Forgive me if this has been discussed on this forum, but this is the first that I've heard of it. Apparently, Monsanto (the makers of Roundup) is being sued and there is a definite link between the ingredients and lots of blood disorders and CLL has been named. I am pleading ignorance here and do not any details. Just wondering if anyone can shed any light on this.
CLL and Round up: Forgive me if this has been... - CLL Support
CLL and Round up
Written by
Andreamo
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
33 Replies
•
There are multiple lawsuits against Monsanto right now claiming Round-up use (glyphosate) caused people's CLL. The allegation of a connection is not new. But the huge victory ($289 million) one man was awarded last year has prompted a wave of similar lawsuits and online ads from law firms asking CLL patients to fill out a form to see if they might qualify for compensation due to Round-up use.
The man (a California groundskeeper) who won the now-famous case had some type of Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, but not CLL specifically. Monsanto challenged the verdict, and a subsequent judge reduced the award to $78 million: npr.org/2018/11/01/66281233...
In 2015 WHO declared glyphosate a "probable human carcinogen". But Round-up is still sold, and people are still buying it and putting it on their lawns... not to mention it is throughout our food supply.
Thanks for the reply. Wondering if it is worth pursuing or these lawyers are just trying to make a buck? I’m no groundskeeper but I have used Roundup in the past. But so have millions of others and they continue to do so!!
The lawyers are definitely trying to make a buck here. But doesn't mean a CLL person shouldn't pursue legal action. I think though that you have to have documentation of dates and quantities used. So really it more pertains to farm-workers or groundskeepers who have been exposed to this daily and have some paper trail of that usage that can be produced in court.
I mean I think that's who the lawyers are looking for - not just every homeowner who has squirted round-up on a dandelion from time to time. Because that is a hard case to prove.
Not exactly. A sworn statement is apparently as good as a box full of receipts. No one expects the average person to save receipts from fifteen years ago. You have to be willing to attest to having used Roundup on a regular basis over a period of time.
Oh, I see. I thought I had read on one of those application forms on a law firm's link that they want clients who can document the usage - with actual documents. And true, average person doesn't save receipts. But for employees who have used it on jobsite or farm, the business theoretically has a record of chemicals purchased and used. Which is the type of client the law firms are seeking for these suits.
Hello Andreamo
Yes the lawyers are out to make big bucks, they are known as train cases. The lawyers do all the legal groundwork then keep bringing in new clients with same case. There are about 17,000 people lines up with cases on this at this time. The lawyers average about 50% of the court award. The case that PlanetaryKim mentioned with 78 million dollar US was a very rear form of NHL and the groundskeeper had terrible open lesions on his arms which played very well to the jury. Glyphosate was found to cause some cases of cancer in mice by a French research group many years ago.
Monsanto is being hit hard because there is proof that they knew there were health dangers involved with the use of Round-Ups main ingredient, Glysophate, dating way back to the 1970's when it first came on the market.
The difference between Monsanto and other weed killers containing Glysophate is that Monsanto did NOT warn the public of it's harmfulness nor did it advise consumers to take precautions such as wearing protective gear(a simply warning on the label when it was placed on the market). There is proof (atleast per the victims' lawyers) to be a connection between people who frequently used Round-Up over a longer period of time and in higher volumes such as Farmers, Groundskeepers, Lawn care services, as well as others, and those same people being diagnosed with NON-HODGEKINS LYMPHOMA. This is what someone I know was basically told by their Lawyer(s). They were interviewed (extensively interigated..is what they said) for quite awhile. They were asked the dates used, to what extent..such as how often and how much used during that time frame, whether used in a business capacity or both business and private,
The Name of the Business and where located during the timeframe in question, the Bank(s) they had their Business account(s) at, any witnesses to verify any and all of the above, etc, etc, etc.
