Listen to the Podcast:
Watch the Podcast:
Michael Baum served on the trial team for the first three Monsanto Roundup lawsuits. Not only did all three juries conclude that Roundup contributed to the plaintiff’s cancer, they learned just how corrupt and manipulative Monsanto has been for decades.
Jeffrey Smith interviews Michael about some of the more shocking details about Monsanto that his legal team uncovered.
Michael will also share revelations in the new book by Gilles-Eric Seralini and Jérôme Douzelet, The Whole Truth About the Monsanto Papers (with a forward by Michael.)
The Institute for Responsible Technology is working to protect you & the World from GMOs (and while we’re at it, Roundup®...) To find out exactly how we do this and to subscribe to our newsletter visit https://www.responsibletechnology.org/
Join us at Protect Nature Now to Safeguarding Biological Evolution from GMOs 2.0. The place to get critical up to date information, watch our short film and most importantly, learn easy ways for you to take action against this existential threat. Visit: https://protectnaturenow.com/
Notes for this week's Podcast
This week's Transcript
Speaker 1: (00:09)
Hi, everyone. I am so excited to introduce you to Michael Baum. I first met Michael, um, on the set of the doctors TV show when one of Michael's fellow attorneys, Brent Wizner and I, and one of their plaintiffs went on for an hour, uh, explaining that Monsanto had been lying about the dangers and carcinogenicity of Roundup. Well, Michael is the managing partner of the law firm that has been on the legal team that won the three trials. And I'm so excited to have you, because we're going to talk about things that we haven't talked about yet. And I know this audience wants to hear from you. Welcome.
Speaker 2: (00:56)
Uh, very nice to see you again, Jeff, uh, was a pleasure meeting you to begin with and every time I've met you since, oh
Speaker 1: (01:02)
Yeah, I remember that amazing opportunity that I happened to be there at the end of the, uh, of the pill yard trial, where we were all having dinner and they had just won a $2 billion, uh, more than $2 billion by the jury and award and Lee Johnson from the first plaintiffs he showed up, it was just surreal. So
Speaker 2: (01:25)
It's a really surreal moment to see, uh, uh, Lee and his wife show up and with all the people who all it was a gigantic team that contributed to making that happen. And there were so many opportunities for it to go off the rails, including Mike Miller, who was supposed to be the trial counsel, uh, getting in a nearly fatal accident, just a couple of weeks before the trial. And so, uh, Brent and Pedrum, uh, Ben Wizner [inaudible] and I had to jump in to be the trial team, like on just like a couple of weeks notice. So I
Speaker 1: (02:06)
Got upset this up. This was the first of the Roundup trials and you guys were like, all right, we'll also help. And then all of a sudden, uh, the attorney, the current attorney who had prepared for this four months has a wind surfing accident and ends up in the hospital. And wasn't there a second person that also got sick. And,
Speaker 2: (02:28)
Uh, his second in command had, uh, um, an epileptic seizure and a concussion on the day we were having the conversation with him of how we were going to do the trial invite. Mike Miller's having been in this accident and we were supposed to be just sort of say, well, well, fill in and help you in the background. And then he, he has this gigantic event that he bangs his head and is thrashing around him. And so he gets hospitalized and it's, you know, not doesn't really fully recover, uh, in time for the trial. So it became, uh, Dave Dickins and Brent and Patrick and me, I have to say
Speaker 1: (03:19)
That if there was, you know, I I'm just giving one, one read on this one, um, backseat, you know, Monday morning quarterback that I tell you, you guys did an amazing job. I know Mike Miller, I'm sure he would have been outstanding, but for some reason it's as if nature organized for you to get the pass. And it was incredible seeing Brent up there giving the openings arguments, seeing the way he was cross-examining I had already had a taste of him when we were on live television for an hour with the, at the doctors TV show. And I was, I was so impressed with him. I mean, I've been speaking about this stuff for 25 years, and I had not heard of someone who was so confident in his positioning that he would just took down an epidemiologist or an epidemiologist, uh, that was on by Skype at the same time. It was awesome. And he, he, he goes, you guys exhibited an amazing, amazing team. I was just incredible. So
Speaker 2: (04:30)
Just something close to a photographic memory for the documents, and that gives him, um, an advantage over his almost any opponent.
Speaker 1: (04:42)
That's fantastic. So we have a lot to talk about, I mean, I want to give someone to everyone an update about what happened this week. Okay.
Speaker 2: (04:54)
All right. Why don't, why
Speaker 1: (04:54)
Don't you give the [inaudible] oh, you go
Speaker 2: (04:57)
Ahead. You fire an off I'll respond.
Speaker 1: (05:00)
So something was just revealed from the EPA files. What was it and how significant was it that it was revealed and that it wasn't revealed earlier?
