Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

Sunday, June 04, 2006


Hello, my name is Sir Andrew Brokenbridge. I was knighted back in 97 for my work in the field of Medicines. Currently I serve the British public by being part of a team that regulate medicines - after all, we don't want you taking medicines that are bad for you do we?

In 1992, I was World Safety Officer for a Pharmaceutical Company where my job was to oversee that all medicines met our stringent criteria. Obviously, there was some medicines that never quite came up to scratch with our criteria but with a little tweaking here and there such as hiding clinical trial evidence or just not being forthright with the regulator we were able to run a smooth ship. After all, it was only a few people that would suffer opposed to the millions it would help. The public would never find out and no lawyer in his or her right mind would ever dare to take on a Pharmaceutical Company with an endless pot of money. Even if it did leak out that we suppressed clinical trial evidence we could always put up a smokescreen. We have a clever legal department you see and our own language when it comes to Patient Information Leaflets (The information you read that comes with your medicine) We stick to no dictionary - we have our own versions of the English language. The word 'Addiction' does not exist in our dictionary.

Through regular Freemason meetings, I was asked to join the Medicines regulator, where my job would be to regulate the medicines my employer was manufacturing. To my delight, I found that the Medicines regulator also had their very own dictionary and were made up of ex-Pharmaceutical Company employees. Therefore, with a nice golden handshake I left my employer, Smith DontKare (SDK) to take up my new post.

Sometime down the line I had the shock of my life when one of the drugs I monitored whilst employed at SDK came up for review by the Medicines regulator. My whole world came tumbling down but I was soon put at ease when I heard the suppressed evidence would not be submitted. Phew! I thought I was for the high jump then I can tell you. The second time this particular drug was reviewed I felt more at ease as basically the same evidence was submitted. No one would ever find out how my former employers were able to suppress evidence. Life just could not get any better.

I'd heard rumblings of support groups popping up over the internet regarding this particular drug and heard on the grapevine that BBC TV were running a special programme on their pioneer show 'Panorama'. I must admit I did have a giggle to myself about this although my colleague, Dr Liam Disdain, had fears. He too now worked alongside me and was also a former employee of SDK. He too knew about the suppressed evidence. Anyway, I reassured him that we were in the clear, as SDK would never allow their trial data to be looked at - even if they were subpoenaed, they would do everything in their power to make it difficult for the researcher looking for the particular trial data. I told Dr Disdain that they would probably stick some Professor in a room full of records and the possibilities of him/her ever finding what he/she was searching for was a zillion to one! We both laughed at that image.

The BBC ran the programme but little came of it. It certainly never bothered us in the Medicines regulator department. It did however build up a strong membership base in those pesky online support groups - even more so when a second programme was aired by the BBC. Again though, we here at the Medicines regulator department did not take much notice. The drug helped millions of people and even though lawsuits were happening in the States my former employers, SDK, could further suppress the hidden evidence by making substantial out of court settlements. When settled out of court both parties would agree to keep all the evidence sealed. Anyway, that was America - no one from the UK would ever dare take on a Pharmaceutical Company - for one they would not get public funding. Both Dr Disdain and I were quietly comfortable. In fact, we had both been given the nicknames 'The Untouchables' back at the Freemasons lodge.

A third programme was to be aired by the BBC and I was asked to do an interview with the investigative reporter. I took legal advice and was told what to say by my legal team - which amounted to sidestepping any questions the interviewer put to me. I really put her in her place by answering almost every question with, 'That is a matter that is currently being investigated'. Had the camera's been panned on her you would have been able to see the frustration in her face. I felt like Al Capone - I was untouchable.

This third programme however created a lot of public reaction and soon after a firm of Solicitors in Wales decided they would take on the might of SDK. They do not stand a chance, I told Dr Disdain. For one they will not get public funding! Dr Disdain told me that certain members of one of the pesky support groups were asking many questions about him and I. Luckily for us, the Chief Executive of the Medicine Regulatory Board was 100% behind us. Although Prof. Clark Kent was our boss he was also a good friend. We called him 'Superman' back at the Freemasons lodge for obvious reasons!

Clark told us both that support group members were asking for both mine and Dr Disdain's resignation from our posts here at the Medicines regulatory department. Whom did they think they were dealing with? I have more letters after my surname than they do in their Christian and middle names! Anyway, we were briefed not to give interviews to the press concerning this drug and any emails or letters we received we could pass off as Spam. To this day, I have not answered any emails sent to me by a member of the public. God, I feel so powerful.

The odd article would appear in the press over the coming months but it was nothing to lose sleep over. Today's news is tomorrow's fish & chip paper. SDK did finally admit that the particular drug was dangerous to children but to be honest they had already made millions of pounds from it so a loss of a few million would be of no significance seeing as their was an increase in depression in the adult population in the UK - they could now target GP's with free holidays and payments and let them know just how good this drug was. Unfortunately, the age where this drug caused problems had moved from under 18's to under 24's but using their dictionary they were able to claim that 18 to 24 did not include the adult population. The data they suppressed back then was for the adult population.

Those pests at the support group were relentless and were unearthing documents over the internet. Damn the internet. They were also lobbying MP's but fortunately, not many were interested as they had local issues to deal with.

On Saturday 13th May 2006, my butler woke me with breakfast and the day's newspapers. I was shocked to read that SDK had yet again moved the goal posts again on the age issue. They had now sent directives to GP's warning them that the drug could cause suicide in patients up to the age of 30. To be honest, I do not know how they get away with it - they have known for years that it is dangerous - as have I.

Oh well, Monday morning now and I am at my desk. I see those pesky group moderators from the support group have been emailing me over the weekend.... One click of the mouse... there you go... into my Spam folder. You cannot get me... I am untouchable.

Sir Andrew Brokenbridge