A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind

A report claims that millions of lives have been saved in the past two decades due to ‘early detection’ of cancer and improved treatment, but is it true?

In what can only be described as a cancer industry propaganda push, mainstream news outlets are declaring triumphantly “More than 1.5 million cancer deaths averted in last two decades” (CBS),  “Cancer death tolls fall, millions saved” (ABC), and “A 22 Percent Drop in Cancer Mortality Saved 1.5 Million People.” (Science World Report).

Really? What is this based on?

These media flourishes are supposedly based on a report just published in the journal CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians titled, “Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2014,” which analyzed cancer treatment data from 3 sources: the National Cancer Data Base (NCDB), the SEER-Medicare linked database, and the SEER*Stat database.

However, if you actually take the time to read the research itself and read between the lines you will find it in no way justifies these optimistic characterizations; to the contrary, the national cancer outlook looks exceedingly bleak.

In the abstract summarization of the results, the first line reads:

“The number of cancer survivors continues to increase due to the aging and growth of the population and improvements in early detection and treatment.”

‘Early detection’ here refers to national screening programs such as x-ray mammography for breast cancer and PSA screening for prostate cancer, which we now know have not resulted in reduced mortality despite dramatically expanding ‘cancer diagnoses’ in the past few decades: a sure sign that the ‘cancers’ being diagnosed were never life-threatening and did not ‘save’ anyone from premature death; to the contrary, breast and prostate screenings have been the subject of great controversy because they have left behind millions of necessarily treated (read: harmed) individuals without resulting in any significant reductions in breast- and prostate-specific cancer mortality (prostate cancer mortality has actually increased!) — which is the only true measure of whether they are of benefit to the mostly asymptomatic populations being continually pressured through ‘awareness campaigns’ to undergo screening. An increasingly indubitable body of research shows that screening programs have dramatically increased the quantity of cancer diagnoses in healthy individuals, resulting in the illusion that they have been ‘saved’ through early detection, when in fact they have survived overdiagnosis and overtreatment and not cancer itself. This has falsely inflated the number of people ‘saved,’ which is reflected in the aforementioned outrageously distorted mainstream media headlines, while simultaneously obscuring the significant number of lives that have been lost due to the ineffectiveness of conventional treatment.

Consider that a ‘cancer survivor’ is anyone who was diagnosed with cancer who is still alive 5 years later.

Whether or not a newly identified prostate or breast cancer case was a victim of overdiagnosis is nowhere accounted for in these statistics. In other words, if a person who was identified through ‘early detection’ to have life-threatening cancer actually had a benign lesion, and then went on to be ‘treated’ anyway, they are not surviving cancer but rather the unnecessary surgery, chemotherapy and radiation they received. And yet they are lumped into the ‘survivor’ category nonetheless, even if they should be considered a victim of iatrogenesis and medical abuse.

Last year a study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealing that in the past three decades 1.3 million women in the U.S. were wrongly diagnosed with breast cancer when in fact they had a benign condition known as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS).  DCIS lesions rarely if ever progress to cause harm nor death, but this was not factored into the data analysis of the latest report in question.  The report stated that “14.5 million Americans with a history of cancer were alive on January 1, 2014,” but it did not qualify the statement by acknowledging the great burden of cancer diagnoses that are now known to be intrinsically benign, e.g. ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) “breast cancers” and high-grade intraepithelial prostatic neoplasia (HGPIN) “prostate cancer” were identified in 2012 by a National Cancer Institute commissioned expert working group to be misclassified as “cancer” and which they recommended should be reclassified as benign lesions of epithelial origin, presumably better left untreated. This reclassification of certain ‘cancers’ to benign growths also encompasses so-called papillary carcinomas of the thyroid, a fundamentally harmless nodular growth the conventional medical establishment still calls thyroid cancer and treats aggressively.

What this essentially means is that instead of taking responsibility for the medical-induced harm (iatrogenesis) that breast, prostate and thyroid screening incurs, the conventional medical establishment counts these overdiagnosed cases as treatment successes (‘live saving’), despite the untold harm, physical and psychological, these diagnoses and subsequent unnecessary treatments exacted on their victims.  This unethical ‘oversight’ resulted in expanding the number of ‘cancer survivors’ far beyond those who were actually ‘saved from cancer.’

The report stated:

“The 3 most common prevalent cancers among males are prostate cancer(43%), colorectal cancer (9%), and melanoma (8%), and those among females are cancers of the breast (41%), uterine corpus (8%), and colon and rectum (8%).”

Considering that the primary cancers afflicting women (breast) and men (prostate) are the most overdiagnosed, the truth is that this report falsely represented the data, essentially covering up the medical tragedy, or worse, malfeasance that still goes on daily in thousands of hospitals around the world. After all, the profit generated by diagnosis and treatment of ‘cancer’ far exceeds most other disease diagnoses.

The report did acknowledge the extremely high survivorship rates of those diagnosed with so-called ‘early stage’ (aka localized) breast cancer:

“The 5-year relative survival rate for women diagnosed with localized breast cancer is 98.6%”

Why is that? One view is that localized (i.e. ductal carcinoma in situ) isn’t breast cancer at all, and therefore the relatively high 98.6% survivorship reflects the fact that these woman aren’t surviving cancer at all, rather, they survived an unnecessary treatment for an intrinsically benign condition. They are, in essence, surviving medical abuse motivated by shameless profiteering (e.g. breast cancer industry and cancer drug manufacturer funded pinkwashing campaigns to promote ‘early detection’ via mammography screening that result in converting healthy women into patients without proper biological justification).