Speaker 2: (05:11)
Okay. So in, uh, 2015, I are issued an analysis of glyphosate and to some degree Roundup that said it was probable, it was a probable cause. And the IRR
Speaker 1: (05:24)
Gives the wh shows big CA uh, conference committee that determines what's carcinogenic
Speaker 2: (05:31)
All over the world. [inaudible] international agency for research on cancer, the, the independent scientists group, uh, most qualified to make carcinogenicity decisions and they made it so,
Speaker 1: (05:46)
Michael you've frozen again, if you just, oh, no, you're back. Okay, go ahead. You're fine.
Speaker 2: (05:50)
Um, so they concluded that, uh, glyphosate and some degree Roundup, because Roundup was in the epidemiology trials, uh, that they've looked at was a probable carcinogen and Monsanto engaged in an all out nor and attack to undermine that decision. And they had battle plans that engaged, um, um, uh, opinion leaders, uh, journalists, uh, uh, what we call troll groups to really do everything they could to undermine that decision. And they enlisted the EPA as well. And the EPA, uh, basically had what we consider, uh, subject to regulatory capture, which means that the regulator has been captured by the people they're supposed to be regulating. The Fox is guarding the hen house rather than somebody else who's responsible for, uh, safety and welfare of the public. And, uh, they, uh, because the EPA was able to void a study by the ATS Dr. And their internal scientists that, uh, would have agreed with IRR.
Speaker 2: (07:15)
Um, they would publish data and submit and submit data saying, well, we're still reviewing it, but it looks like there's no Carson suggested it us, as far as we're concerned, the labeling is fine and there's no carcinogenicity associated with, uh, glyphosate. So Monsanto would trot that out at every motion and every hearing and, uh, D trotted it out to defeat, uh, proposition 65 in California for the warning labels that would be required for an IRR finding of carcinogenicity on a product and their main, I mean, in the trial, in the trials, and at key moments of the trial, uh, the EPA would come out with some new pronouncement that what they would come trot in front of the judge they'd charge. We've got to introduce this evidence to the jury. There's a stuff they didn't know about. They've got to have this. And it was just every step of the way they kept coming up with this stuff from the EPA.
Speaker 2: (08:24)
And, um, it, we were able to fend it off by saying that, well, we think there was regulatory capture and that we actually go through the science and that the, the big defect in the EPA, his analysis was they were, they were full tunnel vision on glyphosate alone and not the entire formulation. And the formulation is like up to like north of a hundred times more toxic than glyphosate by itself. If you just study glyphosate, then you would find lower toxicity and lower carcinogenicity and their own internal documents. Sironi, epidemia their own toxicologists. Donald Farmer said, we can't say it's not carcinogenic because we haven't done the testing on them, on the formulation. Um, we're safe talking about glyphosate, but if you talk about the formulation, where in trouble, well,
Speaker 1: (09:21)
When you're quoting what you're quoting is an internal memo from Donna Farmer to another Monsanto employee. She doesn't say that to pine public. She was the one that I debated in 2015 and the doctors. And she said, I'm very confident in this as a mother and as a scientist. And she roomed. And so it was because she was so confident and I shared those type of actual secret memo documents, uh, quotes with the producer of the doctors. That's when they opened up a new show, invited her on, she refused. And we went there and had some, had some fun. Okay. So carry on.
Speaker 2: (10:01)
So, as it turns out, uh, about 10 days, two weeks ago, uh, Sharon Lerner at the intercept had been liaising and communicating with some EPA whistleblowers, and she got her hands on the actual internal analysis by the EPA that essentially echoed exactly the epidata epidemiological analysis and Bradford hill causation analysis criteria, um, that I R went through. And it completely undermines all that crazy. The EPA said where there's no cars to the GST. It was it's an, to me, it's one of the biggest developments in the Monsanto Roundup, uh, story since the period verdict. So
Speaker 1: (10:57)
What was interesting was, and I read a little bit about what was, what was the original report? It didn't read the whole thing, but I looked at the key conclusions and it said that if it's, if there's other evidence and I'm not quoting, but I'm paraphrasing, if there's other evidence that shows that Roundup or glyphosate is a carcinogen, then all of this information on non-Hodgkin's lymphoma that was analyzed is very significant.
Speaker 2: (11:27)
Okay. It's like you bring in the animal data and the cell data, uh, uh, then you have the three prongs of does. It does a chemical cause cancer. And the three, the three legs of the stool are human epidemiologists study, which is what this, uh, um, analysis just came out. Uh, the animal trial data is the animal tumor trials, which is what Brent and, uh, Dr. [inaudible] did such a great job of going through each and every single animal trial and counting the actual number of tumors, which that was another thing that neither the EPA nor Monsanto would actually honestly do. But then you add that and the cell data, uh, exposing cells to, um, uh, Roundup to show that it's disrupts DNA. And that's what the whole Perry story was about, which was, uh, uh, uh,
Speaker 1: (12:38)
Perry, Dr. Perry was, was gonna be the, the golden poster boy to protect Monsanto. Cause he was the, one of the world's experts in Geno toxicity. And if he could look at the studies that people were saying where the causality of why glyphosate was causing cancer and he could dismiss it, they'd be in the clear. So they hired Dr. Perry to review some of those studies and what happened.
