Category Archives: cancer

The links between cancer & pesticides in our environment that the industries continue to deny

In the 1970s, Dr Samuel Epstein wrote ‘The Politics of Cancer’ outlining the environmental health risks of chemicals contributing to cancer. The respective industries continue to minimize or deny those impacts.

You can listen to a series of interviews with Dr Epstein by Dr Mercola on chemicals in our environment and cancer prevention at this link.
Further you could also read our own Dr Meriel Watts’ excellent book called ‘The Poisoning of New Zealand’. She writes in Section One about pesticides and cancer citing the British Medical Assn’s report (p 41):

“While no causal link has been proven between pesticides and forms of cancer … there are serious doubts about the scientific validity of some of the studies which have been undertaken and there is no epidemiological evidence available for many pesticides. In other words we do not know whether or not many pesticides are harmful or not in day to day use.” 

Taken from Culliney et al (1992) she cites a long list of links made between pesticides & cancer:

meriel watts 2_0001

meriel watts 2_0002

I highly recommend you read her book. Libraries may hold it I would imagine.

Recently, Carol Sawyer posted information on an Otago article that gives details of a study from the University of Otago on the legacy of pesticides found in our environment. They hail a move to organic farming as being preferable. Carol details the NZ health (& other) statistics which are very damning to us as a nation.

NEW ZEALAND’S HEALTH STATISTICS

1) “Close to half the men in New Zealand and Australia are at risk of getting cancer, giving Australasia the highest regional rate in the world, latest estimates from The World Health Organisation (WHO) show.

WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) estimates the risk of New Zealand men developing cancer before the age of 75 years is 46.27 percent. The agency estimates the risk for women in New Zealand at a third.” RNZ , 16 September, 2018

2) We have five times the global average of motor neurone disease, and the highest mortality rate from MND in the world.

3) We have one of the lowest male fertility rates in the world.

4) We have one of the highest rates of asthma in the world.

5) NZ is “a high risk country for multiple sclerosis”. Southland has among the highest rates of multiple sclerosis in New Zealand. Southland is the second largest region in New Zealand and, in all, over half of Southland’s land area is public conservation land, while farms occupy 85% of the remaining land.

https://www.msnz.org.nz/…/Multiple-Sclerosis-in-NZ-S.-Alla-…

6) We have the second highest rate of teenage bullying out of 51 countries.

7) We have the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world.

8) We have the worst rate of domestic violence in the world.

9) We have the third highest rate of sexual assault in the world.

“British medical journal The Lancet has published a report indicating the sexual assault rate in New Zealand is far higher than the world average. It placed the country third highest, alongside Australia.” The report looked at data from 56 countries and “placed New Zealand at the third-highest rate alongside Australia.” RNZ, 14 February 2014

*****************************************************

I don’t know about you, but I think our massive 1080 poison use, (at present, 90% of world usage, and ongoing for 64 years now, since 1954), and our enormous use of agri-chemicals on farms must have something to do with it.

Note : I haven’t put in all the references but these health/social statistics are easily found on the net.

Below is the University of Otago’s article:

Otago study shows legacy of pesticides difficult to avoid

29/7/2013

Otago research shows banned pesticides (or their toxic degradation products) remain in the sediments of farm streams many years on.

An Otago study shows that the tell-tale legacy in rural South Island areas of pesticides banned many years ago remains, regardless of the type of sheep and beef farming now taking place on the land.

The research, led by Department of Chemistry recent PhD graduate Dr Pourya Shahpoury and just published in the international journal Environmental Pollution, nevertheless shows that average pesticide levels found in sediments of streams running through the 15 South Island farms assessed as part of the study were still within recommended thresholds.

The most frequently detected pesticide (chlorpyrifos) found in the stream beds is one that is approved in New Zealand for current use against pests. However, the study also found chemicals (or their toxic degradation products) present that had been widely used many years ago before they were banned.

The team of Otago Chemistry and Zoology Department researchers compared the presence of chlorinated pesticides at streams running through five sheep and beef farm clusters located near Amberley, Akaroa, Outram, Owaka and Gore.

