Disrespected and Dismissed: Ailing Vietnam Veterans Still Seeking the Care They Deserve

Agent Orange demonstration - veteransforpeace.org

The government’s flagrant mistreatment of our troops during and after the Vietnam War is nothing less than a national disgrace, and it tragically continues to this day. It's taken 40 years for the feds to acknowledge the deaths and devastation caused by Agent Orange, the deadly herbicide developed by Monsanto to which so many thousands of our troops were exposed. And many Vietnam-era veterans exposed to Agent Orange and other toxic chemicals are still fighting for the care they deserve. 

A federal judge in Oakland ruled just last week that veterans who were harmed by secret chemical and biological experiments run by the government aren't entitled to medical treatment outside the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical system. As AP reports, some 8,000 U.S. veterans alleged in a lawsuit that VA failed to properly treat health problems caused by these despicable experiments.

The veteran plaintiffs say the feds exposed them to chemical agents, germs and all sorts of drugs in researching how to defend against "nontraditional" weapons attacks. The lawsuit also alleged - and this is something everyone knows is true - that the VA system is so overburdened it can't properly treat veterans now suffering health problems because of their participation in these experiments.

But U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken is unmoved. Last week she rejected most of the veterans' claims by ruling the government has attempted to reach out and offer help to them over the years. This of course is total nonsense, and makes me wonder how Wilken sleeps at night. Our troops deserve so much better. But this is nothing new. This is the way our government has treated Vietnam veterans ever since they came home. They’ve been repeatedly disrespected and dismissed.

All this reminds me of when I was covering former Senator and current Secretary of State John Kerry’s presidential campaign for Newsweek in 2004. Not only had Kerry been unfairly maligned for his honorable service in Vietnam, but during that campaign I also stumbled upon a fact no other reporter knew: John Kerry had prostate cancer, and he had been exposed to Agent Orange while skippering a Swift Boat along the Mekong Delta during the Vietnam War.

Kerry’s best friend Giles Whitcomb, a Naval Intelligence officer who served alongside Kerry on the delta, was also exposed to Agent Orange, and died in 2003 of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, which, like prostate cancer, has been linked to the toxic herbicide. But the VA would not recognize this connection and give Whitcomb’s surviving family the benefits they had earned.

So Kerry stepped in. As I noted in my 2004 profile of Kerry in San Diego Magazine, he assisted Whitcomb’s widow, Susan, in obtaining full veteran’s benefits. In a letter written to VA shortly after Whitcomb’s death, Kerry wrote, “I commanded a PCF 94 in the Mekong Delta. I personally observed the spraying of Agent Orange for the purpose of defoliation on many river banks in the area. ... I hereby testify with absolute certainty that Lieutenant Giles Whitcomb and anyone else in that area of operations was definitely exposed to Agent Orange.”

Kerry does not believe his prostate cancer was caused by his exposure to Agent Orange - despite the fact that  medical science has linked them. But he has fought for years to help fellow Vietnam vets suffering from cancer, nerve and skin disorders and other diseases linked by medical science to Agent Orange. He was a chief sponsor of the 1991 legislation that now affords tens of thousands of exposed veterans full benefits for various disabilities.

Bergmann & Moore, a law firm that solely represents veterans with disability claims with the VA, notes on its blog this month that VA has just updated its list of Navy and Coast Guard ships that operated in or near Vietnam during the war. This list "can help Vietnam War veterans find out if they qualify for presumption of Agent Orange exposure when seeking disability compensation for Agent Orange-related diseases,” writes Bergmann & Moore’s Jess Walker.

The disturbingly long list of medical conditions presumed to be associated with Agent Orange, which can be found at VA’s website, include multiple cancers, Parkinson’s, heart disease, diabetes, and much more.

New Poll: House Republicans Not So Safe in 2014

Beltway conventional wisdom, if there is such a thing, says that while the Latino vote is a concern for presidential elections, most Republican House members enjoy gerrymandered districts and have nothing to worry about. But a new nationwide poll of 800 Latino voters in 24 Republican-held battleground districts tells a more cautionary tale for the GOP.

The survey, conducted by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice, indicates that immigration remains the most important issue among Latino voters, and shows that in these 24 districts, which stretch from California to Minnesota to Florida to New York, the Latino populations are growing, the margins of victory are small, and House Republicans face a potential loss.

