Category Archives: cancer

Heard of The Cancer Act introduced in 1939 forbidding the advertising of alternative cures?

Has anybody heard of “The Cancer Act” that was introduced in 1939?

ACT

It does appear that not many people know anything about it, yet many thousands of people have, and will continue to suffer from it’s effects.

Basically, it is a particularly restrictive and pernicious piece of legislation which prevents people from writing or speaking about the FACT that it is indeed possible to cure cancer using alternative methods.

The Cancer Act may also be the reason why many websites and blogs are now being threatened with fines of up to £1000, simply for alerting people to the very real dangers associated with conventional treatments.

READ MORE

http://thecontrail.com/forum/topics/did-you-know-about-the-cancer-act-1939?groupUrl=cancer-treatment-options

PDF to the Act
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1939/13/pdfs/ukpga_19390013_en.pdf

Advertisements

Why parents should be concerned about Gardasil 9 – it will be given to Australian 12 and 13 year olds in 2018

Please also see our Vaccine pages at the main menu for more info on this vaccine that others have sounded warning bells on. Educate yourself. EnvirowatchRangitikei

From uncensored.co.nz

 “How can the Prime Minister have missed the fact that at least 73,000 adverse events following the administration of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and that so many of these teenagers are still ill, and can’t go to school or play sport?”

Gardasil 9, the latest human papilloma virus vaccine, will be given to all Australian 12- and 13-year-old students beginning in 2018. The announcement that Gardasil 9 would replace the quadrivalent Gardasil was made by the Prime Minister at the North Bondi Surf Club.
That Malcolm Turnbull was involved in the ceremony surprised me, but clearly it illustrates the strong support the government has for the practice of vaccination. The spectacle is worth examining, firstly for the pageant itself and what it signifies along with the likely repercussions of this decision.
On a bright sunny day and surrounded by lifesavers from the local surf club, Malcolm Turnbull began the proceedings: “It is an extraordinary development, Australian medical science – it is, so many of those young boys and girls down there will be proofed throughout their whole lives from this virus that is of course the cause of cervical cancer and other cancers as well.”
Of course the choice of venue was deliberate. The news that a more potent HPV vaccine was now to be given to teenagers was announced at one of Australia’s most iconic beaches. Bronze surfers provided the important backdrop to Malcolm Turnbull as he purposely promoted the new human papilloma virus vaccine, claiming it was a vital new step in saving lives and “an example of the way in which we are keeping Australians safe and healthy, we are saving lives, the young lifesavers behind us, they’re getting ready to save lives on this beach.”
If the repercussions in the wake of HPV vaccines weren’t so tragic it would be comical. How can the Prime Minister have missed the fact that there have been at least 73,000 adverse events following the administration of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine, Gardasil, and that so many of these teenagers are still ill, and can’t go to school or play sport?
How can he talk about the value of ‘saving lives’ when he is endorsing this vaccine that is associated with thousands of adverse events leading to sustained illness in so many young people — people who were encouraged to have a vaccination for a disease they were most unlikely to ever get?
Nevertheless Turnbull’s ‘life saving’ announcement was praised by the media, who quoted the mantra of Suzanne Garland, the lead Australian author of a global trial published in The Lancet and funded by the drug’s manufacturer, Merck, which came to the unsurprising conclusion that the new HPV vaccine Gardasil 9 could prevent 90% of cervical cancers worldwide: “Here we have the additional five types, which means you have 93 per cent protection against cancer, so that’s an extra 23 per cent cover. It’s a real bonus, whereas we previously had protection for cancer-causing types, which were 16 and 18, which made up 70 per cent.”

READ MORE

https://uncensored.co.nz/2017/12/21/why-parents-should-be-concerned-about-gardasil-9-it-will-be-given-to-12-and-13-year-olds-in-2018/

Six EU Countries Call for Glyphosate Exit Plan: New Carcinogenicity Study and Focus on Alternatives

From sustainablepulse.com

Sustainable Pulse has been made aware of a letter sent on December 19 by the Ministers of Environment or Agriculture of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Malta and Greece to the European Commission calling for a new study on the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate and also a study to identify alternatives to the World’s most used herbicide.

The letter was sent to the European Commission by Nicolas Hulot, Minister for ecologic and inclusive transition (France), Denis Ducarme, Federal Minister for Middle classes, SMEs, Agriculture and Social inclusion (Belgium) Carole Dieschbourg, Minister for the Environment (Luxemburg) Josè A. Herrera, Minister for the Environment (Malta) Dejan Zidan, Minister for Agriculture (Slovenia) and Evangelos Apostolo, Minister of Agriculture (Greece).

