Big Pharma > Pfizer - secrets, lies, coverups, disinterest in possible cancer-causing DNA in its mRNA vaccine

 

Big Pharma, Health Canada, how can we possibly trust them?

Pfizer ‘Chose Not To’ Tell Regulators About SV40 Sequence

in COVID Shots: Health Canada Official

By Noé Chartier and Matthew Horwood,  The Epoch Times

4/23/2024

Updated:

4/24/2024

A senior Health Canada official says pharma giant Pfizer made a conscious decision not to advise regulators that its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine contained a DNA sequence from the Simian Virus 40 (SV40).

This information appears among multiple emails between staff from key drug regulators, including Health Canada (HC), the U.S. Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The information was obtained through an access-to-information request.

On Aug. 23, 2023, Dr. Dean Smith, a senior scientific evaluator in Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division, wrote an email to a colleague at the FDA about SV40.

Health Canada had obtained confirmation two weeks earlier from Pfizer that SV40 DNA sequences were present in its COVID-19 vaccine.

“I understand that there have been internal discussions at CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] regarding the presents [sic] of an SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence, noting that its presence is unrelated to the purpose of the Pfizer’s plasmid as a transcription template for their mRNA COVID-19 vaccine,” wrote Dr. Smith.

“Pfizer has communicated to us recently, that they apparently chose not to mention this information to EMA, FDA or HC at the time of their initial or subsequent submissions.”

Dr. Smith added the information had been independently made public in April 2023, via a pre-print study from U.S. scientist Kevin McKernan.

Mr. McKernan, a genomics expert, had found quantities of DNA in the mRNA shots above the regulatory threshold set out by the health agencies. Dr. Smith wrote that the study had resulted in “questions coming to agencies.”

The Epoch Times contacted Health Canada on the matter on July 17, 2023. The first SV40-related email released in the department’s access-to-information package was sent two days later, on July 19.

In that email, Dr. Tong Wu of Health Canada’s Vaccine Quality Division reached out to his colleague Dr. Michael Wall, a senior biologist evaluator.

“Co [Pham, executive director of HC’s Centre for Vaccines, Clinical Trials and Biostatistics] agreed to have an IAS [possibly a reference to an Issue Analysis Summary to evaluate a new regulatory affair] for the SV40 promoter sequence as we discussed today. We can talk about it tomorrow,” Dr. Wu wrote.

As first reported by The Epoch Times last October, Health Canada was not aware of the SV40 enhancer presence. Since then, the FDA and the EMA have both confirmed they also weren’t aware of its presence.

Health Canada has since maintained that the SV40 enhancer/promoter sequence is a “residual DNA fragment” in Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. “The fragment is inactive, has no functional role, and was measured to be consistently below the limit required by Health Canada and other international regulators,” the department has repeatedly said.

‘ZERO Checks’

This view has been challenged by Mr. McKernan and others, including Dr. Philip Buckhaults, professor of cancer genomics and director of the Cancer Genetics Lab at the University of South Carolina.

In response to the information released by Health Canada, Mr. McKernan posted a thread on the X platform. “No prior vaccine in Canada has been approved with such a sequence contaminant,” he wrote.

“Pfizer assured [HC] the sequence is not material to plasmid manufacturing,” he added. “This is an overt lie. You cannot make plasmids without the promoter for the antibiotic resistance gene. It is active in mammalian cells. If it’s not needed, why is it in there?”

Mr. McKernan also noted that Health Canada has asked Pfizer for its Polymerase Chain Reaction (PRC) protocol, saying this means “they have performed ZERO checks on this DNA contamination themselves and are entirely relying on the word of the manufacturer.”

A response to a Canadian Member of Parliament’s order paper question tabled by Health Canada in the House of Commons in December appears to be in line with this observation.

“It is important to assess the results using the authorized validated assays performed by the vaccine manufacturers to ensure that the quality of commercial vaccine lots are comparable to lots shown to be safe and efficacious in clinical studies,” Health Canada said at the time.

Concerns raised by some scientists about the presence of unintended DNA in the mRNA shots relate to their potential to integrate into the human genome and cause issues like cancer. The Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo has called for a halt of mRNA shots over these risks.

In March, Health Canada said in a document tabled in Parliament that “any claims that the presence of the SV40 promoter enhancer sequence is linked to an increased risk of cancer are unfounded.”

