 2018

(To join our email list, click here.)

A lot of people were waiting for this day. It finally arrived.

Reuters: “…a California jury ordered [Monsanto]…to pay $289 million for not warning of cancer risks posed by its main weed killer [Roundup].”

“The case of school groundskeeper Dewayne Johnson, filed in 2016, was fast-tracked for trial due to the severity of his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a cancer of the lymph system that he alleges was caused by Roundup and Ranger Pro, another Monsanto glyphosate herbicide.”

More than 5000 lawsuits against Monsanto and Roundup are waiting in the wings, and this verdict, in favor of Johnson, is a strong signal to future juries.

Of course, Monsanto, and its new parent company, Bayer, claim last week’s court ruling was deeply flawed and Roundup is not a health threat; an appeal is in the works.

And that is where the danger lies.

As you go higher in the court system, judges, not juries, are making the decisions, the judges tend to be appointed on the basis of their politics.

Official science IS politics, with mega-corporations the favored clients.

Monsanto’s lawyers will be able to restate the EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] assessment that Roundup is not a proven or likely carcinogen.

The judges of an appeals court could decide, for example, that the scientific evidence presented by both sides “cancels itself out” and leaves a definitive opinion on Roundup in maybe-limbo “at the present time.” Therefore, the accuser, Dewayne Johnson, has not proved his case. Therefore, there is no judgment in his favor, and no $$ penalty against Monsanto.

I would say Monsanto (and its new owner Bayer) are counting on this scenario.

Could we also be talking about secret payoffs (or blackmail) to assure a favorable outcome? I’m absolutely shocked that anyone would suggest the possibility. As we all know, these corporations are models of propriety and good citizenship. Their reputations are above reproach. They arise each day seeking only to do good in the far flung communities they serve. They search their souls for any sign of moral turpitude and eradicate such problems in short order.

Right?

No?


Exit From the Matrix

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Exit From The Matrix, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

18 comments on “Monsanto loses lawsuit and $289 million

  1. Abe says:

    I think they should of went for a class action with every one that’s sick. Independent experts. Have an expert from the FDA come to and talk about how it’s approved.

  2. Tracy Kolenchuk says:

    “Science is politics”. Love it! Medical sciences is especially prone to this problem, and this case is a perfect example. In theory, and historically, medical science uses two methods to discover the truth. Case studies and statistical studies.

    But the politics of science has a problem with case studies. Case studies are about the individual. And individuals are fickle. Statistical studies are much easier to manipulate and use politically. So medical science is moving away from case studies. Epidemiology is the extreme. In theory, epidemiology studies “causes of disease”. In truth, epidemiology studies statistical causes – and epidemiology texts caution against using epidemiology in court cases because it does not rely on case studies – instead it intentionally dismisses them.

    Individual causes of illness are “anecdotes”. Every individual case is an anecdote. Every individual cause is an anecdote. Every individual cure is an anecdote. Every individual statistic is an anecdote. But they are only counted in groups, statistics.

    Statistical causes don’t actually cause any individual illnesses. If you have to go to court, arm yourself with statistics.

    But if you want to cure a patient of an illness – that’s an individual case. Statistics are useless. Every illness has many potential causes. Impossible to cure. Cure is deliberately not defined in epidemiology texts, not defined in medical treatment texts, not defined in many medical dictionaries. Even if you want to cure a trivial illness, you can only cure by addressing the individual cause. Curing by addressing statistical causes only works by accident – when the statistical cause addressed is also the individual cause.

    Every individual cause has a causal chain. The causal chain of any illness with a simple cause is as complex as our imagination. Any element in the causal chain can be used to prevent or cure an illness.

    But, causal chains can also be manipulated by politics. Monsanto lawyers can and will seek elements in the causal chain that are the “fault of the individual” not the “fault of the corporation”, in their defence.

    This method is taken to the extreme in vaccine defences. Individual cases CANNOT be taken to court, only to the vaccine injury compensation board. When compensation is paid, it does not – by political laws – imply that the vaccine actually caused the injury. And statistics? In vaccine injuries, statistics are conveniently ignored. The evidence is too strong to be studied. There is no need.

    And so it goes… There are hundreds of cases against Monsanto. If each is taken as an individual case, even if the case is won, Monsanto will claim statistics are on their side. Science is on their side. Science is politics.

    to your health, tracy
    Founder: Healthicine

  3. Nicole says:

    I guess I always look for a negative side, or I wonder how this can benefit them. Maybe… there’s a newer and better replacement for Roundup being developed, so they don’t need to sell it anymore, and somebody out there wants to make us forget that the polio vaccine (and maybe others) also cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

  4. Tom_12 says:

    Some are speculating that Monsanto was sold so as to shaft Bayer with future lawsuits. Guess will see.

    • Theodore says:

      where did that notion come from?

      and, the goal being to take out Bayer?

      what other multinational would have a desire to take out Bayer?

      just asking.

      • Tom_12 says:

        Just a rumor amongst my friends who work in the finance industry. They love rumors.