I would imagine that there would have to be some kind of initial screening to weed out the fact from the fiction before the Law Offices invest their time and money in a potential claimant. Plus, if their client is called to testify, the Prosecutors would want to be prepared.
That being said, If anyone has used Round-Up and as a result, was diagnosed with NHL or other blood cancer YEARS later... I don't think it would hurt to simply talk to a Lawyer to see if they could have a case. Many Lawyers don't charge a fee for the initial consultation.
These are my main reasonings for saying atleast ask a Lawyer:
1) A cancer diagnosis is devastating, period. Especially a Cancer diagnosis, such as NHL, that there is no known cure. This can greatly diminish the patient's Quality of Life... probably changing the entire outcom of their life.
2) Cancer Treatment is expensive. I can only speak about our medical insurance plans here in the U.S. I have Stage 2 NHL that started in my bone marrow and blood (CLL) around 2011-ish and had spread to my upper extremity Lymphnodes (SLL) before I was diagnosed 6yrs later in 2017.
Just during that time, I, like many others, am already struggling to keep up with my medical expenses; to pay for the additional help that I need cleaning my house, grocery shopping, dog-walking at my worst; paying for OTC (over-the-counter) meds prescribed by my Haemotologist/Oncologist & other Doctors, with my Haemotologist's approval, to correct vitamin, mineral, electrolyte, etc deficiencies.
Being on Permanent Disability before my NHL diagnosis, I was already living on a low, fixed income. Now, however, I am not physically able to earn any money even here and there by
babysitting, dog walking, etc to help with these extra expenses. Every little bit helps.
We all know that Medical costs, etc greatly increase as our health decreases.
Then there's the intangible hardships related to a Cancer Diagnosis that one can not put a $ on..such as not being able to help with caring for my 90yr old Mom with Dementia nor spending quality time with my mom during a time when we both need it most.
This also created another expense....needing a Home Health Aide to take care of my mom because I no longer can. Having lost my dad a couple years ago, my mom needs me as much as I need her. With my debilitating exhaustion and frequent infections and fever, I can't be there for my Mom... nor myself.
Without a claim against Monsanto, My friend, much like many other Cancer patients, will need the help paying for their necessary treatment. I've seen family and friends holding Public Benefits to raise money so their loved ones can get the necessary treatment that they otherwise wouldn't be able to afford.
Yes, by all means....atleast discuss whether you have a case with a Lawyer familiar with the Monsanto Law Suits.
My friend said that they thought that it doesn't hurt ask.
JigFettlerVolunteer
Hi Andreamo!
healthunlocked.com/cllsuppo...
12 posts on the Forum
I have no knowledge of this association.
Jig
Unless you have an iron clad case, I would expect that you are wasting your time. Litigation is extremely stressful and this kind of stress is not recommended for CLL patients.
I’m actually very surprised that anyone won a case in court as Round-up has never been proven to cause cancer. I’m sure it does cause cancer, but proving it scientifically is really difficult.
Regardless, I would recommend staying away from lawyers and any kind of lawsuit as CLL is a big enough stressor to live with. Good luck.
I think you might be confused about how mass torts work and the evolution of the round up cases. This is not a class action but rather a mass tort where all of the cases filed into federal court are then removed to and consolidated with other cases into what is known as an mdl.
The mdl for round up is in California and run by a federal judge, Mass tort actions where an mdl has been formed are about as stress free as litigation can be. A few cases get tried and the other thousands of cases sit in limbo as a steering committee of plaintiffs lawyers try to work a global settlement. As a plaintiff, other than fill out a plaintiffs fact sheet, there is nothing to do or worry about. The attorneys front all your costs usually with no cost to you unless a settlement is reached.
The connection between round up and Hodgkins is quite strong. Monsanto has been absolutely hammered with some very large verdicts. Usually when we see more than one jury deliver big damage awards there is some proof the defendant put people at risk and withheld or manipulated information.