“I think the message of this poll for Republicans is very clear: half-hearted (immigration) measures are not going to solve the electoral problem that they face," says Gary Segura, professor of American politics and chair of Chicano Studies at Stanford University and principal at Latino Decisions.

 "Half-measures like DREAM-lite, or no citizenship or second class status, those things are not going to solve the problem."

In the surveyed districts, 70% of Latino midterm voters disapprove of the job Republicans in Congress are doing handling immigration policy, while only 20% approve.
 

Among the poll's other findings: Ugly rhetoric does further damage to the brand. Two-thirds of Latino voters know someone who is undocumented. When responding to quotes from Republican Members of Congress like Reps. Steve King and Louie Gohmert that malign undocumented immigrants, the damage is clear. But after hearing positive comments (the poll tested quotes from Reps. Paul Ryan and Spencer Bachus in addition to negative quotes from King, Gohmert, and others), Latinos’ opinions of the Party improved dramatically.
 

           The poll also found that many Latino voters are willing to give Republicans a second chance if they set aside excuses and schedule a vote on immigration reform with a path to citizenship for 11 million aspiring Americans. Among midterm Latino voters in these districts, 62% have voted Republican at some point in their lives, 50% would be more likely to support a GOP House candidate in their district if they take a leadership role in passing immigration reform with a pathway to citizenship, even if they disagree on other issues, and 62% would feel more favorable towards Republicans in Congress if Speaker John Boehner allows a bipartisan vote on immigration reform.


Frank Sharry, executive director for America’s Voice, says this is a "a critical moment for the GOP. They can either take this opportunity to make inroads with the fastest-growing demographic in the country, or fall back on excuses and half-measures that do nothing but reinforce their current tarnished brand.”



Below is the full list of GOP districts included in the survey:

CALIFORNIA 
Rep. Jeff Denham (CA-10)
 Rep. Buck McKeon (CA-25 )
 Rep. Gary Miller (CA-31)

COLORADO
 Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03)
 Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-06)

FLORIDA
 Rep. Steve Southerland (FL-02) 
Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-10)
 Rep. Vern Buchanan (FL-16)

ILLINOIS
 Rep. Rodney Davis (IL-13)



INDIANA
 Rep. Jackie Walorski (IN-02)



MICHIGAN
 Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-01)



MINESOTA
 Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06)



NEVADA
Rep. Joe Heck (NV-03)

NEW JERSEY 
Rep. Jon Runyan (NJ-03)



NEW YORK
 Rep. Peter King (NY-02) 
Rep. Michael Grimm (NY-11)
 Rep. Chris Gibson (NY-19)
 Rep. Tom Reed (NY-23)
 Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27)

NORTH CAROLINA
 Rep. Robert Pittenger (NC-09)



OHIO 
Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-06)
 Rep. Jim Renacci (OH-16)

TEXAS 
Rep. Randy Weber (TX-14)



VIRGINIA
 Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02)

Veteran of Afghanistan War Honors Judge Who Supported Her During Deployment

Major Aniela Szymanski in Afghanistan

It isn't written about nearly enough, but being a Reservist in the United States military during wartime is a very trying time for these individuals and their loved ones. It's undoubtedly very tough to just drop everything, put your life and career on hold, and deploy to war. Understanding and supportive bosses can make it a lot easier for our honorable reserves who are called to serve.

Major Aniela Szymanski is one of those honorable reserves. An Afghanistan War veteran, she was deployed to Helmand Province in 2011, and now serves as an appellate attorney at Bergmann & Moore, a law firm for which she proudly represents veterans and their families before the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

Major Szymanski and Judge Robert N. Davis

After she returned from the war, Szymanski, who began her military service in 2000, was so moved by the support she had received from her then-boss Robert N. Davis, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, she nominated him for the “Above and Beyond Award” from the Department of Defense (DoD). And recently it was announced that he won the award.

The "Above and Beyond Award" is bestowed by the Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve, which was established more than 40 years ago to develop and maintain support for employees who also serve in the Guard and Reserve. The award is presented to a limited number of employers who distinguish themselves in their support to employees who serve in the military.

Judge Davis's support and cooperation during his judicial law clerks' deployment to Afghanistan in 2011, including Major Szymanski, epitomizes the spirit of the award.

