Category Archives: cancer

Ford spent $40 million to reshape asbestos science

From publicintegrity.org

Note: this article is from 2016. One or two of the links are dead however most are still live. There are many. EWR


In 2001, toxicologist Dennis Paustenbach got a phone call from a lawyer for Ford Motor Company.

About ‘Science for Sale’

Science and opinion have become increasingly conflated, in large part because of corporate influence. As we explain in “Science for Sale,” an investigative series by the Center for Public Integrity and co-published with Vice.com, industry-backed research has exploded — often with the aim of obscuring the truth — as government-funded science dwindles. Read more.

The lawyer, Darrell Grams, explained that Ford had been losing lawsuits filed by former auto mechanics alleging asbestos in brakes had given them mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer virtually always tied to asbestos exposure. Grams asked Paustenbach, then a vice president with the consulting firm Exponent, if he had any interest in studying the disease’s possible association with brake work. A meeting cemented the deal.

Paustenbach, a prolific author of scientific papers who’d worked with Grams on Dow Corning’s defense against silicone breast-implant illness claims, had barely looked at asbestos to that point. “I really started to get serious about studying asbestos after I met Mr. Grams, that’s for sure,” Paustenbach testified in a sworn deposition in June 2015. Before that, he said, the topic “wasn’t that interesting to me.”

Thus began a relationship that, according to recent depositions, has enriched Exponent by $18.2 million and brought another $21 million to Cardno ChemRisk, a similar firm Paustenbach founded in 1985, left and restarted in 2003. All told, testimony shows, Ford has spent nearly $40 million funding journal articles and expert testimony concluding there is no evidence brake mechanics are at increased risk of developing mesothelioma. This finding, repeated countless times in courtrooms and law offices over the past 15 years, is an attempt at scientific misdirection aimed at extricating Ford from lawsuits, critics say.

“They’ve published a lot, but they’ve really produced no new science,” said John Dement, a professor in Duke University’s Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine and an asbestos researcher for more than four decades. “Fifteen years ago, I thought the issue of asbestos risk assessment was pretty much defined. All they’ve accomplished is to try to generate doubt where, really, little doubt existed.”

The glut of corporate-financed science has yielded mixed results. Exponent had a role in jury trials won by Ford in St. Louis and Pittsburgh last year, for example, and in a trial Ford lost in Tennessee. Judges have noted the infusion of controversy into a subject that for many years was not controversial in the least. A veteran asbestos judge in Wayne County, Michigan, wrote in an opinion that he’d never encountered the argument that “the science was not there” on mesothelioma and brakes until he heard a case involving an Exponent witness.

The discord over brakes bankrolled by Ford “has, in certain cases, tipped the scales for the defendants with juries,” said plaintiffs’ lawyer Jon Ruckdeschel. “More frequently, it has been used by industry lawyers to increase the costs and burdens on the courts and sick mechanics by creating a tidal wave of pre-trial litigation regarding the ‘science.’ ”

A troubling history

Over the past decade 109 physicians, scientists and academics from 17 countries have signed legal briefs affirming that asbestos in brakes can cause mesothelioma. The World Health Organization and other research and regulatory bodies maintain that there is no safe exposure level for asbestos and that all forms of the mineral — including the most common one, chrysotile, found in brakes — can produce mesothelioma.

Worries about brakes as a source of disease go back decades. A 1971 Ford memo shows that while the company didn’t believe brake dust unleashed by mechanics contained significant amounts of asbestos, it already was exploring alternatives to asbestos brake linings. One of them, made of metal and carbon, performed well, the memo says, “but the cost penalty is severe ($1.25/car just for front-end brakes).”

A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment for this article. In its 2014 annual report, the company said, “Most of the asbestos litigation we face involves individuals who claim to have worked on the brakes of our vehicles over the years. We are prepared to defend these cases, and believe that the scientific evidence confirms our long-standing position that there is no increased risk of asbestos-related disease as a result of exposure to the type of asbestos formerly used in the brakes on our vehicles.” Ford announced recently that it earned a record pretax profit of $10.5 billion in 2015.

Dennis Paustenbach (ICIJ.org)

A written statement to the Center for Public Integrity delivered on behalf of Paustenbach by a public-relations firm says, “Dennis was viewed as one of the leading risk assessment experts in the country, and was contacted by Ford because of his experience and expertise in this field. … As Dennis and others learned more about brake dust, it was clear that while there was considerable data on the subject, the scientific information had never been synthesized and analyzed.”

His conclusion after reviewing the scientific literature, according to the statement: “There is no credible study that has shown an increased risk of disease in auto mechanics.”

An Exponent vice president declined to comment. On its website, the 49-year-old firm, originally known as Failure Analysis Associates, says, “We evaluate complex human health and environmental issues to find cost-effective solutions. … By introducing a new way of thinking about an existing situation, we assist clients to overcome seemingly insurmountable obstacles.”

A Center review of abstracts on the National Institutes of Health’s PubMed website turned up 10 articles on asbestos brakes co-authored by scientists affiliated with Exponent or Cardno ChemRisk since 2003. (The latter was known simply as ChemRisk until it was acquired by Brisbane, Australia-based Cardno in 2012). None of the articles reported an elevated risk of mesothelioma among vehicle mechanics.

Many physicians and scientists say, however, that these papers muddy the waters by drawing overly broad conclusions from earlier studies of workers who might have had no contact with asbestos brakes. “In the asbestos area the whole literature has been so warped by publications just supporting litigation,” said Dement, of Duke. “It has a real negative impact on pushing the science forward.” Dement said he has, on rare occasions, consulted for plaintiffs in the past 10 or 15 years, earmarking nearly all fees for the university.

In a 2007 article, two researchers at George Washington University — one of whom, David Michaels, now heads the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration — reported finding six “litigation-generated” papers on asbestos and auto mechanics published from 1997 through 2001. In the ensuing five years, 20 such papers were published. All told, 18 of the 26 papers published from 1997 through 2006 were “written by experts primarily associated with defendants, while eight were written by experts who work primarily for plaintiffs … Sponsorship by parties involved in litigation leads to an imbalance in the literature … whoever is willing to fund more studies will have more studies published.”

Craig Biegel, a retired corporate defense lawyer in Oregon who represented plaintiffs later in his career, did an update of the Michaels paper as part of his doctoral dissertation. Biegel searched the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed website using the words “asbestos” and “brake.” He found 27 articles written from 1998 to 2015 by experts known to work for industry; all, he said, showed either no elevated risk of mesothelioma among mechanics or minimal asbestos exposures.

He found 10 articles written by plaintiffs’ experts; all showed an association between the disease and brake work. And he found 11 articles written by foreign scientists, who, as far as he knew, were not involved in litigation. All but one showed an association or documented high asbestos exposures.

“As far as I’m concerned, both sides in a lawsuit do the same thing: They both fund research to obtain evidence for trial, not to advance science,” said Biegel, who once defended asbestos property-damage claims for a Fortune 500 company he declined to identify. “The only difference is that defense counsel have almost unlimited industry money and plaintiffs’ counsel do not want to spend their own money.”