Dr. Buckhaults has started a scientific study to ascertain those risks. On April 23, he wrote on X that he had confirmed previous findings that the amount of DNA in mRNA shots exceeds the limit set by regulators.

“Yes, there was more than 10 ng/dose,” he wrote, referencing the threshold applied by Health Canada. “I am sure of it now.”

Even if the amount of DNA had been lower, concerns remain that the threshold was set for regular vaccines and not the new technology using lipid nano particles (LNP).

Dr. Buckhaults wrote that the “10 ng limit is not appropriate for LNP encapsulated DNA,” adding that “as far as I know there have been no safety studies for this situation. It was not possible because of the abbreviated timeline during the emergency you saw authorization.”

Seeking ‘Remedy’

In his Aug. 23 email to an FDA colleague, Dr. Smith said Health Canada did not view the SV40 issues as an “urgent risk topic,” although he expressed concerns about how the SV40 news could impact the upcoming fall 2023 vaccination campaign.

“It would be unfortunate if the information circulating had a negatively [sic] impact on public acceptance of the vaccine this year or in the future,” he said.

Despite having that concern, Dr. Smith, the official responsible for evaluating the safety of vaccines, said regulating agencies should work to encourage Pfizer to “remedy the situation” before the campaign.

In the email, Dr. Smith said Health Canada believed the upcoming rollout of the fall COVID-19 vaccine campaign meant the agencies should be “on the same page.”

Dr. Smith’s email was written a day after Pfizer provided a response to a Quality Clarifax—a Health Canada request for additional information if deficiencies are identified in clinical trial applications—related to the SV40 promoter.

On Aug. 29, Health Canada senior biologist Dr. Wu wrote an email to Dr. Wall, the senior evaluator, saying he and Dr. Smith agreed they should not inform Pfizer of their interaction with the EMA and U.S. FDA on the SV40 promoter, “especially they [sic] do not seem to care much at this moment.”

Dr. Wu then added, “However, we can not say nothing! Please see the following text that Julie and I worked out.” He provided a draft comment to Pfizer’s response, which was blacked out in the access-to-information request.

The same day, Dr. Wall also sent an email to Dr. Wu with a draft of the Clarifax questions to be sent to Pfizer, which included the statement, “Health Canada would continue to work with international regulatory partners to achieve harmonisation regarding removal of these sequence elements from the plasmid for future strain changes.”

Pfizer did not respond to a request for comment from The Epoch Times

Commenting on DNA contamination, Health Canada reiterated its previously stated position on the matter.

“Based on its evaluation of the data and scientific information for the vaccine, Health Canada has concluded that the risk/benefit profile continues to support the use of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said spokesperson Anna Maddison.

Dr. David Speicher, a Canadian virologist who replicated the findings from Mr. McKernan and Dr. Buckhaults with Canadian mRNA vials, told The Epoch Times he’s troubled by the revelations in the internal Health Canada emails. He notes that while Health Canada has dismissed the DNA fragments as biologically inactive with no functional role, they were judged important enough to discuss with other regulators.

“We know from testing several vials that the level of SV40 enhancer-promoter in the XBB.1.5 booster is at similar levels as the others Pfizer COVID modRNA vaccines, making it just as problematic,” he said. “Pfizer has not cleaned up the vaccine, yet the regulators are sadly more concerned about vaccine uptake in the population rather than the health risks from these vaccines.”

================================================================

Corruption is Everywhere > Canada Health and Drug Price-Setting

..

Health minister disputes claim he sided with big pharma,

interfered with drug price consultations

Review board 'will never be subjected to political interference,' Duclos said

If you take this report at face value, it appears that everything Duclos says is the direct opposite of the truth.

Peter Zimonjic · CBC News · 

Posted: Mar 01, 2023 12:33 PM PST | Last Updated: March 1

Minister of Health Jean-Yves Duclos says the Patented Medicines Price Review Board 'will never be subjected to political interference.' (Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

What is it about that look in Jean-Yves Duclos eyes that makes me shiver?

Health Minister Jean-Yves Duclos is pushing back against claims that he interfered with the work of Canada's pharmaceutical pricing agency by asking it to delay reforms intended to bring down the price of patented drugs.

The allegations stem from a report in The Breach that said Duclos and associate assistant health deputy minister Eric Bélair sent letters to the Patented Medicines Price Review Board (PMPRB) late last year asking it to suspend the consultations it was holding on proposed guidelines for pricing. 

So, it would appear they each sent at least one letter.

