Print Friendly and PDF

Merck vs Monsanto | Fighting for the Worst Company Award

Mike Barrett
November 15th, 2011
Updated 11/08/2012 at 8:44 pm
Pin It

investigation1 210x146 Merck vs Monsanto | Fighting for the Worst Company Award

Corporate giants Merck and Monsanto may very well be two of the greatest health-impacting companies in our world today. Unfortunately for the entire global population, the way in which these two mega corporations impact your health is considerably less than benevolent. Although many large corporations are riddled with deception and corruption, these two companies are the two top nominees for the grand prize of worst company award. Even though their messages appear helpful and promising, do they actually benefit humankind in any way? It may be time to reevaluate their place in our society and our world.

Let us take a look at the mission statements of both companies, as well as their commitments to “improving health” and aiding the world.

Vaccines Brought to You by Merck

From developing new therapies that treat and prevent disease to helping people in need, we’re committed to improving health and well-being around the world.

Our vision is to make a difference in the lives of people globally through our innovative medicines, vaccines, biologic therapies, consumer health and animal products.  We aspire to be the best healthcare company in the world and are dedicated to providing leading innovations and solutions for tomorrow.

We have made it our mission to provide innovative, distinctive products and services that save and improve lives and satisfy customer needs, to be recognized as a great place to work, and to provide investors with a superior rate of return.

Merck has been under the spotlight recently thanks to their controversial HPV vaccine Gardasil. The Gardasil vaccine has a very questionable timeline, riddled with corruption and devastating side effects. Shockingly, the HPV shot led to 3,589 harmful reactions and 16 deaths between May 2009 and September 2010 alone. Of the 3,589 adverse reactions, many were debilitating. Permanent disability was the result of 213 cases; 25 resulted in the diagnosis of Guillain-Barre Syndrome; there were 789 other “serious” reports according to FDA documents. To add icing on the cake, a California bill was passed that would mandate Gardasil and hepatitis B vaccinations for children as young as 12 — without parental consent.

Even more shocking is the fact that Merck has been pinned for bribery in order to pass the California Gardasil bill, giving financial incentives to key legislators in order to push the bill through.

But it looks like this information isn’t stopping consumers from buying into the shot. Merck is reporting a major increase in third-quarter profits due in part to the skyrocketing sales of death-linked HPV shot Gardasil – up 41 percent to $445 million thanks to government backing and a hugely successful yet deceptive ad campaign targeted at unsuspecting parents and children.

Of course Merck manufactures many other vaccines other than Gardasil. The danger behind these vaccines do not dampen, however, as nearly all vaccines contain toxic chemicals like aluminum, formaldehyde, triton X-100, thimerosal, and lead, to name a few. With vaccines leading to convulsions, killer nerve diseases, immune system disorders, and paralysis, you have to ask yourself: Is this profit-driven company responsible for so many vaccine-induced deaths really focused on bettering our society and our world?

Genetically Modified Food Brought to you by Monsanto

We will share knowledge and technology to advance scientific understanding, to improve agriculture and the environment, to improve crops, and to help farmers in developing countries.

We will use sound and innovative science and thoughtful and effective stewardship to deliver high-quality products that are beneficial to our customers and to the environment.

We will respect the religious, cultural, and ethical concerns of people throughout the world. The safety of our employees, the communities where we operate, our customers, consumers, and the environment will be our highest priority.

Monsanto’s phony mission is built around one main concept: Monsanto contributes to farming and agriculture in such a large way that everyone else benefits. The company seems to think that through planting genetically modified seeds and spraying crops with their number one selling pesticide, Roundup, society as well as the environment are better off. But are they truly contributing to our society and the world as a whole?

Well, Forbes magazine seemed to think so. In 2009, the popular magazine honored the company by declaring Monsanto company of the year. It seems that despite the genetic manipulation of our food found to be detrimental to our health, Forbes still remains a huge fan of biotech giant Monsanto. But while Forbes continues to honor the company, nations such as Hungary and Peru are taking a stand against the monopolizing, health-destroying company Monsanto by destroying 1000 acres of maize grown with genetically modified seeds and instituting a 10 year ban on all genetically modified foods.

Monsanto’s genetically modified crops have not only been shown to lead to liver and kidney problems as well as negatively impact fertility (~4:00), but they are also increasingly interfering with organic farmers’ ability to grow 100% organic crops. Genetically modified seeds are carried through the air and land on organic farms, making the already un-labeled GM foods even more difficult to pinpoint.

These GM seeds are often created to withstand Monsanto’s ever so popular pesticide, Roundup, which not only damages farmers’ soil, but also leads to super resistant weeds. Despite these facts, Monsanto may soon be able to conduct their own experiments on their genetically modified products as part of a two-year USDA experiment. Nothing positive could come out of a mega-corporation deciding if their own products cause environmental harm, especially when decades more are needed to see the true impact genetically modified foods have on the world.

Additional Sources:



About Mike Barrett:
2.thumbnail Merck vs Monsanto | Fighting for the Worst Company Award Google Plus Profile |Mike is the co-founder, editor, and researcher behind Natural Society. Studying the work of top natural health activists, and writing special reports for top 10 alternative health websites, Mike has written hundreds of articles and pages on how to obtain optimum wellness through natural health.

From around the web:

  • Ragnar

    Tar and feather all headquarters and lab personnel.

  • Randy

    Fraud, lies, deception and illusion…enough said!

  • Rob Thomas

    No matter who wins, make sure neither are buried in your 401(k) or 403(b) funds.

  • Scott

    I don't have an ax to grind in this debate, but my understanding is that virtually all medications can adversely impact some percentage (albeit small) of the population of users. Some people are (unknowingly) allergic to certain anti-biotics, chemotherapy patients suffer through many uncomfortable and painful side effects to obtain the intended therapeutic result, some people are allergic to aspirin, etc. My concern is with your conclusion that is largely based on 213 adverse reactions that resulted in permanent disability of some sort out of a population of . . . ? I suspect the total population of users is somewhere in excess of a million users and if true, that would say that at most 2/100th of 1% of users will experience some permanent disability. Should we dismiss the 99.98% of users who are now protected from developing the associated cancer? I suppose that's my point; if the number of people that benefit from a treatment is so statistically overwhelming positive, should the company be punished for the adverse outcomes that it could not have foreseen? This argument of course depends on the integrity of the clinical trials. But, if the trials have been conducted properly, observing both FDA regulations and best pharmaceutical research practices, you'll still have unforeseen results in a large population size. Although I find the suggestion that a HPV vaccination be mandated by the government somewhat Orwellian, your suggestion that the company has done more harm than good based on the above argument doesn't hold water.

    • Pat

      You are of course assuming all adverse reactions are being reported. There are emergency rooms flooded with people reacting to the flu vaccine. The majority go unreported to the CDC simply because there just isn't enough time or man power. We must become educated about real risk and not allow ourselves to be brain washed by slick advertising and propoganda.

      • Anonymous

        The documentation on not getting vaccines and deaths caused, disabilities, far outweighs any risks from the vaccines…but ignoring the facts and science seems to be the prevalent thought or lack of for the anti vaccine misinformation machine

        • Kerry Palanjian

          What on Earth are you referring to? Where is this "documentation" ? Every known ailment that was "addressed" by vaccines where on their way down significantly YEARS before the vaccines were introduced. They only show you the chart AFTER the ailments were going down, so it looks like the decreases were because of the vaccines. Talk about ignoring the facts and science.