The propaganda evidenced by this report, and the mainstream media amplifications of it, are extremely misleading. Trillions of dollars of liability rests on the shoulders of the conventional cancer industry for falsely diagnosing and (i.e. abusing) women and men with cancers they never had. Additionally, those who have fallen victim to unnecessary treatment often suffer from Stockholm syndrome, identifying with their aggressors, and then becoming willing brand ambassadors of ‘early detection’ via pinkwashing styled fund-raising campaigns (e.g. Susan G. Komen marches) to fear, for instance, other healthy, asymptomatic women into subjecting their breasts to highly carcinogenic x-ray wavelengths in the interest of ‘finding cancer early.’

In a world dominated by what can only be described as violent, almost pornographic marketing copy, e.g. Susan G. Komen sponsored PINK fracking drill bits, and KFC ‘Buckets for the Cure,’ it is the responsibility of all of us to take back control of our health and read behind the increasingly absurd mainstream news headlines. If you believe your breasts, prostate, thyroid, or whatever body part is increasingly targeted for cancer screening, are more than just an inevitable locus of carcinogensis, please join the growing movement to take back control of your health, starting with acknowledging that with clean food, water, and air, health is obtainable and your birthright.

Learn about authentic cancer solutions by watching the Functional Forum video (2 hour long) on ‘The Evolution of Oncology,’ featuring a panel discussion with our founder, Sayer Ji, at 48:00.

© April 21, 2018 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

The post A DIRE WARNING: The Cancer Industry Owns The Media And Your Mind appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda

By Jon Rappoport, No More Fake News | 

Cure disease or alter humans?

“Researchers say they’re well on the way to curing thousands of diseases by tinkering with human genes. But is that true? Or is their effort really part of a long-range agenda to keep experimenting in the dark, through grotesque trial and error, to alter humans and make them into a new species?” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

With the onrush of new gene-editing techniques, the medical research establishment is beating an old drum: they will cure many human diseases by making genetic changes.

First of all, the new editing techniques have unknown consequences. A simple snip of a gene can bring on ripples in the patient’s overall genetic structure. This fact spells danger.

Second, and here is the old drum: there are a number of diseases caused by a problem with a single gene—one gene, one disease. Therefore, a precise edit of the offending gene will cure the disease.

But is this one-gene one-disease hypothesis actually true?

If so, we should already have seen these cures. But we haven’t.

I’m not talking about the occasional claim of a single cure in a single patient. I’m talking about curing a specific disease across the board in many, many patients.

It hasn’t happened.

Here is a very interesting quote from the book, “Understanding Genetics: A District of Columbia Guide for Patients and Health Professionals,” published by the District of Columbia Department of Health:

“Some of the more common single-gene disorders include cystic fibrosis, hemochromatosis, Tay-Sachs, and sickle cell anemia…However, despite advancements in the understanding of genetic etiology and improved diagnostic capabilities, no treatments are available to prevent disease onset or slow disease progression for a number of these disorders.”

Is it “a number of these disorders,” or “all these disorders?”

Let’s see the evidence that single-gene therapy has cured ANY disease across the board.

It isn’t forthcoming.

And since it isn’t, the hypothesis that there are single-gene disorders is at best unproven. Speculative.

Let’s say that for Disease X, researchers have found that, in every case, there is a particular gene that is malfunctioning. The researchers claim, “Well, that’s it, we’ve found the cause of X.” But have they? HOW DO THEY KNOW THERE AREN’T OTHER ESSENTIAL CAUSATIVE FACTORS INVOLVED?

There is a simple test. Correct the malfunctioning gene and watch thousands of cures for X.

Until that occurs, the hypothesis is up in the air. It’s interesting, it’s suggestive, but it isn’t verified. Not by a long shot.

Consider this typically absurd claim from medicine.net: “There are more than 6,000 known single-gene disorders, which occur in about 1 out of every 200 births. These disorders are known as monogenetic disorders (disorders of a single gene).”

Again, how would the authors show that even one of these supposedly 6000 disorders is caused by the malfunctioning of a single gene?

Cure the disease by correcting the gene.

“Well, ahem, we don’t have the technology to do that yet, because we aren’t sure our therapy would be entirely safe. We might bring about dangerous unintended consequences in the patient…”

Fine. Then don’t make the claim that you know a single gene is the cause.

Ah, but you see, the medical research establishment wants to jump the gun. Making bold claims makes them look good. It brings them a great deal of funding.

And it also deflects and stops research that would discover other causes of disease—for example, environmental causes connected to gross corporate pollution. Chemical pollution. The harmful effects of pesticides. And the harmful effects of toxic medical drugs. And vaccines.

“No, no, no. Let’s just say disease is, at bottom, genetic. It doesn’t matter what else is happening.”

The Holy Grail for genetic research would be: “We can cure any harmful impact brought on by environmental toxicity. It’s all in the genes. Major corporations can do whatever they want to, and there will be no danger. There never was any danger. We just needed to advance to the stage where we could correct damage to the genes. And now we’re there.”

They’re not there. They’re not even close. Whether they will ever get close is a matter of sheer speculation.

Here is an extreme but instructive analogy: Imagine that when it rains, an acutely toxic compound falls to Earth. A man stands out in the rain as the poison descends. Researchers assert that the rain isn’t the problem. It’s the man’s body. His body is built to “react negatively” to the poison. Rebuilding his body will make him immune to the poison. Who knows how much sheer trial-and-error rebuilding is necessary? Perhaps he will need to become non-human to survive. So be it.

This approach is part and parcel of the trans-human agenda. Don’t stop the poison. Make the human impervious.

If, in the process, he loses everything that makes him unique and free, that is just collateral damage.