Anyone exposed to any amount of roundup, and wants recourse, should meet with an attorney handling round up cases. Reportedly 8 billion has been offered to settle the case.
The devil is in the details with these type settlements. Attorneys have different screening requirements trying to anticipate what amount of exposure will qualify for the settlement. Sometimes those with proven longer exposures just get a bigger piece of the pie.
The best round up cases are those with farmers who can have massive exposures to round up. People who use round up in their yards might qualify for awards to, it depends on the criteria the attorneys negotiate the settlement. 8 billion is a lot to split up and I think it might end up being bigger settlement than that.
Consultations for these type cases are typically free. Anyone with a blood cancer has nothing to lose by seeing if an attorney will take their case. The odds of a case in a mass tort like this are probably like one in a thousand, nothing to stress about. If you were one of the few selected to go to trial in round up, you are a rich person. The awards have been massive, that’s why 8 billion has been offered.
Not all mass torts are about greedy lawyers. They can often be about manufacturers of dangerous products who have hidden information from consumers, as is alleged in round up cases. I see zero reason for anyone with a blood cancer who has had some exposure to round up not to consult with an attorney other than some philosophical objection some might have to lawsuits. There is very little stress involved with filing one of these suits. The exposure criteria, I suspect, is being negotiated now.
Based on the number of suits filed vs the proposed settlement pot, awards in round up should average around a million dollars, one of the biggest average awards I have heard of ever. That tells me the proof of wrongdoing by Monsanto is probably very strong.
I've been involved in litigation most of my life - mostly in business. The first time I was dealing with attorneys was when I was 18 and sued as the result of a car accident. I come from a family of lawyers and never really liked it - my brother being a particularly nasty bottom-feeder. I've also spent a lot of time dealing with trust and estate attorneys.
As a result, I think even an afternoon with an attorney is more than enough for me. It's just not a healthy environment for a lot of people unless they like that kind of thing, IMO. If you have a lot of Round-up exposure, perhaps it is worth the botherfor a CLL patient to get involved in these kind of things. But I suspect that it will be hard to prove an occasional user of Round-up to have their CLL or other cancer caused by Round-up - given there are so many people who have used it. I think this is what you referred to as "the exposure criteria."
I was just referring in the latter part of my post to the fact that a scientific association between the two (Round-up and cancer) will be difficult and hard to prove. Firm proof is difficult to obtain. It will be many many years to accomplish this.
You sound as if you may be an attorney. I have no ill will toward the legal profession, it's just not my cup of tea. If you were, you wouldn't like my brother either! Being a scientist by training, I prefer low profile work and lots of data. Law seems to me to be a lot of planning and strategy. I never had issues with trust and estate attorneys as they seemed far from confrontational, and more nerdy like myself!
I gathered from your first post that you generally do not hold lawyers in high regard and that you were discouraging people who have Cll and had round up exposure from looking into whether they have a legal claim because causation is hard to prove and litigation is stressful. Your second post kind of reiterates the first and expounds on why you do not like attorneys and why you think causation is hard to prove and could take many years.
I have stayed away from prior round up threads on here. I entered this one because I would not discourage people who have Cll and had round up exposure from looking into a possible claim because lawyers are bad guys, or because causation is hard to prove or because litigation is stressful.
It’s not for me to tell people what professions to like or not like. That’s a personal opinion people have based on their life experiences. My personal view is lawyers are like scientists and any other occupation. You have have good and bad in all professions. What I was responding to was your implied point that the litigation is lawyer driven , not science driven and that people who look into their claims will stress out.
I personally do not think most lawyers who bring big claims against companies like Monsanto do so for some altruistic reason to save society from a dangerous product. I think most attorneys handling these cases are motivated by profit. That doesn’t mean the litigation is without merit.
Reportedly some “scientists” have been ghostwriting for Monsanto and that is coming out in trial. Ghostwriting is where a company pays some respected doctor or scientist to write a favorable paper about their product and not disclose they have been paid to do so to make their opinions seem objective.
