• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • Podcast
  • Full Measure
  • Blog
  • Donate
  • "Slanted" Preorder here

Sharyl Attkisson

Untouchable Subjects. Fearless, Nonpartisan Reporting.

  • US
  • World
  • Business
  • Health
    • Vaccine, Medical links
  • Special Investigations
    • Attkisson v. DOJ
    • Benghazi
    • "Collusion v. Trump" TL
    • Fake News
    • Fast and Furious
    • Media Mistakes on Trump
    • Obama Surveillance TL
    • Obamacare

Sharyl Attkisson

US intel, Romney figure joined board of Ukraine gas company: Burisma

Joseph Cofer Black

According to an article published in the Huffington Post shortly after President Trump was inaugurated, a former top CIA official joined the board of Burisma, Ukraine's largest provider of natural gas.

Burisma is the oil and gas company at the center of a controversy about former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, who also served on Burisma's board.

The article says that Joseph Cofer Black would be "leading the company’s security and strategic development efforts." Black had served in various CIA positions under Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush.

According to reports, Cofer Black was a "top Romney aide."

Read the full article by clicking the link below.

A former CIA Director joins Burisma

Related article: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/top-romney-adviser-worked-with-hunter-biden-on-board-of-ukrainian-energy-company/

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Puerto Rico Hurricane Aid: We Follow the Money...and Fraud (PODCAST)

We dug deep to find the real numbers. How much U.S. tax money has Puerto Rico received two years after its double hurricanes? And why is the FBI arresting so many Puerto Rican officials, contractors and federal FEMA officials?

Click the arrow below to listen. Also subscribe to the "Full Measure After Hours" podcast and "The Sharyl Attkisson Podcast" on iTunes or your favorite distributor!

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Puerto Rico: hurricane relief, fraud, and FBI arrests

Finding out how much U.S. tax money has actually been sent to the territory of Puerto Rico for hurricane recovery... and where it's gone... is no easy task. This week, Full Measure tackles that challenge with a trip to the island.

One of our scenic views on the beautiful island of Puerto Rico

How much aid has really gotten to the Puerto Ricans who need it? And why have so many Puerto Rican officials and contractors been arrested by the FBI?

We'll also tell you why the FBI has arrested some Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officials. Watch our cover story investigation Sunday on Full Measure.

UT Professor Alberto Martinez helps Full Measure dissect the hurricane aid numbers in Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico resident Brenda Castro lives in a house that was mostly destroyed, but has received no federal assistance

Also this week, what happens to all of the people who cross into the U.S. illegally -- once they're released? They often have no money, no phone and can't speak English.

Some of them go to volunteer refugee centers for help. We take you inside one such center in Arizona where we speak to a woman who says she jumped the fence that very morning with her disabled son. 

Another story we will report pierces the veil of secrecy when it comes to who really writes the laws you have to follow in the state where you live. (It's not pretty.)

And from our trip to Northern Ireland, an interesting footnote about the Titanic! Learn how to find our program below!

We never waste your time rehashing news you've already seen all week. To learn how to watch Full Measure on TV, online or on demand, click: How to watch Full Measure

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Unscientific poll: Most say anti-Trump "whistleblower" has committed crime

More than three-quarters (78%) of those who responded to the latest unscientific poll at SharylAttkisson.com said they believe the anti-Trump "whistleblower" has committed a crime.

And about 2% of respondents said they believe the "whistleblower" has uncovered a crime.

A significant minority, about 19%, said they don't believe the person has committed or uncovered a crime-- or aren't sure about it.

Vote now in our new poll on the home page at SharylAttkisson.com. Look for the black box on the right sidebar or scroll way down on the mobile site.

Re: The anti-Trump "whistleblower"...

2% ...has uncovered a crime

78% ...has committed a crime

20% None of the above/Not sure

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Talcum powder: A sprinkle of doubt

You may have heard about the lawsuits regarding the dangers allegedly associated with baby powder or other powder containing "talc." What's it all about? Read my Full Measure investigation below.

Deane Berg: I was about 16 years old. My mother had recommended it to me because of chafing problems in the heat in the summertime.

Deane Berg was among the millions of women who use talcum powder on their genital area for freshness.

Sharyl: Was it baby powder?