But no matter how many changes are wrought in the human, the poison is still poison. Until, finally, the human is a machine—and then the poison has no effect.

Neither does life. Life has no effect. The machine is adjusted. It survives. It is no longer alive, and that is called victory.

If you think I’m exaggerating transhumanism beyond all possibility, contemplate this statement made by Gregory Stock, former director of the prestigious program in Medicine, Technology, and Society at the UCLA School of Medicine:

“Even if half the world’s species were lost [during genetic experiments], enormous diversity would still remain. When those in the distant future look back on this period of history, they will likely see it not as the era when the natural environment was impoverished, but as the age when a plethora of new forms—some biological, some technological, some a combination of the two—burst onto the scene. We best serve ourselves, as well as future generations, by focusing on the short-term consequences of our actions rather than our vague notions about the needs of the distant future.”

The basis for such lunacy is the presumption that The Individual isn’t important, and never was.

Whereas, The Individual is all-important.

A sane society would exist and operate on behalf of The Individual.

It isn’t the other way around.

---

Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29^th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

The post Gene Therapy and the Trans-Human Agenda appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Interstitium: The New Human Organ You Didn’t Know You Had

(The Real Agenda News) Researchers at the University School of Medicine in New York identified a previously unknown component of the human body that they classify as a new organ.

The interstitium, as it is called, is a network of cavities filled with liquid that lies under the skin and covers many other organs.

Until now scientists believed there was an “interstitial space” between the cells, but not that it was an organ.

It went unnoticed because the ducts seem empty and flattened completely when fixing the anatomical samples in microscope slides, giving the impression of a dense and solid tissue.

Scientists suggest that the interstitium could act as a buffer, to prevent tearing tissue by the movement of muscles, viscera and blood vessels.

As described in the journal Scientific Reports, the cavities are formed by an external structure of collagen and elastin, two proteins that give it resistance and elasticity, respectively.

In addition, the fluid produced by the interstitial cells feeds the lymphatic system, responsible for generating the inflammatory response and maintaining the white blood cells of the immune system.

The interstitium is under the skin, between the muscles and in the lining of the lungs, blood vessels, the digestive system and the excretory system.

By connecting almost the entire body through cavities with fluid in motion, scientists believe that it can play an important role in the proliferation of cancer.

In addition, the authors of the study explain that, with age, the deterioration of the proteins that form the external structure of the cavities can contribute to the formation of wrinkles in the skin, rigidity of the extremities and the progression of fibrosis and sclerosing or inflammatory diseases.

The discovery has the potential to drive radical advances in medicine, including the possibility that taking samples of interstitial fluid becomes a powerful diagnostic tool. 

Along with the skin, the interstitium is one of the largest organs in the body.

Doctors David Carr-Locke and Petros Benias observed the cavities of the interstitium for the first time in 2015, while examining the bile ducts of a cancer patient, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital.

They were able to see them thanks to a technique known as confocal laser endomicroscopy, in which a flexible tube equipped with a laser and sensors that detect fluorescent reflections from the tissues are inserted into the body.

In this way, they could appreciate the hollow spaces that disappear under the microscope.

Researchers repeated the laser endomicroscopy scan during 12 operations of the pancreas and bile ducts.

They also took biopsies of these tissues to learn how to identify the crushed cavities of the interstitium in microscope slides.

Thanks to these samples, they have been able to identify the presence of the interstitium throughout the body, where the tissues undergo compression or are subject to the movement of nearby organs.

Scientists have not yet been able to identify the cells lining the cavities, although they suggest that they might be necessary to create and maintain the collagen walls.

Scientists point out that they could also be mesenchymal stem cells, which contribute to the healing response.

The post Interstitium: The New Human Organ You Didn’t Know You Had appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Interstitium: The New Human Organ You Didn’t Know You Had

(The Real Agenda News) Researchers at the University School of Medicine in New York identified a previously unknown component of the human body that they classify as a new organ.

The interstitium, as it is called, is a network of cavities filled with liquid that lies under the skin and covers many other organs.

Until now scientists believed there was an “interstitial space” between the cells, but not that it was an organ.

It went unnoticed because the ducts seem empty and flattened completely when fixing the anatomical samples in microscope slides, giving the impression of a dense and solid tissue.

Scientists suggest that the interstitium could act as a buffer, to prevent tearing tissue by the movement of muscles, viscera and blood vessels.

As described in the journal Scientific Reports, the cavities are formed by an external structure of collagen and elastin, two proteins that give it resistance and elasticity, respectively.

In addition, the fluid produced by the interstitial cells feeds the lymphatic system, responsible for generating the inflammatory response and maintaining the white blood cells of the immune system.

The interstitium is under the skin, between the muscles and in the lining of the lungs, blood vessels, the digestive system and the excretory system.

By connecting almost the entire body through cavities with fluid in motion, scientists believe that it can play an important role in the proliferation of cancer.

In addition, the authors of the study explain that, with age, the deterioration of the proteins that form the external structure of the cavities can contribute to the formation of wrinkles in the skin, rigidity of the extremities and the progression of fibrosis and sclerosing or inflammatory diseases.

The discovery has the potential to drive radical advances in medicine, including the possibility that taking samples of interstitial fluid becomes a powerful diagnostic tool. 

Along with the skin, the interstitium is one of the largest organs in the body.

Doctors David Carr-Locke and Petros Benias observed the cavities of the interstitium for the first time in 2015, while examining the bile ducts of a cancer patient, at Mount Sinai Beth Israel Hospital.

They were able to see them thanks to a technique known as confocal laser endomicroscopy, in which a flexible tube equipped with a laser and sensors that detect fluorescent reflections from the tissues are inserted into the body.