"Without the outstanding support for reservists such as that provided by Judge Davis, I could not continue to serve my country," says SMajor Szymanski. "Having seen first-hand what reservists bring to the fight in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, and in every other theatre of operation, reservists will continue to be the key to the operational capabilities of our military all over the world. I encourage employers to follow the example set by the Court and Judge Davis to continue to support these needs of our military. The ability to perform my mission in Afghanistan was due largely to their support."

In 2004, Davis was nominated by the President and confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which has exclusive jurisdiction to provide judicial review of final decisions by the Board of Veterans' Appeals, an entity within VA. Davis is a veteran of the U.S. Navy Reserve. Here is his official Court biography. 

BREAKING CANCER NEWS: New Discovery at Salk Institute Could Stunt Cancer Cell Growth

Salk Institute scientist Jan Karlseder in the lab

It's comforting to know that scientists like Jan Karlseder at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies are always looking for new and better ways to treat and even prevent cancer. And he's at it again. This time, Karlseder and his Salk team have identified why disruption of a vital pathway in cell cycle control leads to the proliferation of cancer cells. They believe that a better understanding of this process could in fact lead to the ability to influence cellular aging and, as a result, stunt cancer cell growth.

Yes, you read that right: stunt cancer cell growth. Their remarkable findings on something called telomeres, which are the stretches of DNA at the ends of chromosomes that protect our genetic code and make it possible for cells to divide, suggest a potential target for preventive measures against cancer, as well as aging. 

Needless to say, the implications of this research for patients are potentially profound. The findings were published July 11 in Molecular Cell.

Karlseder, a professor in Salk’s Molecular and Cell Biology Laboratory and holder of the Donald and Darlene Shiley Chair, says that while these discoveries do not result in direct clinical applications, "the more we understand the underlying causes of cancer, the more likely it is that improved therapies will be developed. Understanding the exact molecular details of how partially dysfunctional telomeres arrest cell growth while maintaining genome stability could eventually allow the application of these pathways to cancer cells, thereby arresting their growth."

As usual, the research gets a little technical. Karlseder explains that telomeres are like plastic tips at the end of shoelaces because they prevent the ends of chromosomes from fraying and sticking to each other, which scrambles the genetic information and may promote cancer. They're crucial to DNA replication, tumor suppression and aging. Each time a human cell divides, its telomeres become shorter. 

When they become too short, he says, the cell can no longer divide and becomes inactive, or “senescent,” or dies. Cells can escape this fate by activating an enzyme called telomerase, which prevents telomeres from getting shorter and allows the cells to continue to grow and divide. 

Uncontrolled cellular growth is of course a primary and scary hallmark of cancer cells, and shortened telomeres have been identified in pancreatic, bone, prostate, bladder, lung, kidney and head and neck cancers.

“As telomeres shorten during normal cellular aging, they activate a DNA damage response to arrest cell growth, which protects our DNA from harm,” says Karlseder, who with his team identified that cell growth arrest due to shortening telomeres is confined to one specific portion of the cell cycle, called the G1 phase, which is the most protected stage of the cell cycle. 

“The pathways controlling G1-phase growth arrest, however, is commonly altered in cancer cells," he says, "allowing cancer cells to divide despite shortened telomeres, which can lead to the genomic instability seen in malignant cells.” 

In the study, Karlseder and his colleagues mimicked the process of cellular aging by partially removing a protein called TRF2 from the telomeres of human fibrosarcoma (a type of cancer that affects connective tissue) cells. By doing so they were able to experimentally reproduce the process that occurs naturally as cells age. 

This telomere so-called “deprotection” exposed the ends of chromosomes during certain stages of the cell cycle. 

In this state, the scientists found that telomeres exhibited a partial DNA damage response: the ends of chromosomes were protected against fusing and fraying, but cell growth was still arrested.     

“Basically,” notes lead author Anthony Cesare, a research associate in Karlseder’s lab, “there’s cell growth arrest without genomic instability. Thus, telomere aging, in normal, healthy cells and living organisms, means cell arrest, but no harmful genetic effects.”

As you might have guessed, I'm keeping a close eye on this promising research and will keep you informed. 

Are Drones the U.S. Navy's Not-So-Secret New Weapon?