The letter states;

“The renewal of the authorization of glyphosate for 5 years was voted during the appeal committee of November 27th. While taking note of this vote, we, Ministers of Environment or Agriculture of France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Malta and Greece underline our concerns about the risks associated with the use of products containing this substance. As a matter of fact, a European citizen’s initiative signed by more than one million people called for a ban of this substance.

The European Parliament has expressed its support for the adoption of necessary measures to phase out the active substance glyphosate in the European Union by 15 December 2022 at the latest. The European Parliament also asked for the extension of specific restrictions of use of glyphosate for weeding and pre-harvest desiccation. We wish to recall that our countries are in favor of the ban of these uses, which are the main sources of residues that can be found in food.

READ MORE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2017/12/28/six-european-countries-call-for-glyphosate-exit-plan-new-carcinogenicity-study-and-focus-on-alternatives/#.WkVpdVWWbIU

Traditional cancer treatments cause inflammation, promoting aggressive tumor growth, according to study

(Natural News) Independent media leaders like Mike Adams, the Health Ranger and editor of Natural News, have long been vilified by the mainstream media for daring to insist that chemotherapy actually causes cancer. Time and again, Natural News has published articles based on scientific studies that prove the inefficiency and downright danger of conventional cancer treatments. Now, yet another study has been published confirming that link.

The study, conducted by a research team from Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), and published in the Journal of Experimental Medicine, found that the dead and dying cancer cells created by chemotherapy trigger inflammation which in turn promotes “aggressive tumor growth.”

“In this study we demonstrate that chemotherapy-generated debris from dead and dying tumor cells can stimulate tumor growth, which has pivotal implications for the treatment of cancer patients,” said Dipak Panigrahy, MD, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor at BIDMC’s Department of Pathology. “Conventional cancer therapy designed to kill tumor cells is inherently a double-edged sword.” [Emphasis added]

News Wise notes that this research reinforces what the medical community has known since at least the 1950s, but it is the first study to try to determine the exact molecular mechanisms that cause this phenomenon.

Researchers have long understood that there is a distinct link between inflammation and cancer. A study published in the journal Nature in 2010, for example, noted:

Recent data have expanded the concept that inflammation is a critical component of tumour progression. Many cancers arise from sites of infection, chronic irritation and inflammation. It is now becoming clear that the tumour microenvironment [the infrastructure supporting the tumor], which is largely orchestrated by inflammatory cells, is an indispensable participant in the neoplastic process, fostering proliferation, survival and migration.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-12-28-traditional-cancer-treatments-cause-inflammation-promoting-aggressive-tumor-growth-according-to-study.html

Fukushima– the untouchable eco-apocalypse no one is talking about

This article is from 2016 but nothing has changed in terms of the general silence…

From wakingtimes.com

The most important ecological crisis of the world has ever seen has been underway since March 11th, 2011, yet there is nary a mention of it in the corporate media, and no political body in the world is championing its resolution.

Widespread Denial and Willful Ignorance

The media, politicians and the world at large seem to be engaging in extreme denial regarding Fukushima. A survey of mainstream media coverage of the fallout of this event reveals the trend of covering this story as a human interest affair, not as the immediate threat it truly is.

The effects on nature are already being seen, yet even among the environmentalist factions of media, there is strong denial of the damage already done and of what is to come as the crisis approaches its sixth year. Some 300 tons of radioactive water are dumped into the Pacific Ocean each day, and signs are showing that this catastrophe is gravely affecting sea-life and wildlife in and around the Pacific.

The FDA maintains that there is no  evidence of contamination by Fukushima borne radionuclides in the American food supply, yet this opinion is contested by some independent researchers. A report by the Fairewinds Energy Education says that cancer is on the rise in areas around the failed power plant, and that millions will die in coming years as a result.