In this way, they could appreciate the hollow spaces that disappear under the microscope.

Researchers repeated the laser endomicroscopy scan during 12 operations of the pancreas and bile ducts.

They also took biopsies of these tissues to learn how to identify the crushed cavities of the interstitium in microscope slides.

Thanks to these samples, they have been able to identify the presence of the interstitium throughout the body, where the tissues undergo compression or are subject to the movement of nearby organs.

Scientists have not yet been able to identify the cells lining the cavities, although they suggest that they might be necessary to create and maintain the collagen walls.

Scientists point out that they could also be mesenchymal stem cells, which contribute to the healing response.

The post Interstitium: The New Human Organ You Didn’t Know You Had appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025

By Alliance For Natural Health | 

Why? Evidence points to glyphosate toxicity from the overuse of Monsanto’s Roundup herbicide on our food.

For over three decades, Stephanie Seneff, PhD, has researched biology and technology, over the years publishing over 170 scholarly peer-reviewed articles. In recent years she has concentrated on the relationship between nutrition and health, tackling such topics as Alzheimer’s, autism, and cardiovascular diseases, as well as the impact of nutritional deficiencies and environmental toxins on human health.

At a [recent] conference, in a special panel discussion about GMOs, she took the audience by surprise when she declared, “At today’s rate, by 2025, one in two children will be autistic.” She noted that the side effects of autism closely mimic those of glyphosate toxicity, and presented data showing a remarkably consistent correlation between the use of Roundup on crops (and the creation of Roundup-ready GMO crop seeds) with rising rates of autism. Children with autism have biomarkers indicative of excessive glyphosate, including zinc and iron deficiency, low serum sulfate, seizures, and mitochondrial disorder.

A fellow panelist reported that after Dr. Seneff’s presentation, “All of the 70 or so people in attendance were squirming, likely because they now had serious misgivings about serving their kids, or themselves, anything with corn or soy, which are nearly all genetically modified and thus tainted with Roundup and its glyphosate.”

Dr. Seneff noted the ubiquity of glyphosate’s use. Because it is used on corn and soy, all soft drinks and candies sweetened with corn syrup and all chips and cereals that contain soy fillers have small amounts of glyphosate in them, as do our beef and poultry since cattle and chicken are fed GMO corn or soy. Wheat is often sprayed with Roundup just prior to being harvested, which means that all non-organic bread and wheat products would also be sources of glyphosate toxicity. The amount of glyphosate in each product may not be large, but the cumulative effect (especially with as much processed food as Americans eat) could be devastating. A recent study shows that pregnant women living near farms where pesticides are applied have a 60% increased risk of children having an autism spectrum disorder.

Other toxic substances may also be autism-inducing. You may recall our story on the CDC whistleblower who revealed the government’s deliberate concealment of the link between the MMR vaccine (for measles, mumps, and rubella) and a sharply increased risk of autism, particularly in African American boys. Other studies now show a link between children’s exposure to pesticides and autism. Children who live in homes with vinyl floors, which can emit phthalate chemicals, are more likely to have autism. Children whose mothers smoked were also twice as likely to have autism. Research now acknowledges that environmental contaminants such as PCBs, PBDEs, and mercury can alter brain neuron functioning even before a child is born.

This month, the USDA released a study finding that although there were detectable levels of pesticide residue in more than half of food tested by the agency, 99% of samples taken were found to be within levels the government deems safe, and 40% were found to have no detectable trace of pesticides at all. The USDA added, however, that due to “cost concerns,” it did not test for residues of glyphosate. Let’s repeat that: they never tested for the active ingredient in the most widely used herbicide in the world. “Cost concerns”? How absurd—unless they mean it will cost them too much in terms of the special relationship between the USDA and Monsanto. You may recall the revolving door between Monsanto and the federal government, with agency officials becoming high-paying executives—and vice versa! Money, power, prestige: it’s all there. Monsanto and the USDA love to scratch each others’ backs. Clearly this omission was purposeful.

In addition, as we have previously reported, the number of adverse reactions from vaccines can be correlated as well with autism, though Seneff says it doesn’t correlate quite as closely as with Roundup. The same correlations between applications of glyphosate and autism show up in deaths from senility.

Of course, autism is a complex problem with many potential causes. Dr. Seneff’s data, however, is particularly important considering how close the correlation is—and because it is coming from a scientist with impeccable credentials. Earlier this year, she spoke at the Autism One conference and presented many of the same facts; that presentation is available on YouTube.

Monsanto claims that Roundup is harmless to humans. Bacteria, fungi, algae, parasites, and plants use a seven-step metabolic route known as the shikimate pathway for the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids; glyphosate inhibits this pathway, causing the plant to die, which is why it’s so effective as an herbicide. Monsanto says humans don’t have this shikimate pathway, so it’s perfectly safe.

Dr. Seneff points out, however, that our gut bacteria do have this pathway, and that’s crucial because these bacteria supply our body with crucial amino acids. Roundup thus kills beneficial gut bacteria, allowing pathogens to grow; interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folate; chelates (removes) important minerals like iron, cobalt and manganese; and much more.

Even worse, she notes, additional chemicals in Roundup are untested because they’re classified as“inert,” yet according to a 2014 study in BioMed Research International, these chemicals are capable of amplifying the toxic effects of Roundup hundreds of times over.

Glyphosate is present in unusually high quantities in the breast milk of American mothers, at anywhere from 760 to 1,600 times the allowable limits in European drinking water. Urine testing shows Americans have ten times the glyphosate accumulation as Europeans.

