Implanted: The Myth Of The Cancer-Free Breast Implant

While global media attention presently fixates on the increased risk for rupture within silicone-filled breast implants manufactured by the French company PIP, other less well known, but nonetheless serious health risks associated with implanting silicone-based capsules into the breast are not even being discussed.

According to conventional sources like Mayo Clinic, saline and silicone breast implants pose similar risks, including

• Breast pain


• Potentially permanent changes in nipple or breast sensation


• Infection


• Scar tissue that distorts the shape of the breast implant


• Implant leakage or rupture


• Need for additional breast surgery

Mayo Clinic, however, neglects to mention some of the more serious and common health risks associated with breast augmentation, which include autoimmune diseases, cancer, and psychological disorders.

Regardless of whether saline or silicone filled, all breast implants on the global market today are composed of a silicone elastomer “capsule,” which is the encasing membrane of the implant. The materials used to create the capsule are biologically alien to the body, are often coated in highly controversial nanoparticle silica, and result in rejection by the immune system in up to 11.4% of all cases.

This is known as “capsular contracture,” which is commonly defined as an “abnormal” immune response to foreign materials in the body, and is a reaction serious enough to require surgical intervention in the majority of cases. Capsular contracture may also indicate the commonality of low-grade bacterial infections that opportunistically emerge from the implant procedure or the implants themselves.

There are also less acute autoimmune conditions that have been linked to breast implants, which include fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and rheumatoid arthritis. These are harder to define, treat and link directly to breast implants, but the research supporting a causal connection is accumulating on the topic.

Another serious and commonly over-looked “side effect” of breast implantation is the increased risk of cancer, including brain cancer, bronchial cancer, skin cancer (non-melanoma), lung cancer, cervical cancer and vulvar cancer. There is also a distinctive implant-associated cancer called ‘primary anaplastic large cell lymphoma,’² which can be deadly and is increasingly being reported in case studies. These cancer findings are not surprising considering that animal experiments dating back to the mid-twentieth century demonstrated that foreign body implantation of many materials, including silicone, can induce sarcomas.¹

Unfortunately, these very real causal connections between breast implants and cancer have been obfuscated in favor of the industry wide promotion of the concept that breast implants ‘reduce the risk of breast cancer,’ which while finding support in several studies,* has also been disproven in others.

In fact, Susan G. Komen, the self-avowed expert on breast cancer risk, heavily reinforces the public perception that breast augmentations and/or reconstructions are categorically safe when it comes to cancer risk by focusing on the positive implant-breast cancer research, to the exclusion of breast implant associated cancers at all other sites, which are known to be significantly elevated.

Sadly, Susan G. Komen’s irresponsible focus on the lack of harm associated with breast implants may boil down to the fact that it is far harder to sell women on the decision to treat potentially benign x-ray mammography detected cancers such as DCIS/LCIS on the aggressive and invasive standard of care, which includes mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy and follow-up hormone suppressive therapies such as Arimidex and Tamoxifen — the two blockbuster drugs produced by the founding sponsor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, AstraZeneca.

There is another serious problem with breast augmentation, which is the psychological problems associated with their use. A study published in the journal Current Psychiatry Report in 2010, which looked at five large epidemiologic mortality studies found that women with cosmetic breast implants suicide mortality doubled. The study also looked at the preimplant psychiatric disorders which more commonly afflict women who choose cosmetic breast implants, which included: “eating disorders,” “body image dissatisfaction,” and “depression.”

Ultimately, it would behoove those who would undergo breast implantation surgery to consider the unintended, adverse health consequences — some of which are life-threatening — that are not being accurately communicated to them through both profit and non-profit health organizations.

*If in fact breast implant is associated with a lower incidence of breast cancer, it is probably due the traits of women who tend to choose breast implants, e.g. lower body mass index, lower fat content in breast, than the surgery or implant itself.

¹Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007 Dec;120(7 Suppl 1):70S-80S. Breast implants and breast cancer: a review of incidence, detection, mortality, and survival. Deapen D.

²Hum Pathol. 2009 Nov;40(11):1564-70. Epub 2009 Jun 21. Do biomaterials cause implant-associated mesenchymal tumors of the breast? Analysis of 8 new cases and review of the literature. Balzer BL, Weiss SW.