Drone lands on aircraft carrier - Photo by Kevin J. Steigberg/US Navy

In a surreal, almost eerie glimpse into the not-too-distant future, an unmanned airplane landed itself today on the flight deck of a United States aircraft carrier. The bat-winged X-47B combat drone, manufactured by Northrup Grumman, took off from Naval Air Station Patuxent River on a flight headed to the USS George H. W. Bush in the Atlantic off the coast of Virginia. When it reached its destination and safely set down, it became the first pilotless aircraft to land itself on the moving flight deck of an aircraft carrier at sea, according to the Navy.

Navy brass are giddy over the historic landing of the drone, which will be developed into a battlefield-ready aircraft. You can view today's event at this link. As you watch, remind yourself that there is nobody in that plane. Its safe landing relied entirely on GPS coordinates and advanced computer technology used by "pilots" many miles away.

"It isn't very often you get a glimpse of the future. Today, those of us aboard USS George H.W. Bush got that chance," Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said today. "The operational unmanned aircraft soon to be developed have the opportunity to radically change the way presence and combat power are delivered from our aircraft carriers."



There's no question that in the coming years drones will play a substantial role in the American military, and in domestic use. Navy leaders are apparently on board, but I'm not so sure the Navy's highly skilled fighter pilots are quite as enthusiastic about these slick, flying robots.

Despite their coronation of sorts today, drones also remain the subject of intense controversy among civilians, and pols. Many Americans worry that drones will potentially compromise our freedoms and be abused by domestic law enforcement, among others. There is also grave concern about the number of civilian fatalities caused by drones we've sent across the globe to kill terrorists.

As I noted in The Daily Beast a few months ago, there's even growing tension over drones in my hometown, San Diego, which is America's drone-making hub. Protests against the drones are increasing here. But so are profits for defense contractors that design and build these futuristic machines - Northrup and General Atomics - and all the subsidiary companies. Drone-related businesses in San Diego County generate a whopping $2 billion in annual revenue and have created as many as 14,000 jobs. 

Meanwhile, in Washington, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky) this week threatened to block the Senate confirmation of outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller’s replacement, James Comey, because, Paul says, Mueller did not address Paul's concerns over domestic drone use.

Of course it was Paul who filibustered the Senate confirmation of CIA Director John Brennan back in March, demanding that the Obama administration clarify its policy on domestic drone use and the targeted assassinations of Americans on U.S. soil. 

But while the debate rages in Washington, the military is moving forward with its drone program. Mabus predicted today that "across the entire spectrum of military operations, an integrated force of manned and unmanned platforms is the future. The X-47B's autonomous arrested landing aboard USS George H.W. Bush shows how the Navy and Marine Corps are riding the bow wave of technological advances to create this 21st century force."

COMMENTARY: Is VA Secretary Eric Shinseki a Hero or a Villain?

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki

Eric Shinseki, the alternately compelling and confounding secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), has taken some heat in recent months. With the disability claims backlog at VA still at more than 1 million, including appealed claims, people are fed up. 

Newspaper editorial boards call the situation at VA a “national disgrace” and have urged Shinseki to quit. Time magazine said he "lacks the creativity and leadership skills” needed for this position. Amid the pressure, Shinseki allegedly submitted his resignation, only to be convinced by the Obama administration to stay on the job. No federal officials will confirm this, but several of my trusted sources in the veteran community say it happened. 

But is all the criticism of the secretary warranted? Well, yes. And no. By all accounts, Shinseki, a disabled Vietnam veteran with a calm, unflappable demeanor, has worked furiously to fix the many problems he inherited when he took over the department. It's an uphill battle implementing real change at such an entrenched bureaucracy, but he's made slow progress. And he's made some good moves.

Yes, the claims backlog and waiting times for those claims to be processed have tragically grown, but that is largely because so many more post-9/11 troops have come home. But in some areas, including conditions at VA facilities and the overall environment for veterans and their families nationwide, things are demonstrably improving for the first time in recent memory.

However, Shinseki has made some stupefyingly bad decisions. Perhaps the worst one came just weeks ago when he gutted the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illness (RAC), an independent board mandated by Congress in 1998. 

Shinseki, who'd previously shown unwavering support for the committee, reversed course for no legitimate reason, firing or removing the committee's chair and half the panel without naming replacements. 

The fear among veterans' advocates is that Shinseki will name discredited people to the RAC, such as people who believe in VA's bogus "stress" theory for Gulf War illness. The RAC as well as the prestigious Institute of Medicine have confirmed that Gulf War illness is real, it is associated with toxic exposures. It is physical, not psychiatric. 