Ford’s knowledge of asbestos

There are several ways microscopic asbestos fibers can be sent airborne and enter the human body during brake work. Over time, friction wears down brake linings and pads — many of which contained asbestos prior to the mid-1990s and some of which still do — and they need to be replaced. A mechanic who opened a brake drum would find it filled with fine dust from the decayed lining. The easiest and most common way to clean it out was to use compressed air, a technique that generates grayish, fiber-bearing clouds that can trigger disease years later if the worker is not properly protected. Many weren’t.

Other opportunities for exposure: filing, grinding or sanding brakes, or cleaning up work areas.

Ford wasn’t the only U.S. automaker to use asbestos brakes. General Motors and Chrysler did as well and found themselves in court as a result. Of the so-called Big Three, however, only Ford continues to get hit with mesothelioma lawsuits; GM and Chrysler are immune by virtue of their 2009 bankruptcies. “The extent of our financial exposure to asbestos litigation remains very difficult to estimate,” Ford said in its 2014 annual report. “Annual payout and defense costs may become significant in the future.”

Documents show Ford was mindful of concerns about asbestos brakes by the late 1960s. An unpublished report by an industrial hygienist with Ford of Britain in 1968 said that while brake linings at the time contained between 40 and 60 percent asbestos, field tests indicated dust that collected in brake drums had a low asbestos content because much of the material decomposed after repeated braking. Consequently, he wrote, there was no evidence that blowing out the drums presented a “significant hazard to health.”

The hygienist added, “It would be helpful, however, for clinical examinations to be made of some repair mechanics with long experience of brake cleaning to confirm this view. It would also be desirable to include in Service manuals a general instruction that inhalation of dust during brake cleaning should be minimised.”

A 1970 Ford memo titled “Asbestos Emissions from Brake Lining Wear” included a bibliography of 40 articles on the cancer-causing effects of asbestos, dating to 1954. And the same 1971 memo bemoaning the $1.25 cost of asbestos-free brakes noted that the state of Illinois was considering banning the use of asbestos in brake linings, beginning with the 1975 model year.

Labor Secretary Elizabeth Dole holds up a photo during a news conference in Washington, Thursday, July 27, 1989, showing alleged asbestos violations at the Friction Division Products Inc. plant in Trenton, New Jersey. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had proposed fining the brake-shoe manufacturing company $2.7 million for exposing workers to potentially deadly levels of asbestos. Bob Daugherty/AP

In 1973, Ford began telling its own employees to use “an industrial type vacuum cleaner” to remove dust from brake drums. “Under no circumstances shall compressed air blowoff be used to clean brakes and brake drums,” the company said. It first told its dealers about what it called “a potential health hazard” in 1975.

In a court filing, Ford said it began putting “caution” labels on packages of asbestos-containing brakes and clutches in 1980; many mesothelioma victims who have sued the company say they never saw such labels. In the same document Ford said it began a “complete phase-out of asbestos-containing brake products” in the 1983 model year, starting with its Ranger pickup truck. A decade later, only Ford Mustangs and certain limousines were equipped with asbestos brakes; some asbestos-containing parts for older model-year vehicles were available until 2001through dealerships and authorized distributors.

That was the year lawyer Grams reached out to toxicologist Paustenbach to gauge his interest in studying mesothelioma in ex-mechanics. “I contacted Dr. Paustenbach because he is one of the leading professional experts in the world,” Grams, who no longer represents Ford, said in a brief phone interview. Grams said he had read none of the recent deposition testimony about the relationship between Ford and its two brake consultants, Cardno ChemRisk and Exponent.

In his curriculum vitae, Paustenbach, president of Cardno ChemRisk, says he is “a board-certified toxicologist and industrial hygienist with nearly 30 years of experience in risk assessment, environmental engineering, ecotoxicology and occupational health.” The 181-page CV shows he has worked on topics ranging from arsenic in wine to heavy metals in hip implants; authored or co-authored 271 peer-reviewed articles; and given 440 presentations at conferences. He is regularly retained as a defense expert in asbestos litigation and other toxic-tort cases.

Paustenbach offered a window into his thinking in a 2009 article written by a University of Virginia business professor.

“Without a doubt, a large percentage of environmental and occupational claims are simply bogus, intended only to extract money from those who society believes can afford to ‘share the wealth,’” Paustenbach told his interviewer. He said, “The vast majority of cases that I’ve seen were fraudulent with respect to the scientific merit and billions upon billions of dollars are redistributed annually inappropriately — at least from a scientific standpoint.

“… Nonetheless,” Paustenbach said, “I am a firm believer in the wisdom of juries and support giving generous awards to those that have been truly harmed by bad corporate behavior.”

In a 2010 letter to Dolores Nuñez Studier, a lawyer in the Ford general counsel’s office, Paustenbach claimed his firm’s papers had “changed the scientific playing field in the courtroom. You know this better than anyone as you have seen the number of plaintiff verdicts [in asbestos cases] decrease and the cost of settlement go down over time.”

In the letter, which surfaced in the discovery phase of a lawsuit, Paustenbach complained that the fee structure in place between Ford and Chemrisk was “out of date” and too low.

“Dolores, currently, you are among our largest clients,” he wrote. “And, Ford has certainly been a loyal supporter. The Big 3 [automakers] were the foundation of the firm during our formative years, and for this reason, I have tried to go the extra mile to satisfy your needs.”

Asked to explain the letter during a 2014 deposition, Paustenbach said he was merely emphasizing to Studier that “we invested in scientific research to answer questions that remained unanswered in the courtroom for many, many years …. And I was pretty proud of that.” He said he didn’t feel it was fair for his firm to lose money “when, in fact, I was so committed to getting the science straight.”

Creating doubt

The World Health Organization estimates that 107,000 people die each year from asbestos-related diseases. “Exposure to asbestos, including chrysotile, causes cancer of the lung, larynx and ovaries, and also mesothelioma (a cancer of the pleural and peritoneal linings) [and] asbestosis (fibrosis of the lungs),” the WHO says. “No threshold has been identified for the carcinogenic risk of asbestos, including chrysotile.”

OSHA says, “There is no ‘safe’ level of asbestos exposure for any type of asbestos fiber. Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused mesothelioma in humans.”

Taking the WHO and OSHA statements at face value, the case against asbestos would seem to be closed: Even someone with very low exposure to the mineral should worry.

In papers published over the past 15 years, however, scientists with Exponent, Cardno ChemRisk and other consulting firms have questioned whether brake mechanics truly are at heightened risk of developing mesothelioma, the disease that has fueled litigation against Ford and others.

A 2004 Exponent paper funded by Ford, GM and Chrysler, for example, concluded that “employment as a motor vehicle mechanic does not increase the risk of developing mesothelioma.” An update of that paper in 2015 found the same result. Each paper was a meta-analysis — an agglomeration of the results of multiple studies that, taken individually, may be too weak to indicate an effect.

