The People vs. Poison
It’s time to stop corporations from poisoning Americans. It’s time to stand together.
On April 27, the Supreme Court will hear a case called Monsanto vs. Durnell.
For years, Monsanto sold Roundup, a weed killer made with glyphosate, without warning people it could cause cancer. Internal documents show the company hid evidence and even helped write studies to make the product seem safe.
Now Bayer, the company that bought Monsanto, is losing billions in lawsuits from people who say Roundup harmed them. Instead of adding a cancer warning, Bayer is trying to avoid being sued at all.
They want the Supreme Court to rule that their EPA-approved label protects them from responsibility.
But what they won’t say is this: the label they rely on is based on misleading information. They helped create it—and they could ask to add a cancer warning at any time.
This case could affect more than just Roundup. It could impact all pesticides.
If the Court sides with Monsanto, companies could be protected from lawsuits—even if their products are dangerous.
Many of these chemicals are known to harm the body, including causing cancer and damaging the brain and hormones.
If companies can’t be held accountable, they may have no reason to make safer products or tell the truth.
That puts everyone—especially future generations—at risk.
Join us on April 27 at 9am on the SCOTUS steps in Washington, D.C., to stand against this for the biggest MAHA rally yet! Bring the entire family and plan a trip to visit a new safer and more beautiful DC!
RSVP-
https://t.co/Le8cXHBHyc
If you believe free speech is for you but not your political opponents, you're illiberal.
If no contrary evidence could change your beliefs, you're a fundamentalist.
If you believe the state should punish those with contrary views, you're a totalitarian.
If you believe political opponents should be punished with violence or death, you're a terrorist.
@juleshorn01@CentenariusN I’ve been using this glycine as well as the creatine. I definitely notice better sleep! Thanks for such an informative post and a clean supplement line. 👏🏼👏🏼
You simply can’t have it both ways.
You can’t complain that Casey Means talks to trees, did mushrooms, and is a “woo woo woman” with no medical license — while simultaneously calling her an establishment plant, owned and operated by the Rockefellers.
The logic doesn’t work.
The establishment has a vested interest in ENDING everything Casey stands for — especially spirituality in medicine — and clearly is trying to take her down for it.
She has done her advocacy outside of the system entirely; the same system her critics claim “set her up.”
Furthermore, it is PEAK hypocrisy to hate on her lack of credentials.
The MAHA movement criticizes the most credentialed doctors for being owned by Pharma, and is notably rebellious in the face of “industry experts.”
But now we appeal to authority?
If Casey Means had every credential in the book, she would be labeled a “plant” even more so.
Already, she has been accused of Rockefeller connections because she went to Stanford, and her family has medical experience and ties to prestigious fellowships.
There is no winning with people who cherry-pick in this way. Their standards are inconsistently applied at best, and emotionally/intentionally targeted at worst.
I have yet to see one credible argument against Means. All is conjecture, jealousy, and suspicion at her rapid rise.
We would do ourselves well to see and recognize the immense progress here, joining forces to revolutionize science and medicine in this country.
If I have learned anything this year, it’s that the establishment (and it’s paid ops) scream the loudest against those they fear the most.
Clearly, they are terrified of Casey Means.