Prisoners lawsuit against soy products given green light by judge

An Illinois District Court judge has decided that a lawsuit filed against the state’s prison system for serving excessive amounts of soy in prisoner meals will move forward. Honorable Judge Harold Baker from the central district of Illinois agrees that the case itself…

Questions About Organic Produce and Sustainability

Organic agriculture used to be synonymous with sustainability, but now with farms in the Mexican desert supplying tomatoes and basil to the American Northeast, that may not always be the case.

Congressional staffers tweet lurid details while partying on taxpayer dime

(NaturalNews)To the hard-working residents and the swelling ranks of indigents in Washington, D.C., the nation’s capital isn’t really known as “Party Central.” That’s because they are too busy trying to make a living in one of the most expensive cities in the country or, in the case…

Federal appeals court reinstates corporate ownership over human genes for breast cancer

(NaturalNews) Reversing a previous decision by a US District Court that declared gene patenting to be invalid, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) recently ruled in opposition, declaring that certain gene variants are supposedly unnatural and can thus be legally patented by biotechnology companies. Myriad Genetics and Laboratories, a molecular diagnostics company out of Salt Lake City, Ut., had filed patents for BRCA1 and BRCA2 , two genes allegedly linked to predicting breast cancer risk. Because the company had supposedly omitted certain so-called noncoding “junk” regions from the genes, Myriad alleged that these genes were their own intellectual property. Last year, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and others challenged the patents on these and five other genes that had been filed by Myriad. US District Court Judge Robert W. Sweet, who heard the case, ended up issuing a 152-page decision ruling against the patents because the genes, after all, do exist naturally in every woman’s body (http://www.naturalnews.com/028492_BRCA1_human_genes.html). But CAFC sees things differently. The mere act of pulling BRCA1 and BRCA2 out of their natural gene sequences or of altering them in some other way apparently renders them unnatural and open game for patenting. The judgment even made the bold declaration that “[t]he molecules as claimed do not exist in nature.” So this essentially means that any doctor or medical specialist who conducts tests or analyses involving BRCA1 or BRCA2 will have to first gain permission from Myriad to do so. And just like with patented genetically-modified organisms (GMO), use of the patented genes will likely come at a price in the form of mandatory royalty fees. “The human genome, like the structure of blood, air or water, was discovered, not created,” said Chris Hansen, a staff lawyer from the ACLU, in response to Myriad’s original patent filings. “There is an endless amount of information on genes that begs for further discovery, and gene patents put up unacceptable barriers to the free exchange of ideas.” The Association for Molecular Pathology, the American College of Medical Genetics, the American Society for Clinical Pathology, and the College of American Pathologists were all plaintiffs in the case against Myriad and the US Patent and Trademark Office. Sources for this article include: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20755-breast-cancer-gene-patent-reinstated.html

Dead body of woman found hanging from balcony of pharmaceutical company CEO’s mansion

(NaturalNews) The body of 32-year-old Rebecca Nalepa was recently found hanging dead off the balcony of the historic Spreckels mansion in Coronado, Calif., which is owned by Arizona based Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. CEO Jonah Shacknai. The woman’s hands were tied tightly behind her back, her feet were bound, and she was completely nude — but officials say they have not been able to determine whether the incident is a homicide or a suicide. Very little has been released about the case so far as authorities are apparently trying to figure out how to proceed with it. But it has been revealed that Nalepa was Jonah’s girlfriend, and Jonah’s brother, Adam, was the one who found the body. He allegedly called 911 on Wednesday after discovering it, as he was admittedly living in the guest house on the property. “Because of the unique and bizarre circumstances of this incident, it has yet to be determined if this will become a criminal matter or remain as a death investigation,” said San Diego County sheriff’s Capt. Tim Curran in a statement. Though it is technically possible, a victim found with tightly bound hands and feet, and who is completely nude hanging from a noose dead, most likely did not kill herself. Again, there have been cases where suicide victims tied their own hands prior to hanging themselves, but more often than not, such a scenario is indicative of foul play. It remains to be seen how the case is handled, but the details that have already been revealed point to the possibility of a coverup in the works. Drug companies are powerful, as most NaturalNews readers know, and they hold a lot of sway over law enforcement and the government (think FDA drug approval process). Here is to hoping that a proper investigation will be conducted, and that justice will be served. Sources for this story include: http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/07/15/nude-woman-found-dead-at-socal-mansion-of-pharmaceutical-firm-ceo/