In a deposition last October, Exponent’s Mary Jane Teta, a co-author of both meta-analyses, defended her firm’s findings. “I disagree when they say there is no safe level [of asbestos],” she testified. “I know the level of chrysotile … experienced by vehicle mechanics is safe.”

In his statement to the Center, Paustenbach wrote, “It is implausible that nearly 20 epidemiology studies” – on which he bases his legal opinions – “would conclude that there is no increased risk of mesothelioma for the time period during which brakes contained chrysotile asbestos if that were not the appropriate conclusion.”

The studies Paustenbach cites, however, are fraught with limitations, such as small sample sizes, vague job classifications and lack of exposure data. And not all of them found, as he put it, “no increased risk of mesothelioma” among mechanics. In a 1989 paper, for example, a Danish researcher who studied causes of death among auto mechanics reported finding a single case of mesothelioma among her subjects, where none would have been expected in the general population. As with other cancers, she wrote, this number was “too small to state or rule out a potentially increased risk.”

A co-author of another paper, Kay Teschke of the University of British Columbia, testified in a 2012 deposition that her research was being mischaracterized.

“Vehicle mechanics do many different things in their day; some might work on engines, some might only work on wheel alignment,” Teschke testified. “And when you dilute the [asbestos] exposure in that way, you can’t find the relationship with the job … It doesn’t mean that people in that job are somehow immune to the effects of the exposure … “

Christian Hartley, a lawyer in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, who has represented about 100 mesothelioma victims in brake cases, said the papers used in the defense of such lawsuits “push all this data together that’s totally incomparable. That’s what gets reported in the literature and is used to persuade judges and some experts. It’s very misleading to think we have any kind of real handle on what a typical mechanic has for exposure.”

Dr. David Egilman, a clinical professor of family medicine at Brown University and editor of the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, argues that the papers are deceptive by design. Many reanalyze previously published studies of workers described as mechanics who may have had no contact with asbestos brakes, he said. The effect, Egilman said, is to dilute the cancer data so the overall risk appears low.

Egilman, who consults for asbestos plaintiffs, spends much of his time rebutting Paustenbach and other industry-funded researchers. “They can throw a lot of things at the wall and hope something sticks with the jury,” he said. “It forces people like me or other scientists to try to clean up each thing that was thrown at the wall, one at a time. And by the end of the day, that could be confusing to a jury or judge.”

Egilman said the body of work underwritten by Ford and other asbestos defendants is being used to try to deprive sick workers, or their families, of compensation. “Some courts have adopted it as a standard,” he said.

More broadly, the industry-funded papers can confuse the public – and even government experts.

In 2009, the National Cancer Institute published a fact sheet on its website stating there was no evidence brake work was associated with an increased risk of mesothelioma or lung cancer. The 2004 meta-analysis funded by the automakers was cited as a reference.

Dr. Arthur Frank, chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at Drexel University, was incredulous.

“What is truly ironic about such a statement is that it is incontrovertible that asbestos, including chrysotile, the type of asbestos found in brakes, does, in fact, cause lung cancer and mesothelioma,” Frank wrote in a letter to the institute’s director obtained by the Center for Public Integrity through a Freedom of Information Act request. “Since we have not banned asbestos in this country, those who might read this statement could well think asbestos brakes are safe, putting at risk both professional and ‘shade tree’ mechanics, and their family members.”

Frank said the meta-analysis cited by the institute was “unreliable and should not serve as the basis for any statement by the NCI.”

Then-NCI Director Dr. John Neiderhuber replied that he had discussed Frank’s critique with an in-house expert who agreed that the language on the website should be amended. The new statement, posted less than two weeks after Frank sent his letter, read that while studies of cancer risks among auto mechanics were limited, “the overall evidence suggests that there is no safe level for asbestos exposure.” The citation of the 2004 paper was deleted.

The brake studies have had global reach. The “chrysotile-is-safe” argument has been used to stave off asbestos bans and preserve markets in developing nations such as India and China, where building materials and other products containing asbestos are widely used.

“The real nefarious part of this research … is that a lot of people who live in those countries are continuing to be exposed under uncontrolled conditions to asbestos,” Egilman said. “That’s the real horror story here.”

Ronnie Stockton’s auto repair shop in Jackson, Tenn. (Courtesy of the Stockton family)
Ronnie and Joyce Stockton. Courtesy of the Stockton family

A Ford loss in Tennessee

While the brake papers and the experts who write them have contributed to defense verdicts in mesothelioma cases, things occasionally go the other way.

Ronnie Stockton operated an auto repair shop 100 feet from his home in Jackson, Tennessee, for 30 years and specialized in brake jobs, often on Ford vehicles. He’d attended training classes in which instructors recommended that paper masks be worn around brake dust but never heard a “full description of what asbestos did,” he said in a recent interview. “We wasn’t warned it could kill you when you swept it up and didn’t wear the mask.”

As it turned out, Stockton’s wife, Joyce, was the one who got sick. She used to help her husband sweep out the shop. She kept the books and washed Ronnie’s dusty clothes. One night in December 2010 she lay down in bed and felt her chest tighten. “I thought I was having a heart attack,” she said. A biopsy confirmed that she had mesothelioma, to that point merely a strange word she’d heard in lawyers’ TV commercials. “I would sit in front of the television trying to learn how to pronounce it, not ever knowing I had the disease,” she said.

The Stocktons sued Ford and went to trial in August. Two Exponent scientists were among the defense experts.

In his closing argument after nearly two weeks of testimony, Ruckdeschel, the Stocktons’ lawyer, said Ford’s experts had “spun the literature” on asbestos. “They’re not taking what the studies say; they’re putting a spin on it.”

If independent research had shown no connection between brake work and mesothelioma, Ruckdeschel said, “they wouldn’t have had to go and pay Exponent to write all the papers to say, ‘Well, we’ve reanalyzed the data, and there really isn’t any evidence.’ ”

Defense lawyer Samuel Tarry urged jurors not to be swayed by the millions of dollars Ford had invested in the papers. It “shouldn’t come as any surprise that over time it costs a lot of money to defend these cases and to publish research where it can be critiqued and criticized and start discussions,” he said. Tarry recounted the testimony of Exponent’s Mark Roberts, who “told you that the majority of mesotheliomas in women are unrelated to asbestos. … He explained that all of us have a background risk, not just for mesothelioma but for any type of cancer …. They can happen naturally. They can happen with an environmental insult.”

After deliberating about two days, the jury returned a $4.65 million verdict in the Stocktons’ favor. It assigned 71 percent of the liability to Ford and 29 percent to brake manufacturer Honeywell, which had been brought into the case on Ford’s motion. Ford has asked for a new trial.

Latisha Strickland was the jury foreman. She’d wanted to assign 100 percent of the blame to Ford but agreed to the 71-29 split to avoid a hung jury.

“I felt ashamed — I had compromised what I thought it should be,” Strickland, a home-school teacher, said in a telephone interview. “You couldn’t give me the Powerball lottery to go through the amount of surgeries this woman [Joyce Stockton] has gone through.”