“In my view, the situation is almost beyond repair,” Dr. Seneff said after her presentation. “We need to do something drastic.”

Read the Full Article Here.

See Also:

Study: Reducing Herbicide Glyphosate in Diet Reduces Autism Symptoms

The post MIT Researcher: Glyphosate Herbicide will Cause Half of All Children to Have Autism by 2025 appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Goldman Sachs Analyst: Curing Patients Not a Sustainable Medical Business Model

By Carey Wedler, The Anti-Media | 

One of the most reviled companies in the United States recently gave Americans yet another reason to distrust their power: A recent Goldman Sachs report reveals the company questioning whether or not curing chronic illness is compatible with a sustainable business model.

In an internal report viewed by CNBC about the potential of the biotech industry and gene therapy titled “The Genome Revolution,” analysts asked: “Is curing patients a sustainable business model?”

“The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing,” wrote analyst Salveen Richter. “However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies,” analyst Richter wrote in the April 10 report.

“While this proposition carries tremendous value for patients and society, it could represent a challenge for genome medicine developers looking for sustained cash flow.“

Richter cited a Hepatitis C drug manufactured by Gilead Sciences that achieved a 90% cure rate. As CNBC noted:

“The company’s U.S. sales for these hepatitis C treatments peaked at $12.5 billion in 2015, but have been falling ever since. Goldman estimates the U.S. sales for these treatments will be less than $4 billion this year, according to a table in the report.”

In light of the reduced profits as a result of the success of the drug, Richter wrote:

“GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients. In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.”

Indeed, cancer is a highly profitable disease. In 2015, the world spent $107 billion on cancer drugs, and according to 2016 projections, that number was expected to grow to $150 by 2020. Further, Gilead Sciences, which Richter singled out as a company losing profits due to cures, was still the second-most profitable pharmaceutical/biotech company in the world in 2017, earning over $12 billion in net income.

Richter, who did not respond to CNBC’s request for comment, offered several ideas to cope with the ‘problem’ of healing patients. He suggested targeting large markets, such as those suffering from hemophilia, because “Hemophilia is a $9-10bn WW market (hemophilia A, B), growing at ~6-7% annually.” in addition, he advised clients to target disorders with high incidences, such as spinal dystrophy, as well as focus on “[c]onstant innovation and portfolio expansion.”

Additionally, Ars Technica reported, the analysis “hints that, as such cures come to fruition, they could open up more investment opportunities in treatments for ‘disease of aging.’”

Goldman Sachs confirmed the authenticity of the report to Ars Technica but declined to comment on its contents.

---

Carey Wedler is the editor-in-chief of Anti-Media. Shortly after graduating from UCLA with a degree in History, she got her start making Youtube videos, which led her to Anti-Media. Besides editing, she also covers foreign policy, the war on drugs, and solution-oriented developments. Her work has been published in Newsweek, Ron Paul’s Liberty Report, and the Foundation for Economic Education. Contact Carey via email: carey.wedler@theantimedia.org. Support her on Patreon: patreon.com/CareyWedler

The post Goldman Sachs Analyst: Curing Patients Not a Sustainable Medical Business Model appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Government Subsidized Medicine Bankrupt Hospitals

Hospitals are now government subsidized monopolies. They have little to do with improving the health of patients but have everything to do with dispensing pharmaceutical industry drugs and treatments. The net result is that small and rural hospitals must merge into mega facilities in order to achieve economy of scale or close altogether because fewer Americans can afford health insurance coverage. Federal and State subsidizes are mounting in a futile attempt to pay for the deficits that arise in providing medical costs for an aging population. This formula has only one outcome, BANKRUPTCY.

At the core of the failed medical culture is the reliance on chemical compounds plagued by dire side effect prescriptions and marketed as miracle drugs. Often the only marvel is that a patient does not die quicker. In order to achieve a healthy lifestyle, the food diet and digested requires a fundamental revamping of what is eaten, how it is processed and most important, what to avoid.

This approach conflicts with the incessant drive to create even bigger bureaucracies and more complex regulations and requirements for access to medical services.

Basing this system on an insurance model guarantees insolvency of a private sector delivery system. Government is all too eager to assume (using their flawed general welfare claim) that schemes like Medicare, Medicaid and Obamacare are necessary to pay for and provide medical coverage. The fact that this argument simply does not work should be self-evident.

Hospitals project that their form of treatments are proven. The problem is that their notion of tested practices usually ends up in a body bag. Government funding for Ayurvedic, Homeopath, Massage therapist, Hypnotherapist, Naturopath and Osteopath physicians/practitioner are usually outside the protective cocoon of the administrative boards and foundations connected with medical citadels.

Therapy using alternative methods demand that a sick person or one seeking treatment for some illness mostly pay out of pocket. Around 40 percent of Americans lacked dental insurance at the end of 2012, according to the National Association of Dental Plans. That’s compared to 12.9 percent without health insurance, according to the latest figures from Gallup – May 20, 2015.

If the consumer was actually paying with their own funds for the services and fees administered, the marketplace of costs would be much more responsive to a real or perceived benefit. Hospitals for outpatient care add substantial expense and ridiculous administrative overhead for procedures that have been drive up by the excessive rate amounts approved by government programs.

Medical treatment demands a negotiated agreement between the patient and those who practice the art/science of healing. In this age of the breakdown in rational medical delivery, the unsustainable fiasco of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has destroyed the last refuge of even the appearance of cost-effective medicine.

Only a repudiation of the bloated and unaccountable government oversight administration has even a slight chance to establishing a market based relationship between patient invoicing and effective and reduced costs for services.