“[T]he second report received from Japan proves that the incidence of thyroid cancer is approximately 230 times higher than normal in Fukushima Prefecture… So what’s the bottom line? The cancers already occurring in Japan are just the tip of the iceberg. I’m sorry to say that the worst is yet to come.” [Source]

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2016/10/24/fukushima-untouchable-eco-apocalypse-no-one-talking/

To all the users of Roundup, beware those ‘glyphosate’s safe’ claims – EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research

Kiwis love this product and most I’ve found won’t hear a bar of the voluminous body of independent research. You will see them walking the streets with their backpacks, no protective gear in sight, spraying often in high winds. I’ve seen them & filmed them. They can also be alarmingly aggressive if you cross them. Councils are just as bad, many of them farmers, they refuse to hear anything bad of the manufacturers. With cancer rates now at 1 in 3 surely you would think they would want to err on the safe side and desist from using it but no, we must have our yellow berms, ditches and garden edges mustn’t we? And Monsanto wouldn’t lie to us? Would they? See our glyphosate pages. EnvirowatchRangitikei

“Migratory monarch populations have declined by 80 percent in the past two decades, and their decline has been driven in large part by the surge in glyphosate use ”  Sustainable Pulse

 

RESIZED IMG_4127.JPG
A NZ paddock sprayed with Glyphosate .. the ground is later plowed and stock will later feed on the new grass … right into the food chain

From sustainablepulse.com

A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released Monday a controversial analyses that rely heavily on industry studies to conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to humans.

The EPA review, which ignored the agency’s own guidelines for assessing cancer risks, contradicts a 2015 World Health Organization analysis of published research that determined glyphosate is a probable carcinogen.

Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup and most widely used pesticide in the world; 300 million pounds of it are used in the U.S. each year.

“The only way the EPA could conclude that glyphosate poses no significant risks to human health was to analyze industry studies and ignore its own guidelines when estimating cancer risk,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist at the Center for Biological Diversity. “The EPA’s biased assessment falls short of the most basic standards of independent research and fails to give Americans an accurate picture of the risks posed by glyphosate use.”

A federal advisory panel of independent scientists unanimously found earlier this year that in assessing glyphosate the pesticides office at the EPA failed to follow its own guidelines for determining whether a chemical can cause cancer. In the final draft released today, the EPA stated that the guidelines “… are intended as a guidance only …” and do not necessarily have to be followed.

Scientists typically use previously agreed upon guidelines to prevent biases from swaying the analysis in one direction or another.

The chair of the EPA’s Cancer Assessment Review Committee, Jess Rowland, resigned in 2015 amid controversy. Emails obtained in litigation brought against Monsanto by cancer victims and their families uncovered a disturbingly cozy relationship between the EPA and Monsanto on matters involving the glyphosate risk assessment.

READ MORE

https://sustainablepulse.com/2017/12/20/epa-relies-on-industry-studies-to-give-glyphosate-new-green-light/#.WjmsXJdSCdF

Most cancer drugs make it to the market without any proof they’re safe or effective

(Natural News) As if suffering from cancer weren’t bad enough on its own, a new study has found that nearly two-thirds of the cancer drugs that gained authorization from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013 did not offer any clear proof that they would extend or improve patients’ lives.

The study, which was carried out by researchers from King’s College London and the London School of Economics and Political Science, revealed that most of the cancer drugs approved by the body rely on surrogate measures, which are not reliable predictors of a patient’s quality of life or survival.

Lead author Dr. Courtney Davis commented: “When expensive drugs that lack robust evidence of clinical benefit are approved and reimbursed within publicly funded healthcare systems, individual patients may be harmed and public funds wasted.”

In other words, cancer patients and the population, in general, suffer as Big Pharma watches its profits pile up.

The study also carried out follow-ups at a median of five years, at which point nearly half of the drugs continued to show no benefits in terms of quantity or quality of life. Among those that did show an improvement, the benefits were considered clinically insignificant in half of the cases.

These very disturbing findings have prompted the researchers to call on the EMA to raise the evidence bar when it comes to authorizing new drugs, and rightfully so.

LSE Department of Health Policy Assistant Professor and study author Huseyin Naci said it was “remarkable” that such a small number of new cancer drugs entering the European market had clear data showing positive outcomes.

Another problem is that some of the cancer drugs that have been touted as being a “breakthrough therapy” do not have any real advantage over simply doing nothing or opting for the existing treatments. This creates false hope for patients and their families, and in some cases, it causes them to pass up other treatment options that might have made a real difference in their condition.

Pricey cancer drugs repeatedly shown to be ineffective

Earlier this year, it emerged that a fund set up to help patients access cancer drugs not covered by the National Health Service in England was a spectacular failure. After spending the equivalent of $1.64 billion, only around 18 percent of the 100,000 patients studied noted any benefits from treatments provided by the Cancer Drugs Fund. Just think of how many people were given ineffective treatments and how much they and their loved ones likely suffered as a result.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-12-03-most-cancer-drugs-make-it-to-the-market-without-proof-safe-effective.html

Rare & deadly cancers found downstream from Canada’s oil sands – the ongoing rape & pillage of the environment by corporations at the hosts’ expense

Yet another example of how corporations ruin environments and community health by their ongoing rape & pillage pretty much with impunity. Another David & Goliath scenario. What of the lives of these people affected? Shameful. The plunder has to stop.
EnvirowatchRangitikei

Photo: Waking Times

Study links oilsands pollution to higher cancer rates

“Cancer occurrence increased significantly with participant employment in the oilsands and with the increased consumption of traditional foods and locally caught fish,” said the report.