"PMPRB is a totally independent organization. It is not subjected and it will never be subjected to political interference," Duclos said Wednesday in Mississauga, Ont.

Then why did you send them letters demanding exactly that?

"They asked for my view as a health minister … I invited them to do the right amount of consultation so that this would be done in the more proper and most efficient and most speedy manner possible."

How is delaying a process the most speedy and efficient manner possible?

High profile resignations 

Duclos' comments follow a series of high-profile resignations at the PMPRB. They include its executive director Douglas Clark, board member Matthew Herder and former acting chair of the board Melanie Bourassa Forcier.

Ottawa promises to save billions with tweaks to patent drug system

Herder posted online his three-page resignation letter, addressed to Duclos. In it, he said that while he enjoyed sitting on the board for the past five years, he was quitting over a lack of government support for needed reforms.

"The last thing I want to do is hurt the organization," he wrote. "However, in the absence of the political courage to support meaningful policy reform, the position of the PMPRB has become untenable."

In a social media post, Forcier said she's looking at her legal obligations before deciding whether she can share the reasons for her resignation. In the release announcing his departure, Clark did not mention recent discord between the PMPRB and Health Canada.

In 2016, the federal government announced that it would protect Canadians from excessive drug prices by launching consultations on proposed amendments to patented medicine regulations.

The PMPRB was tasked with consulting industry and other stakeholders and coming up with regulations. A group of drugmakers challenged those regulations. In February of last year, the Quebec Court of Appeal sided with the pharmaceutical industry, leaving only one regulation intact.

And it was that lone regulation that Duclos wanted stopped. The only accomplishment for the PMPRB in 7 years.

That surviving regulation changed the list of countries Canada uses to determine if its drug prices are too high. The court concluded that instead of comparing Canadian drug prices to the OECD median, they should be measured instead against a list of 11 comparable countries that excludes the U.S. and Switzerland, which have some of the highest drug prices in the world.

Herder said one of his reasons for resigning from the board was the federal government's failure to appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court of Canada.

"The net result is that only one element of the regulations remains good law — a far cry from what the government described as the 'biggest step to lower drug prices in a generation' when the new regulations were first enacted," Herder wrote. 

"In choosing not to seek leave to appeal, the government effectively countenanced the evisceration of its own reform."

Hitting pause

Duclos wrote to the PMPRB in November asking it to suspend consultations on the country list comparison, effectively delaying the regulations.

Bélair's submission to the board last year, which was posted online, said that Health Canada wanted the board to "consider pausing the consultation process" to give stakeholders and partners time to "understand fully the short and long-term impacts of the proposed" guidelines.

In his resignation letter, Herder took issue with the requests from Duclos and Bélair to pause the consultations.

"Your request in late November that we suspend our consultations for reasons that were largely indistinguishable in form and substance from industry talking points on the proposed guidelines undermined the board's credibility and interfered with the exercise of a function that goes to the very heart of its expertise as an independent, arms-length administrative tribunal," he wrote.

Obviously, Mr Herder is not convinced that the PMPRB was not subject to political interference. Quite the opposite, it appears.

ANALYSISAfter a 5-year fight to lower drug prices, Ottawa's pledge quietly falls apart

Drug company ordered to cut price of life-saving medication after 3,000% jump

Herder also criticized the federal government over what he said were four separate delays to the introduction of the new regulations.

"The government accepted, again and again, industry's claim that it needed more time to comply with the new regulations," he wrote.

The federal government says that even without the regulations tossed by the Quebec Court of Appeal, pricing drugs at the median cost across the group of 11 countries would have saved Canadians $2.8 billion in 2018.

"Drug prices and in particular patent drug prices in Canada are among the highest in the world next to the United States and Switzerland, and that's why we have committed to reducing the cost of those drugs in Canada," Duclos said.

You have committed to reducing the cost of drugs in Canada, but all of your actions have been to prevent that very thing from happening. 

It's a pity we didn't hear from Douglas Clark on why he resigned as executive director.

============================================================================================

U.S. PhRMA's Fight to Prevent Lower Canadian Drug Prices

Drug industry turns up heat against Canada's drug price reforms

- Literally threatens trade sanctions

Kelly Crowe · CBC News 

This is an excerpt from Second Opinion, a weekly roundup of eclectic and under-the-radar health and medical science news emailed to subscribers every Saturday morning. If you haven't subscribed yet, you can do that by clicking here.