Strickland said she was especially put off by the 1971 memo showing Ford decided not to spend $1.25 per vehicle to replace front-end asbestos brakes.

“It proved Ford knew,” she said.

Jie Jenny Zou contributed to this story

SOURCE

Ford spent $40 million to reshape asbestos science

Photo: By Dave Parker – Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2954149

Glyphosate and Roundup: All Roads Lead to Cancer – New Study

From GM Watch via Sustainable Pulse

(Note: article is from Feb 2022)

New findings add to other observations linking glyphosate and Roundup to cancer. Report: Claire Robinson

Glyphosate and Roundup lead to changes in gene regulatory microRNAs (miRNAs or miRs) linked with cancer, newly published data show. The analysis, of a type known as small RNA profiling, was conducted in liver tissue from rats exposed to glyphosate and Roundup MON 52276, an EU-approved formulation, over 90 days.

In the new results, Roundup MON 52276 was found to reduce the levels of miR-22 and miR-17, whereas glyphosate decreased the level of miR-30 and increased the amount of miR-10. These changes in miRNAs are important because they are known to alter the expression of crucial cell growth regulator genes, which can lead to the development of cancer.

A gene function that is central to multiple cellular processes, p53, is a particular target of these miRNAs. The miRNA changes can lead to alterations in p53 gene expression, as has been found in multiple types of cancer in humans.

The link between the changes in miRNAs and p53 gene expression is consistent with the findings within the same study showing gene expression changes in Roundup- and glyphosate-exposed rats. The gene expression changes strongly imply a p53 pathway DNA damage response. DNA damage is a major risk factor for cancer development.

Furthermore, increases in miR-10 have been found in other studies to be associated with leukemia, a blood cancer. The increase in mir-10 caused by glyphosate exposure in the experimental animals may provide one mechanism by which users of Roundup have succumbed to another blood cancer, known as non-Hodgkin lymphoma. These results could strengthen the legal cases of the cancer sufferers in the US who are suing Bayer/Monsanto because they believe that exposure to Roundup caused their disease. Three such cases have already been decided in favour of the plaintiffs.

Study lead Dr Michael Antoniou of King’s College London said, “The new data showing changes in miRNA patterns add yet more evidence to the cancer-causing potential of glyphosate and Roundup. What is more, our results show that it is not just Roundup, which is a mixture of glyphosate with various additives, that has carcinogenic potential, but also glyphosate alone.”

Previously reported findings

The new data confirm and build on previously reported findings that were published as a pre-print in April 2021, which GMWatch reported on. The study with the additional findings has now passed peer review and is published in the prestigious journal, Toxicological Sciences.

The pre-print version of the study had reported that glyphosate and glyphosate-based herbicides such as Roundup activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, including DNA damage – and these effects occur at doses assumed by regulators to have no adverse effects. The data suggest that the DNA damage was caused by oxidative stress, a destructive imbalance in the body that can cause a long list of diseases. Oxidative stress is the likely cause of the damage seen to the liver, leading to an inflammatory (immune type) response, which in turn can cause DNA damage.

Crucially, the study found that the isolated active ingredient of Roundup – glyphosate – damaged DNA. This finding, according to the EU’s pesticide law, should result in a ban on glyphosate and all its formulations.

All these findings are carried over into the peer-reviewed version of the study.

How the study was done

The study builds on the findings of a previous one by the same authors. In the previous study, the researchers had compared the effects in rats of MON 52276 with those of its “active ingredient”, glyphosate, tested alone. The findings showed that glyphosate and Roundup herbicide, given at doses that regulators say are safe, resulted in the animals suffering gut microbiome disturbances and oxidative stress, with indications that the liver was affected and possibly damaged.

In the current followup study, the researchers analysed the liver tissue from the same rats to see if damage had indeed occurred.  

The researchers carried out some of the standard tests that regulators require the pesticide industry to conduct to gain market authorisation for their products – namely blood biochemistry and kidney and liver histopathology (microscopic examination of tissue).

They also carried out in-depth tests (molecular profiling) that are not demanded by regulators or typically carried out by the industry. One type of test looked for adverse effects at a profound molecular level of biological functioning through analysis of gene expression (transcriptomics) and epigenetics (DNA methylation) in the liver and kidneys. Another type of test, using specialised genetically engineered cell lines, was intended to highlight changes in function linked with cancer formation.

In addition, the researchers carried out tests that can detect direct damage to DNA.

Roundup causes fatty liver disease – confirmed

The standard tests, histopathology and blood biochemistry analysis, found adverse effects from the Roundup treatment, namely a dose-dependent and statistically significant increase in fatty liver disease and liver cell death.

The finding of fatty liver disease from exposure to the MON 52276 formulation of Roundup confirmed the same researchers’ previous observation that an ultra-low dose of another Roundup formulation, Roundup Grand Travaux Plus, administered to the same strain of Sprague-Dawley rats over a 2-year period, caused non-alcoholic fatty liver disease.

An increase in liver and kidney lesions was also detected in animals treated with glyphosate, although this did not reach statistical significance. However, the authors commented that an experiment of longer duration using more animals may have resulted in statistical significance.

Non-standard tests most revealing

Worryingly for public health, it was the non-standard molecular profiling tests that are not required by pesticide regulators that were most revealing.

First, Roundup was found to alter the expression of 96 genes in the liver specifically linked to DNA damage and oxidative stress, as well as disruption of circadian rhythms or “body clocks”. The most affected genes in liver also had their expression similarly altered in kidneys. Crucially, a core set of genes whose expression was altered by Roundup was similarly changed in the glyphosate-treated animals. This strongly suggests that the key changes in gene function reflective of oxidative stress and DNA damage was due to glyphosate and not the additional substances (adjuvants) present in the Roundup formulation.

Second, direct DNA damage to the liver was found to increase with glyphosate exposure.

These findings potentially constitute a bombshell that could end the authorisation of glyphosate in the EU. That’s because the EU pesticide regulation (1107/2009) has what’s known as hazard-based cut-off criteria. This means that if a pesticide active ingredient is shown to cause a certain type of harm to health at whatever dose, it must be banned. One of the named types of harm is damage to DNA. The discovery that glyphosate alone damages DNA in a living animal should, if regulators follow the law, result in a ban on the chemical.

Third, both glyphosate and Roundup were found to cause epigenetic changes known as DNA methylation. Epigenetics describes layers of molecular structures associated with DNA that control the underlying function of genes. The defining feature of epigenetic changes is that they can alter how genes work but do not involve changes to the actual DNA sequence. These types of changes were found at over 5,000 genomic sites for glyphosate and over 4,000 for Roundup. This is a concern because such alterations are typically found at high frequency in cancer tissues.

All findings lead to same conclusion

The researchers performed further laboratory tests in mouse cell lines, which are designed to highlight effects that can lead to cancer formation. Glyphosate and three Roundup formulations were assessed in these tester cell lines. It was found that two formulations of Roundup herbicide, but not glyphosate, activated oxidative stress and misfolded protein responses, both clear markers of carcinogenicity.