© April 24, 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 Implanted: The Myth Of The Cancer-Free Breast Implant appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

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.

Governments Can’t Stop The Use Of This Cancer Cure … (VIDEO)

Cannabis oil is gathering an unstoppable momentum as a world class healer, and there is little or nothing Western Governments are going to be able to do stop it. Cases are popping up all over the world showing that cannabis oil has healed some very serious diseases, including anxiety disorders, epilepsy, MS (Multiple Sclerosis), cerebral palsy and cancer. This young man healed his stage IV throat, stomach and pancreatic cancer with cannabis oil. This Australian women healed her terminal stage IV lung cancer with it. Wallace Rose in the video clip above explains how cannabis oil cured his stage IV pancreatic cancer. It is a fundamental human right, no matter where you live on the planet, to be able to access and use whatever medicine you want to heal yourself. And, thankfully, we are beginning to see that Governments worldwide will not have the power to stand in the way of this natural right any longer.

What’s the Difference among Cannabis, Hemp and Marijuana?

First of all, let’s clear up some definitions. Cannabis sativa is the plant and species; hemp and marijuana are both varieties or subspecies of it. Marijuana is actually a Spanish slang term meaning “Mary-Jane”. Marijuana is simply considered to have a higher THC content than hemp. THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) is one of the unique phytonutrients or plant chemicals of cannabis. However, both hemp and marijuana contain various cannabinoids, a class of chemicals that activate cell membrane receptors.

A Brief History of the Suppression of Cannabis

To those unfamiliar with the beginning of the United States, it may come as a shock to learn that hemp was a big part of the inception. Not only was hemp (in all of its forms) completely legal, but also it was actually required to be planted by the early colonists! The Founding Fathers made references to it in their writings and grew it themselves. It was widely know that hemp was an incredible plant with a wide variety of uses: textiles, rope, clothing, paper, fuel, nutrition, medicine and recreation. So how did hemp fall from such exalted status to become an illegal “controlled substance”, for which you could be imprisoned due to mere possession of it?

The answer, as with many of aspects of the global conspiracy, comes back to the mega rich and powerful ruling elite families, in this case the Rockefellers. I have written other articles exposing how the Rockefellers invented modern (Western) medicine and created the Big Pharma cartel as a way to sell their petroleum-based drugs. John D. Rockefeller had the reputation as a ruthless businessman who once said, “Competition is sin.” The prohibition movement of the 1920s to ban alcohol was not really about making America more pure or morally upright. It was about the bottom line; Rockefeller wanted to eliminate competition to oil for fuel for motor-based vehicles. Similarly, the movement to ban hemp was also an attempt to destroy competition to oil-based products. Hemp is a powerful competitor to crude oil in many ways. Thus, the propaganda campaign was launched to demonized hemp and marijuana by inventing the fake phenomenon of “reefer madness”. The brainwashing worked and Congress outlawed the plant in various stages, eventually declaring it a controlled substance in 1970.

What is Cannabis Oil?

Cannabis oil is not to be confused with hempseed oil, which is the nutritional oil made from pressing hemp seeds, and is used as a food not a medicine. Medicinal cannabis oil is made by gathering large quantities of cannabis leaves from female plants, using a solvent to strip off some or all of the THC, and boiling off the excess water to produce a rich, gold or brown-colored concentrate. Depending on who is making it, the final product may have little or no THC, the chemical responsible for getting people “high”. For more information on one way to prepare cannabis oil, see Rick Simpson’s Run From The Cure.

Science has not yet discovered all of the hundreds or thousands of cannabis phytonutrients which are responsible for the healing effects of cannabis oil, but one of the main ones is CBD (Cannabidiol). Excitingly, CBD is being studied all over the world as people are beginning to realize its phenomenal healing benefits. Many clinical studies have shown that CBD is a very effective painkiller – especially for peripheral neuropathy associated with diabetes, arthritis, MS, cancer and other neurodegenerative conditions. CBD is especially brilliant because it prevents and suppresses inflammation. This means it is both a preventative and curative natural medicine. Chronic low level inflammation, as you may know, is the hidden cause of much pain and many diseases, so the potential for cannabis oil to help a lot of people is huge.