In each of the five areas, one property was farmed organically, a second was farmed using the integrated pest management (reduced pesticide use) farming method, and a third was farmed conventionally. The farms were carefully selected with the help of a design formulated by Otago’s Agricultural Research Group on Sustainability (ARGOS), which studies farm management strategies in New Zealand.

Sediment samples were taken from the 15 different farmland streams during the spring/early summer, the period when pests and weeds are most active, resulting in more intense application of pesticides compared to winter or autumn.

Dr Shahpoury says chlorinated pesticides, within recommended thresholds, were found throughout the study areas regardless of the farming practices that took place on the farms eight to11 years preceding the study.

“Although the chemical chlorpyrifos was the most frequently detected in stream sediments, in contrast to our expectations, its concentrations were not highest in stream sediments from conventional farms and were found at similar levels across all three different farm types. This may have been due, at least in part, to its high potential to undergo vapour drift and re-distribution,” he says.

READ MORE

https://www.otago.ac.nz/otagobulletin/research/otago051129.html?fbclid=IwAR1Uc8R5CL__zomW77DGpsHVWkgSY0ALpy-uHI_z2DoE0C7Hk1b_8n9Russ

 

PHOTO: envirowatchrangitikei … spraying roundup onto fields adjacent to a school in Marton, NZ.

Advertisements

Sacrificial Virgins – a doco about the HPV Gardasil vaccine – SHOCKING

Published on Mar 9, 2018

Is the next Thalidomide-style scandal about to break? The HPV vaccine is a treatment in widespread use but its efficacy in preventing cancer is medically unproven, while unintended, adverse reactions are blighting and even ending the lives of girls and young women across the world. However, pharmaceutical manufacturers and many health authorities are refusing to acknowledge there is a problem and the medical community is continuing to offer the vaccine. IRF FILMS 2017 https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLXj… original youtube clips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KAzcM…

https://www.sacrificialvirgins.org/?fbclid=IwAR3OeHIi_ueBYE2pFiktXp-zwUYo2jDEtDJIoocBVSl-U_Bvq_uc_lVhRaQ

 

Study proves that people who eat organic have 25% lower risk of cancer

(Natural News) If you’ve ever doubted whether organic food is worth the higher price tag, a study that was recently published in JAMA Internal Medicine should put your concerns to rest. In the study, French researchers showed that people who consume organic food have a 25% lower risk of cancer.

The study, which was carried out under the guidance of epidemiologist Julia Baudry, looked at the diets of nearly 70,000 French adults with an average age in their mid-40s. The volunteers were divided into four categories according to how often they ate 16 organic products that included vegetables, fruit, fish, meat, prepared meals, condiments, dietary supplements, vegetable oils and other products.

After an average follow-up time of 4 ½ years, the researchers looked at how many of the participants had developed some type of cancer. After comparing the volunteers’ organic food scores with the cancer cases, they were able to determine that those who ate the most organic food were 25 percent less likely to develop cancer than those who did not eat organic food. When it came to specific types of cancer, the group who ate organic was 73 percent less likely to go on to develop non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and 21 percent less likely to go on to develop postmenopausal breast cancer.

It might be tempting to assume that the group who ate organic food would be more health-conscious overall and likely had a healthier diet in general, and that may be responsible for the lower cancer risk. However, the researchers say that simply is not true; even those who ate a low- to medium-quality diet yet opted for organic enjoyed the reduced cancer risk.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-11-02-people-who-eat-organic-have-25-lower-risk-of-cancer.html

Top 20 Facts On 5G: What You Need To Know About 5G Wireless And “Small” Cells

20 Facts About 5G

Download a PDF of this information on a two page  EHT Factsheet on 5G and Health. The factsheet is hyperlinked (blue text) to research and sources. It is a great resource for policymakers.

Nationwide, communities are being told by wireless companies that it is necessary to build “small cell” wireless facilities in neighborhoods ons street lights and utility poles in order to offer 5G, a new technology that will connect the Internet of Things (IoT). At the local, state, and federal level, new legislation and new zoning aim to streamline the installation of these 5G “small cell” antennas in public rights-of-way.