Commenting on the totality of the data, Dr Antoniou said, “No matter what molecular measurements we undertook, they all led to the same conclusion: that is, both glyphosate and Roundup are potential carcinogens.”

Other studies, including the industry ones submitted to support regulatory approval of glyphosate, have also found that glyphosate causes cancer in experimental animals. Based on studies in animals and humans, as well as mechanistic data, in 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.

Other implications of the new study

1. Ending animal testing is not yet feasible

Interestingly, in the new study, glyphosate was shown to damage DNA in living animals but not in the cell culture system. This shows that in vitro lab tests using isolated cells  cannot fully substitute for evaluations in a living animal because certain effects will be missed. This is because animals (including humans) are whole organisms whose complexity cannot be replicated in a flask, petri dish, or test tube. While many people (GMWatch included) would like to see an end to animal testing, as long as pesticides and other chemicals are allowed to be released into the environment, such a move would put public health at risk.

2. Roundup is more toxic than glyphosate

In summary, in general Roundup was found to be more toxic than glyphosate, confirming and building on previous observations. However, taken together, the results from the various assays conducted show that both glyphosate and Roundup herbicides activate mechanisms involved in cancer development, causing gene expression changes reflecting oxidative stress and DNA damage. Also, glyphosate alone was clearly able to induce DNA damage.

These findings directly challenge the global regulatory practice of only assessing the isolated declared active ingredient (glyphosate) and not the complete commercial formulations (Roundup) as sold and used.

The study further highlights the power of in-depth molecular profiling “omics” methods to detect changes that are missed by relying solely on conventional biochemical and histopathological measurements conducted in standardised industry tests on pesticide active ingredients. The study paves the way for future investigations by identifying gene expression changes and altered DNA methylation sites, which can serve as biomarkers and potential predictors of negative health outcomes resulting from exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.

3. Results could allow survey of human population for glyphosate herbicide exposure

Commenting on the implications of the results for human exposure monitoring, study lead Dr Michael Antoniou said, “The biomarkers we identified (such as the miRNA and gene expression changes) can be tested for in people, but we don’t know if this particular pattern of biomarkers is unique to glyphosate-based herbicide exposure. Thus the biomarkers would need to be correlated with a history of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides and measurements of glyphosate in urine.

“If high levels of glyphosate were found in the urine, and this correlated with the biomarkers identified in the new study and the person’s history of glyphosate herbicide exposure, this would indicate that exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides might be responsible for any health effects that are both indicated by our findings and found in the person. These findings should be tested first by investigations of herbicide applicators, as their exposure can be high and details of the particular herbicides used are often recorded, which would enable clearer results to be obtained.”

4. “Safe” and “no effect” doses were shown to be harmful

In the 90-day rat feeding study, different groups of animals were fed three different doses of glyphosate and the glyphosate-equivalent dose of Roundup MON 52276. The lowest dose was the concentration that regulators assume to be safe to ingest on a daily basis over a lifetime (the EU acceptable daily intake or ADI: 0.5 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The middle dose was the dose that EU regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect (the “no observable adverse effect” level or NOAEL) in industry-sponsored rat feeding studies (50 mg per kg of bodyweight per day). The highest dose was 175 mg, the dose that US regulators concluded had no observable adverse effect.

Adverse effects were found from Roundup exposure at all dose levels in a dose-dependent fashion. These findings show that the glyphosate ADI for the EU – and that of the USA, which is even higher – is not safe to ingest. Likewise, it shows that the EU and US regulators were only able to conclude that glyphosate had “no observable adverse effect” at the levels mentioned above because the tests that they require industry to carry out are insufficiently sensitive.

Study supports plaintiffs in Roundup-cancer litigation

Summarising the implications of the study for the Roundup-cancer litigation in the US, Dr Antoniou said, “Our results are the first to simultaneously show glyphosate and Roundup toxicity in a whole mammalian animal model system and provide a mechanism – oxidative stress – by which DNA damage has been observed in other systems, such as mammalian tissue culture cells.

“These findings show that glyphosate and Roundup score positive in various tests of carcinogenicity – transcriptome/epigenome/miRNA changes, oxidative stress, protein misfolding, and DNA damage – in a living animal (rat) that is accepted as a surrogate for human health effects. In my view, this strengthens the argument that exposure to Roundup herbicides can lead to the type of cancer suffered by the plaintiffs in many of the court cases – non-Hodgkin lymphoma.”

SOURCE

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/19980-glyphosate-and-roundup-all-roads-lead-to-cancer

FOR FURTHER ARTICLES ON THE LINK BETWEEN GLYPHOSATE & CANCER:

https://sustainablepulse.com/?s=cancer

Photo: GM Watch

Antibiotics increase risk of colon cancer, NEW study warns

(NaturalHealth365)  There are multiple risk factors for developing colon cancer.  So what causes it?  Over half of colorectal cancer cases are related to lifestyle factors, such as age, smoking, diet, and alcohol use.

Now, a recent study suggests a strong link between antibiotic use and colon cancer.  Why is this the case, and what does it mean for your health?  Most importantly, how can you reduce your risk of colon cancer?

Alarming study finds link between antibiotic use and colon cancer risk

A recent study from Sweden reveals a correlation between oral antibiotic use and the risk of colorectal cancer.  The study, published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, found that people who took antibiotic courses had up to a 17% higher risk of colon cancer than those who did not.

People who took antibiotics for six months or longer had the highest chance of developing cancer.  Still, even short antibiotic courses appeared to increase the chances of colon cancer.  Disease risk was also location-specific.

Researchers found a higher cancer risk in the ascending colon, also known as the proximal colon, which resides on the right side of the abdomen.  The ascending colon is the beginning of the entire colon.  This means it’s the most exposed to everything that comes through the small intestine, including oral antibiotics.

Why do antibiotics increase colon cancer risk?

Since antibiotic use is so widespread, these findings are alarming.  But the question is, what about antibiotics could be intensifying cancer risk?

The answer lies in the microbiology of the gut.  To maintain a healthy balance, an entire microbiome of good bacteria lives in your digestive tract.  And since antibiotics are made to kill bacteria, they can throw the gut microbiome out of whack.  Good microbes usually keep harmful bacteria in check.  But antibiotic use could contribute to the disruption of this natural order.

In turn, this could lead to detrimental inflammation in the digestive tract.  For instance, when harmful bacteria can gain prominence, it can result in biofilm formation.  Biofilms are structures formed when harmful bacteria join together within the colon wall.  Ultimately, oral antibiotics can knock out the good bacteria in your gut.  So although there’s no evidence that antibiotics directly cause cancer, there is a correlation caused by how these drugs affect your gut microbiota.

