The Round Up on Roundup, By Mrs Vera West and Brian Simpson

The recent Roundup weedkiller verdict, as detailed in the ZeroHedge article "Roundup Weedkiller Verdict: Georgia Jury Orders Bayer to Pay $2 Billion,"

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/roundup-weedkiller-verdict-georgia-jury-orders-bayer-pay-2-billion

marks a significant chapter in the ongoing saga of litigation against Bayer, the parent company of Monsanto. A Georgia jury ordered Bayer to pay approximately $2.1 billion in damages to John Barnes, a plaintiff who claimed that his non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was caused by long-term exposure to Roundup, a widely used herbicide containing the active ingredient glyphosate. This award includes $65 million in compensatory damages for Barnes's medical expenses and suffering, and a staggering $2 billion in punitive damages, intended to punish Bayer for alleged negligence and failure to warn consumers about the risks. The verdict, handed down late on Friday, March 21, 2025, is one of the largest in the history of Roundup-related cases, spotlighting Bayer's legal and financial vulnerabilities since acquiring Monsanto in 2018 for $63 billion.

Bayer has faced a torrent of lawsuits—over 177,000 by some counts—alleging that glyphosate causes cancer, with the company setting aside $16 billion to settle claims. In this case, Barnes filed his lawsuit in 2021, arguing that Monsanto knew or should have known about the carcinogenic potential of Roundup but failed to disclose it. His legal team, led by Kyle Findley of Arnold & Itkin LLP, presented evidence of what they called "years of cover-ups" and "backroom dealings," accusing Monsanto of ignoring scientific studies linking glyphosate to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The jury agreed, delivering a verdict that Findley hailed as an "important milestone" in exposing the truth about the product. Bayer, however, plans to appeal, asserting that the decision "conflicts with the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence and the consensus of regulatory bodies" like the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which maintains glyphosate is not likely carcinogenic when used as directed. The company has won 17 of the last 25 Roundup trials and notes that past high-dollar verdicts have often been reduced on appeal—sometimes by as much as 90 percent—due to constitutional limits on punitive damages.

This Georgia case follows a pattern of blockbuster awards against Bayer, including a $2.25 billion verdict in Philadelphia in January 2024 (later reduced to $400 million) and a $1.56 billion judgment in Missouri in 2023 (cut to $611 million). Despite these reductions, the sheer scale of litigation—over 60,000 cases still pending—and Bayer's $10 billion in payouts to date underscore the persistent public and legal backlash. The company has pushed legislative efforts, like Georgia's SB 144 signed in 2025, to shield pesticide makers from liability if their labels comply with EPA standards, though this law came too late for Barnes's case. Meanwhile, Bayer's stock has slumped to 2004 lows, reflecting investor unease over the litigation overhang.

Scientific opinion on glyphosate remains divided. Some studies, including a 2015 World Health Organization classification of it as "probably carcinogenic," support the plaintiffs' claims, while the EPA and other regulators worldwide stand by its safety. The Georgia verdict doesn't settle the science but amplifies the narrative of corporate malfeasance, with Bayer cast as prioritising profit over public health—a charge echoed across media outlets like CNN, Reuters, and The Washington Post reporting on the case.

If Big Agriculture, exemplified by Bayer-Monsanto, can get it so spectacularly wrong on Roundup—facing billions in penalties for allegedly concealing health risks—then we must adopt a principle of methodological scepticism toward all their products, especially Big Pharma's vaccines. This isn't about rejecting everything out of hand but about refusing to blindly trust industries with a track record of prioritising shareholder value over human lives. The Roundup saga offers a cautionary tale that should extend to pharmaceuticals, where the stakes—injecting substances directly into our bodies—are even higher.

First, consider the pattern of behaviour. Bayer inherited Monsanto's glyphosate woes, but the litigation reveals a decades-long effort to downplay risks. Lawsuits allege Monsanto manipulated studies, ghostwrote research, and pressured regulators to maintain Roundup's market dominance, despite red flags about cancer links. This isn't an isolated blunder—it's a systemic failure of transparency and accountability. Big Agri's playbook mirrors Big Pharma's: both wield immense influence over science, regulators, and public perception. Pfizer, for instance, paid $2.3 billion in 2009 for illegally marketing drugs, and Johnson & Johnson settled for $2.2 billion in 2013 over similar misconduct. If Bayer can obscure Roundup's dangers, why assume vaccine makers are immune to similar distortions?

Second, the science isn't as settled as we're told. Glyphosate's safety was rubber-stamped by the EPA, yet juries and some researchers point to credible evidence of harm—enough to convince courts to award billions. Vaccines, too, are often presented as unassailable, with agencies like the CDC and FDA as gatekeepers. But their funding ties to industry—pharma accounts for 46 percent of FDA's budget via user fees—raise questions about bias. Historical examples, like the Vioxx scandal (where Merck hid cardiovascular risks, leading to 60,000 deaths), show how safety data can be massaged. Vaccine sceptics point to gaps—unexplained rises in chronic illnesses, underreported adverse events in systems like VAERS, or the lack of long-term studies on cumulative effects. If Roundup's "consensus" crumbled under scrutiny, vaccine orthodoxy deserves the same pressure.

Third, the profit motive is a red flag. Bayer's $63 billion Monsanto buy was a bet on Roundup's cash flow, litigation be damned. Big Pharma's vaccine market—$60 billion annually and growing—drives similar calculus. Emergency use authorisations fast-track products like Covid-19 vaccines, skipping years of testing, while liability shields (e.g., the PREP Act) protect manufacturers from lawsuits. This isn't a conspiracy—it's economics. When billions are at stake, corners get cut, and dissent gets buried. The Roundup verdicts prove juries can see through the gloss; why not apply that lens to Pharma's assurances?

Finally, the human cost demands scepticism. John Barnes's cancer, if linked to Roundup, is one of countless stories—177,000 claimants can't all be wrong. Vaccines aren't flawless: rare injuries (e.g., Guillain-Barré from the 1976 swine flu shot) and payouts from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program ($4.8 billion since 1988) show risks exist. If Big Agri misjudged glyphosate's impact, Big Pharma could misjudge—or misrepresent—vaccine safety, especially under pressure to rush products to market.

Methodological scepticism means demanding unfiltered data, independent studies, and no sacred cows. Bayer's Roundup debacle shows Big Agri can fail catastrophically, with regulators and science complicit or asleep. Big Pharma, entwined with the same profit-driven ecosystem, deserve suspicion: guilty until proven innocent! Trust must be earned, not assumed—because when they get it wrong, as they usually do, we all pay the price.