Hospitals could rent out physical space, labs, examination rooms and treatment facilities to independent physicians or practitioners who would apply their expertise in consultation with the patient. Charges for such services would be the responsibility of those suffering from an illness. In this manner a balance in the relationship that reflects an agreed to value would have the effect to keep invoicing realistic.

Government subsidies only drive up costs. Mega hospitals by consolidating and closing down their rivals add layers of bureaucratic inefficiency and unaccountability, while diminishing choice for treatment with every closing or liquidation.

If patients added up the cumulative billing for hospital, doctor and prescription drugs, and paid such bills with their own funds; they surely would become educated consumers. Saving from opting out of medical insurance would accumulate over the years and grow for the time when such funds might be needed to satisfy whatever treatment option is sought.

The myth that society has a responsibility to make available whatever treatment procedure to cure, prolong or experiment using government funds has guaranteed that national bankruptcy is the inevitable prognosis. Fostering the conditions that close hospital competition is simply developing the “too big to fail” theory applied to medical treatment.

And where is the doctor outrage in this formula? Lawsuit fights “existential threat” to medical staff independence illustrates the trend to squeeze out the last blood dollar from the artificial and government sponsored hospital model.

“The suits stems from actions taken Jan. 26, 2016, when the Tulare Regional Medical Center (TRMC) board of directors voted to terminate the hospital’s medical staff organization and effectively remove the hospital’s elected medical staff officers, install a slate of appointed officers, and approve new medical staff bylaws and rules drafted without staff input.

Except for the newly appointed officers, the rest of the staff was then terminated, stripped of their rights as active members and then granted “provisional” status as part of the new medical staff which they had not applied or consented to membership with, according to a post-trial brief filed by the TRMC Medical Staff.

The replacement bylaws also contained a provision, since amended, that physicians could achieve and maintain “active” status by proving their economic value to the hospital, according to the brief—which described that provision as “basically, an illegal kickback scheme.”

“If you could imagine hospital medical staff bylaws written by hospital lawyers, this is what they would look like,” Do said. “Doctors shouldn’t be making decisions on patient care based on hospital profitability.”

The net result is to force out the regional, rural or independent facilities and structure the supra corporate hospital into a partnership with government, where other clinics need not apply. This Is not exactly a M*A*S*H, medical emergency unit, but more closely resembles a sanatorium of demented technocrats. Save health services by converting them into alternative medicine facilities. Cancel your health insurance and start saving to pay for a future illness. Get government out of the health care business and return sanity so the sick can decide just what treatment they want.

The post Government Subsidized Medicine Bankrupt Hospitals appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Do You Believe In “Medical Conspiracy Theories”?

Do you believe in “medical conspiracy theories”? If so you are in good company.

According to a survey undertaken by professors at the University of Chicago, more than half of all Americans believe in one or more so-called “medical conspiracy theories”. Of course, most of us know that the derogatory term “conspiracy theory” is simply a way to marginalize those who think critically instead of blithely accepting the word of those who stand to make money off of our compliance.

The survey was a series of statements. The respondents could choose from the following answers: Heard Before, Agree, Neither Agree nor Disagree, or Disagree.

• The Food and Drug Administration is deliberately preventing the public from getting natural cures for cancer and other diseases because of pressure from drug companies.


• Health officials know that cell phones cause cancer but are doing nothing to stop it because large corporations won’t let them.


• The CIA deliberately infected large numbers of African-Americans with HIV under the guise of a hepatitis inoculation program.


• The global dissemination of genetically modified food by Monsanto is part of a secret program, called Agenda 21, launched by the Rockefeller and Ford foundations to shrink the world’s population.


• Doctors and the government still want to vaccinate children even though they know these vaccines cause autism and other psychological disorders.


• Public water fluoridation is really just a secret way for chemical companies to dump the dangerous byproducts of phosphate mines into the environment.

If you are anything like me, you probably read those statements and nodded, while adding your own mental notes about how most of them don’t go far enough…for example, there is no mention of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation in that depopulation statement.  Water is fluoridated to dumb down and sedate the population.  Each of those statements by themselves could be the basis of an entire research project.

According to J. Eric Oliver, the lead author, the belief in these theories shows that people who can’t grasp the science find these theories easier to comprehend. (Bless their poor ignorant hearts.)

“Science in general – medicine in particular – is complicated and cognitively challenging because you have to carry around a lot of uncertainty,” Oliver said.

“To talk about epidemiology and probability theories is difficult to understand as opposed to ‘if you put this substance in your body, it’s going to be bad,’” he said. (source)

An article on Reuters Health breaks down the findings.

For the new study, he and his colleague used data from 1,351 adults who answered an online survey between August and September 2013. The data were then weighted to represent the U.S. population.

The participants read six popular medical conspiracy theories and then indicated whether they had heard of them and whether they agreed or disagreed with them.

Like the theories about conspiracies to infect African Americans with HIV and to prevent citizens from accessing alternative medicines, the other theories on the list had mistrust of government and large organizations as themes.

They include the theory that the government knows cell phones cause cancer but does nothing about it, that genetically modified organisms are being used to shrink the world’s population, that routine vaccinations cause autism and that water fluoridation is a way for companies to dump dangerous chemicals into the environment.

Some 49 percent of the survey participants agreed with at least one of the conspiracies.

In fact, in addition to the 37 percent of respondents who fully agreed that U.S. regulators are suppressing access to natural cures, less than a third were willing to say they actively disagreed with the theory.

With regard to the theory that childhood vaccines cause psychological disorders like autism and the government knows it, 69 percent had heard the idea, 20 percent agreed with it and 44 percent disagreed.