Offers of voluntary price freezes, backroom meetings with the powerful U.S. drug lobby, and rising industry rhetoric — those are some of the glimpses that emerged this week into the pharmaceutical industry's fight against Canada's plan to lower drug prices.

"This show of muscle is because drug companies are getting very scared about this," said Marc-André Gagnon, a pharmaceutical policy researcher at Carleton University in Ottawa.

The federal government has not been subtle about the policy goal, which is "protecting Canadians from excessive drug prices" — the title of the reforms announced almost two years ago.

Despite the dramatic name, it's a dense regulatory overhaul of the regulations governing Canada's drug price agency, the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB).

Included in those changes is a plan to drop the U.S. from the list of countries Canada uses to assess whether a prescription drug price is excessive.

The U.S has the world's highest drug prices. Canada's patented drug prices are the fourth highest among the seven countries Canada currently uses for comparison.

"Now they're asking their big brother to come

and help them in this fight." 

- Marc-André Gagnon, pharmaceutical policy researcher, Carleton University

Ottawa's new drug price rules were supposed to be in force by last month.

Health Canada won't explain the reason for the delay. But some observers suspect it's because of the pushback from the pharmaceutical industry, including the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA).

This briefing note for Ambassador David MacNaughton's meeting with U.S. PhRMA president to discuss Canada's drug price reforms was disclosed under the federal Access to Information law. (CBC)

Government and industry documents reveal that the powerful U.S. pharmaceutical lobby group has taken a keen interest in what's happening with Canada's domestic drug policy.

'We don't discuss private meetings'

In March, PhRMA's president asked for a meeting with Canada's ambassador in Washington, David MacNaughton, specifically to discuss Canada's drug price reforms, according to emails released through an Access to Information request.

U.S. pharmaceutical companies met with Canada's ambassador to the United States, David MacNaughton, to discuss Canada's drug price reforms. (Graham Hughes/Canadian Press)

The ambassador had already met to discuss the issue with two other drug giants — Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson, according to the documents.

Before the meeting, advisers briefed MacNaughton to be prepared for PhRMA to "register strong concerns with Canada's proposed reforms."

"We don't discuss private meetings, but PhRMA regularly meets and consults with a variety [of] stakeholders to discuss policy solutions," PhRMA spokesperson Megan Van Etten said in an email to CBC News.

'Serious concerns' about Canada's 'fairness'

Last April, PhRMA applied more pressure by requesting that Canada be placed on a special U.S. trade "priority watch list,"  which now declares that "the United States has serious concerns about the fairness of Canada's Patented Medicines."

Being on the list could "facilitate unilateral trade action against Canada" from the Trump administration, according to the disclosed documents.

The U.S. lobby group also met several times with government officials in Ottawa, according to the federal lobby registry.

"PhRMA has never shied away from calling out policies in the U.S. and abroad that threaten innovation and patient access to innovative medicines, which is exactly what [Canada's] proposal would do," said Van Etten.

Good grief! This has nothing to do with innovation or patient access and everything to do with profits. PhRMA is motivated by greed and couldn't care less for patients. The only negative effects on patients would come as a Big Pharma backlash against efforts to reduce their extraordinary profit margins.

Last July, PhRMA paid for research that was released by Innovative Medicines Canada (IMC), the Canadian pharmaceutical industry association. The report published on IMC's website warns that drug companies might not launch new drugs in Canada if the prices are too low.  

Why is the U.S. trade association sponsoring research on behalf of the Canadian industry group?

"It is a common practice for national associations like IMC and PhRMA to work together," IMC spokesperson Sarah Dion-Marquis said in an email. "As you know, IMC and PhRMA represent some of the same companies."

Gagnon had a different take: "Now they're asking their big brother to come and help them in this fight."

Health Canada refuses industry's voluntary 'price freeze'

Meanwhile, the Canadian industry tried a softer tactic — volunteering to keep a lid on drug prices if Canada abandoned the reforms.

Marc-André Gagnon, a Carleton University associate professor of public policy, says there are signs the pharmaceutical industry is worried about proposed reforms to lower Canadian drug prices. (Marc-André Gagnon/Evidence Network)

According to a Reuters news report this week, IMC and BIOTECanada offered to give up $8.6 billion Cdn in revenue over 10 years, along with a promise to improve access to medicines for rare diseases.

But it was an offer the federal government refused.

In an email to CBC News, Health Canada spokesperson Eric Morrissette said: "the proposed price freeze would not achieve the Government's objective of lowering drug prices. It also would not address concerns about the continued high cost of drugs as new drugs come on to the market."