Just when Shinseki was beginning to look like he really cared about veterans, he pulls something this stupid, this egregious. The decision is a slap in the face to the hundreds of thousands of ailing Gulf War veterans who have still not been treated. 

So now you know why I am conflicted about Shinseki. As someone who covered VA for Newsweek during the George W. Bush years, I still contend with ample evidence that things are better now than they were then. Is Shinseki an improvement over his predecessors, Anthony Principi, Jim Nicholson and Jim Peake? If you have to ask, you weren't there.

In a cover story in Newsweek in March 2007 I reported that the VA under Nicholson was an overloaded bureaucracy unprepared for the onslaught of troops returning from war and was failing America’s wounded. USA Today reported that same year that the VA’s clinics and hospitals suffered from hundreds of problems, including worn carpet, damaged floor tiles, leaking roofs and cockroach infestations. That is no longer the case.

While at VA, Nicholson reportedly defended a budget measure that sought major cuts in staffing for VA healthcare, cut funding for nursing home care, and blocked four legislative measures aimed at streamlining the backlog of veterans benefit claims. Shinseki would not defend such a budget measure.

Nicholson's replacement, Peake, wasn't much better than Nicholson. A medical doctor who'd been surgeon general of the Army, Peake's questionable moves at VA included his refusal to sign the regulation granting herbicide benefits for veterans who had Parkinson’s, heart disease and cancer. Last week I wrote here about how these herbicides, including Roundup, the most popular weed killer in the world, are linked to cancer and many other diseases. Lacking wisdom, courage or compassion, Peake refused to allow sick warriors this coverage.

Robert Walsh, a respected attorney who's represented thousands of veterans with claims before the VA, says Shinseki opened up the process to these claims and fast-tracked them early in his tenure. 

"He (Shinseki) forced the VA benefits system to work as it never had before," Walsh says. "Tens of thousands of families received VA disability benefits and in-home health assistance they desperately needed."

A commendable move by Shinseki, and it showed that things were evidently changing for the better at VA. But lame-brained moves such as decimating the RAC sort of makes us forget the good things he has done and just makes you scratch your head.  

In my recent interview for The Daily Beast with Steven Coughlin, a former VA epidemiologist, he told me the VA routinely disseminated false information about Gulf War veterans, withheld research showing a link between nerve gas and Gulf War Illness, rushed studies out the door without taking recommended fixes by an independent board, and failed to offer crucial care to veterans who came forward as suicidal.

Gutting the RAC just two months after Coughlin exposed the VA to me and a few other journalists was perhaps the most poorly timed decision of Shinseki's tenure. 

As noted by Jess Walker on the blog for Bergmann & Moore, a law firm that solely represents veteran disability cases, "The purpose of an independent advisory panel is to provide VA with invaluable input for the research needed for treatments and benefits – information that is not to be disregarded simply because it is less overwhelming than the logistics of providing treatment and compensation for 250,000 ill veterans. Gulf War veterans, like all veterans, deserve better than this."

Indeed they do. Shinseki's move to essentially quash the RAC calls into question his integrity and judgment. I'm still waiting for him to explain just why on earth he would make such a move. We're all still waiting. Nothing less than his legacy at the VA may depend on his answer.

EXCLUSIVE: New California "Strike Force" To Tackle State's Massive Veterans Claims Backlog

Good news for the thousands of California war veterans who've been waiting, some of them for years, for their disability claims to be processed. The Reno Dispatch has just learned that long-pending benefits claims submitted by the state's veterans caught in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) processing “log jam” could finally be addressed, thanks to state lawmakers.

California Governor Jerry Brown's new budget has authorized $3 million and 36 limited-term positions that will allow the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet) to work with the national VA office to help alleviate its massive veterans’ claims backlog, which nationally still stands at more than 800,000.

The money will be used to hire a “Strike Force” team of 12 Veterans Claims Representatives (VCR) for each of VA’s regional offices in San Diego, Los Angeles and Oakland to focus on backlogged claims, ensuring they are properly developed and have all necessary documentation needed for adjudication.

This is a refreshing and rare example of a state-federal coalition created for the benefit of veterans. It's pretty obvious that state lawmakers are listening to veterans and growing tired of waiting for the feds to do the right thing. 