READ AT THE LINK

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/antibiotics-increase-risk-of-colon-cancer-recent-study-warns.html

Photo: TheDigitalWay @ pixabay.com

Cancer prevention: avail yourself of this program free for one month (Chris Beat Cancer)

“I was diagnosed with stage IIIc colon cancer in 2003. After surgery I opted-out of chemo and used nutrition and natural therapies to heal. Today I’m healthy, strong, and cancer-free! If you’d like to learn how to help yourself heal or prevent cancer, you’ve come to the right place!” Chris Wark

READ MORE & SIGN UP AT THE LINK:

https://truthwatchnz.is/cancer-related/cancer-prevention-avail-yourself-of-this-program-free-for-one-month-chris-beat-cancer

Photo: chrisbeatcancer.com

Slash your cancer risk with two POTENT spices

(NaturalHealth365)  Within the past few years, scientists at the forefront of cancer research have increasingly given voice to a once radical-sounding concept:  cancer – second only to heart disease as a cause of death for Americans – is largely preventable, with diet playing an important role.

In a prominent article published in 2008 in the peer-reviewed scientific publication Pharmaceutical Research, the authors – researchers in the Department of Experimental Therapeutics at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center – boldly state that cancer is, for the most part, a preventable disease that can be avoided with proper lifestyle choices.

An article published the following year in the Journal of Clinical Oncology echoes and confirms this finding and goes on to assert that dietary modification alone – namely, increasing intake of fruits, vegetables, and spices – could prevent 20 percent or more of all cases of cancer, saving close to a quarter of a million lives a year.  In a more recent study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health authors concluded that indeed, nutrition is one of the most modifiable aspects of people’s lifestyles and dietary choices that can affect cancer risk. Furthermore, with the maintenance of optimum body weight and regular physical activity added to dietary modification, the authors estimate that up to 40 percent of all cancer cases would simply never occur.

Stunning fact: Nearly 50% of all cancer cases can be eliminated with natural compounds

Imagine the headlines, the fanfare, and the triumphant advertising campaign Big Pharma would unleash if a drug manufacturer were to develop a medication with the same rate of success at warding off cancer.  Yet, the “medication” already exists.  We already have access to safe, natural, and relatively affordable cancer-preventing substances: the phytochemicals contained in luscious fruits, tasty vegetables, and zesty spices.

Although a myriad of fresh fruits and vegetables – broccoli, blueberries, garlic, grapes, tomatoes, and dozens more – can help prevent cancer, two spices, in particular, have been impressing researchers with their ability to inhibit and even destroy cancer cells.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/cancer-risk-reduced-3455.html

Photo: pixabay.com

Covid-19 Shots, Cancer and HIV – NZ MD, Dr Sam Bailey

https://odysee.com/@drsambailey:c/covid-19-shots,-cancer-and-hiv:c


Dr. Sam Bailey
@drsambailey

What is the link between Covid-19 shots, Cancer and HIV?
Watch the video to find out more…

Please support my channel ▶https://www.subscribestar.com/DrSamBailey

Leave me a tip! ▶https://www.buymeacoffee.com/drsambailey

Virus Mania Paperback:

Abe (lots of suppliers): https://www.abebooks.com/products/isbn/9783752629781/30869270194&cmsp=snippet--srp1-_-PLP1

US Independent Bookseller Powell’s Books: https://www.powells.com/book/virus-mania-9783752629781
Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-COVID-19-Hepatitis-Billion-Dollar/dp/3752629789/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=virus+mania&qid=1612859505&sr=8-2

Virus Mania E-book:

Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-COVID-19-Hepatitis-Billion-Dollar-ebook/dp/B08YFBCH2F/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=virus+mania&qid=1617157466&sr=8-1

Virus Mania in New Zealand:

NZers who would like to order the book locally for $65 (incl. shipping) please contact admin@drsambailey.com

Virus Mania Audiobook:
Kobo: https://www.kobo.com/us/en/audiobook/virus-mania-corona-covid-19-measles-swine-flu-cervical-cancer-avian-flu-sars-bse-hepatitis-c-aids-polio-spanish-flu

Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/audiobook/505809369/Virus-Mania-Corona-COVID-19-Measles-Swine-Flu-Cervical-Cancer-Avian-Flu-SARS-BSE-Hepatitis-C-AIDS-Polio-Spanish-Flu-How-the-Medical-Indust

Chirp: https://www.chirpbooks.com/audiobooks/virus-mania-corona-covid-19-measles-swine-flu-cervical-cancer-avian

Nook Audiobooks: https://www.nookaudiobooks.com/audiobook/1037783/Virus-Mania-Corona-COVID-Measles-Swine-Flu-Cervica

Audible: https://www.amazon.com/Virus-Mania-COVID-19-Hepatitis-Billion-Dollar/dp/B094X3F7D9/ref=tmm_aud_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Apple: https://books.apple.com/us/audiobook/id1565689478
References:

  1. Professor Sharon Lewin: https://www.doherty.edu.au/people/professor-sharon-lewin
  2. ABC Radio ‘On Health Report with Dr Norman Swan’ – 3 Feb 2020: https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/healthreport/when-will-we-have-a-vaccine-coronavirus/11925082
  3. Polymerase Chain Reaction for the Diagnosis of HIV Infection in Adults: http://www.omsj.org/wp-content/uploads/PCR-No-Gold-Standard-1996.pdf
  4. $17m shot in the arm for UQ’s COVID-19 vaccine research: https://stories.uq.edu.au/news/2020/17m-shot-in-the-arm-for-uq-covid-19-vaccine-research/index.html
  5. UQ vaccine scientists report positive results from pre-clinical testing: https://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/2020/08/uq-vaccine-scientists-report-positive-results-pre-clinical-testing
  6. Australian COVID vaccine terminated due to HIV ‘false positives’: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australian-covid-vaccine-terminated-due-to-hiv-false-positives-20201210-p56mju.html
  7. Queensland COVID vaccine trials: Why researchers knew HIV fragments were a gamble: htt

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZbRcCJIhfs

5g networks will double cancer rates

Cancer rates already 1 in 3. I read not so long ago mainstream NZ predicting a rise to 1 in 2, no reason given why. The elusive cure (given they suppress the ones we already have called ‘alternative’ that were once mainstream, pre-Rockefeller intervention ie). EWR

Watch/listen at the fb link:

https://www.facebook.com/ExposingTheEliteAgenda/videos/1942808009364903/

Up to 800,000 New Zealanders may have increased bowel cancer risk due to nitrates in water

Clean Green NZ (not) … the only green thing about NZ these days is the 1080 pellets DoC is ‘conserving’ our environment with. We’ve had chlorine in our water for years, a known carcinogen. No noises made about that one. Now they are planning on mandatory Fluoride. No choice. … EWR

From rnz.co.nz

Between 300,000 and 800,000 New Zealanders may be exposed to potentially harmful levels of nitrates in their drinking water, which may increase their chances of developing bowel cancer.

The study, overseen by Victoria and Otago universities, used overseas research including a major Danish study that found a link with bowel cancer when levels were as low as 0.87mg/L of water.

The current safe level in New Zealand, as mandated by the World Health Organisation was 11mg/L of water.

Victoria University ecologist Mike Joy said it was a wake up call for councils which had been far too permissive in allowing high stocking rates on dairy farms.