1. 5G “small cell antennas are to be placed in neighborhoods everywhere. 

  • Street lights
  • Trashcans
  • Utility poles
  • Bus stops
  • Sides of buildings

2. The radiation from small cells is not small.

Wireless antennas emit microwaves — non-ionizing radiofrequency radiation — and essentially function as cell towers. Each installation can have over a thousand antennas that are transmitting simultaneously. Examples of how small cells are not small include:  

  • They increase electromagnetic radiation near homes.
  • They have refrigerator-sized (and larger) equipment cabinets.
  • Property values drop after a cell tower is built near homes.
  • Taller and wider poles are needed for the antennas.
  • Fixtures weigh hundreds of pounds.
NO. Small cell installations are not the size of pizza boxes.
Each installation has antennas on the top and electronics cabinets  at the bottom. The electronics are housed in metal boxes – called “street furniture” by industry to make it sound warm and cozy. These cabinets  can be larger than a refrigerator, so large people could fit into them. In addition, there will be various radio units, a smart meter, and potentially unseemly wires.
READ MORE

Stage-3 myeloma cancer completely ELIMINATED with a turmeric supplement – British Medical Journal

For decades, the medical establishment has colluded with the for-profit cancer industry to smear anyone who talked about herbs, spices or superfoods fighting cancer. Food doesn’t contain “medicine,” we were told by the dishonest establishment. Only FDA-approved toxic medications can “treat” cancer, the propagandists insisted.

Yet millions of people across the globe continued to successfully prevent and even reverse late-stage cancers using nothing but foods, herbs and natural medicine. Despite its best efforts to ignore the reality of natural cancer cures, the medical establishment has just been forced to document a stunning case of a woman completely eliminating stage-3 cancer using nothing but turmeric, a superfood spice commonly used in curry.

READ MORE

http://www.cancer.news/2018-01-04-stage-3-myeloma-cancer-eliminated-turmeric-supplement-british-medical-journal.html

RADIOACTIVE CESIUM-137 FROM FUKUSHIMA IS IN CALIFORNIA WINE

REMEMBER WHEN WHO OFFICIALS SAID THE PARTICLES OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT MAKING THEIR WAY TO THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWING THE 2011 DISASTER AT THE FUKUSHIMA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IN JAPAN WERE NO BIG DEAL?

Following the 2011 disaster at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan – which left Japanese residents contending with toxic water and radioactive wild boars, World Health Organization (WHO) officials said that particles of radioactive fallout which made its way to the Western United States and elsewhere was no biggie and didn’t pose a health risk.

READ MORE

http://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/top-news/radioactive-cesium-137-from-fukushima-california-wine/

Aluminum salts in deodorants caused CANCER, and Switzerland may be the first nation in the world to BAN them

This is such a no brainer to those who look beneath the surface of things. The Politics of Cancer (Dr Samuel Epstein) was written back in the 1970s on the topic of carcinogens. Still we are fed with the long illusory search for causes. The manufacturers of these poisons really do not care about your health or safety. It’s just not rocket science.

From NaturalNews

(Natural News) Switzerland is slated to become the first country to ban deodorants that contain aluminum salts. This, following results of a 2016 study indicating that the toxic chemicals may play a role in breast cancer onset. The country’s National Councilvoted 126 to 58 in favor of approving a bill instructing the Federal Council to consider banning aluminum salts from being used in antiperspirant. The measure also urges that Federal Council to commission research that would prove a causal relationship between deodorant use and increased breast cancer risk.

Aluminum salts are the active ingredients used in the manufacturing of many antiperspirant and deodorant products in the market, which help prevent excessive sweating and stave off body odor. The toxic chemical works by dissolving in sweat and blocking the sweat gland. In turn, the chemical lessens the amount of moisture present in the skin. However, such an effect was also found to promote a build up in breast tissue. Most antiperspirant and deodorant products contain this cancer-causing chemical, researchers noted.