Speaker 2: (13:03)
Uh, they decided they didn't like his conclusions. And so they buried it, right. He
Speaker 1: (13:09)
Wrote a report which legally should have been turned over to the EPA. They didn't. And instead, Monsanto ghost wrote a report that concluded exactly the opposite, and it was the gun. There's a great
Speaker 2: (13:20)
Sets of documents we got out from under seal and became part of the Monsanto papers was, uh, uh, bill, Hayden's saying, Hey, uh, we need to, uh, ghost write this new stuff to fend off the IRR finding like we ghost wrote the stuff we did defend off Perry, just, it was the story was just to encourage it. You couldn't write a script that was any better
Speaker 1: (13:48)
Than that. I mean, he was talking about just like what ghost wrote that other review paper by Graham. That was the paper that the EPA used to say, oh, glyphosate doesn't cause cancer because here's an independent third parties, uh, peer reviewed published article, but it was actually written by Monsanto and they paid someone to put their name on it. And then they had the, the cancer committee and the EPA was chaired by the one person who I described as the lap dog of Monsanto, who was bragging to as Monsanto handler, that he was going to try and stop another agency in the government from doing studies on glyphosate and cancer. And if he was able to stop it, he would get a medal.
Speaker 2: (14:35)
Well, I, the at T S D R um, uh, study that they were trying to stop, which was supposedly my guess is that this thing that this is the, the, uh, recent, uh, analysis, my guess is that this is what the ATS are going to have put out something like this.
Speaker 1: (14:57)
So there's some other good news that happened this week.
Speaker 2: (15:00)
Um, uh, just before you go there, I'm getting a text saying that there's a problem with the Facebook live hook up, or do you see any problem? All right, let me check. Um, it says there,
Speaker 1: (15:18)
Oh, right, right. I'm on my row. I'm on the wrong page. I put it on my personal page instead of, um, uh, so it's out of my Jeffrey Smith page instead of the Institute for responsible technology.
Speaker 2: (15:34)
Does that mean we have to start over, let me find out,
Speaker 1: (15:38)
Yeah, I've done this one other time and then it gets, it'll get played. Um, so those are,
Speaker 2: (15:44)
Uh, so I'm getting a thing saying that they see it now. Okay.
Speaker 1: (15:49)
Yeah. So it was found by our team and now it's being, um, re re yeah. Okay. So my bad, everyone for that little bro blur, but we're back. All right. Thank you. Um, so the, the, the, this week, just for those that just joined us this week, we discover that the EPA I captured organization that has been working closely with Monsanto and all of its quote clients, they use that term clients, not the public as clients, but the companies that are, are submitting their products for regulatory review, that they were hiding evidence, that they had concluded that information looking at non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and glyphosate showed a possible carcinogenic, a link, and the whole time during all of these trials, they never showed that to the public. They hit it from view, and it just came out this week. So this is certainly going to be used in future trials. And looking to the future, Monsanto bear is try to preempt or limit the amount of, of dollars. It would have to pay for future lawsuits, proposed it to a judge, the judge threw it out. And so they came back with this announcement. What was the announcement this week that we're now enjoying?
Speaker 2: (17:18)
Well, uh, there is, uh, some additional money that they've added to the, uh, uh, pot to help settle cases, the issue. And, and just so you understand our perspective, um, frozen again, hold on. Yeah, just get off and get out and it'll get back in.
Speaker 1: (17:38)
So the, the $4.6 billion additional money to be used for future lawsuits, um, is on top of the, uh, 11.5. So it's about 16 billion. Okay. Go ahead.
Speaker 2: (17:53)
Pick it up. Yeah. So, uh, there's additional money to, to divide up among the 125 to 150,000 people who, uh, if, and it may be more, first of all, we know that have, uh, developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma after using Roundup. And, um, the issue from our perspective is, uh, is it appropriate for people to settle their cases now? And we, my opinion is yes. Um, this data is helpful. Uh, but we had that data before the issue for a lot of people is, uh, how many years will it take to get to trial? And how many trials, how, how will the court system handle, um, tens of thousands of cases that are not consolidated into one trial? Um, and when you've got a court system backed up with COVID, uh, and because of COVID. And so it's our belief that it's, it's probably a good idea for the cases to settle, uh, if they can, um, that the, the runway to getting to another trial like we did, uh, like the ones we did is, is pretty, uh, it's going to take some time and it'll be one at a time.