How Does Cannabis Oil Beat Cancer?

All of the cells in our body have cannabinoid receptor sites, including cells which have gone rogue and become cancerous. The brilliant thing about cannabis oil is that its THC and CBD connect to these cannabinoid receptor sites, causing the cell to increase ceramide, which then causes apoptosis or cell death. However, normal cells are unaffected by this, so cannabis oil is a targeted killer of cancer cells, leaving healthy cells intact. It reminds my very much of laetrile (or amygdalin or Vitamin B17) which functions in exactly the same way with cyanide as a targeted killer of cancer. As Dennis Hill writes, “Nature has designed the perfect medicine that fits exactly with our own immune system of receptors and signaling metabolites to provide rapid and complete immune response for systemic integrity and metabolic homeostasis.”

The Unstoppable Momentum of Cannabis Oil in the US

Due to recent changes in State legislation in 2014, marijuana is now legal in 20 of the 50 states in the USA. In 2 of these states (Colorado and Washington), it is fully legalized for recreational use, with Oregon and Alaska to come, while the other states or territories require a medical marijuana license (you can see the state-by-state details here). So it has already come a long way, and will continue to go much further. I predict at one point it will be legal in all 50 states in the US, and eventually throughout the world. There is already legislation pending in other American states, and the US Federal Government just decided in its 2015 spending measure that it would no longer allocate funds to the DOJ (Department of Justice) to enforce marijuana laws. That’s the beginning of the end of Federal cannabis prohibition!

The Unstoppable Momentum of Cannabis Oil Throughout the World

Many countries around the world are leaning towards legalization, including the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Jamaica, Mexico, Canada, Spain, Argentina and India, according to this article. Uruguay became the first country in 2013 to fully legalize cannabis. It is also legal in North Korea, believe it or not!

The Case of Cannabis Oil Shows the People Have the Power

Cannabis can have healing effects not just as cannabis oil; check out this video showing the power of raw cannabis leaves too. Truth be told, the healing power of cannabis has just barely been tapped. And, for those who don’t need to use cannabis medicinally, why not add it to your diet? The nutritional profile of hemp is unparalleled. Its protein profile is similar to that of human blood. It contains all 8 essential amino acids, as well as 2 key globulins, albumin and edestin (the latter of which is found only in hemp seeds). Edestin is so similar to protein found in the human body that it can actually repair your DNA! Additionally, hemp seeds contain the essential fatty acids linoleic acid (omega-6) and alpha-linoleic acid (omega-3) – in the ideal ratio for optimal health (3:1). These healthy fats reduce inflammation, boost the immune system and are responsible for strong and shiny skin, hair and nails. Hemp seeds have high quantities of iron, magnesium and zinc, and so combat many ailments resulting from a deficiency in these minerals. Other benefits of hemp seeds include reducing craving for junk foods and boosting memory.

The case of cannabis is a further positive indication to me that the NWO elite, the global conspirators, are not as powerful as they would like to think. We the people ultimately have the power, and the truth will ultimately triumph over lies, just as the powerful medicinal value of cannabis has outrun and outstripped the propaganda of “reefer madness”. Sometimes, though, it does take a long time for truth to prevail …

 

The post Governments Can’t Stop The Use Of This Cancer Cure … (VIDEO) appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer

(The Real Agenda) Cancer is not a disease and it is not a series of diseases, either. Contrary to what most people think, cancer is nothing else than the body’s expression of massive toxicity. This is why chemotherapy and radiation are not effective tools to treat or cure cancer. Neither chemotherapy nor radiation end toxicity. In fact, they increase it.

The origin of body toxicity usually stems from the liver’s incapacity to get rid of substances that enter the human body. Preventing cancer can be as easy as cleansing your body, more specifically, cleansing your liver.

When people do not carry out frequent cleansings of the liver as well as other organs and, in addition, consume food products that are loaded with chemicals, GMOs, estrogen mimickers, pesticides and herbicides, among others, that the body cannot excrete, these chemicals bioaccumulate to a point where they cause a chain reaction of cellular over multiplication and overgrowth. The result is the apparition of bulks of tissue that are better known as tumors.

