J&J helped fund 1971 study where ASBESTOS was injected into mostly black inmates paid up to $300 to determine if deadly substance was safe to use in talcum powder

Pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson helped fund a 1960s prison experiment when a group of majority-black Pennsylvania prisoners were injected with asbestos to determine whether the substance was safe to use in talcum powder.

Documents confirming the company’s involvement were obtained by Bloomberg, tying the New Jersey-based company to controversial experiments led by Dr Albert Kligman, a University of Pennsylvania dermatologist whose human experiments have widely condemned as brutal and unethical. He died in 2010 aged 93. 

Inmates at Holmesburg Prison in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, were offered $10 to $300 – equivalent to between $100 to $2,500 in today’s money when adjusted for inflation – to take part in the study – though they were likely unaware of the significant risk they were undertaking.

Participants were injected with asbestos and talc – a powder that forms the base of J&J’s iconic baby powder product. Asbestos is an extremely dangerous chemical that is tied to lung cancers, among other conditions. 

Keep reading

Falsifying Covid Vax Card in New York Now Comes with Jail Time

Falsifying Covid vaccine cards in New York state will now land you in jail for up to one year.

Proof of Covid vaccination is required in order to enter restaurants, bars, theaters, gyms and more in New York City.

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed new legislation making falsifying Covid vax cards a class A misdemeanor – and tampering with computer records related to Covid vaccines is now a class E felony.

Keep reading

New Files Detail Level Of Julian Assange’s Prison Torment

Documents provided exclusively to The Grayzone detail Canberra’s abandonment of Julian Assange, an Australian citizen, and provide shocking details of his prison suffering… Was the government of Australia aware of the US Central Intelligence Agency plot to assassinate Julian Assange, an Australian citizen and journalist arrested and now imprisoned under unrelentingly bleak, harsh conditions in the UK?

Why have the country’s elected leaders refused to publicly advocate for one of its citizens, who has been held on dubious charges and subjected to torture by a foreign power, according to UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer? What does Canberra know about Julian’s fate and when did it know it?

The Grayzone has obtained documents revealing that the Australian government has since day one been well-aware of Julian’s cruel treatment inside London’s maximum security Belmarsh Prison, and has done little to nothing about it. It has, in fact, turned a cold shoulder to the jailed journalist despite hearing his testimony of conditions “so bad that his mind was shutting down.”

Not only has Canberra failed to effectively challenge the US and UK governments overseeing Assange’s imprisonment and prosecution; as these documents expose in stark detail, it appears to have colluded with them in the flagrant violation of an Australian citizen’s human rights, while doing its best to obscure the reality of his situation from the public.

Keep reading

The UK plans to make online “pile-ons” a crime, in chillingly broad attempt to suppress speech

The UK is preparing to criminalize what is perceived as internet trolling that causes “likely psychological harm,” thanks to the country’s upcoming Online Safety Bill that is introducing a new set of criminal offenses.

And while the punishment internet users in the UK could face under the new legislation is clear – up to two years in prison – the definitions of their “crimes” are a good deal murkier.

In addition to their posts “likely” causing psychological harm, users can also be accused of committing a crime if they post messages containing “threatening communication” – but not necessarily, as defined in the previous law dealing with online hate speech and abuse, because they are found to intend to follow through on the threat.

Instead, it would be enough to “prove” that the recipient of such posts and messages “feared” the threat was real.

Another offense has to do with spreading information that internet users “know” is false, again, in order to cause emotional or physical harm to their “likely audience.” The proposed bill is littered with equally vague and subjective definitions of future crimes that could be hard to prove in a court of law.

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport incorporated the “likely psychological harm” as a basis for the new legislation, as recommended by the Law Commission, and will include them in the bill once it is forwarded to the UK government, which should approve it before it hits parliament in November.

Another recommendation that has been accepted is to make online “pile-ons” a crime – i.e., several users sending trolling messages perceived by the recipient as harassing, while one example a government source gave to the media of what it means to “knowingly” spread false information would be if a vaccine skeptic or a vaccine hesitant person speaks about their conviction – that is apparently automatically considered untrue, while the author is held responsible for “knowing” it.

Keep reading