        As for multinationals taking out multinationals. It’s not a Gentleman’s Club.

      • trishwriter says:

        Monsanto, or “Monsatano,” as some call it, is developing a bad reputation. As we all know, however, Bayer is associated with healing and love and baby aspirin and all those things we want and need, right?!? (sarcasm intended!) Well, maybe not quite, but it does have a slightly better reputation than MonSATANo.

        Whatever money is exchanged through this deal, the deal itself also provides an easy way for the household name Bayer (whom we know and trust, right?!?) to be on the label of pesticides and other killer concoctions instead of the name of the company it is swallowing. In this crazy corporate murder and execution, the not-so-nice Bayer is the good guy and the even less nice bad guy fades into oblivion, to be forgotten by all those currently fighting against it. If I were Bayer’s public relations director, that would certainly be my strategy.

    • Michael Burns says:

      No, Bayer buying Monsanto is a big debt owned and paid it would seem, and I think Monsanto is Bayer. And has been since 1954.

      Bayer bought Monsanto because they have been tossed out of a number of countries in the EU. Roughly 40 countries have banned GMO foods the herbicide.

      Monsanto did Bayer a big one by forming a subsidiary with them called Mobay — along with Miles Labratories back in 1954. To produce and market polyurethanes, amongst many other things, including Dioxin. The second world war, and Bayer’s part in it, via I G Farben ( a Nazi conglomerate of companies) outlawed Bayer’s right under Nuremberg laws to do business as that corporation in America.

      And so Monsantos deal with the devil, enabled Bayer to do more of its dirty work and make billions in the process. And so now with the impending doom (sic) of Monsanto, Bayer steps up and purchases the corporation to protect it against lawsuit…*cough*. 

      One, it brings Monsanto’s GMO products and technology back into the Euro-zone. And two it gives Monsanto citizenship in Leverkusen, Germany. In fact, Leverkusen is the property of Bayer, with its center there..always has been.

      Bayer, after trying to become Bayer USA Inc,  consolidated it’s US operation under the Miles name in 1992.

      Interesting to note after Bayer’s guilt in producing chemicals during the second world war — Zyklon B being one of them — after the formation of Mobay, it was the single supplier of Agent Orange sprayed in Operation Ranch Hand from 1962 to 1972 on the jungles of Vietnam, and that caused many cancers of American G I’s.

      Bayer very much is plant seeds and pesticides, and biotechnology. Bayer CropScience is based in India with 400 employees.

      Bayer has been buying up a lot of companies — all seed and pesticide and biotech and pharmaceuticals.

      Round-Up is the world’s top-selling herbicide. $290 million is really nothing towards how much of this single product is sold world wide.

      In 2015, Monsanto made $4,760 million ($4.76 Billion) on Round-Up sales, with a profit of $1,900 million ($1.9 Billion).

      In 2017 they had a 16% growth in those Round-Up sales. Amazon is their largest seller online.

      $290 million is not even close to being considered justice, in fact its laughable compared to the bottom line, I think Bayer is in the population control business, n’est ce pas.

      But, on a positive note, “the journey of a thousand miles begins with one step” – Lao-Tzu

  5. From Quebec says:

    Revealed: Monsanto GM Corn Caused Tumors In Rats
    https://www.youtube.com /watch?v=R9NPdS6ydXo

  6. paschnn1 says:

    Sigh,

    If only. Was it the demon-in-the-flesh, Kissinger that stated;

    The illegal we do immediately, the unconstitutional takes a bit longer.

    This from a snake wanted for war crimes and PROTECTED by sycophants..

    re-posted.

  7. Monsanto will win on appeal. And they should, for they should never have lost this case. Not because glyphosate isn’t carcinogenic. It clearly is. But because it’s impossible to prove with any level of certainty that the stuff caused this cancer in this guy. Loads of people will have similar exposure and won’t get cancer. Other people get lymphomas who had minimal exposure to glyphosate. You can only say that “glyphosate might have caused it”. Which isn’t good enough.

    So why did Monsanto lose this? They could have won within a few days with exactly this argument. They obviously used the occasion to distract everyone. And it worked. While everyone is celebrating they can do dirty deals with Bayer and nobody will even pay attention. While the crowds think that “this is the beginning of the end of Monsanto” they have every opportunity to do their evil work. For Monsanto is evil, but nobody can say they are dumb.

  8. Not So Free says:

    There is still a long way to go before this is over. There will be years of appeals.

  9. Reblogged this on John Barleycorn and commented:
    Long overdue, justice served.

  10. Jon

    I would imagine, if push comes to shove, Bayer won’t foot the bill. They’ll either dump the Monsanto asset or assume irresponsibility.

    Best
    OT

  11. shoalsstudios says:

    “Every Thing Is A Rich Man’s Game”, this entire debacle is part of a plan. Of this we can have no doubt, rich men lack integrity and a sense of right and wrong. They serve money, not theGodOfBeing, and that’s why it is easier for a camel to traverse the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven. He simply does not care about anything but money.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.