Category Archives: #organicgardening

Medical Marijuana Making more Inroads into Big Pharma

Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Organics Admin

COO at Aladay LLC
Organic Farmer, Property Preservation Specialist and Custom Glass & Wood Worker. Blogger extraordinaire...
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Latest posts by Organics Admin (see all)

This entry is part 22 of 22 in the series Whom do your elected officials represent???


Me on the Radio

Well with last nights elections the residents of two more states, Missouri and Utah have spoken in regards to Medical Marijuana. Those two states join the other 30 states that have already seen the benefits of repealing seriously delousional draconian type of thoughts and laws governing marijuana. Let’s be clear here, it is We the People speaking when it takes an election to pass a medical issue . It is NOT our Elected Officials doing our bidding when our taxes pay them to do the job of representing our best interests.


Missouri voters on Tuesday approved Amendment 2, a ballot measure backed by a coalition of patients, doctors and veterans called New Approach Missouri. It was one of three unrelated medical marijuana measures on the ballot.
Under Amendment 2, post-traumatic stress disorder is among the conditions that qualify for use of medical marijuana, along with cancer and other serious illnesses. A 4 percent sales tax will go to a newly created fund for health and care services for veterans. The sales tax revenue also will be used to administer licensing of medical marijuana businesses

I was speaking to the Johnny’s Tendergrass developers today about the process in which the Pharmaceutical Industry took to make marijuana illegal. It is a recurring theme, Pecuniary Greed, it always comes back to the al mighty dollar….

Meanwhile in Utah…

Utah’s Proposition 2 allows patients to obtain medical marijuana cards via a doctor’s office for certain qualifying conditions, such as HIV/AIDS, cancer, chronic pain (if someone is at risk for opioid painkiller addiction or overdose), and multiple sclerosis. But it prohibits smoking marijuana, instead allowing vaping, edibles, and other means of consuming pot. And it imposes some restrictions on doctors, including prohibitions on owning or working for a medical marijuana dispensary and on recommending a card to more than 20 percent of their patients

Why is it that when we look at history it is always those with the money that turn up.? When you research politics, food production, medical delivery, prescription medicine, education, product delivery, it always goes to money. Maybe that is why during an investigation you’re always told to follow the money.…RockefellaCarnegie….

Robber Barron’s they were called. Their portraits display a steel jaw, squinty eyed stare at the camera. It’s a  glare of miserable disdain for fellow-man you see staring at the camera lens. You stare back at them wondering how small the cameraman felt as he photographed these Gods of the Gilded Age. How can they can look so disturbed while being worth so much. You wonder how they stumbled upon their position in life to be in the right place at the right time. You wonder if it was by happen chance or part of a larger picture. When you chase the name Morgan or Rothschild’s a sudden chill will come over you…Then echoing in the canyons of your mind you hear…root of all evil…

Rockefeller, the monopolist, had to figure out a way to get rid of his biggest competition. So he used the classic strategy of “problem-reaction-solution.” That is, create a problem and scare people, and then offer a (pre-planned) solution. (Similar to terrorism scare, followed by the “Patriot Act”)……

Sometimes I wonder if we have  been programmed. I mean when I speak on issues I feel passionate about, GMO Technology abuse, the propaganda game the Monsanto Propaganda Machine created 95 years ago to benefit a burgeoning chemical industry…to name a few…part of the propaganda game plan the Monsanto developed ninety or so years ago has also benefited many big business industry’s.

The Pharmaceutical Industry especially. Which brings me back to Marijuana on a medical platform. In 1850 the US Pharmacopeia recognized the medicinal properties of Extractum Cannabis and Extract of Hemp. We’ve all heard of Squibb, Lily, Smith Brothers, Parke Davis….They all sold Marijuana on a medical platform. Enter Rockefeller’s scientists and we get the Flexner Report with the assistance of his good buddy Carnegie and in 1907 we get streamlined medical education with specific guidelines and by 1913 we got the American Cancer Society.

….Many American medical schools fell short of the standard advocated in the Flexner Report and, subsequent to its publication, nearly half of such schools merged or were closed outright. Colleges in electrotherapy were closed. Homeopathy and natural medicines were derided; some doctors were jailed.