Berg: Sometimes it was baby powder. Other times it was the Shower to Shower, because that came out and it was specifically for women. "A sprinkle a day keeps the odor away."

TV Ad: A sprinkle a day keeps the odor away.

Berg: And so I just thought it was perfectly safe to use and they were marketing it quite a bit.

Sharyl: And how many years did this go on?

Berg: Until I got cancer, when I was 49.

Even though she’s a physician’s assistant, Berg knew nothing about the possible risks of that sprinkle a day.

TV Ad: Have you had your sprinkle today?

When she got cancer, she did her own research and was shocked to find longstanding studies suggesting a link between talc and ovarian cancer.

Sharyl: Why do you think it is that someone inside the medical industry wasn't even aware of this?

Berg: There really was nothing in the public at all about this, and even my gynecologist had never heard of that before.

Talc is the world’s softest mineral and a multi-billion-dollar a year industry. It’s used in plastics, antiperspirants, cosmetics, gum, medicine, soap, toothpaste and baby powder.

TV Ad: Johnsons Baby Powder, a feeling you never outgrow.

The debate over the safety of talc goes back decades. There’s already a warning that it could cause breathing problems if inhaled. Dr. Daniel Cramer says there may be other risks. A professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Harvard Medical School, he was first to find a statistical link between talc and ovarian cancer in a 1982 study.

Dr. Daniel Cramer: It has taken 25 years of additional literature I believe to make the case, but I believe we were on target in that study and that the subsequent studies have supported there is an elevated risk. We reported that the risk might be as high as a two-fold increase in risk if they had more than, say, 20 years of talc use.

Dr. Cramer testified as a paid expert in the trial of Deane Berg, who became the first ovarian cancer victim to sue America’s number one baby powder maker: Johnson and Johnson.

Talc can get into womens’ reproductive tract, testified Dr. Cramer, and trigger the cancer process, especially in long term users like Berg, who says she sprinkled on powder every day for more than 30 years.

Dr. Cramer: Talc is a potent inflammatory agent, and if it's able to reach the pelvic cavity, I think it is capable of inducing an inflammatory response.

Berg: They took my pathology report and my slides with my tissue and did further research on it, and it came back definitely showing talcum in my ovaries.

Berg: This was a shot that was taken on Mother's Day of 2007, when I had absolutely no hair.

Berg says Johnson and Johnson offered her a half million dollars to avoid trial.

Berg: I didn't like the attitude of the people that were there from Johnson & Johnson. It was almost like a brush-off. And the more I thought about it, I said, "Well, I didn't go into this just to make a million dollars." I said, "I wanna get the warning out there. Aren't you gonna do anything about that?” And so they went up to $1.3 million. And I finally said, "I'll see you in court in September," and walked out of the room.

Berg won her trial in 2013, but without explanation, the jury didn’t require Johnson and Johnson to pay her a penny.

Berg: They were proven guilty of negligence for failing to warn me about it, but there was no damages awarded to me, which was quite a shock in the sense of six months of no work, the pain of chemotherapy, hysterectomy, and permanent hearing loss, nerve damage.

Even without a cash award, Berg’s landmark victory set off panic in the talc industry and a torrent of new lawsuits.

TV Ad: Attention: Women who have used Talc based personal care products

TV Ad: Talcum powder has been linked to ovarian cancer and death...

In the past 13 months, ovarian cancer victims have won three major victories worth $197 million. Victims’ attorneys argued Johnson and Johnson knew about “30 years of studies showing an increased risk of ovarian cancer,” but failed to warn the public.

Johnson and Johnson wouldn’t agree to an interview, but says its products are safe and supported by decades of scientific evidence, that studies linking talc to cancer are flawed, and quote, “if there was the slightest risk to our consumers we would be the first to withdraw the product”.

The world’s leading talc producer, Imerys, wouldn’t agree to an interview, but referred us to American Tort Reform Association, a trade group supported in part by the talc industry. Darren McKinney is a spokesman.

Sharyl: What is your group or the talc industry's point of view in general in terms of the alleged association between talcum powder and ovarian cancer?

Darren McKinney: The American Tort Reform Association does not believe that credible medical and scientific authorities have, in fact they have not determined a causal link between the use, the cosmetic, external use of talcum powder with ovarian cancer.