Speaker 2: (19:28)
And so, uh, there are people who are injured now, they have an, um, access to cash now and star belief that they should get it. And it's, there's no amount of money that, uh, would properly compensate. I think, anybody for what they've gone through because of roundups trickery, I mean, not Santos trickery regarding Roundup, um, but, uh, at the prospect of getting more like that lottery ticket for getting more, is there, there's, it's such a low probability spread out amongst the hundreds of thousands, a hundred tens of thousands and maybe 200,000 people. Um, so I, I think that, that, that, uh, the settlements are a better way to go. Um, cause we've proven it now, the data is out there now with our website, the bomb has on the website has all of the documents that were used in evidence. All of the expert reports that were used in evidence.
Speaker 2: (20:46)
It has the transcripts to the period and, um, uh, Dwayne, Dwayne Lee Johnson trial, uh, we have most of the, um, documents that were declassified that were not used in the trial. We didn't get to use all of our evidence. And so we put that on a page called the Monsanto papers. Should you, uh, search bomb, Headland, Monsanto papers. And there's a real diet. We we've laid it all out with a nice, uh, uh, index and a summary of each document. And you can search for names and, and concepts and it's all there. And, um, it needs that needs to be used and for legislative and regulatory type purposes, um, and change the way, uh, pesticides are regulated. Uh, it's not appropriate that, uh, pesticides go through, um, the EPA or any of the other, uh, countries equivalents, just evaluating glyphosate by itself, just that or the, what they call the active ingredient.
Speaker 2: (22:05)
They, uh, pesticide consists of what they call the active ingredient and about five or six other chemicals that are part of the formulation. They mix it all together and that formulation is different than each one of the elements by themselves. And this is something you get to see in basic, you know, uh, as a kid, when you're playing with, uh, you make the get to make the volcano when you're, and, and grade school you take, or you take one fluid, it takes some vinegar and you throw in, you know, anything you mix comes out different than the things by themselves. That's what it cake is. And you just began the elements and
Speaker 1: (22:52)
You just wrote the foreword to a book by, uh, Jill, Eric sertraline. He coauthored it. And he was, he's one of the leading researchers in the world on glyphosate and Roundup and GMOs. And he was, his team was the one that discovered that certain formulations around it per 125 times more toxic than glyphosate. And that there's at least one so-called non-active ingredient. That's about a thousand times more toxic. And, and yet the EPA ignores all of that. Not only that, but they do their tests. They allow Monsanto to do tests on technical glyphosate, which isn't even as dangerous as the type of glyphosate salts that are used in the actual Roundup. And so it is entirely [inaudible] real world scenarios that are being tested and they allow Monsanto to do the tests. And you saw what months, how much Santos tests are done. Oh my God. It was such a classy way of describing what Monsanto science was like, how they, how they tested. They, they, uh, uh, cooked and froze human cadaver skin before they tested the penetration of Roundup to see it was incredible. Bill
Speaker 2: (24:07)
Sawyer was one of the best experts and, and teachers. I mean, he taught the jury what actually happens with testing a pesticide like Roundup and how tricky, how, how easy it is to be tricky, to prevent the outcome from, from actually being seen.
Speaker 1: (24:30)
And, and they did, they, they were supposed to test it on human cadaver skin. And it was, it absorbed too much, 3.3 times the allowable limit by the EPA. They never said that to the EPA, probably illegal. Instead they, they took human skin and they put it in an oven, cooked it over, cooked it over, cooked it then froze. It, took this level leg skin applied the Roundup and oh, hardly any gets absorbed. And that's what they reported to the EPA, leaving out that asterisk, that it was cooked and frozen human skin.
Speaker 2: (25:00)
Yeah. That, that things like that, uh, things like not testing the formulation as a whole things like not counting, uh, tumors for, um, mice or rats who are exposed to greater than a thousand milligrams, uh, for, um, uh, uh, a test where you're trying to find out if an exposure will lead to Carson, carcinogenicity that level of exposure is appropriate for testing that, and they were using a test, uh, protocol for toxicology, which is just whether it Harts you. Um, I can cause some harm, well, people who get exposed to Roundup over a period of time, it, it can accumulate in your bones. It, it gets into your lymph system. It gets around. And that process over time and a human, you need to be able to concentrate into the short life span of a mouse and a rat. And that's why they use high doses. And it was really inappropriate just to not count all those tumors, if it really comes down to, you know, what you count. And so here, they didn't count all the tumors because they didn't count the ones for exposures greater than a thousand milligrams per kilogram. And they also didn't count actual penetration in actual skin. They treated, they, they treated it. So it was the leather, not skin.