Paul Sullivan, a Gulf War veteran and managing director of public affairs and veterans outreach at Bergmann & Moore, a law firm whose entire practice is devoted to assisting veterans with their disability claims, tells The Reno Dispatch that the firm is "very pleased CALVET follows the lead of the Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) and helps our wounded and injured veterans with their VA disability claims. VA truly needs the assistance because the average time for VA to complete a claim is longer than one year, and VA makes mistakes in 30 percent of high-risk claims."

Sullivan adds, "The extra staff hired by CALVET and TVC help our most vulnerable veterans, such as those with new claims, claims on appeal, or claims for post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or individual unemployability"

The VA has promised to end the massive backlog by 2015. But many sources say that goal is no longer realistic, despite the VA's recent rollout of its new computerized claims system, which I wrote about earlier this year in The Daily Beast. 

California veterans are among those who have to wait the longest to get the benefits they've earned. The VA's Oakland office, which serves Northern California veterans and has more than 30,000 claims pending, is one of the worst in the nation with a wait period of more than 600 days for initial claims, according to The Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR). 

In a statement today, CalVet Secretary Peter J. Gravett said, “We appreciate the leadership of the Governor and the Speaker on this initiative as well as the Legislature’s continued support of CalVet and its efforts to ensure the well-being of California veterans and their families. Helping them get the benefits they so richly deserve after their honorable service to our country is the very least we can do for them.”

CalVet has already begun advertising to fill the limited-term positions and is looking to hire VCRs with previous veterans’ benefits claims processing experience. The VA's national office will provide office space, computers, phones and other equipment for the Strike Teams which will work under the supervision of CalVet regional office staff.

BREAKING NEWS: America's Favorite Weed Killer Linked to Cancer

It's shameful how few American media outlets have written about the latest scientific studies linking Roundup, the world's most popular and profitable weed killer, and cancer. Might it be because Monsanto, makers of Roundup and as we all know a generally bad corporate citizen with a litany of alleged crimes against humanity, spends billions in advertising and marketing and dedicates a good portion of that budget to print and television ads?  

Monsanto spent $1.28 billion on its various marketing programs in fiscal 2012, according to the company’s annual report. All that money seems to have had an impact. I am only speculating, of course. But why else would the American media ignore the mounting evidence of links between Roundup and cancer? 

The latest is a groundbreaking study showing that the active ingredient in the hugely popular herbicide fuels breast cancer by increasing the number of breast cancer cells through cell growth and cell division. This should be front-page news.

The study, which is to be published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, focused on glyphosate, Roundup's primary chemical ingredient. After comparing how hormone-dependent and hormone-independent breast cancer cell lines were affected by glyphosate, researchers found that glyphosate fuels cancer cell lines that are hormone dependent.

There are in fact several recent studies that show glyphosate’s potential to be an endocrine disruptor, which are chemicals that can interfere with the hormone system in mammals. These disruptors can cause cancer tumors.

A new peer-reviewed report in the journal Entropy, co-authored by Dr. Stephanie Seneff at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), argues that glyphosate residues, found in most commonly consumed foods in the Western diet, “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions and induce disease.”

None of this comes as a surprise to me. Roundup has already been linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. A study published back in 1999 in the Journal of American Cancer Society by eminent oncologists Dr. Lennart Hardell and Dr. Mikael Eriksson revealed that exposure to glyphosate "yielded increased risks for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma." This alarming study was curiously not widely publicized.

Monsanto has tried to downplay the links between its products and diseases by putting big money into contract research companies like Exponent, which spews its scientific research findings on behalf of corporate clients, many of which are facing product liability concerns. 

A study published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," which suggests there is no link, was apparently directly supported by Monsanto. The study's author has reportedly served as a paid consultant to Monsanto.

In 2009, a French court reportedly found Monsanto guilty of lying, falsely declaring that Roundup is "biodegradable," "environmentally friendly" and leaves the soil "clean."

Monsanto clearly does not want the world to know the truth about Roundup, one of its fattest cash cows. But what would you expect from a company that in the past brought us DDT, PCBs, and Agent Orange? 

Bottom line: You may not read about it in your local newspaper or hear about it on your favorite TV news show, but Roundup has been repeatedly linked in scientific studies to cancer, as well as many other diseases including Autism. Is there any reason why anyone should believe at this point that Monsanto can be trusted?