Many of the ingredients that may cause cancer are found in processed foods and red meat. Red meat, although for a different reason, also promotes body toxicity which may or may not develop into disease such as cancer, but that may also manifest as fatigue, flu-like symptoms, stomach pain or cramps, and a host of other warnings.

So-called genetic predisposition, a supposed conditioned understood by many as a death sentence, may or may not be a trigger to develop cancer during a person’s lifetime. Just because relatives have suffered from cancer does not mean a person is destined to have the same outcome. As of today, genetic testing to detect alleged predisposition to cancer or other diseases is non-conclusive at best.

What has been scientifically proven up until today is that the ingredients contained in processed meats and frequent consumption of red meat do serve as preconditions to develop diseases such as cancer.

According to the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, thorough review of scientific literature does show enough proof that red meat is a probable trigger of colorectal cancer in humans.

In addition to colorectal cancer, literature also shows associations between consumption of red meat and pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

“The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%,” says the press release published by the WHO.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed. In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance,” explained Dr. Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.

Meanwhile, says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, ”these findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat.” He emphasized that the results of the latest review of literature are important because they enable people to conduct risk assessments, which in turn may result in a clear path towards balancing the risks and benefits of eating red meat.

The most recent evaluation from the WHO also makes a clear distinction about what is considered red meat, so that people have a clear understanding about which meats they should avoid. “Red meat refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.”

An important differentiation was also made about processed meats, which the report identifies as that which has been “transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.”

According to the WHO, over 8 million people die every year from cancer. Cancer deaths account for about 13% of all deaths worldwide. IARC expects that cancer rates increase by 70% in the next 2 decades.

The post Processed Meats And Red Meat Cause Cancer 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.

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

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.

Drinking Roasted Coffee Increases Cancer Risk

(The Real Agenda News) Acrylamide, a by-product of roasted coffee, is the substance responsible for the increased risk of cancer for people who drink their cup of joe on a daily basis.

A Los Angeles court ruled that Starbucks and other coffee brands are expected to include a warning about carcinogenic substances in their products in California.

This decision resolves a lawsuit filed by a not-for-profit group in 2010 to toasters, distributors and coffee retailers, as they were violating a California law that forced companies to warn consumers of chemicals in their products that could cause cancer.

One such chemical is acrylamide, a by-product of roasted coffee that is present at high levels in prepared coffee. However, companies say that this compound is present at “very low” levels and should be exempt from the law because “is generated naturally from the process of roasting the grains to give them flavor.”

It was also argued that coffee is good for the body.

“Coffee has proven time and time again to be a healthy drink,” said William Murray, president and CEO of the National Coffee Association, in reaction to the ruling.

Thus, it considered that the demand “does not contribute to improving the public health”.

Judge Berle, however, ruled that the companies did not provide sufficient evidence to show that acrylamide in coffee poses no significant risk.

“The plaintiff proved that coffee consumption increases the risk of harm to fetuses, infants and adults, the defendants’ medical experts have not demonstrated with evidence that coffee consumption is beneficial to human health,” he said.

In establishments such as Starbucks, this warning appears on local posters, not on glasses directly, and warns of “certain chemicals labeled by California as causing cancer, are present in coffee, baked goods and other foods and beverages sold here “.

The post Drinking Roasted Coffee Increases Cancer Risk appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic Of Cancer

While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled “Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme,” revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times – but possibly as much as six times – more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[1]

In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%. The authors continued

Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.

Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.

In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review, titled “Screening for breast cancer with mammography,” the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:

Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a “cancer” that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, “Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report,” not only confirmed the Gøtzsche and Nielsen’s Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse:

This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

So, let’s assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific “low-energy” wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***

With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.  Until then, we must use our good sense – and research like this – to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.

Additional Reading

Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?

*This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.

** Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the “food chain” of truth, in the highly touted “evidence-based model” of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an “independent” source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts  the biomedical research and publishing fields.

***The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in “neoplastic transformation”; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.