The only conspiracy theory with which more than half of the respondents disagreed was that a U.S. spy agency infected a large number of African Americans with HIV. (source)

The researchers used the results of the survey to predict health behaviors on the part of the “conspiracy theory” believers. Rightfully, those of us who believe that the government, Big Pharma, and the AMA don’t have our best interests at heart are far more likely to seek natural options, question treatment protocols, and not fall into line, bleating in compliance. In one example, of those who did not believe in any of the so-called “conspiracy theories”, only 13% used herbal supplements. Of those who believed in three or more of the statements, 35% took herbal supplements.

The author of the study believes these findings can be used by doctors to aid in communication (i.e., approach these types of ignorant patients with a different type of propaganda.)

Instead of viewing patients who believe in conspiracy theories as crazy, he said doctors should realize those patients may be less likely to follow a prescription regimen.

“It’s important to increase information about health and science to the public,” he said. “I think scientific thinking is not a very intuitive way to see the world. For people who don’t have a lot of education, it’s relatively easy to reject the scientific way of thinking about things.”  (source)

By referring to these beliefs as “conspiracy theories,” this survey starts out with a bias against those who look at the medical establishment critically, instead of embracing every golden word that drips from the doctor’s mouth. The so-called results paint those who regard the establishment with suspicion as ignorant, superstitious fools that need to be carefully handled and manipulated by the doctors. This only serves to boost the “God complex” that many physicians already have.

The next time you find yourself in a medical waiting room, it’s important to understand that if you have an anti-establishment point of view some physicians will see your outlook as a problem to be managed.  Patients may find themselves subjected to pressure regarding anything from a flu shot to a course of treatment for mental health that might reliably be dealt with via good nutrition.

• Be alert to attempts to manipulate you into accepting a course of treatment you might otherwise disagree with.


• Take the time to do your own research before having things injected into your body or before swallowing pills just because the doctor said so.


• Don’t be afraid to seek a second opinion.


• Before it even gets to this point, establish a relationship with a naturopath or other holistic practitioner.  He or she may be able to recommend a doctor who is receptive to this point of view in the event you need a prescription for antibiotics, etc.


• Be confident in decisions you have already made, such as the choice not to vaccinate your children.


• If the doctor is trying to persuade you to agree to a specific course of action, ask for something to read over so that you can make your decision without being pressured.


• There is no reason in the course of a standard office visit you need to agree with something on the spot.

You have the ultimate right to make decisions for yourself and your family. Members of the medical establishment only have the authority you allow them to have.

For more information on some of my favorite “medical conspiracy theories”, I invite you to take a trip down the rabbit hole with some of the following articles:

Five Reasons Why I’ll Never Get a Flu Shot

Tragic Mistake or Deliberate Plan?

Making a Killing with Cancer

Researchers Prove FDA Approved Cancer Drugs Have The side Effect Of Inducing Stem Cell Tumours

The Great American Genocide 

Is Bill Gates a Psychopath?

Monsanto: The Real Cyberdyne

Codex Alimentarius: Introduction to Soft Kill Eugenics

Fluoride is Poison

The Sinister Corporate Agenda of the FDA

Agenda 21: Full Spectrum Domination

 

The post Do You Believe In “Medical Conspiracy Theories”? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Cell Tower Radiation Cancer Link Confirmed By World’s Largest Animal Study

 

By: Natural Blaze | 

Researchers with the renowned Ramazzini Institute (RI) in Italy announce that a large-scale lifetime study of lab animals exposed to environmental levels of cell tower radiation developed cancer. A $25 million study of much higher levels of cell phone radiofrequency (RF) radiation, from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP), has also reported finding the same unusual cancer called Schwannoma of the heart in male rats treated at the highest dose. In addition, the RI study of cell tower radiation also found increases in malignant brain (glial) tumors in female rats and precancerous conditions including Schwann cells hyperplasia in both male and female rats.

“Our findings of cancerous tumors in rats exposed to environmental levels of RF are consistent with and reinforce the results of the US NTP studies on cell phone radiation, as both reported increases in the same types of tumors of the brain and heart in Sprague-Dawley rats. Together, these studies provide sufficient evidence to call for the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to re-evaluate and re-classify their conclusions regarding the carcinogenic potential of RFR in humans,” said Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, study author and RI Director of Research.

The Ramazzini study exposed 2448 Sprague-Dawley rats from prenatal life until their natural death to “environmental” cell tower radiation for 19 hours per day (1.8 GHz GSM radiofrequency radiation (RFR) of 5, 25 and 50 V/m). RI exposures mimicked base station emissions like those from cell tower antennas, and exposure levels were far less than those used in the NTP studies of cell phone radiation.

“All of the exposures used in the Ramazzini study were below the US FCC limits. These are permissible exposures according the FCC. In other words, a person can legally be exposed to this level of radiation. Yet cancers occurred in these animals at these legally permitted levels. The Ramazzini findings are consistent with the NTP study demonstrating these effects are a reproducible finding,” explained Ronald Melnick PhD, formerly the Senior NIH toxicologist who led the design of the NTP study on cell phone radiation now a Senior Science Advisor to Environmental Health Trust (EHT). “Governments need to strengthen regulations to protect the public from these harmful non-thermal exposures.”

“This important article from one of the most acclaimed institutions of its kind in the world provides a major new addition to the technical literature indicating strong reasons for concern about electromagnetic radiation from base stations or cell towers,” stated Editor in Chief of Environmental Research Jose Domingo PhD, Professor of Toxicology, School of Medicine at Reus University, Catalonia, Spain.