Breast cancer remains to be the most prevalent type of cancer among women worldwide, the World Health Organization (WHO) reportedAccording to WHO’s 2013 Global Health Estimates, more than 508,000 women all over the world died of breast cancer in 2011 alone. The organization also noted that while breast cancer was previously thought to be more prevalent in developed countries, nearly half of breast cancer cases and 58 percent of deaths occurred in less developed nations.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-09-11-aluminum-salts-in-deodorants-caused-cancer-and-switzerland-may-be-the-first-nation-in-the-world-to-ban-them.html

CRISPR Gene Editing Can Trigger Cancer, Two Studies Warn

Story at-a-glance

  • CRISPR-Cas9, a form of “molecular scissors,” allows for very precise DNA editing, i.e., the removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence
  • While CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing is more precise in that you can target a specific area of the genome, two recent studies warn the gene editing process can trigger cancer
  • When you cut the two double helix strands of the DNA, the injury triggers the cell to activate a gene called p53 — a “biochemical first-aid kit” that either mends the DNA break or signals the cell to self-destruct; so, either the genome edit is mended or the cell dies
  • In instances where the cell survives and accepts the edit, it does so because it has dysfunctional p53, and p53 dysfunction has been shown to significantly increase your risk of cancer
  • CRISPR stock dropped between 5 and 13 percent within days of the findings’ publication

By Dr. Mercola

The discovery of the gene editing method known as CRISPR1 eventually led to a novel gene editing tool called CRISPR-Cas9,2 a form of molecular scissors that allows for far more accurate DNA editing for the removal, addition or altering of sections of a DNA sequence. A layman’s explanation of the technology is presented in the video above.

CRISPR is the acronym for clustered regularly interspaced short palindrome repeat, and its function was initially discovered in 1993 by Spanish researcher Francisco Mojica.3 Mojica hypothesized CRISPR is an adaptive immune system, which has since been confirmed. Two decades later, in 2013, the technology known as CRISPR-Cas9 was successfully used to edit the genome in eukaryotic cells for the first time, demonstrating targeted genome cleavage could be achieved in mouse and human cells.

As reported by Nature4 in 2016, “Researchers use CRISPR-Cas9 to make precise changes to genomes that remove or edit a faulty gene. It has worked on nearly every creature on which they have tested it, including human embryos.” In the wake of these discoveries, a number of CRISPR-based companies have sprung to life with the hopes of furthering gene editing in everything from food and medicine5 to eventually producing “designer babies” that have had unwanted genetic traits edited out.

However, while CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing is more precise in that you can target a specific area of the genome, two recent studies call for a rethink, as the process of gene editing can trigger cancer.6,7 As noted by STAT News8 these findings could be “a potential game-changer for the companies developing CRISPR-based therapies.”

READ MORE

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2018/06/26/crispr-gene-editing-triggers-tumor-growth.aspx

Stanford Study: A Clear Link Between Breast Cancer Chemo, Chemo Brain and Brain Abnormalities

By 

A breast cancer diagnosis can be one of the most stressful experiences of a person’s life. The decisions related to course of treatment are important and intensely personal. Doctors, family members and others may chime in, but only YOU know what is right for you. If you are thinking about chemotherapy, it is up to you to also know about the risks on all levels, including to mental health.

Chemo Brain and Chemotherapy Side Effects: What’s Really Going On?

You have probably heard of the term “chemo brain.” It is a light-hearted term for a potentially serious problem. Also known as “chemo fog,” chemo brain usually occurs during or shortly after chemotherapy treatments of any kind and can have the following effects:

-confusion

-mental fatigue

-difficulty learning new skills

-disorganization

-short-term memory impairment

-shortened attention span

-difficulty with verbal communication/forming words

-taking a long time to complete tasks

 

The Mayo Clinic states that “[i]t’s unlikely that chemotherapy is the sole cause of concentration and memory problems in cancer survivors.” Recent research, however, has begun to pinpoint the exact mechanisms linking non-brain tumor neurological abnormalities to chemotherapy treatments, including those used for breast cancer.