It also found total levels of carcinogens in the traditionally hunted foods were higher compared with similar studies around the world…”  thestar.com

EDMONTON—A new study by two Alberta First Nations and University of Manitoba scientists says there is a link between oilsands pollutants and higher levels of heavy metals in wildlife, and higher cancer rates in residents.

“There’s something unique that is happening in Fort Chipewyan,” Stéphane McLachlan, the lead researcher from the university, told a news conference Monday. “It’s a situation that is alarming and demands attention.”

The report — titled Environmental and Human Health Implications of Athabasca Oil Sands — is the result of three years of research. It was funded by the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation and the Mikisew Cree First Nation.

The study says it found 23 cases of cancer in 94 participants.

“Cancer occurrence increased significantly with participant employment in the oilsands and with the increased consumption of traditional foods and locally caught fish,” said the report.

It also found total levels of carcinogens in the traditionally hunted foods were higher compared with similar studies around the world.

But it found the dietary intake was low because community members were turning away from the traditional foods in favour of store-bought sustenance.

The methodology combined scientific methods with anecdotal information from community members.

READ MORE

10 REASONS CANADA NEEDS TO RETHINK THE TAR SANDS

Kevin Grandia, DeSmogBlog
Waking Times

As a Canadian it blows my mind that we can have the second largest deposits of oil in the world, but our government remains billions in debt and one in seven Canadian children live in poverty.

I feel like we are being played for fools here in Canada, because foreign owned oil companies like ExxonMobil,

British Petroluem and PetroChina (71% of oil sands production is owned by foreign shareholders) are making billions exporting raw tar sand from our country, while us citizens are dealing with all the nasty downsides.

Time for a tar sands reality check.

Here’s the top 10 reasons Canada needs to rethink their unrelenting desire to expand tar sands operations:

1. The Canada tar sands isn’t just an environmental issue, it is also a social justice, human rigths and health issue. A higher incidence of rare and deadly cancers has been documented in First Nations communities downstream of the oil sands by doctors, the Alberta Health Department and First Nations since 2007.

2. Like birds? Me too. Did you know that over 30 million birds will be lost over the next 20 years due to tar sands development?

3. 95% of the water used in tar sands surface mining is so polluted it has to be stored in toxic sludge pits. That’s 206,000 litres of toxic waste discharged every day.

4. Canada’s tar sands make Hoover Dam look like lego blocks, because we are home to 2 of the top 3 largest dams in the world. The dams are used to hold back all that toxic sludge produced by mining tar sands.

READ MORE

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/05/20/10-reasons-canada-needs-to-rethink-the-tar-sands/

Smart Meters causing tidal wave of mysterious illnesses that strike people in their own homes

An article here from healthnutnews.com  Kiwis, see this site for local information on health risks stopsmartmeters.org.nz   There is a page on the latter site providing testimonies of people whose symptoms stopped following removal of SMs. (Note here they are frequently called Advanced Meters). See our Smart Meter pages also.
EnvirowatchRangitikei

The Article from Health Nut News:

In recent years there have been increasing reports that “smart meters” – the digitized electric meters that are designed to send usage figures to power companies wirelessly – are causing a range of health issues among a growing portion of the population where such devices are in use.

RELATED ARTICLE:

In fact, notes the EMF Safety Network, a growing number of people from around the world are beginning to report health problems they believe are related to an increased amount of wireless radiation from various devices, including smart meters.

“Utilities claim smart meters are safe, and compare them to cell phones. However, cell phones, cell towers, wi-fi and other wireless devices can also affect your health,” the organization states on its website. “Reducing your EMF exposure can benefit your overall health and wellness.”

The group also notes that the World Health Organization has classified radiation as a 2B carcinogen, and based that declaration on studies that have linked cell phone radiation to brain tumors.

Vast list of symptoms

As noted by Cancer.org, here is how the devices work:

“Smart meters talk to their central systems using RF transmissions, based on a cell phone, pager, satellite, radio, power line (PLC), Wi-Fi or Internet (TCP/IP) communication method. Internet and cell phone applications have become the preferred options because of their flexibility and ease of deployment.”