Canada's proposed reforms would work to lower drug prices, according to the industry's own estimates.

Lower prices also mean lost industry revenues, though the cost estimates vary depending on who is doing the analysis. Industry reports calculate $26 billion in lost revenues over 10 years. Health Canada predicts a much lower cost to industry of $8.6 billion.

The proposed regulatory changes discriminate against patented medicines developed in the U.S., putting American exports and jobs in jeopardy.

-  Megan Van Etten, PhRMA

All along, Health Canada officials have been sensitive to the drug industry's complaints, even asking former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge to check the government's math.

His report gave Ottawa a thumbs-up on the proposals stating that the reforms were "reasonable," and "might well yield a net benefit to Canada." Dodge concluded that "there is no good economic or conceptual reason not to proceed with the proposed regulatory changes."

Could Canada's drug price reforms lower prices in other countries?

"Canada might lead the way in terms of providing an alternative in terms of how to regulate drug prices," said Gagnon."If something like the PMPRB becomes the role model for some legislation in the United States, that would become a big problem for the pharmaceutical interests.

"There's a lot at stake."

That includes U.S. jobs, according to PhRMA.

"The proposed regulatory changes discriminate against patented medicines developed in the U.S., putting American exports and jobs in jeopardy," said Van Etten.

Clues to impending reforms?

One clue to the rising tension is strong new language in the industry's social media campaign against the reforms.

IMC ramped up the rhetoric last week calling on Canadians to "stand up for our health and our economy.  

This screenshot shows Innovative Medicines Canada's campaign against Canada's drug price reforms. (CBC)

"There's too much at stake for us to remain silent," the web page states in bold blue type.

Is it a sign that the industry is afraid it's losing the fight and that the regulations will be approved soon?

"We are not aware of the exact timing of final regulations, but there are some indications that they could be published in their final form shortly," said Dion-Marquis.

Health Canada still refuses to announce a new date.

"Before Health Canada proceeds with the publication of final regulations, the Department is taking the time required to carefully consider the comments received during consultations," Morrissette said in an email.

Canada Sees No Cancer Risk from Monsanto’s Roundup Weed Killer

Nothing I could say here that would not put me at risk of being sued

Oh, Canada

© Reuters / Benoit Tessier

Canadian farmers will continue using glyphosate after Health Canada concluded that the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer poses no human risks.

The federal agency dismissed eight notices of objection and assertions made in the so-called Monsanto Papers in 2017.

“After a thorough scientific review, we have concluded that the concerns raised by the objectors could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data. The objections raised did not create doubt or concern regarding the scientific basis for the 2017 re-evaluation decision for glyphosate,” Health Canada said in a press release.

The 2017 re-evaluation determined that glyphosate is not genotoxic and is unlikely to pose a human cancer risk. It also determined that dietary exposure associated with the use of glyphosate is not expected to pose a risk of concern to human health. When used according to revised label directions, glyphosate products are not expected to pose risks of concern to the environment, according to the study.

Health Canada said it has selected a group of 20 of its own scientists who were not involved in the 2017 decision to evaluate the eight objections and the concerns raised publicly around glyphosate. The agency said its scientists “left no stone unturned in conducting” the review.

The agency noted that it “had access to numerous individual studies and raw scientific data during its assessment of glyphosate, including additional cancer and genotoxicity studies.” It added that it will “continue to monitor for new information related to glyphosate, including regulatory actions from other governments, and will take appropriate action if risks of concern to human health or the environment are identified.”

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup, which is the most popular weed killer in the US. German chemicals and pharmaceuticals giant Bayer, which bought Monsanto last year, disclosed earlier that lawsuits from 9,300 plaintiffs were pending at the end of October. The lawsuits alleged that the company’s recently acquired weed-killing product caused cancer.

The surge in lawsuits followed the $289-million California court verdict when Monsanto was ordered to pay damages to a man who alleged its glyphosate-based weed killers, including Roundup, caused his cancer.

Bayer rejected all the accusations, claiming there are hundreds of scientific studies and regulatory authorities that show glyphosate, the compound contained in the weed killers, is safe to use.

And how many of those studies were funded by Monsanto? I'm guessing, all of them!