Speaker 1: (26:40)
Yeah. It's amazing. And some of the good news that came out this also that I want to make sure we get in before we forget is that because they couldn't, you know, preempt certain lawsuits, they decided to remove Roundup from the lawn and garden care in the United States has as of 2023. Oh yeah. That Michael, we have you and your team to thank for that. You are saving the lives of so many people because of they, they realized that as long as there's a Michael Baum and a Brent Wizner and the teams around there to prosecute, and they want to avoid that. And so they are removing it from the non-professional and nonagricultural markets in the United States because of you. Thank
Speaker 2: (27:30)
You. There was a you're welcome at you helped to manage. It was, it's been, uh, a team effort with, from, uh, the law firms that we all worked with. Jeff Travers. I can't say enough about Jeff Travers. He was the one that found so many of these hot documents. Uh, my colleague, uh, Lehman McHenry who helped, uh, declassify the documents, one of our writers Ben muscle back who helped write up the, the guide for getting all that information out to the regulators around the world, in particular in Europe, uh, Petra, Ms. [inaudible], uh, one of our young lawyers who just jumped right in, uh, and then I cannot say enough about Brent Wisner and his, uh, really charismatic, brilliant, uh, trial skills. But I have to add all said they'll whole organics movement, uh, all the, all the stuff that you've represented for years, um, all that support and laying the foundation for the perspective that, oh, maybe there's another side to this story made it so we could get there because we had jurors who were not, they had heard both sides and they were not completely, um, hypnotized, I guess is the only way to say it by some of the misinformation that Monsanto's been.
Speaker 2: (29:02)
And the pesticide industry has been putting out for years. But yeah, if you countering it, that's made a difference. So I'm really appreciate you.
Speaker 1: (29:11)
Thank you. Thank you. And it was, it was fun appearing in one of the trials, in a, in a document, um, where Monsanto, they were, it was called whack-a-mole and they were talking about, I had just published an article showing our GMOs affect children more in a greater than adults. And I was quoting the Royal society of Canada, Royal society of the UK, the, um, national academy of sciences in the United States and a number of other groups around the world and their response as Brent pointed out, if it was a responsible company and someone put out an article showing that their problem, that their product was going to hurt children, you'd think they investigate, but instead here's what they did. They S they told their pseudo scientists to attack me and they called it. He called it whack-a-mole. Uh, and the response by the Monsanto executive was funny. You should use that term Donna Farmer. And I started using that term two years ago, because basically anyone that they have a system called, let nothing go, do you want to share what that's about? Because they use that against me so
Speaker 2: (30:22)
That they had a team set up to, uh, interfere with suppress, um, make deal legitimize, any science that ran contrary to Monsanto's narrative regarding Roundup and glyphosate. And they did that for, like, there was a sea urchin study that was done way back, you know, like 25 or 30 years ago. And, uh, they were concerned that somebody other than us was publishing something about Roundup and it could be bad for Geno toxicity, and we need to know about it and we need to do so. And they would need to be that what the, that, that sea urchin study taught them was that they need to anticipate studies like this coming out in the future. So they can go meet with the, uh, the people who are putting those studies out, try to talk them out of it. They can't talk them out of it, go to their superiors, go to people who will critique them, organize, um, attack memos, or have, um, uh, letter writing campaigns to the editors of the journals.
Speaker 2: (31:42)
Talk to the journal editors, make sure that things get retracted. And it was a very systematic, um, military operation that they called either freedom to operate FTO, uh, let nothing go, uh, project spruce, or, I mean, they had multiple names for this group of individuals whose job it was to suppress any information that criticized Roundup projects. And they just got fine. They just got find it, uh, a little bit ago, uh, within the last week, uh, for keeping track of reporters and legislators, and, uh, politicians in general, who might be saying something critical or who would be saying something friendly and keeping track of them and collecting on them for the purposes of suppressing counter information is, was illegal in Europe. So they just got tagged for it in France. And
Speaker 1: (32:47)
They'd been doing that for years in my book, seeds of deception, I show how they had hired one group to analyze all the reporters reporting on bovine growth hormone, their genetically engineered drug, and then another group was attacking. And it was basically rewarding. The reporters that did positive articles and attacking, and threatening and trying to discredit the reporters who wrote negative articles. And they bragged about how they got the New York times person off the case they described in detail, the USA today, confrontation, where that person was, was moved off the case they'd been doing it successfully for years. They only got fined 400,000 euros in France, but they've made a lot more money doing this, this, um, attacking. So I don't know if it's actually going to stop them from doing it around the world. They just may cover it up more. They hire, they hire organizations like FTI that also try and paint a rosy picture for agrochemicals and, uh, work on behalf of the industry, the energy industry to debunk global climate change. So they hired the same people that Exxon ExxonMobil hires to spin the science in the opposite direction. You sent me an article
Speaker 2: (34:01)
About that accurate, just been writing about this recently, he made Paul backers, but following the, uh, this manipulation journalism by industry, uh, and by the chemical industry, by, um, the oil and gas industry by the sugar industry, they all are using the same tobacco playbook of, um, how to manipulate journalism, uh, while they're manipulating science. And, uh, that's something, you know, just came out. Um, I mean, the efforts to suppress you, which we'd enjoyed by the way, getting that document, those couple of documents out from under seal, uh, for your benefit, we did something similar for, uh, Carrie Gillam on her book, uh, whitewash, they, they actually set up, um, a Google search thing so that if you clicked on, uh, the Google to like get her book, you would get a critical article about her book. And they had, they said they had like, just like they had, uh, uh, a battle plan with all these like single space entries for like 20 pages of things to do, to suppress her book. They had things for you. And they had things for Sarah Leni and they had things for IRS. You know,
Speaker 1: (35:20)
I should probably find that list. I don't, I never did find it. There was just, so I entered my name under the search engine, and there was so many pages that had my name on it. I gave up after like 20 or 30, I should probably find them. But yeah, like when I first
Speaker 2: (35:37)
Speaker 1: (35:38)
So I published like what I published seeds of deception immediately. One of their trolls wrote a bad review. We got Amazon to take it down because we told them who it was and Amazon took it down. They, they have a whole way of having all these front groups, like when I published my second book, genetic roulette, which was all the documented evidence about GMOs. They have echo chambers that they set up. So they have certain talking points. They give out to their front groups, everyone says the same thing. And then they say, it's a consensus. And, and that becomes the, the record. So
Speaker 2: (36:13)
That that's exactly what happens.