Cancer.org notes further that smart meters are typically installed outside homes and places of business to measure electricity, water and gas usage. How much RF energy people are exposed to depends on how far they are from the antenna that transmits the signal.

READ MORE:

https://www.healthnutnews.com/smart-meters-causing-tidal-wave-of-mysterious-illnesses-that-strike-people-in-their-own-homes/

 

Developments in Chemical Biotechnology Continue to Threaten Environmental and Human Health

Following our recent approval in clean green, GE free Enzed of GM potato crops this is a bit of a farce given Helen Clarke (Labour note for those who are rejoicing at the other wing of the same bird that’s currently now in) approved the growing to harvest of GM corn in 2000 or thereabouts. It was uncovered, having already been planted, then ordered to be pulled up by Clarke who then flip flopped after a bit of corporate persuasion. So here it is again, some 17 odd years later … yes it is farcical. They’ve been tampering with the genes of all sorts including animals, all along. This kind of food has already been independently researched & found seriously wanting. Eat it at your own risk I would say. EnvirowatchRangitikei

Story at-a-glance

  • Corporate GMO propaganda is hitting the big screen. Forty-five scientists, academics and writers have signed a statement calling the food industry-funded film, “Food Evolution,” a piece of corporate propaganda that misrepresents the GMO issue
  • EPA has approved RNAi corn for human consumption, which is based on “gene silencing” technology. Research suggests RNA may have the ability to silence genes inside your body as well
  • A new generation of GMO crops resistant to dicamba is wreaking havoc across the U.S., as neighbors to farms growing dicamba-resistant crops report massive crop destruction from dicamba drift

By Dr. Mercola

Pesticides are taking a major toll on health across the globe. According to a recent United Nations (UN) report,1 pesticides are responsible for 200,000 acute poisoning deaths each year, and chronic exposure has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s disease, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.2

In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a research arm of the World Health Organization and the “gold standard” in carcinogenicity research, found glyphosate — the active ingredient in Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world — is a probable human carcinogen.3,4 As of July 2017, glyphosate is listed as a known carcinogen under California’s Proposition 65,5 which means products containing glyphosate must carry a cancer warning label.

Pesticides like Roundup also threaten the health of the soil, thereby threatening the very future of agriculture itself, as healthy soils are key for growing food.6 So grave are the concerns over the health and environmental effects of pesticides, the UN’s report proposes a global treaty to phase them out and transition to a more sustainable agricultural system.

All of this is terrible news for the chemical industry in general, and Monsanto in particular. Last year, Monsanto accepted a $66 billion takeover bid from Bayer AG,7,8,9 which would make the new entity the largest seed and pesticide company in the world. The merger is expected to be finalized by the end of 2017. However, as noted in the Bloomberg video report above, suspicions of carcinogenicity now pose a serious threat to this deal.

Court Will Determine Roundup’s Role in Cancer

Plaintiffs10 in a class-action lawsuit against Monsanto claim Roundup caused or contributed to their non-Hodgkin lymphoma.11,12 The outcome of this lawsuit may influence Bayer’s decision to acquire Monsanto or back out of the deal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) reevaluation of glyphosate’s toxicity may also have a bearing on the planned merger, although it will not influence the litigation against Monsanto.

U.S. District Court Judge Vince Chhabria, who presides over multi-district litigation currently involving 310 cancer victims’ lawsuits against Monsanto, has stated that the scientific evidence presented at trial is what will settle the question of whether glyphosate can cause cancer — not the determination by the IARC or the EPA. According to Bloomberg:13

“Chhabria has allowed the plaintiffs wide latitude to collect evidence on Monsanto’s health-effects research over the years, which the plaintiffs hope will show the company manipulated the data.

In March he unsealed dozens of Monsanto’s confidential documents for the public to see. The records show internal deliberations on how to present the science on glyphosate’s health impacts and manage a global public-relations campaign to assure consumers and regulators that Roundup is safe.”

EPA Has a History of Protecting Chemical Industry

The litigation has brought to light evidence showing how the EPA has colluded with Monsanto to protect the company’s interests. For example, email correspondence reveals Jess Rowland — who was the associate director of the EPA’s Office of Pesticide Programs and a key author of the EPA’s controversial glyphosate report — helped stop a glyphosate investigation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services) on Monsanto’s behalf.14,15

READ MORE

 

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/08/01/chemical-biotechnology-threatens-environmental-human-health.aspx