---

[1] Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030

[2] Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284

[3] Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336

© March 29, 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 How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic Of Cancer appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

New Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Tumors in Male Rats

(AP) — A new report from the U.S. government is likely to create further debate regarding whether or not cellphones and other mobile devices pose a cancer risk to humans. According to a draft report from researchers the United States National Toxicology Program (NTP), male rats exposed to high levels of radiation similar to that emitted by […]

New Cancer ‘Vaccine’ Completely Kills Tumors Within 10 Days: Study

(ANTIMEDIA) Stanford, CA — There may be fresh hope on the horizon in the battle against cancer, as researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have developed a new treatment that has had remarkably positive results on mice. The treatment is a form of immunotherapy — using the body’s own defense system to fight off pathogens — and involves injecting […]

Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant To Treatment

There are many things that drive cancer. Poor diet, chemical and radiation exposures, and certain infections, figure prominently in the process. Stress, however, is a major contributing factor that is often completely overlooked.

New research, however, sheds light on just how critically important the physiological consequences of stress are on cancer cell progression.

Adrenaline Increases Cancer Malignancy

Published in the journal Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics and entitled “Adrenaline induces chemoresistance in HT-29 colon adenocarcinoma cells,” researchers found that the stress hormone adrenaline induces multidrug resistance in colon cancer cells.¹

Adrenaline is released during times of stress and participates in what is known as the fight-or-flight response of the sympathetic nervous system.  The study investigated the cellular consequences of adrenergic activation (adrenaline activation), which included a dose-dependent increase in the expression of the cancer-associated gene (oncogene) known as ABCB1 gene and its gene product, P-glycoprotein, which is known to protect cancer cells from anticancer compounds.

When adrenaline-induced P-glycoprotein levels increase within cancer cells, they become more effective at excreting drugs that may do them harm, e.g. chemotherapy. P-glycoprotein is used to transport xenobiotics out through what are known as ATP-dependent efflux pumps. These are highly expressed in the epithelial cells of the gastrointestinal tract, kidney, liver, and capillaries of the brain, testes, and ovaries, and normally defend healthy cells against toxicants in the environment.  In cancer, however, a wide range of oncogenes are upregulated and tumor suppressor genes downregulated, resulting in assemblages of cells (tumors) that can do great harm to the body as a whole.

Stress Is As Real A Threat To Health As A Heart Attack

This study raises a very important issue in conventional cancer treatment: often the psychological health, attitudes, expectations and feelings of patients diagnosed with cancer are considered secondary or merely “subjective” factors, merely an afterthought in juxtaposition to clinically verifiable, or so-called “objective” signs, e.g. tumor markers, genetic tests, etc.  This “Cartesian” division between mind (the “ghost in the machine”) and the body (“the machine”), is at the root of the conventional medical model of disease treatment, and could itself be considered an inherently dis-eased or pathological system of thinking.

Indeed, recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine confirmed that the very stress associated with being diagnosed with cancer is as lethal as the cancer itself, and sometimes far more so. After analyzing over 500,000 people who were diagnosed with cancer, it was discovered that the risk of suicide was 12 times higher and the risk of heart-related death 6 times higher during the first week following cancer diagnosis versus those who were cancer free.²

If these findings are correct, and stress hormones are capable of transforming normal cancer cells into a multi-drug resistant ones, or in increasing the risk of heart attack 6-fold, then stress reduction techniques, and other “intangible” factors, e.g. whether the doctor has a positive or negative attitude or expectation (i.e. the “placebo” and “nocebo” effect), should be given the same weight as the type of chemotherapy that is chosen, or the results of cytopathology or histopathology reports.

Can Simply Smelling Essential Oils Reduce Stress?

Simple techniques can be employed to reduce the cancer-promoting effects of elevated adrenaline in invariably stressed and anxious cancer patients.  As we reported a few months ago, researchers have found that the simple inhalation of patchouli and rose oil may reduce sympathetic nervous activity by up to 40%, with rose oil reducing adrenaline concentrations by 30%. 

A few other ways to reduce stress include:

• Chocolate: If taken over a 2 week period, daily consumption of 40g of dark chocolate can reduce urinary excretion of stress hormones cortisol, and catecholamines, while reducing other metabolic indicators of stress.


• Qigong: Qigoing can reduce blood pressure and catecholamine levels of patients with essential hypertension.


• Yoga: Yoga can reduce anxiety, depression, perceived stress, cortisol levels in breast cancer outpatients undergoing adjuvant radiotherapy.


• Tryptophan: Dietary tryptophan reduces plasma cortisol and noradrenaline concentrations in animals.