Speaker 1: (36:16)
So, Michael, um, in this whole, you just got introduced big time to the world of Monsanto, and you got a sense for who they are and how they function. What were some of the most, or perhaps the most shocking moments in your discovery process when you realized, oh my goodness, they did that. What was the most shocking? No,
Speaker 2: (36:39)
Boy, that's that's there were so many,
Speaker 1: (36:42)
Just give your top your,
Speaker 2: (36:44)
Uh, uh, that the pesticide industry gets away with just testing that the active ingredient without testing the formulation on carcinogenicity or toxicity levels that people who are actually going to be using it, that was pretty bad to me. That's, that's just like putting their entire planet at risk with an unknown outcome. So that was one too, that they internally did an analysis, that it was not actually safe to be mixing Roundup with bare hands and without protective equipment. And so they made the, uh, they, it was called the, I think it was the poem, um, analysis that said, uh, you need to be wearing gloves. You need to be like wearing a mask and you need to be wearing, uh, boots and protective equipment when you're handling Roundup, which is exactly the opposite of what their commercials were. Their commercials showed people walking around in shorts and tank tops, spraying Roundup, like there, it was like, they made it seem like it was safe.
Speaker 2: (37:59)
And this is the irony to me about Roundup is that as pesticides go, when you compare it to some of the, like the DDT and, um, organophosphates and some of the other stuff that had preceded it, it was potentially a safer, um, less toxic herbicide than some of its predecessors, but they gave the impression that it was not toxic at all, which is wrong. It is toxic. You have treat it responsibly and be protected and you use protective equipment. Well, they did that analysis made the determination you needed the protective equipment. And then they suppressed that they made their employees do it. They made their employees use the, the, the, uh, the protective equipment, but they didn't make the users. The people who actually the consumers, the people who were using it to spray on their lawns, or just spray their driveways or to spray their, their landscaping.
Speaker 2: (39:06)
Those people were out there spraying it as if it was something you could, as a Monsanto said on multiple occasions, there were salespeople it's safer than salt. You could drink it. Those messages, um, were dangerous. And so that, that, that, that disturbed me, uh, that they didn't count the tumors for, uh, over, uh, the high dose levels. How do you get away with stuff like that, uh, that they ghost wrote, um, uh, and that suppressed the Paris story, then ghost wrote a story, uh, an article to, to counter the Geno toxicity of Roundup, knowing that Perry had just said the opposite. It was, um, the thing, it was just amazing level of, uh, arrogance with respect to what they thought they could get away with. Uh, I, I worked on a lot of, um, uh, pharmaceutical product cases where we've caught them doing similar things, uh, the blatant, um, acknowledgement and power plant part PowerPoint plans for what they were going to implement a worm we'd like, it was like nobody had ever actually looked at behind the curtain. So they hadn't, hadn't figured out how to hide it yet. Pharmaceutical companies that are starting to start to get a little, uh, clever, more clever about it. But they, I think Monsanto was used to not having discovery actually done on their stuff. And so we were able to find all these amazing documents,
Speaker 1: (40:55)
Oh, the smoking gun level was incredible. It confirmed everything that we had been hearing about, but right there at black and white, I mean, I met a former Monsanto scientist who acknowledged to me that when genetically engineered corn damaged rats, instead of pulling the cord off the market, they rewrote the study to hide the effects. He told me that three of his colleagues were doing studies on the milk from cows that were treated with Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. They found so much cancer promoting hormone in the milk. The three months Santo scientists stopped drinking milk, unless it was organic. One bought his own cow. We have so much evidence that, that the people at Monsanto know one thing, but they're in fact, one was a blatant ditch industry, Inc story, someone who used to work as a Monsanto salesperson, he was aware that there, he discovered that there was certain uncharacterized proteins from a genetically engineered product that was being eaten by livestock.