Tobacco companies paid scientists to ghostwrite. Scientists questioned the link between tobacco and cancer. Scientists helped manipulate nicotine levels in tobacco to make it more addictive. This doesn’t tell me all scientists are bad, some make wonderful life saving discoveries that create drugs like the one I am taking. I think some scientists are truly motivated to do this to help people. But most probably do it for profit reasons. I seem nothing wrong with an ethical scientist profiting from creating a drug that costs me about $500 a pill.
People who are biased against attorneys often automatically assume litigation like this is frivolous. Some people who are suspicious about companies like Monsanto are prone to believe all such claims are true. I don’t think either side should jump to a conclusion. There are frivolous lawsuits driven by attorney greed. There are bad companies ( with scientists) who hide dangers of cancer causing products.
The fact Monsanto lost three of three cases doesn’t prove causation to me. It does mean juries are hearing from scientists on both sides and that the plaintiffs must have some compelling evidence.
I think people should get legal opinions just as they get medical opinions. I don’t think your bad experiences with lawyers is a good reason for people who think round up may have contributed to their Cll to not look into it.
Hello cajunjeff
I am glad you brought up the tobacco companies settlement. If I recall correctly first court award was 360+ billion dollars (US) to states involved in tobacco case. In my state which enjoined court case against tobacco companies, award was around 4-6 billion dollars. Of that amount the 12 attorneys hired by State AG were paid 2 billion dollars of that settlement for their services. The public outcry was so great the State AG reduced payout to attorneys to 500 million dollars. The balance of the monies were placed in state general funds except for 2% which were used for smoking cessation adds. Sounds like a money grab to me.
I think some lawyers made obscene profits on state tobacco cases. I do not conclude from that, however, that tobacco is a safe product and does not cause cancer.
Do you conclude round up is safe and does not cause cancer because lawyers are in the case to make money? People who had significant exposures to round up and later developed cancers linked to round up should not look to see if they have a claim?
I don't know the science in this case. I agree a lot of this type litigation is lawyer driven.
But that doesnt mean its not true that round up causes cancer and that Monsanto hid that fact from the public.
Hello cajunjeff
No I do not conclude that tobacco is a safe product and am appalled that big tobacco would deliberately alter tobacco products to make it more addictive which is not the case with Round-Up. Very few of the law firms advertising for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma are actually clarifying that the groundskeeper had mycosis fungoides and was covered with skin lesions, very graphic for jury, hence the jury award. Like you said it does not mean that Round Up does not cause cancer, nor does it prove it does cause cancer. The groundskeeper just about took a bath in this stuff and would be considered a commercial user.
I’m. Not disagreeing with you.
1.) Patients with substantial documented Round-up exposure probably can get some compensation from these settlements. What I get nervous about is that people may get in the middle of a situation when they really need to psychologically need to step away from all of this. After all, CLL is not a cake-walk.
Even the tone of this conversation is a bit intense. Sorry, but it is.
2.) I’m just stressing that the legal world can be stressful for people of certain personality types. The legal system defines it that way, not the lawyers. ‘Personally” its never been my preference to enter that world, yet when necessary, I have. Any kind of legal action is NOT tranquil.
3.). Nothing wrong with lawyers. Nothing wrong with lawyers who make a lot of money. Its not easy to do for anyone. Nothing wrong with Anyone who makes or has a lot of money. It is overrated, however.
Again, CLL is the great equalizer. No matter how wealthy you are, CLL sucks - and (beyond a point) no amount of money will get you better treatment. If anything, CLL is a stark reminder to simply live life and enjoy it.
Now, to dispel any preconceptions you may have about me - I was a scientist, got tired of it and moved on. The training remains, as it was an 11 year marathon which is hard to forget.
My point about proving causation is that a scientific proof would require many years of experimentation (in the lab and with people). In this case, it would be unethical and too expensive to bother. Then again causation for legal purposes is determined for totally different reasons and in a very different way. Both are valid.