Stanford Study: Changes in Thinking Seen in Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Patients

The biggest and most significant study to break new ground in this regard was conducted in 2011 by Stanford University researchers with support by the National Institutes of Health. The study built on earlier research and focused on breast cancer patients who had chemotherapy and surgery compared to those who just had surgery. The researchers also compared these two groups to women who did not have breast cancer.

After self-evaluations and functional MRI results were tallied, the Stanford study showed a direct correlation between those women who underwent chemotherapy and specific kinds of cognitive difficulty. In particular, it showed reduced functionality in the prefrontal cortex. This is the area of the brain that is responsible for cognitive behavior, decision making and social behavior. In card-sorting tasks, the women effected by chemotherapy made more errors and took longer to complete the task than women in the other groups.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnewsblogs.com/stanford-study-a-clear-link-between-breast-cancer-chemo-chemo-brain-and-brain-abnormalities/

Chemotherapy Losing (Lost?) Its Luster

Story at-a-glance

  • Research dating back over a decade suggests many women with breast cancer can opt for gentler versions of chemotherapy, or skip it altogether, without harming their chances of recovery
  • According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), many cancer patients are being overtreated to their detriment; an estimated 70 percent of women with early stage breast cancer probably do not need chemotherapy, and fare just as well without it
  • The Oncotype DX test can help determine whether a breast cancer patient might benefit from chemo by measuring the activity of 21 genes involved in cancer recurrence
  • According to ASCO’s findings, women with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer that test negative for HER2, and whose tumors are smaller than 5 centimeters, have not spread to the lymph nodes, and have an Oncotype DX score between 11 and 25, can forgo chemo
  • An increasing number of cancer patients are now electing not to use chemo. A recent survey found the overall use of chemo declined from 34.5 to 21.3 percent between 2013 and 2015

By Dr. Mercola

Surgery, drugs and radiation — aka the “cut, poison, burn” strategy — are typically the only solutions offered by most conventional oncologists to treat cancer, and upon receiving a cancer diagnosis most people are willing to do just about anything to get better. Unfortunately, the standard of care for cancer is not necessarily the most effective.

Research dating back over a decade suggests many women with breast cancer can opt for gentler versions of chemotherapy, or skip it altogether, without harming their chances of recovery. One 2007 study found some breast cancer patients had better outcomes when given Taxotere, a milder chemotherapy drug than Adriamycin, which had been the standard for decades.1

Another suggested the Oncotype DX test2,3 may be able to help determine whether a breast cancer patient might benefit from chemo by measuring the activity of 21 genes involved in cancer recurrence. At the time, Dr. Eric Winer of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston said,4 “We are backing off on chemotherapy and using chemotherapy more selectively.” Now, a number of additional studies have come to the same conclusion: Many breast cancer patients do not need chemotherapy, and have better outcomes without it.

Many Cancer Patients Fare Better Without Chemo

According to the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO), many cancer patients are being overtreated to their detriment; an estimated 70 percent of women with early stage breast cancer probably do not need chemotherapy, and fare just as well without it.5 As reported by NPR:6

“One dramatic example revealed at the [2018 ASCO] meeting relates to the most common form of breast cancer, known as hormone-positive, HER-2 negative disease. For many women who have this diagnosis, but for whom the disease has not spread to lymph nodes, a new study7,8 finds that anti-hormone treatment after surgery is enough, and women won’t benefit from rounds of toxic and uncomfortable chemotherapy.

Treatment of breast cancer for this large group of women will become easier. And for the many women who already choose not to undertake chemotherapy, they can be reassured that it’s the right call. Likewise, researchers from France presented evidence that people with severe colon cancer don’t benefit from a common treatment, which involves heated chemotherapy administered at the time of surgery.

This treatment has been in use for 15 years, without good evidence that it actually works … The study9 of 265 patients found that it didn’t work … The study is ‘an excellent example of how less is more,’ when it comes to certain cancer treatments, says Dr. Andrew Epstein, an oncologist from Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center who spoke on behalf of ASCO.”