Jurors may have been persuaded otherwise by company documents revealed as evidence in the lawsuits. In 1997, a Johnson and Johnson consultant wrote a scathing letter, telling the company that “9 studiesdid show a statistically significant association between hygenic talc use and ovarian cancer” and “anybody who denies this, risks that the talc industry will be perceivedlikethe cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.”

Another court exhibit was this 2004 letter from the biggest talc producer to the FDA. It proposed voluntarily phasing-out talc for genital use. It even suggested an FDA warning, saying there was a “possible association” with “ovarian cancer.”

McKinney points out the FDA never required a warning.

McKinney: The FDA as recently within the last couple of years has made it very clear that the science, as the FDA sees it, simply does not merit such a warning at this time.

Sharyl: The FDA also did say, though, the growing body of evidence to support a possible association between genital talc exposure and serous ovarian cancer is difficult to dismiss?

McKinney: God bless 'em. And I don't know anyone who is arguing that what we know today about talcum powder use or chocolate consumption or red wine consumption is what we will believe 30 years from now. But based on what we know today, certainly the FDA believes and many of the rest of us believe that there's no reason to hold the makers or the sellers of talcum powder liable to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, much of which the plaintiffs' bar is going to greedily call its own.

McKinney says money-grubbing plaintiffs’ lawyers are descending upon a sympathetic court in St. Louis, Missouri, where the talc industry lost those three big cases, and where more than one-thousand more lawsuits are pending.

McKinney: They chose a giant, deep-pocket defendant who they assume would cower because it's ovarian cancer and they presumed they could extort tens of millions of dollars’ worth of a universal settlement, and that hasn't worked out. But when science is on your side, as the talc defendants insists it is here, we would argue that you ought to stick to your guns and you ought to fight if you believe you're right, and that's what the talc defendants are doing.

There was victory for the talc industry last September, when a judge threw out two cases in New Jersey, saying there was inadequate scientific support.

But Berg says there’s one piece of evidence from her trial that she can’t shake. While there’s no cancer warning on baby powder, believe it or not there is one on industrial talc before it’s sold to consumers.

Added in 2006, it reads, “perineal [genital] use of talc-based body powder is possibly carcinogenic to humans.”

Sharyl: The workers who handle the talc are warned about the cancer risk?

Berg: Right.

Sharyl: But then the women who put it on their bodies are not.

Berg: Correct. Yes. That was rather shocking.

Today Berg is recovering from her surgeries, chemotherapy and nerve damage. As the first ovarian cancer victim to win a talc lawsuit, she wants other women to know what she didn’t.

Berg: If people wanna continue to use it, that's their right, but at least have a warning label stating to women, there is this risk. So it's up to you to make the final decision.

Watch the video investigation by clicking the link below:

http://fullmeasure.news/news/cover-story/sprinkle-of-doubt

Another Trump court victory: his name will appear on California's 2020 ballot, after all

In a decision that President Trump complained was not widely reported, a federal judge has slapped down a California bill that attempted to keep Trump off the 2020 presidential ballot in the Golden State.

The bill in question was passed by California Democrats and signed by Governor Gavin Newsom. It required candidates to make public five years of tax returns to be able to appear on the 2020 primary ballot in California.

U.S. District Judge Morrison England, Jr. slammed the proposal in siding with Trump on Tuesday.

The dangerous precedent set by this act, allowing the controlling party in any state’s legislature to add substantive requirements as a precondition to qualifying for the state’s presidential primary ballot, should concern all candidates alike.

Morrison England, Jr., U.S. District Judge

England noted that the new law appears to have specifically targeted President Trump. England stated that the law violates the First Amendment rights of candidates.

I won the right to be a presidential candidate in California, in a major Court decision handed down yesterday. It was filed against me by the Radical Left Governor of that State to tremendous Media hoopla. The VICTORY, however, was barely covered by the Fake News. No surprise!

President Trump (tweet)

Read more about the story by clicking the link below:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/victory-trump-wins-2020-election-case-against-california-democrats-calls-out-media

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.

Majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents say primary goal of impeachment inquiry is to “politically damage Donald Trump’s presidency and his reelection.” (CBS poll)

The following is an excerpt from my news analysis at The Hill.

