Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

enough

(13,256 posts)
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 06:26 PM Oct 2015

DuPont found liable in Teflon Toxin Trial. Congrats Mike Papantonio!

https://theintercept.com/2015/10/08/dupont-found-liable-in-c8-trial/

by Sharon Lerner October 8, 2015

A JURY HAS FOUND DUPONT liable for negligence in the case of Carla Bartlett, taking less than a day to award $1.6 million to the Ohio woman who developed kidney cancer after drinking water contaminated with a chemical formerly used to make Teflon. The jury declined to give Bartlett punitive damages in the federal case. Instead, the award included $1.1 million for negligence as well as $500,000 for emotional distress.

“This is brilliant,” one of Bartlett’s attorneys, Mike Papantonio, said of the verdict. “It’s exactly what we wanted.” Papantonio emphasized that Bartlett’s case, the first of more than 3,500 personal injury and wrongful death suits filed on behalf of people in West Virginia and Ohio who were exposed to C8, had been chosen by DuPont as the first to be tried and involved less egregious injuries than many others yet to be heard.

“They picked this case with the idea that it was the most winnable. Strategically they never dreamed we’d win this case,” said Papantonio, who predicts that other C8 suits in the pipeline will result in punitive damages. “Really, it’s just a matter of time.”

In a statement, DuPont said it expected to appeal the verdict and emphasized that “safety and environmental stewardship are core values at DuPont.”

snip> much more at link
6 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DuPont found liable in Teflon Toxin Trial. Congrats Mike Papantonio! (Original Post) enough Oct 2015 OP
WHAT ELEMENT IS EVEN MORE TOXIC THAN C8? truedelphi Oct 2015 #1
Good lord, a Tuna Sandwich has five times the mercury as one flu shot dose. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #2
good post, thanks! nilram Oct 2015 #3
As the commercial for tuna used to go - truedelphi Oct 2015 #4
Yawn. NutmegYankee Oct 2015 #6
Besides, the stats on how much mecrury there is comes from Big Pharma - truedelphi Oct 2015 #5

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
1. WHAT ELEMENT IS EVEN MORE TOXIC THAN C8?
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 07:17 PM
Oct 2015

Why, mercury.

And what is mercury in, that we are all told to go out and get every flu season?

And that we should not mention a being a concern, despite mercury being proven way back in the 1930's as among the top five toxic substance we should never allow in our bodies. As being concerned about that fact "proves we are 'anti-important American health protocol.' "

Oh and by the way, last year this important American health protocol once again put mercury in the bloodstreams of every American who participated, including pregnant women, yet since the flu strain that it protected against went and mutated, there was little protection at all!

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
2. Good lord, a Tuna Sandwich has five times the mercury as one flu shot dose.
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 07:22 PM
Oct 2015

And the compound, thimerosal, is what's keeping bacteria from contaminating the vaccine. If we want to discuss science (not that American politics gives even two fucks about that anymore) we can also discuss that ethyl mercury, the breakdown product of thimerosal doesn't bio-accumulate (build up in body tissue) like methyl mercury (in most fish) does. It leaves the body within weeks.

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
4. As the commercial for tuna used to go -
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 07:57 PM
Oct 2015

"Sorry Charlie" - i mean, you are aware that most people do not inject the tuna sandwich into their bodies. They eat it.

And in my household, we don't even eat it. Since I have been in the beginning stages of MS since around the early 90's, I don't allow tuna. Not for me, or the spouse, or the four critters.

Mercury is toxic - in all amounts, no matter how small. That was proven by scientists and researchers before the Big Corporations took over science. It is a bad idea for our bodies and especially our brains and nervous systems.

NutmegYankee

(16,199 posts)
6. Yawn.
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 09:03 PM
Oct 2015

Injected versus eaten. That would actually seem concerning if there wasn't this organ in the body that absorbs nutrients and compounds from the stuff we eat and *GASP* - moves it into the body. And again, the edible stuff actually stays in your tissue.
As for foods containing mercury -hope you avoid rice and HFCS. Both are contaminated with small quantities. But then again, just about everything we eat has trace amounts of bad things...

truedelphi

(32,324 posts)
5. Besides, the stats on how much mecrury there is comes from Big Pharma -
Thu Oct 8, 2015, 08:34 PM
Oct 2015

And Big Pharma keeps hoping no one notices this peer reviewed,
journal published paper, which I will remark on and then proceed to
quote the very last paragraph.

Once you read this paper, you realize that once again we have
been lied to by industry - the amounts of mercury are higher than
we are told!


http://jcm.asm.org/content/2/6/549.full.pdf+html?view=long&pmid=1420

VOL.
2,
1975

The overall average amount of thimerosal retained by the
desiccated products was 92% of the amount found
in the liquid product. It is likely that the percent
retained would have been slightly higher if it had
been possible to accurately restore (quantum
sufficient) the samples to original volume instead
of adding diluent equivalent to the original
fill-volume.

The data reported here and in previous reports (2,
3) indicate that a large percentage of formaldehyde,
phenol, and mercurial preservatives is retained
by biological products during the usual lyophilization
process. (On edit: lyophilization is the process of freeze
drying the vaccine material)

These preservatives are not proportionally removed
with the liquid portion of the product as
might be expected. Investigators should be cautious
when using preserved and lyophilized biological
products in preservative-sensitive systems.

Caution should also be exercised with products
intended for certain immunological uses, as these
preservatives evidently concentrate in the
micro-environment of lyophilized antigenic
material, which could denature the antigen.

####

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»DuPont found liable in Te...