Thousands of women are experiencing adverse reactions due to defective IUDs that are falling
apart upon removal and while the FDA alerted manufacturers about the dangers of these devices,
companies have been keeping it quiet. The media has been keeping it quiet when it comes
to informing patients about the risks. Attorney Stephen Luongo joins me now to talk about it.
You know, frankly, Steve, I got to tell you for ABC to cover this story, to have corporate media
ever cover a story where they got advertisers out there is really unusual, but ABC is the
only place we really found this story. Absolutely. And what we're talking
about is Paragard, is a IUD, IUD, the only hormone free one out there on the market,
there's five of them total. But they, they bill themselves and advertise themselves as the safe
hormone free alternative. What we're finding is that the women that have these devices, once they
try to get them removed, it's breaking apart, the arms are falling apart. They're being embedded
in their uterus and their cervix and then requiring follow-up surgery to remove that
and obviously causing tremendous pain and trauma. Well, yeah, aside from the pain, I mean, the pain
is obvious. If you have something embedded that they can't get out,
if it's migrating. Is there an issue of migration here where pieces or maybe migrating through
the body? We've seen that with other IUDs. We have. We've seen that in the lawsuits with
Mirena where migration was a major issue and the, the prevalent issue in that case. Here for us,
we do see some migration, the bigger issues that we are seeing with the
perforation of the organs, bodily organs there, the uterus sometimes resulting in
a hysterectomy and ultimately resulting in infertility, which is the exact opposite.
So, the doctor goes in. I got to remove the IUD and the reports that are coming
out, what are there 3000 or 3000 plus reports. Correct.
Where the thing has shattered, it's broken off. The doctor goes in, let's remove it.
And one of the arms, one of the arms on the IUD breaks off and is embedded in the tissue. And
they can't, you know, it's, it's major surgery to try to go in there and get it out, right?
Absolutely. And, and that's, that's the harm that has not been advertised to these women. They took
the product, they thought they were being safe. They thought they were protecting themselves.
This harm has not been advertised to them. They have not been warmed,
warned correctly for it, with dating back as you said, with the FDA telling the company at Teva
pharmaceuticals, a parent company that, hey, your advertisements are not sufficient. These
women are going out there not knowing the dangers and it is being embedded. It is causing damages.
Okay. So here's what the FDA could do if the FDA were actually functional, they're totally
dysfunctional. The FDA is a joke. They allowed this to go on for a very long time. They finally
said, you need to give a real warning, a black box warning that somebody can see, and the doctor
knows about it. The patient knows about it, that if you put this in your body, it could shatter,
break off and it can cause real systemic damage to you going forward. That's a black box warning. So
what they've tried to do is put it in small print. Doctor still is unaware of what the problems are.
They don't know about the 3000 plus problems. And, and the real issue comes down to the FDA
could recall this immediately and say, until you get it right, we're going to recall this product.
Absolutely. And the product, as you said, is still on the market as is in its normal form without
these proper warnings. The, the FDA warning that we talked about was for the television ads.
But this product is still out there. Women are still taking it and they're not knowing the risk.
But they, they could certainly recall it. The FDA right now is not even doing a full investigation
of it. That's why these lawsuits are out there trying to get public awareness and try to get
people out there to start stemming something. And the problem is if this ends up in front of a
judge who is an ideologue, okay, the ideologue is I,
I line up with corporate America. I don't really line up with consumers. You see it all the time.
Oh yeah. If it gets in front of an ideologue,
we've already seen where one ideologue judge has said, we're going to dismiss everything.
We're dismissing your case. Go, you know, go without any kind of recovery at all, right?
Absolutely. I mean, what you're talking about is what we mentioned earlier, the Mirena lawsuit,
that's exactly what happened there. We're hoping for different results in this lawsuit
to get public awareness up, to get in front of a good judge that will make the proper rulings
and to have success for these women. Yeah. Let's hope. I mean, this is,
this is an important case for these women. Thank you for joining me, Steve.
Yes, sir. Finally tonight,
some good news. They're looking at Zoom for private conferencing, $85 million fine for not
doing it right. Pick up this story would you. This is, you know, it was very disappointing
to read this story, but yes, Zoom like so many other people in the big tech industry
allowed people's data to be leaked, you know,
names, any, any kind of registration information. And then of course, one of the big ones,
Zoombombing, you know, allowing hackers because their cyber security was so lax to basically
hop on these private secure meetings. They throw pornography up on screen. They scream obscenities
because Zoom didn't protect people. But you know what, I do have to say in Zoom's defense a little
bit, you know, Zoom was kind of thrust into a situation. I mean, a year and a half ago,
nobody knew who the hell Zoom was. And then suddenly it became the go-to software for millions
of people because of the pandemic. So they were kind of caught off guard by their own success.
But they didn't take necessary steps to evolve. I mean, really, what kind of aberrational hacker
bonehead says, oh, I'm going to jump on here and scream obscenities. I mean, these are people I
guess, that still ride around on skateboards and read DC comic books, I don't know.
But you know, it's not something you'd anticipate, that it's somebody out in the public, some idiot
that doesn't have anything else to do says, hey, I think I'll hack a Zoom call today and scream
obscenities. It's, you know, I don't know, man. It is that the kind of thing you plan for? Maybe,
but anyway, I think they're going to get it right. I agree with you. It's been an extremely
important service that has risen to the occasion when the COVID, during the COVID shutdown.
And, and I'm glad they went ahead and agreed to this settlement. They're not out there objectively
trying to fight it too aggressively. They're not.
Kind of admitting to a degree look, maybe we made some mistakes, let's get this
right. Because look, there's a lot of corporations, the legal industry using
Zoom more and more. Zoom is here to stay, so they better make sure they get it right.
Thank you for joining me, Farron. Okay. Thank you.
That's all for tonight. Find us on Twitter and Facebook @facebook.com/rtamericaslawyer.
You can watch all RT America programs and DirecTV channel 321 and also stream them live on YouTube
and be sure to check out RT's new portable app, where you can watch all your favorite
shows all the time. I'm Mike Papantonio and this is America's Lawyer where every week we tell you
the stories that corporate media is ordered not to tell because their advertisers won't let them
or because of their political involvement. Have a great night.