Ever since his inauguration, President Trump’s political opponents have been pushing to impeach him. They just hadn’t found the right excuse. In other words, they knew where they wanted to end up but they just hadn’t found the right vehicle to drive them down the road.

With the fuss over Ukraine, they may have found their vehicle, according to new polls.

Or have they? 

The latest CBS News poll headlined the findings that “Majority of Americans favor an impeachment inquiry into President Trump,” 55 percent to 45 percent.

But what if there’s more than meets the eye? Like many polls, there is plenty of fodder within the CBS News poll results to support either side. The trick is who does the reporting and which points they select to highlight.

What if it turns out there are many other headlines — and statistics — that could have been chosen from the same poll, ones that give an entirely different take on the situation?

Here’s one of them: “Majority of Americans in Democrat-heavy poll favor an impeachment inquiry into President Trump.”

Wouldn’t most Americans looking for unbiased information want the context that the poll interviewed more Democrats than Republicans?

A check of the poll data shows it interviewed 124 more Democrats than Republicans. That’s a statistically significant difference — 6 percentage points more Democrats than Republicans. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that Democrats and Republicans generally respond along party lines, a sample that looked at 6 percentage points more Republicans instead of Democrats would blow the “headline” that “a majority of Americans” favors the impeachment inquiry. It would, theoretically, change the pro-impeachment inquiry majority to a minority: 49 percent favoring the impeachment inquiry, and 51 percent opposing. (Continued...)

Read the rest of the article by clicking the link below:

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463751-deep-dive-into-poll-stats-would-show-what-americans-really-think-about

Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI

Poll: Congress, Trump and the big issues

New polling shows little confidence that Congress will address our major issues before the 2020.

According to Scott Rasmussen, 60% are skeptical and consider it unlikely that Congress will get anything accomplished. Just 29% of voters believe it is even somewhat likely that Congress will successfully address the major issues facing the nation before the 2020 elections.

The latest ScottRasmussen.com finding also show 40% of voters say Congress is too liberal. Fewer, 36%, believe it is too conservative.  That’s about the same as it was a month ago, when last checked.

Respondents also don't have a lot of faith that members of Congress care what we think.

The numbers indicate only 23% believe most members of Congress care about what their constituents think. Just 27% believe their own representative cares about what they think.

What are the biggest issues and who do people think handles them best?

Rasmussen says that health care and the economy have consistently remained the top two issues on the minds of voters all year. 

The Democrats enjoy a 14-point edge on health care (38% to 24%) while Republicans have a nine-point advantage on the economy (36% to 27%).

Republicans do better on National Security (36% to 26%), the third most important issue, fighting terrorism (35% to 25%) and job creation (36% to 29%).

Democrats have the big advantage on environmental issues (40% to 18%), Civil Rights (38% to 23%), Fighting Poverty (35% to 21%), Economic Inequality (33% to 22%), and abortion (35% to 27%).

The parties are essentially even on gun laws, taxes, and immigration.

When it comes to the Democrats' impeachment effort against Trump, "the president's job approval has remained remarkably stable."

By a narrow margin, people consistently say the country would be worse off if Hillary Clinton had won the 2016 election: 36% say the country would be better off with Clinton while 38% think things would be worse.

Fight improper government surveillance. Support Attkisson v. DOJ and FBI over the government computer intrusions of Attkisson's work while she was a CBS News investigative correspondent. Visit the Attkisson Fourth Amendment Litigation Fund. Click here.
« Previous Page
Next Page »

Primary Sidebar

Coming Soon

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Follow Sharyl Attkisson

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent Comments

  • Mickey Pullen on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Mike Marinak on Hydroxychloroquine: Politicizing Medicine (PODCAST)
  • Debunking “The Hotchkiss Republicans Report” - The Hotchkiss Record on "Collusion against Trump" timeline

Subscribe

Get the Latest Stories Straight to Your Inbox

Footer

Pages

  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Support
  • Contact

2ndary Pages

  • Full Measure Stations
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Subscribe to SharylAttkisson.com

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS

  • Attkisson v. DOJ/FBI
  • Benghazi
  • Fake News
  • Fast & Furious
  • Obamacare

Ad

Ad