READ MORE

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/436879/up-to-800-000-new-zealanders-may-have-increased-bowel-cancer-risk-due-to-nitrates-in-water?fbclid=IwAR0uixGojw87p6q-nto8kyBKn56ageCd1AdUHk9jZkfuYxU2D_Vq8IUZsWE

Image by Karolina Grabowska from Pixabay

MEDICAL SHOCKER: Scientists at Sloan Kettering discover mRNA inactivates tumor-suppressing proteins, meaning it can promote cancer

(Natural News) There’s a secret layer of information in your cells called messenger RNA, that’s located between DNA and proteins, that serves as a critical link. Now, in a medical shocker to the whole world of vaccine philosophy, scientists at Sloan Kettering found that mRNA itself carries cancer CAUSING changes – changes that genetic tests don’t even analyze, flying completely under the radar of oncologists across the globe.

So now, it’s time for independent laboratories that are not vaccine manufacturers (or hired by them) to run diagnostic testing on the Covid vaccine series and find out if these are cancer-driving inoculations that, once the series is complete, will cause cancer tumors in the vaccinated masses who have all rushed out to get the jab out of fear and propaganda influence. Welcome to the world of experimental and dirty vaccines known as mRNA “technology.”

READ MORE

https://truth11.com/2021/03/02/medical-shocker-scientists-at-sloan-kettering-discover-mrna-inactivates-tumor-suppressing-proteins-meaning-it-can-promote-cancer/

Photo by Marcelo Leal on Unsplash

Cell phone tower shut down at elementary school after eight kids are diagnosed with cancer in ‘mysterious’ cluster

This is from 2019. They had been fighting 2 years to get the tower out! Still denying it causes harm. Whatever happened to the precautionary principle? Not in the big corporation’s interests to consider that. Any slight hint of risk, (and independent evidence says there is, watch Josh del Sol’s Take Back Your Power doco) …and these should not be anywhere near a school. And yet I see them all the time near & even in schools. This is a total crime. (See our EMF & Smart Meter pages, main menu). EWR

  • The affected students at Weston Elementary School in Ripon are all under the age of 10
  • They each have different types of cancer: brain, kidney, liver and lymphoma 
  • There is scant evidence that cell phone towers pose a real risk to humans
  • But even skeptics say the number of cases in this cluster is unusual
  • Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit
  • A private investigator for the patients’ moms found the levels were higher than reported 

READ MORE

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886561/Cell-phone-tower-shut-elementary-school-eight-kids-diagnosed-cancer.html?fbclid=IwAR3yjazkxBUVxBH43HE4y6fHi8LFaDLyqyNvo4kvPMF-OTIlyPMq4AbJpYc

Smartphone Blue Light is Linked to Colon Cancer and Depression

Smartphones emit several types of electromagnetic fields that can harm our health. In addition to  harmful radio-frequency radiation, they also emit blue light.  While humans have always been exposed to natural blue light frequencies in nature, our use of smartphones and screens has resulted in unprecedented exponentially increased exposures at all hours of the day and night. 

A 2020 study on colorectal cancre and blue light at night with over 2000 subjects found outdoor blue light at night is linked to colon cancer. Watch a video from the scientist at the link…

LINK: https://ehtrust.org/smartphone-blue-light-is-linked-to-depression/?fbclid=IwAR0foglV6XaQxHRHTPZUup2nuD3M9gqWlwNT0MMEVV1bpIEOGt9Q2MTPM4c

Image by Dariusz Sankowski from Pixabay

5G NIH NTP Study Demonstrates Cell Phone Cancer Link (Dr Ronald Melnick)

nunzio castiglione youtube 1.67K subscribers

Solution Turn off your wi fi and connect hard wired Ethernet more secure and faster than 5G. Environmental Health Trust Published on Feb 6, 2019 NIH scientist Dr. Ronald Melnick (now retired) speaks on the cell phone radiation cancer study he led the design for at the Michigan Wireless Forum.

The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms the link between a head tumour and mobile phone use

Buy a headset … and no point checking with the respective industries on this, like Monsanto & Roundup they’ll invariably continue to deny this damning evidence & much of the gullible public will swallow the lies. And your government of course will just turn a blind eye. Yawn. Good luck with that. EWR

From phonegatealert.org

The Court of Appeal of Turin confirms in a full judgment published on 13 January 2020 (904/2019 of 3.12.2019 , Romeo v. INAIL) the decision of the Tribunal of Ivrea of 2017. Judge Fadda considers that the worker’s acoustic neuroma (benign tumour of the head) was indeed caused by the use of the mobile phone.

According to the Court:

“there is protective scientific jurisprudence that supports the assertion of causation based on criteria of “more likely than not”. P.33.”

And to add:

“Epidemiological data, the results of experiments on animals (not contradicted, at present, by other experiments of the same type), the duration and intensity of exposure … which are particularly important in view of the dose-response relationship established – at the scientific level – between exposure to mobile phone radiofrequencies and the risk of acoustic neuroma, as well as the absence of any other factor which could have caused the disease”.

The scientific analysis by independent experts appointed by the Court confirms the causal link

All the scientific elements of the case were re-examined and re-analysed by two new experts appointed by the Court of Turin (Carolina Marino, Angelo D’Errico). The Court of Appeal fully accepted their conclusions and rejected INAIL’s* appeal, stating that CTU had provided:

“strong evidence to assert a causal role between the complainant’s occupational exposure, his exposure to radiation from mobile phones and the disease that occurred”.

This is the second Italian appeal judgment in favour of a worker after the Brescia judgment in 2010, which concluded with the confirmation of the Supreme Court in 2012, case of Marcolini v. INAIL. In this case, the Court of Bergamo had rejected the application in first instance.

A landmark judgment that will have international repercussions

The Romeo v. INAIL case is therefore historic. It is the first in world judicial history to have had two consecutive judgments in favour of the plaintiff. It is also historic because of the principles underlying this decision and particularly because it is written about the conflicts of interest of certain experts close to the mobile phone industry.

READ MORE

LINK https://www.phonegatealert.org/en/the-court-of-appeal-of-turin-confirms-the-link-between-a-head-tumour-and-mobile-phone-use

Photo: Image by Anastasia Gepp from Pixabay

Chris from chrisbeatcancer.com is sharing his video coaching program free during May … a must watch!

Chris of the Chris Beat Cancer website is offering his fantastic videos for free over the month of May. This is an offer you won’t want to miss. It’s always best to be prepared in advance and also to be proactive and in the case of our health nothing could apply more. Chris beat cancer literally, in a unique way which he shares.

Get the Roadmap to Radically Transform Your Approach to Health, and Give Your Body the Nutritional Support it Needs for a Cancer Free Life

 

Click on the link below for more info and to register:

https://sq1.chrisbeatcancer.com/fbad2?fbclid=IwAR1OQ1e4nq_9RQEvH6rdBcfJGTiG5WlG22RtfqgAAwdoN6Swr10HR1LpAaQ&affiliate=569

Image by Sasin Tipchai from Pixabay

The anticancer health benefits of kale

(NaturalHealth365) Skeptics question, “is kale really that good for you?” With a resounding “yes,” the health benefits of kale would surprise most people.