“The US NTP results combined now with the Ramazzini study, reinforce human studies from our team and others providing clear evidence that RF radiation causes acoustic neuromaa (vestibular schwannoma) and gliomas, and should be classified carcinogenic to humans,” stated Lennart Hardell MD, PhD, physician-epidemiologist with the Department of Oncology, University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden, who has published extensively on environmental causes of cancer including Agent Orange, pesticides and cell phone radiofrequency radiation.

“The evidence indicating wireless is carcinogenic has increased and can no longer be ignored,” stated University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health Professor Emeritus Anthony B. Miller MD, Member of the Royal Colleges of Physicians of Canada and the UK, and Senior Medical Advisor to EHT who is also a long-term advisor to the World Health Organization.

“This study raises concerns that simply living close to a cell tower will pose threats to human health. Governments need to take measures to reduce exposures from cell tower emissions. Cell towers should not be near schools, hospitals or people’s homes. Public health agencies need to educate the public on how to reduce exposure from all sources of wireless radiofrequency radiation—be it from cell towers or cell phones or Wi-Fi in schools,” stated David O. Carpenter MD, former Dean of the School of Public Health at the University at Albany. “This is particularly urgent because of current plans to place small 5G cell towers about every 300 meters in every street across the country. These 5G ‘small cell’ antennas will result in continuous exposure to everyone living nearby and everyone walking down the street. The increased exposures will increase risk of cancer and other diseases such as electro-hypersensitivity.”

Ramazzini Institute investigators have completed nearly 500 cancer bioassays on more than 200 compounds, and their study design is unique in that animals are allowed to live until their natural deaths in order to allow detection of late-developing tumors. Eighty percent of all human cancers are late-developing, occurring in humans after 60 years of age. This longer observation period has allowed the RI to detect such later-occurring tumors for a number of chemicals, and their published research includes studies of benzene, xylenes, mancozeb, formaldehyde and vinyl chloride.

The Ramazzini research results come in the wake of similar findings from the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) large-scale experimental studies on cell phone radiation. Both studies found statistically significant increases in the development of the same type of very rare and highly malignant tumor in the heart of male rats—schwannomas.

“This publication is a serious cause for concern,” stated Annie J. Sasco MD, DrPH, SM, MPH, retired Director of Research at the INSERM (French NIH) and former Unit Chief at the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, France, who commented that, “some of the results are not statistically significant due to the relatively small number of animals involved. Yet, that does not mean they should be ignored. Larger studies could turn out statistically significant results and in any event statistical significance is just one aspect of evaluation of the relation between exposure and disease. Biological significance and concordance of results between humans and animals clearly reinforces the strength of the evidence of carcinogenicity. The facts that both experimental studies found the same types of rare tumors, which also have pertinence to the human clinical picture, is striking,”

“Such findings of effects at very low levels are not unexpected,” stated Devra Davis PhD, MPH, president of EHT, pointing to a Jacobs University replication animal study published in 2015 that also found very low levels of RFR promoted tumor growth. “This study confirms an ever growing literature and provides a wake-up call to governments to enact protective policy to limit exposures to the public and to the private sector to make safe radiation-free technology available.”

In January 2017 at an international conference co-sponsored by Environmental Health Trust and the Israel Institute for Advanced Study at Hebrew University, Fiorella Belpoggi PhD, Director of Research at the Ramazzini Institute, presented the study design and the findings that RFR-exposed animals had significantly lower litter weights. Belpoggi’s presentation and slides are available online. The Ramazzini findings of lower litter weights are consistent with the NTP study, which also found lower litter weights in prenatally exposed animals. At that time, the  Italian journal Corriere published an article about the presentation of the Ramazzini study and quoted Belpoggi’s recommendation of “maximum precaution for children and pregnant women.”

Noting that “current standards were not set to protect children, pregnant women, and the growing numbers of infants and toddlers for whom devices have become playthings,” Davis, who is also Visiting Professor of Medicine of Hebrew University Medical Center and Guest Editor in Chief of the journal Environmental Research, added, “Current two-decade old FCC limits were set when the average call was six minutes and costly cell phones were used by very few. These important, new, game-changing studies show that animals develop the same types of unusual cancers that are being seen in those few human epidemiological studies that have been done. In light of these results, Environmental Health Trust joins with public health experts from the states of California, Connecticut and Maryland, as well as those in France, Israel and Belgium to call on government and the private sector to carry out major ongoing public health educational campaigns to promote safer phone and personal device technology, to require and expedite fundamental changes in hardware and software to reduce exposures to RFR/microwave radiation throughout indoor and outdoor environments, and to institute major monitoring, training and research programs to identify solutions, future problems and prevention of related hazards and risks.”

“More than a dozen countries recommend reducing radiofrequency radiation exposure to children, and countries such as China, Italy, India and Russia have far more stringent cell tower radiation regulations in place when compared to the United States FCC. However, this study provides scientific evidence that governments can use to take even further action,” stated Theodora Scarato, Executive Director of EHT.

The article is “Report of final results regarding brain and heart tumors in Sprague-Dawley rats exposed from prenatal life until natural death to mobile phone radiofrequency field representative of a 1.8 GHz base station environmental emission” by L. Falcioni, L. Bua, E.Tibaldi, M. Lauriola, L. De Angelis, F. Gnudi, D. Mandrioli, M. Manservigi, F. Manservisi, I. Manzoli, I. Menghetti, R. Montella, S. Panzacchi, D. Sgargi, V. Strollo, A.Vornoli, F. Belpoggi (doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2018.01.037). It appears in Environmental Research published by Elsevier.

Sources:

ehtrust.org

Sustainable Pulse

The post Cell Tower Radiation Cancer Link Confirmed By World’s Largest Animal Study appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.