Now can we just move on? It’s hard enough to have CLL - as you know very well. I didn’t try to attack you, and if it seems that way - then I apologize.
I will reiterate, however, that a legal environment is not for everyone. O.K.?
Really good summary, as usual, Jeff. Only slight difference is that the mediator contests that 8 billion was ever put on the table, which is odd because Bayer’s (the corporation that bought Monsanto) stock went up on the news that it *was* on the table.
Pay attention to the word ‘Compensation’. I was told you have to have lost something to be compensated. As in monetary from job loss or paying for meds. We have been contacted by a law firm in Texas (we live in Florida)
and at that time there would be no grounds for a lawsuit. Probably not now either since Hubby is in Clinical Trial and has retired but still works
part-time. He used Roundup in our yard over the years.
Best,
Linda
I have never used Roundup or eaten GMO foods in my entire life, but have CLL. So it may be very difficult to demonstrate correlation, let alone causation. If I was defending Roundup, it would be the first argument I would use.
However, I don't defend Roundup because the evidence of glyphosate toxicity in food and garden and agricultural use is well established in scientific circles. The legal profession have a more difficult challenge ahead.
Well we can speculate how hard causation might be to prove. But we don’t have to in round up case, three cases have gone to trial all with verdicts against Monsanto in the amounts of 2 billion, 289 million and eighty million. So not only did the plaintiffs prove causation to the satisfaction of three different juries, it’s highly likely when you see verdicts of this size that bad faith was proven as well.
There are many people who never smoked cigarettes and got lung cancer. Nevertheless the link between lung cancer and cigarettes is quite easily proved.
Now different states can have different burdens of causation. Typically the plaintiffs will want to try a case where the damages were incurred in a state with relaxed causation laws and the defendants in states with strict causation rules.
Someone who lives in a state where causation will be hard to prove based on the way their causation law is worded, might still have an attorney file a suit for him or her. It appears there will be a very large settlement and if there is one causation will be assumed based on criteria that likely treat cases from different states the same.
Yep - that makes sense if different states have different laws.
Here in Australia, there are numerous local level campaigns to encourage Councils to desist from using Roundup in parks, public areas, kerbsides etc.
I think they are investigating alternative chemicals for weed control, and I expect they'll make a change.
There is also a campaign against the big hardware stores selling Roundup. The average homeowner isn't aware of the potential damage they are doing to themselves spraying the stuff around their gardens.
I think it's just a fund raising campaign so lawyers can buy more boats and second homes. I bet I haven't used more than two gallons of Roundup in the 63 years of my life leading to my 2012 diagnosis with CLL. I don't have a clue what caused it but don't buy that little bit of roundup could have done it.
I think its fair to assume most attorneys who are in round up cases are in it for the profit, not some altruistic reason. If you went to an attorney with the limited amount of exposure to round you describe, your case might not be taken anyway. There are other causes for cll than round up, it would seem with your exposure proving causation in your case would be hard. I do not know the science involved, but it certainly does not seem to me that with the exposure you describe that round up caused you to have cll.
But some people use round up regularly in their yards. Farmers can use round up by the gallons. People who live near fields that are crop dusted with round up can have serious exposures.
I don't think someone who has lung cancer and smoked a few packs of cigarettes in their lives likely had their cancer caused by tobacco. I think a lot of attorneys involved in tobacco cases were doing so to make large profits.
That deosnt mean tobacco doesn't cause cancer. I honestly do not know enough about the competing science claims to know how compelling the evidence is that round up causes cancer. I assume with the verdicts so far that juries listening to experts on both sides are convinced round up causes cancer. That doesn't mean the juries are right, it probably does mean the plaintiffs are presenting compelling evidence.