REFERENCES

¹ Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2009 Apr 15 ;190(2):81-7. PMID: 19380024

² N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 5 ;366(14):1310-8. PMID: 22475594

© March 9, 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 Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant To Treatment appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.

Are Cancer Stem Cells The Key To Discovering A Cure?

From the perspective of conventional cancer treatment a diagnosis of multi-drug resistant cancer is equivalent to a death sentence. By the time such a diagnosis occurs, the patient’s body has been irreversibly damaged by chemotherapy and radiation, and an even more aggressive cancer has emerged to take the place of the original one.

Tragically, these treatments do not simply fail, but make the cancers more malignant.  This fact is effectively concealed by the name multidrug resistant cancer which makes it seem as if the cancer was so exceptionally resistant and malignant that the normally effective drugs used to treat it just couldn’t do the job.

But wouldn’t it be more accurate to call this multi-drug failed cancer, putting the responsibility back on the medical establishment, as it should be, in recognition of the impotence, or worse, cancer-promoting nature of its treatment choices?

In other words, instead of blaming the treatment failure on the patient’s body – or a set of virulent gene mutations within their cancer – it is time we look more closely at why conventional chemotherapy and radiation-based treatments breed multidrug resistance within the cancer of patients, who ultimately succumb to the effects of the treatment and not the cancer they were originally diagnosed with.

How Conventional Cancer Treatment Creates Greater Malignancy

Multidrug resistant cancer is the byproduct of cancer doctors (oncologists) throwing the chemical and radiological kitchen sink at the patient and not only failing to improve their condition, but significantly worsening it. How so? In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is….

Tumors are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled “Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?” we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a byproduct of strictly random mutation.

Because tumors are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells “going rogue” and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.

Tumors are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.

The most deadly cell type within a tumor or blood cancer, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs), has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.

They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.

This means CSCs are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer.  They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.

CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons

1. CSCs account for less than 1 in 10,000 cells within a particular cancer, making them difficult to destroy without destroying the vast majority of other cells comprising the tumor.[1]

2. CSCs are slow to replicate, making them less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation treatments that target cells which are more rapidly dividing.

3. Conventional chemotherapies target differentiated and differentiating cells, which form the bulk of the tumor, but these are unable to generate new cells like the CSCs which are undifferentiated.

The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumors. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumor. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumor relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.

The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumor, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.

What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells.  This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.

The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient’s immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.

The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.

Radiotherapy has also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis.[2]  Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.[3]

Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs

Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:

1. High margin of safety: Relative to chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil natural compounds are two orders of magnitude safer


2. Selective Cytotoxicity: The ability to target only those cells that are cancerous and not healthy cells


3. CSCs Targeting: The ability to target the cancer stem cells within a tumor population.

The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.

Research indicates that the following compounds (along with common dietary sources) have the ability to target CSCs:

1. Curcumin (Turmeric)

2. Resveratrol (Red Wine; Japanese Knotweed)

3. Quercetin (Onion)

4. Sulforaphane (Brocolli sprouts)

5. Parthenolide (Butterbur)

6. Andrographalide (Andrographis)

7. Genistein (Cultured Soy; Coffee)

8. Piperine (Black Pepper)

Additional research found on the GreenMedInfo.com Multidrug Resistance page indicate over 50 compounds inhibit multidrug resistance cancers in experimental models.

---

[1] Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997 Jul ;3(7):730-7. PMID: 9212098

[2] Long-term recovery of irradiated prostate cancer increases cancer stem cells. Prostate. 2012 Apr 18. Epub 2012 Apr 18. PMID: 22513891

[3] Stem-Like Cells with Luminal Progenitor Phenotype Survive Castration in Human Prostate Cancer. Stem Cells. 2012 Mar 21. Epub 2012 Mar 21. PMID: 22438320

Related Blogs

Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?

Stress Hormones Found To Make Cancer Resistant To Treatment

Metalloestrogens is A New Class Of Cancer Causing Estrogens

Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?

Research: Some Cancer Diagnoses Kill Quicker Than The Cancer

 

© March 14, 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 Are Cancer Stem Cells The Key To Discovering A Cure? appeared first on The Sleuth Journal.