It was 1942 when Marijuana became illegal via our governments. Now we are finding out that marijuana can help more than just the sore back. We are finding out that the various cannabinoids in the THC of marijuana and various products that Hemp produces there are serious medical applications for both.
We always hear regulations are bad, yet when we examine that closer who benefits from the “regulations” that are put in place? After when we step back from our emotions and look closely at the “regulation” someone benefits or there would be no need for said “regulation”. Who has benefited from a regulated and streamlined medical education system…chemical industry. Who has benefited from unregulated GMO Technology and a “regulated” Organic agriculture industry??? Chemical Industry. Who benefited from Marijuana becoming illegal??? The very same Chemical Industry.
No this isn’t “tin foil hatter” stuff, just facts. Those pesky things that won’t go away. I have to ask with all advancements in Chemical Medicine that have been made in the past 100 years, how far would the organic medicine been had it been allowed to develop with the same technology. Where would medical marijuana be if the same technologies were used to develop the THC, CBD, CBG, CBN, THCV, instead of Chemical Maintenance Drugs? Where would we be without the Flexner report?
Here is a more important question. We have all heard of “Witch’s”, “Medicine Men”, “Shaman’s”, these were our ancestor’s original herbalists, Doctors and Healers, they still are for that matter. However, stop and examine that thought for just a minute. It was the women that gathered the plants/herbs that medicine was made from. That we as people used to medicate our ills. Somewhere along the line knowledge was passed on from generation to generation on how plants could be used. How the Mugwort could help ease the congestion or the Horehound would sooth the throat. Whether they were dried, chopped up used fresh, chewed and made into a poultice, it was Women/Witch’s that gathered those plants. It was man who figured out to administer them, together Man & Woman worked together gathering herbs and administering medical assistance to their tribe, clan, village….can you imagine being jailed for something like that?
Yes funny how following the Pecuniary Greed trail always comes back to the same ‘Ol names. I have said it in the past and I stand by this statement still today…
Since man has been writing about themselves the only thing that has changed in the “Nature of the Beast” is the way we execute each other. When you go back into history those that took a different view from those …running the show, if you will…were ostracized, one only has to witness the treatment of the award-winning investigative journalist Carey Gillam. Once she wrote about the facts she found on the chemical glyphosate she was persecuted as an evil uneducated crackpot that sold out to the Organic Industry. If Monsanto could have had their way Ms Gillam would be locked away.
The premise of our very first Constitutional Amendment, was based on the experiences of a long history of a type of oppression, after all it was the church that gave men and women healers the name “Witch” and of course, who was the Feudal Lord to argue or go against the church. After all..they approved of each other and borne to us the Witch Hunt. That said, is it the Robber Baron’s that now do the Church’s bidding? Yeah…there goes that tin foil hat stuff again.
However, you have to ask yourself, with the 5G and Agenda 21 information hanging out in the background just how far for the truth that is. Here in lies the rub as the Bard would say…Thirty-two states is 64% of the country Roberts Rules of order require 67% to carry a majority, the Convention of the States, to change the constitution requires slightly larger majority 38 states or75% of the states in the United States. One more state would create that 67% and a case could be made that our Federal Government needs to acknowledge We the People on this issue or We the People could start asking the most important question we should be asking our Elected Officials….
Whom Do Your Elected Officials Represent????

Until Next Time

Happy Gardening

Writen By: Aaron Aveiro

Exerpts credited

Photographs Aaron Aveiro

Photographs of Photographs edited: Aaron Aveiro

CRT Correction of Glyphosate Review Only Tells Half the Story

Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Organics Admin

COO at Aladay LLC
Organic Farmer, Property Preservation Specialist and Custom Glass & Wood Worker. Blogger extraordinaire...
Organics Admin
Follow Me!!

Latest posts by Organics Admin (see all)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE. September 28, 2018

Sept. 28, 2018 – Los Angeles, California – – The academic journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology issued corrections yesterday for articles that were published in a 2016 supplemental issue dedicated to reviewing the safety of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer.

The corrections indicate that Monsanto did not fully disclose its involvement in the five articles published under the title, “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate,” which concluded that glyphosate was not likely carcinogenic to humans. The review was written by expert panels overseen by Intertek, a consulting firm hired by Monsanto.

Critical Reviews in Toxicology’s publisher, Taylor & Francis, issued a rare “Expression of Concern”  because the review authors failed to provide “an adequate explanation as to why the necessary level of transparency was not met on first submission.”

The journal’s correction bolsters what Roundup cancer attorneys have been saying for years: rather than informing consumers and the public about the link between Roundup and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Monsanto ghostwrote science and engaged in deceptive PR campaigns to create the impression that its blockbuster Roundup herbicide is safe.

The national law firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, which represents nearly 1,000 plaintiffs in Roundup cancer lawsuits, issued the following statement on the journal corrections:

This decision confirms, as we have long contended based on the documentary evidence, that Monsanto made substantial contributions to these manuscripts. However, while some of Monsanto’s involvement in these publications has been acknowledged in the corrections, the investigation by Taylor & Francis fell far short of revealing the extent to which Monsanto violated scientific standards and ethics in this “independent” review.

The corrections, incorporating apologies from several authors for their declaration failures, are a step in the right direction but do not go far enough to address what we know to be true based on the evidence.

For example:

  • Another correction states that Monsanto scientist William Heydens “pointed out some typographical errors.” Based on the documents we have, Heydens was far more involved in drafting, editing and organizing the reviews than the correction indicates. In an email correspondence with Dr. Ashley Roberts of Intertek, Heydens admits to writing “a draft introduction chapter” for the series of reviews, then asks Roberts “who should be the ultimate author” of the introduction chapter he ghostwrote. Dr. Heydens’ full involvement in these reviews remains uncorrected despite the fact that many of his edits and revisions can be found in the published final manuscript.
  • The reviews were conceived as part of a company plan to discredit IARC well before the agency came to its conclusion that glyphosate is a probable human carcinogen. One of the plan’s stated goals was to “orchestrate outcry with IARC decision,” while another plan made clear that the company sought a “WHO Retraction” and made it a priority to “invalidate relevance of IARC.” A Monsanto “Post-IARC Meeting” details several scientists that Monsanto pegged as potential authors. The meeting presentation also asks the question, “How much writing can be done by Monsanto scientists to help keep costs down?” In an email under the subject “Post-IARC Activities to Support Glyphosate,”Monsanto executive Michael Koch wrote that the review on animal data cited by IARC should be “initiated by MON as ghost writers,” and “this would be more powerful if authored by non-Monsanto scientists (e.g., Kirkland, Kier, Williams, Greim and maybe Keith Solomon.)
  • The authors of these papers cited previous reviews that were ghostwritten by Monsanto.In an email discussing the plan for the review papers, Heydens wrote, “An option would be to add Greim and Kier or Kirkland to have their names on the publication, but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak. Recall that is how we handled Williams, Kroes & Munro, 2000.”

While we are pleased that the journal will take steps to correct some of the falsehoods in the original declaration of interest and acknowledgment, and we commend the authors who apologized for their violation of disclosure requirements, the scientific integrity of this “review” was compromised the day it was published and, therefore, a complete disclosure of Monsanto’s involvement, ghostwriting and payments to the experts undermining any assertions of their independence is necessary.

Our release of the Monsanto Papers and their part in the recent Monsanto verdict clearly put pressure on these authors to take at least these steps toward correcting the misleading impression that their reviews were free of Monsanto involvement and direction. It is a shame that Monsanto and now Bayer refuse to apologize for their role in this affair. We will continue to put pressure on Monsanto and Bayer to vindicate the rights of our clients.

Allegations of Ghostwriting Central to $289.2 Million Monsanto Roundup Verdict

Monsanto has long maintained that the 2016 glyphosate review in Critical Reviews in Toxicology was independent, and the original Declaration of Interest underscored the company’s claim:

“The Expert Panelists were engaged by, and acted as consultants to, Intertek, and were not directly contacted by the Monsanto Company. Funding for this evaluation was provided to Intertek by the Monsanto Company which is a primary producer of glyphosate and products containing this active ingredient. Neither any Monsanto company employees nor any attorneys reviewed any of the Expert Panel’s manuscripts prior to submission to the journal.”

But according to internal company documents obtained during the discovery phase of the Monsanto Roundup litigation, it is evident that “An Independent Review of the Carcinogenic Potential of Glyphosate” was anything but independent.

Allegations of ghostwriting scientific literature on glyphosate and Roundup were presented in the first Monsanto Roundup lawsuit to proceed to trial. The suit, filed by former California groundskeeper, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson, culminated in a $289.2 million verdict last month against Monsanto.

Internal company documents that are now part of the Monsanto Papers show that Monsanto scientist and executive William Heydens did not just review the glyphosate review; Heydens actually drafted and edited the workwithout disclosing his or his company’s involvement.

In an email communication between Heydens and Dr. Ashley Roberts,Heydens wrote:

“OK, I have gone through the entire document and indicated what I think should stay, what can go, and in a couple spots I did a little editing. I took a crack at adding a little text: on page 10 to address John’s comments about toxicologists’ use of Hill’s criteria…”

Heydens also argued with one of the paper’s authors, Dr. John Acquavella, about statements he wanted to include about IARC. In the comments of a draft of the paper, Acquavella deemed the statements “inflammatory” and “not necessary,” to which Heydens said, “I would ignore John’s comment.”

During a deposition, Heydens admitted that draft manuscripts of the glyphosate review were sent to him, and that he read “parts of them” before the paper was published. When asked whether or not he made dozens of edits to the manuscript, Heydens said, “I don’t recall.”

“Although I’m glad the journal is now on record finding that they were misled when publishing these articles, a retraction is more than warranted for this situation,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. Donley was one of four scientists to send a letter to the editors of Critical Reviews in Toxicology last year asking for a retraction.

“Furthermore the journal appears to be allowing the phrase ‘an independent review’ to remain in the title of the issue. There is nothing independent about this review by any stretch of the imagination.”

 Reviews Updated with New Acknowledgments and Declaration of Interest Sections

Several of the authors issued apologies in the updated Declaration of Interest sections of three of the five review papers, including:

  • Keith R. Solomon (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Brusick (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Marilyn Aardema
  • Larry Kier (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Kirkland (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Gary Williams (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • John Acquavella (former Monsanto employee, has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • David Garabrant
  • Gary Marsh
  • Tom Sorahan (former Monsanto employee, has worked as consultant for Monsanto)
  • Douglas L. Weed (has worked as consultant for Monsanto)

The review article corrections can be viewed below:

Correction: Glyphosate epidemiology expert panel review: a weight of evidence systematic review of the relationship between glyphosate exposure and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma (Acquavella J, Garabrant D, Marsh G, Sorahan T, Weed DL.)

Correction: Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures (Solomon, KR)

Correction: Genotoxicity Expert Panel review: weight of evidence evaluation of the genotoxicity of glyphosate, glyphosate-based formulations, and aminomethylphosphonic acid (Brusick D, Aardema M, Kier LD, Kirkland DJ, Williams G.