I would not conclude, as you seem to do, that because lawyers are trying to make money off round up cases means the allegations are not true. Both things could be true, that is, the lawyers are in the case to make money and that round up is a dangerous, cancer causing chemical.
I joined it - used it every year from about 24 years ago until a few years ago - i sign a release and fill out paperwork and have not found it stressful. I am not looking for a big payout but if they compensate me the $ i pay for medical bills i would think that is fair. They should be held accountable.
I lived in Arizona at the time of my diagnosis in a housing development. We had cotton fields that were sprayed with roundup near by. The attractor would fly over our houses. We were doused quite heavily and often. Yes I joined the lawsuit.
As a grape grower I have had heavy exposure. I don't have a lot of faith in the tort law system. Basically 51% of the jury has to be convinced and it don't matter how realistic it is as long as a judge don't overturn it on some procedural grounds. I'm not convinced it is a problem but I think it's possible. Incidently, glyphosate leaves no risidual in the ground. You have to get it on your skin or in your lungs to even get any of it in your bloodstream.
Well, there is a new EPA direction that cancer warnings cannot be placed on glyphosate packages which gives Monsanto, now Bayer, more leverage in cases.
I used Round Up on my rocks both front and back yards for weeds (I live in Arizona) and did for years. I also worked for a lawn care company in their office from 1980 to 1982 and breathed the fumes. I can trace the beginning of my CLL to about 1997 when my lymphs were higher than just from an infection. The doctor I saw when I questioned him said, 'oh that's nothing' and five years after that my lymphs and neutrophils were upside down. That was 2002. My WBC and RBC were in the normal range, but I know it was the beginning. During that time I had numerous blood draws and not one doctor said anything. I have documentation of these draws. I was diagnosed in 2012. So, did I get a ten year reprieve or should some doctor along the line have looked below the WBC and RBC to see things were wonky with my blood? Back to the Round Up case. I've seen the advertisements for people to call lawyers and I've been tempted. Don't know if I have enough evidence to support seeing one.
Some Dr along the line should have called out your abnormal CBC results and had it further looked into. My case was not as bad in that I had CLL "numbers" in 2015, but no one paid attention until 2018. I never understood why Drs order a CBC test but then don't pay attention to the results. I think medical staff are so pressed to keep time to a minimum that they ignore too many things.
When I eventually went to the Dr who is now my CLL specialist, he told me that it is very common for Drs to ignore elevated lymphocyte counts for years. That it was common surprised me also.
I think doctors are not doing their job. To not look at the whole picture in a CBC is incompetence. They seem to look only at the WBC and RBC and if okay send you on your way. In my case that is what happened, over and over. Life is good now, so you can't change anything. Carole
Incompetence and perhaps ignorance. Hematology likely is beyond their scope of practice and they simply just ignore it because they have no idea of what to do with it if it is problematic.
Thanks for the reply, but I think most doctors are so busy and want to get on to their next patient that they just look at the most likely cause of disease which would be something wrong with the WBC and RBC. As I said, over and over from 2002 on my neutrophils and lymphs were not right and not one doctor and I had a couple of hospital visits, said anything to me. This is why we have to be our own best advocate. Learn as much as you can about your blood work and especially about CLL.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
CLL
Hi everyone
I have only just joined , so am new to this .
I was diagnosed with CLL in September, a...
CLL and Peripheral Neuropathy
Has anyone with on this group been diagnosed with Peripheral Neuropathy? I’m in agony & my dr is...
CLL and Dizzy spells
My sister is 42 diagnosed with CLL unmutated in Sep 2017 she is on a watch and wait. We are new to...
Hip replacement and cll
In 2003 I had double hip replacement, I'm wondering if there there is any relationship with cll?...
CLL and skin cancer
I am wondering if others are having difficulty with skin cancers if they have CLL.
Not sure if the...
CLL and Osteomyelitis 
Shingles on face and head with CLL
CLL and Crohn's Disease 
Sepsis and CLL
CLL and sinus