Supreme Court denies request to fast-track VA lawsuit against Obamacare

(NaturalNews) A petition made by officials in Virginia to expedite a lawsuit against the Obama health care overhaul has been ordered to run its normal course through the courts, according to recent reports. USA Today explains that rather than be heard now by the judges, the case will instead be handed off to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va., which is its next stop on the way to the Supreme Court. Filed just after Obama’s “Affordable Care Act” was signed into law on March 23, the Virginia lawsuit has received mixed opinions from the lower courts. Some US district court judges have ruled against the insurance mandate tenet of the health care bill, stating that Congress is in clear violation of the Constitution. Others have said the requirement technically falls under “interstate commerce,” and is thus enforceable under the law. Virginia’s Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, who has long stood against Obamacare, expressed disappointment over the Supreme Court’s decision not to rule on the case as quickly as possible, but also admitted that it would have been highly unusual for the Supreme Court to make an expedited ruling on a case such as this prior to it having been heard by at least one lower appeals court. Though Virginia’s challenge of Obamacare encompasses only the provision involving mandatory insurance coverage, the entire bill has the potential to become void, that is if the Supreme Court eventually rules in favor of the plaintiffs. This is due to the “no severability clause” of the health care bill, which states that if one part of the bill goes, the entire thing goes. Earlier this month, Congress repealed the burdensome 1099 requirement of Obamacare, which would have tacked loads of new taxes and paperwork on small businesses. This repeal received bipartisan support, and many say the decision marks the eventual repeal of the entire health care bill (http://www.naturalnews.com/031990_1099_Obamacare.html). Sources for this story include: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2011-04-25-supreme-court-health-care.htm http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-02/virginia-health-care-lawsuit-can-proceed-judge-says.html

Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme wants quick resolution to Alberto Contador doping case

Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme wants quick resolution to Alberto Contador doping case Tour de France director Christian Prudhomme said Thursday he hopes a swift verdict will be reached in the case of reigning champion Alberto Contador, who failed a drugs test during the race last year. Last month the Spanish cycling federation proposed [...]

Health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord speaks out about Obama health care, the US Constitution, and the Supreme Court

(NaturalNews) Following the recent court decision of U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who ruled that a key provision of Obama’s health care plan is unconstitutional, I spoke with health freedom attorney Jonathan Emord about the implications of this important ruling. Jonathan Emord is currently representing clients in a related court case in Ohio where he is also arguing to protect the rights of private citizens against overreaching government requirements that interfere with individual choice. “This is a very important decision because the district court Judge here carefully analyzed the law and identified its two principal weaknesses,” Emord told NaturalNews. “The law includes this individual mandate which requires millions of Americans to purchase health insurance even against their will. And if they do not purchase health insurance in 2014, they would be subject to a tax penalty.” You can listen to the full interview on NaturalNews.TV: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5001210B1D257403E6F8220280D03CD6 Emord goes on to state, “Never before in American history has the government of the United States compelled a private party to purchase a commercially available good.” U.S. Supreme Court likely to hear the case As you’ll hear in this interview, Emord anticipates this case eventually escalating to the U.S. Supreme Court. If this law stands and is ruled constitutional, it would open the doors for the U.S. government to mandate citizens to purchase all sorts of products or services that the government wishes to favor or protect, warns Emord. For example, the U.S. government could theoretically require all citizens to purchase an American-made electric car in order to indirectly bail out a Detroit car manufacturer. Anyone who does not wish to purchase an electric car would be fined by the IRS, potentially to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars. This is a very important interview on the crucial subject of health freedom. To listen to the full interview, visit NaturalNews.TV at: http://www.naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=5001210B1D257403E6F8220280D03CD6 Following the interview, I offer several minutes of commentary and analysis about health freedom, the limits of the federal government, and why forcing Americans to purchase a product against their will is bad government.