Speaker 1: (41:53)
And he was thinking it might cause serious harm to the animals, including possible mad cow. He was trying to blow the whistle at Monsanto, no one paid attention. They were out, he was ostracized, but he said, the reason he joined Monsanto was because he heard the, the glorious words of Robert Shapiro. Then the CEO who talked about how you could turn factories and farms and fields into factories and clean up process waste using genetic engineering and crops. And in a, at a new employee meeting in St. Louis, he stood up and told all the other new recruits, the same thing, but a vice-president pulled them over afterwards and says, what Robert Shapiro, the CEO says is one thing what we do is something else. He tells a story we're just interested in making money. And so he was, he was immediately told that this whole thing that Robert Shapiro said had nothing to do with what was really going on in the company. And I've seen that over and over again, inside Monsanto and outside Monsanto,
Speaker 2: (42:53)
The thing is, is that, um, they did have a, a big PR line. And the thing is they did so much of what they did was completely unnecessary. If people had proper protective equipment, so much of the harm would not have happened, uh, if they did not do, um, the desiccating, uh, for, uh, wi and oats and things like that, the, the, the level of, um, Roundup exposure and food would be so much lower, um, may have Kiki could make it absent by not having desiccation almost, I mean, it's very close to not there. Um, but they didn't, they, they, they just,
Speaker 1: (43:42)
For those that don't will know that most people watching this do know Roundup is not just sprayed on rounded, pretty crops. It's sprayed on wheat and oats and lentils and barley and chickpeas and all these things just before harvest to desiccate, to dry it down. And it also forces rapid maturation or ripening. And it also kills all the weeds for next year's growing season. So it's used by farmers all over the world. Um, food crops sprayed three to five days before harvest. So the oats that are non-organic can have more higher levels of glyphosate residues than Roundup ready soybeans. Cause it gets just absorbed into the ode head anyway. So thank you. I just wanted to point out what you were saying because you, your, your lawsuits were from people spraying Roundup. There's a lot more dangerous numbers in terms of people were exposed in terms of eating Roundup and eating glyphosate. And your lawsuits were about non-Hodgkin lymphoma. And we've been talking about more than 30 diseases linked to it. And I'd love to see some lawsuits in those categories as well because the evidence is mounting. And it's
Speaker 2: (44:57)
The, I think one of the angles relative to that is that the mechanism by which Roundup kills plants is it interferes with a protein pathway for me of forming a called the shikimate pathway. And that process is how plants make proteins. And as it turns out, a lot of the microbiota in your gut and on your skin use that same pathway for making proteins. So when they get exposed to Roundup, just as Roundup kills plants, it kills those microbiota that are part of your immune system. They're part of the, the surface system for your immunity on your skin, all through your, uh, uh, your, your, um, membranes and in your gut. So leaky gut syndrome, uh, celiac disease, a lot, a lot of gut diseases are associated with damaged microbiota that have been exposed to toxins like Roundup, who is that interfere with that protein formation process.
Speaker 2: (46:09)
And when those microbiota get disturbed, the microbiota in your gut and on your skin are on a sort of a constant battle with other microbiota. There's what we call commensal microbiota those, the guys, the good guys, and then there's the pathogenic ones, the ones that cause harm. And they're in a continual battle. Well, if the cops, the good guys are being knocked off by the exposure to Roundup, the bad guys grow. So you end up with very dysfunctional immune systems and gut systems for processing food. And that, in my opinion is part of what's, um, behind some of the metabolic disorders and food and gut disorders that, um, much of the developed world is exposed to because they're not getting organic food, they're getting food, that's got exposed, got toxins in it. And those toxins are bad for the microbiota that are making the nutrients and proteins and vitamins that go into, you know, having a healthy body. And they're deeply connected to mood and to immunity. So like, uh, mood disorders, uh, depression, things like that. Those are also probably linked to having your gut microbiota being disturbed by toxic exposures. So a lot of our day-to-day life could be so much more improved by limiting our exposure to those things. You don't organic. Um, don't if you're going to spray Roundup, which you can't probably do anymore, make sure you don't get it on your scanner, inhale it.
Speaker 1: (48:05)
Well, first of all, hearing you describe that, oh, it's so exciting because as you know, this is something I've been talking about for years, but you were just so perfectly concise and clear. Thank you. Thank you. Was this, we should just cut back that section and make, make a, make that available as an excerpt. And yes, eating organic is essential is absolutely essential. Um, is there anything else you want to add, Michael, before we say goodbye to everyone, because you have been sensational, not only in terms of your information today, but I it's like this is one of the few times in my 25 years, as a, as a GMO and Roundup activist with your firm and with the law law firms in general, you have been more effective than most activist organizations, more effective than most activists in bringing the information out in ringing the bell in the world, press in causing, um, changes in policy in governments and in Monsanto slash bear, you have been incredibly effective.