Health Canada to Revisit Approval of Monsanto's Roundup

'Troubling allegations' prompt Health Canada review

of studies used to approve popular weed-killer

Gil Shochat · CBC News 

Health Canada says its scientists are reviewing hundreds of studies used during the approval process for glyphosate,

the active ingredient in Canada's most popular herbicide, Roundup.

Health Canada says in light of "troubling allegations," its scientists are reviewing hundreds of studies used during the approval process for glyphosate, the active ingredient in Canada's most popular herbicide, Roundup.

The decision comes after a coalition of environmental groups claimed Health Canada relied on studies that were secretly influenced by agrochemical giant Monsanto, the maker of Roundup, when it re-approved use of glyphosate in 2015 and confirmed that decision in 2017.

The coalition, which includes Equiterre, Ecojustice, Canadian Physicians for the Environment and others, says academic papers looking at whether the herbicide causes cancer were presented to Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency as independent, when in fact Monsanto had a hand in writing them.

At the time, Health Canada decided the risks of glyphosate to human health were acceptable, if used as directed in updated product labels. Now it's taking another look.

"Health Canada scientists are currently reviewing hundreds of studies to assess whether the information justifies a change to the original decision, or the use of a panel of experts not affiliated with Health Canada," the health agency told CBC-Radio Canada in an email response to the coalition's claims.

But Sidney Ribaux, the head of Equiterre, isn't satisfied.

He says Health Canada should launch an independent review immediately and suspend use of the herbicide, which is commonly applied to corn, soy, wheat and oats, as well as chickpeas and other pulses.

"This does not in any way meet our demands. Health Canada approved a dangerous product based ... on these studies."

Monsanto Papers

The coalition's contention that Monsanto had an uncredited role in producing some of the studies comes from court documents made public in the case of Dewayne "Lee" Johnson.

In August, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay Johnson $289 million US in damages after the former groundskeeper alleged Roundup gave him non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.

He was diagnosed in 2014 at age 42.

A judge upheld the verdict last month, although Johnson's payout was slashed to $78 million US.

The documents filed in the case, including emails between Monsanto and scientific experts, have become known as the Monsanto Papers. The revelations they contain have received worldwide attention.

Plaintiff Dewayne 'Lee' Johnson, seen here during his trial on July 9, was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma

in 2014 at age 42. A former pest control manager at a San Francisco-area school district, he blames exposure

to glyphosate for his illness. (Josh Edelson/Reuters)

The coalition of Canadian groups says those documents prove that important scientific studies were either co-written or reviewed and edited by Monsanto without properly disclosing the company's role.

"Monsanto has been playing around with scientific studies," said Equiterre's Ribaux. "[It's] making these studies look like they are independent, when in fact they were written or heavily influenced by Monsanto.

"What we found is that some of these studies were key in the Government of Canada's decision to give a permit to Monsanto to continue selling glyphosate in Canada.

"Obviously this is very problematic."

In a statement to CBC, German-based Bayer AG which now owns Monsanto says it has an "unwavering commitment to sound science transparency" and did not try to influence scientific outcomes in any way.

The company says in each case where it sponsored a scientific article, that information was disclosed.

U.S. plaintiff calls for more testing

Lee Johnson, the plaintiff in the landmark American case, wants to see glyphosate research re-evaluated and expanded.

"Hopefully the conversation is big enough to where they have to do more testing, more research," Johnson told CBC-Radio-Canada in an exclusive interview during a recent visit to Toronto.

Johnson said he was thrilled to win his suit, but he knows his fight is far from over. He expects years of appeals.

 I'm not scared to die. You know, but if I have to die,

at least I'll die for something.

- Dewayne "Lee" Johnson

Bayer has already announced its intention to appeal the ruling. Bayer now faces more than 8,000 lawsuits in the U.S. over its glyphosate-based products.

In a post on its website last month, Bayer said it continues "to believe that the liability verdict and damage awards are not supported by the evidence at trial or the law."

The company told CBC-Radio Canada "its product is safe and has been used successfully for more than 40 years."

It also says there is an extensive body of research on glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides, including more than 800 studies required by regulators in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere, that confirms these products are safe when used as directed.

Many government regulators, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2017, have determined there is no conclusive link between glyphosate and cancer.

But the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in 2015 that glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

Johnson, who sprayed Roundup and a similar Monsanto product, Ranger Pro, as part of his job as a groundskeeper at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, says he has found a certain consolation in his struggle against Monsanto.

"I was there to defend the truth," he said. "I'm not scared to die. You know, but if I have to die, at least I'll die for something."