Landmark case could allow injured persons to once again sue vaccine makers

(NaturalNews) Vaccines are implicated in causing all sorts of health damage, from neurological disorders like autism and Alzheimer’s disease to intestinal problems like ulcerative colitis and Chron’s disease — and everything in between. And a vaccine injury case currently before the Supreme Court could be the landmark decision that once again allows those injured by vaccines to sue vaccine manufacturers for damages, a course of action that has been barred since 1986 because of special federal protections enacted to immunize vaccine manufacturers against having to abide by the rule of law. Nearly 25 years ago, the U.S. Congress passed the 1986 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act, which exempts vaccine manufacturers from being liable for damages caused by their vaccines. The Act established an entirely new “legal” system to deal specifically with vaccine injury cases, handling each one in a special “vaccine court” that essentially just dismisses most cases as unwarranted. The Act is entirely unconstitutional as no company or entity can legally be exempted from due process within the real legal system, but it was enacted anyway and has served as a shelter for vaccine companies to hide behind in order to avoid costly litigation. And since the medical industry as a whole continues to deny a link between vaccines and autism, for instance, the “vaccine courts” can just automatically go along with the notion and arbitrarily reject all autism-related vaccine cases as unsubstantiated. But all that could change, depending on how the Supreme Court handles a case currently before it involving a young lady whose parents say she became permanently injured by a diphtheria, pertussis, and tetanus (DPT) vaccine called Tri-Immunol that she received when she was a child. The Bruesewitz’s say that Wyeth, the manufacturer of the DTP vaccine, knew about a safer version of the vaccine, but continued to sell the dangerous one anyway. Now their daughter Hannah requires costly, specialized care for the rest of her life. The case was first rejected in “vaccine court” when just a month before the case was to be heard, the court removed all the reported severe injuries from the list of compensatory items. After then taking the case to civil courts, the Bruesewitz’s were told that the case was automatically invalid because of the federal Vaccine Act. So now the case sits before the Supreme Court where, if determined in the Bruesewitz’s favor, will set a new precedent whereby vaccine manufacturers will no longer be able to avert the rule of law. The illegitimacy of ‘vaccine court’ Much like the phony Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “tax courts”, “vaccine courts” have no justifiable basis anywhere in the law. They serve as nothing more than a way for drug companies to avoid having to bear responsibility for the harm caused by their vaccines. Any other person or company must go through the standard legal process, but the federal Vaccine Act literally grants special legal immunity to vaccine makers that nobody else receives. There are a few cases where “vaccine courts” have ruled in favor of plaintiffs, but such cases are likely just a ploy to trick the public into thinking such courts are legitimate and lawful. Most cases are rejected by “vaccine court” and, even though plaintiffs can then take the case to civil courts, the process has been made very difficult because of the federal Vaccine Act. Even though $154 million was paid in 2010 for “vaccine court” cases, that amount is a mere fraction of the overall profits vaccine companies rake in every year. And truth be told, vaccine manufacturers do not even pay such settlements. Vaccine companies don’t even injury settlements, the public does! Of the few cases that are actually ruled in favor of injured plaintiffs in “vaccine courts”, not a single one of them is paid for by the vaccine manufacturers that cause the harm. A special excise tax is collected when vaccines are sold to the public, which is later used as settlement compensation. This means that insurance companies and ultimately the public end up paying for vaccine settlements while the vaccine manufacturers get off scot-free! So not only are vaccine manufacturers essentially exempted from the real legal system, but the mock legal system set up in their favor actually guards them from having to pay a single cent for damages caused by their products. It’s time to end the vaccine racket Proponents of special legal protection for vaccine manufacturers say that it is necessary to protect them from “undue” litigation. But that is precisely what the real court system is for in the first place: to evaluate cases and determine whether or not a defendant is liable for damages. Setting up special “vaccine courts” that bypass due process is tyranny in the name of medicine, and it is simply unacceptable. Because of “vaccine courts”, the idea that vaccines are in any way related to causing autism has been dismissed all across the board, even though numerous studies and research data continue to suggest a connection (http://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.html). And in the case of Hannah Bruesewitz, the system permits gross negligence on the part of vaccine manufacturers to go unpunished, unless of course the Supreme Court decides to do the right thing. Sources for this story include: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/12/health/12vaccine.html?_r=1&ref=health http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/supreme-court-vaccine-immunity-13439/

Australian courts rule that Vioxx should never have been approved for sale

(NaturalNews) Australian courts recently ruled that Vioxx, a popular prescription painkiller, should never have been approved and allowed on the market. The case represents the world’s first successful class action lawsuit against a drug company for damage caused by its drugs. Merck, the drug giant that produced Vioxx, was deemed by the courts as negligent for failing to properly inform doctors who were prescribing the drug about the dangers and health risks associated with the drug. As a result, thousands of patients around the world have suffered severe injury or death because of Vioxx. Graeme Peterson, a 59-year-old man represented in the case, was awarded the equivalent of about $266,000 for injuries inflicted upon him by Vioxx. He suffered a heart attack from the drug in 2003 that has left him unable to work since. He took the drug for more than four years, and still keeps a Vioxx tablet with him as a reminder of what almost killed him. Though great for Australians, injured patients in the U.K. have not had the same success. Norman Lamb, a member of the British Parliament, explained that he and others have been trying to convince Merck for years that it should compensate the many British citizens who were injured by the drug. But Merck continues to deny liability and the British government has failed to successfully negotiate a settlement. “Ministers made promising noises then after a meeting between the Government and the company they weakened their position. I believe that the ministers came under pressure from the company and their own civil servants to shut up,” explained Lamb in a U.K. article. Unfortunately, this is typically the case with most drug company lawsuits. The Australian case is a landmark victory that should typify how class action lawsuits against drug companies are handled and hopefully a similar victory will one day be achieved for the many British cases of Vioxx injuries. One such case involves Raymond Eaton, whose wife died from heart problems that were likely caused by Vioxx. Mrs. Eaton, who had been suffering from a severely debilitating form of rheumatoid arthritis, was immediately prescribed Vioxx upon its release. The drug helped her pain, but four years later, she suffered a coronary from which she never recovered. Since she never had any heart problems prior to taking Vioxx, Raymond is convinced that the drug was responsible. Over 80 million people around the world were taking Vioxx prior to its being pulled from the market, and many lawyers from other countries have been awaiting the outcome of the Australian litigation. The success of the case established a precedence for Merck’s liability due to negligence, providing a way for the thousands, if not millions, of injured patients around the world to receive restitution for damages caused by Vioxx. Sources for this story include: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/vioxx-ruling-gives-hope-for-payouts-to-british-lsquovictimsrsquo-1917042.html

Next Page »