Speaker 1: (49:20)
And I know from talking to you before today, talking to other members of your firm and colleagues that you work with, that you're all actually dedicated to doing the right thing for the world and not just your clients. Unfortunately, they're the same thing that you're actually not only delivering your con clients, uh, compensation from Monsanto bear, but you're actually working to bring down the level of toxins in the world. The moment the very second you decided it was safe to circulate the Monsanto papers you hit, your guys hit send, and it went all over the world. You were informing the regulatory agencies, the, the reporters ever, the governments everywhere. You guys have put together that easy accessible website. You didn't have to because you had all the information, but you're giving it, uh, making it available to me and countless others. So it is clear that you guys are dedicated to a healthier world dedicated to getting the truth out about Monsanto and about the toxicity of their products.
Speaker 1: (50:26)
So my hat is off to you and your whole team. And it's, I, I got to tell you, I was not, I was not expecting such a boost from the legal profession, and I was so excited because it just showed how much clout you have and I'm ready to support you with, I mean, I have more information to, to some luck, some science research that hasn't even been published that I can send in your ads. So many things that I'm excited about because you have a channel that works the beautiful. Is there anything you want to add before we go?
Speaker 2: (50:58)
Well, the one thing I would like to say is that I think that, uh, it's in the hands of people like you and your viewers and other activists now to take the, uh, to go through these documents, we put on our website and the testimony is on the website and use it, go get, uh, the pesticide regulations changed, go get the wave legislators, recognize and understand what the problems are with, uh, uh, toxic substances being added to our food and add to our lawns and added to our air. The, um, the, the pattern of conduct. I Monsanto, isn't just Monsanto. It's Exxon it's, Syngenta it's, um, uh, GSK it's Merck. I mean, all these companies do the same program and it happens to our medications to, uh, the, uh, the climate change and to our, the health of our food that we're consuming and the air and our water, all of these things are come back to, um, improperly regulated, uh, toxins that can, that are, could be easily avoided.
Speaker 2: (52:20)
And these documents show why and show how it got done. They showed the methodology of these companies and just needs more and more people to take it and use it. I have a client, uh, Kim WhatsApp, who was on our, uh, whose husband committed suicide while taking Zoloft and during the, uh, working up her case, I mean, she was devastated by this, but, um, during the workup of her case, we declassified the documents that showed that, uh, Pfizer knew that Zoloft would causing, uh, suicidal behavior. We declassified them. She has a booklet of them, and she goes around and lobbies Congress. She's now sitting on the advisory committee for the FDA activists. People can take our data and become effective communicators for change. And that's what I would like to see. It's all out there now we've made it, we've put it all on a silver platter, take it and run with it.
Speaker 1: (53:26)
Oh yeah. I've been working with your data for years. And, uh, I, right now we're working in another area at the Institute trying to stop the outdoor release of any genetically engineered microbes because they not only travel and mutate around the world, they swap genes and can collapse and collapse ecosystems around the world, including inside us. And you can't recall them and you can't track them and it can be permanent. And it can be an existential threat. Having said that we're still, I'm still speaking every week on GMOs and Roundup. I'm still speaking in, in medical conferences. I'm still speaking on summits because after 25 years, I'm not just going to cut that off, but I understand that because we didn't need to actually affect in terms of our plans, um, government policies in the United States. Cause we just had to get people to stop eating GMOs and it would change. It created a tipping point and that's happening. But now that we're dealing with like trying to ban the release of GMO microbes around the world. Now we're talking about not only legislation that had states, but around the world. So, uh, I know, I appreciate the fact that your former client is on the advisory committee of the FDA. That's very impressive. I think I've got to be in places like that. Pretty soon. Just
Speaker 2: (54:45)
Keep it up. You can keep lobbying for it and pushing for that, uh, uh, that type of activism, your type of activism is what's needed on a broad scale. Thank you so much, Michael. Let's take the, let's take the, the, the chicken coop back from the Fox.
Speaker 1: (55:03)
Definitely. And on that note, thank you all for listening. This is Michael Baum. Michael, can you tell that a website, if you could spell it out and we'll also put it in the notes as well, people will need to know where to get the Monsanto papers and how to see the great work.
Speaker 2: (55:19)
Okay. So the easiest thing is just do a search for Google search for Monsanto papers, bomb Headland, and it's BAU, M H E D L U N D. That should land you right onto the page, and then you can take it from there.
Speaker 1: (55:34)
Very good. Thank you very much, Michael. And thank you all for listening and pay attention to his words, eat organic, safe, eating everyone.
Speaker 3: (55:50)
Thank you for listening to live healthy. Be well. Please subscribe to the podcast. Using whatever app you're listening to podcasts or go to live healthy, be well.com to subscribe. This podcast will inform you about health dangers, corporate and government corruption and ways we can protect ourselves, our families and our planet. I interview scientists, experts, authors, whistleblowers, and many people who have not shared their information with the world until now, please share the podcast with your friends. It was enlightened and may even save lives. SAPD.