In fact, if you did a search at the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen or any other conventional resource (online) – you’ll find nothing much about the real value of kale.  Doesn’t that make you wonder, why?

You see, cruciferous vegetables such as broccoli and Brussels sprouts have long been studied for their anticancer compounds.  And, kale – which is a cruciferous vegetable – offers many health benefits, putting it at the top of the list as a potent anticancer food.

Clinically proven to offer widespread immunoregulartory effects, kale contains a myriad of compounds that have been shown to help stop the conversion of certain lesions to cancerous cells. As a result of these combined compounds, kale has been shown to prevent and fight against cancers such as breast, prostate, oral, colorectal, kidney and esophageal.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalhealth365.com/health-benefits-of-kale-3274.html

Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay

Are you or a loved one suffering from cancer? Avail yourself of this free week-long online coaching program from Chris Wark at the ‘Chris Beat Cancer’ website (Feb 11-21)

Get the Roadmap to Radically Transform Your Approach to Health, and Give Your Body the Nutritional Support it Needs for a Cancer Free Life

TESTIMONIALS (many more at the link): 

“I was diagnosed with Hodgkins Lymphoma in February. I followed Square One and am now cancer free without chemo and radiation!! I am so very thankful!!”

“Nothing could prepare me for that phone call last December when I received a breast cancer diagnosis. After a day of shock I went searching for answers and found Square One. The more I read and listened the more empowered I became to take control of my health. Square One has given me all the tools and support I need to make a radical lifestyle change and it’s working! I haven’t felt this healthy, whole and complete ever before in my life!”

READ MORE

https://sq1.chrisbeatcancer.com/fbad2?fbclid=IwAR0vZjl94WEgb9224kI-6dcJVfrPrvdU-_vGgExuG5_rv_EL2RzICgFtNuE&affiliate=569

Image by SnapwireSnaps from Pixabay

3 Reasons Why I Refused Chemo for Cancer (And Cured Cancer Naturally)

129K subscribers

Stage 3 colon cancer survivor story: Why I refused chemo for cancer and cured cancer naturally. I decided to treat cancer without chemotherapy and cured my stage 3 colon cancer through cancer fighting foods and an anti-cancer diet For the chemo study mentioned in this video go to http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/why-i-… 1. Chemo is a toxic chemical drug. It is poison. 2. Chemo causes secondary cancers. It is carcinogenic. 3. Chemo destroys your immune system. ============== Subscribe to my youtube channel here: http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/subscr… If you or someone you care about has cancer, make sure you download my powerful free guide: 20 Questions For Your Oncologist Learn the best questions to ask before starting treatment: http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/20qyt Watch this video! What every cancer patient needs to know: http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/every-… I created a coaching program for cancer patients called SQUARE ONE (Get Module 1 for free through the link below) http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/health… Subscribe to Chris Beat Cancer on YouTube: http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com/subscr… ============== The information in this video is not intended as medical advice. In addition to searching the Internet for information related cancer and health, please consider consulting with a qualified medical healthcare professional.

Image by Hany Sadek from Pixabay

Emails show Monsanto orchestrated GOP effort to intimidate cancer researchers

Kiwis still love this stuff (Roundup) and anyway it’s in other concoctions also on your supermarket shelves. As per usual they’re all either fast asleep, don’t care or in collusion with the govt/corporation that’s truly in bed with agrichem (IMO anyway). I had a convo recently with a worker at one of the big outlets that sell glyphosate ‘enriched’ creations for your garden edges etc who told me confidently ‘they’ (whoever they are) found it only affected those who worked with it all the time. All good for everybody else then by that calculation I expect. Councils here particularly love it. Try and take them on to dispense with it & you’ll get a glazed look whilst you reel off the independent science, then it’s – yawn – ‘next please’.  (I tried it, you’re up against bought councils & the old boys’ club of farmers).  The header image of the rats is a screen shot from Prof Seralini’s lab experiment … you can watch that at this link in case you still think glyphosate in Roundup is safe. And/or read further on our glyphosate pages. EWR

From theintercept.com

IN 2015, the World Health Organization’s cancer research arm, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, classified glyphosate, an active ingredient in the herbicide Roundup, as a “probable carcinogen,” setting off a global debate about the world’s most popular weedkiller.

Over the last four years, Republicans in Congress have excoriated and pushed to defund the IARC, casting their defense of the chemical as a quest on behalf of small American farmers. Rep. Frank Lucas, R-Okla., has written that his outrage over the cancer research is on behalf of the “farmers and food manufacturers who rely on traditional farming methods to produce the food that fuels America — and the world.”

But according to a recent trove of documents, the ongoing political assault on the IARC has been scripted in part by Monsanto, the St. Louis-based chemical and seed conglomerate that produces Roundup and Roundup-resistant crops.

Roundup has been cash cow for the company since the 1970s, fueling billions of dollars in annual profits. Its use has skyrocketed in recent decades since the company developed genetically modified corn and other crops that are resistant to it; it is now the world’s leading herbicide.

A growing number of individuals say that Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the dangers of using Roundup and had marketed the chemical spray as harmless to humans, while internally recommending that its own employees use gloves and protective gear. Critics say that the Roundup formula used in the U.S. also contains a surfactant that makes the herbicide far more toxic than the variation of the spray sold in the European market.

Monsanto, which merged with German multinational pharmaceutical company Bayer AG last year, is facing as many as 11,000 cases relating to glyphosate. Last year, Dewayne Johnson, a former groundskeeper now dying of cancer, was the first to win his jury trial in San Francisco state court against Monsanto, alleging that years of using Roundup contributed to his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Johnson was awarded $289 million by a jury, though a judge later reduced the amount to $78 million. Another plaintiff, Edwin Hardeman, also alleged that he spent decades spraying the glyphosate-based weedkiller with little to no protective gear and developed the same blood cancer, won a similar case in federal court this year.

READ MORE

https://theintercept.com/2019/08/23/monsanto-republicans-cancer-research/

Photo: Screen shot from Prof Seralini’s video

Doubts raised about effectiveness of HPV vaccines (Medical Journal)

Search for ‘gardasil’ in categories here (left of page) to find other articles on Gardasil. There are many that give injuries and deaths for this vaccine … EWR

From eurekalert.org

A new analysis of the clinical trials of HPV vaccines to prevent cervical cancer raises doubts about the vaccines’ effectiveness. The analysis, published by the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, assessed 12 published Phase 2 and 3 randomised controlled efficacy trials of the HPV vaccines Cervarix and Gardasil.

The analysis, carried out by researchers at Newcastle University and Queen Mary University of London, revealed many methodological problems in the design of the Phase 2 and 3 efficacy trials, leading to uncertainty regarding understanding the effectiveness of HPV vaccination.

The researchers found that the trials were not designed to detect cervical cancer, which takes decades to develop. Women in the trials were followed up for six years or less, apart from one trial extension to just under nine years. While the researchers found evidence that vaccination prevents low grade abnormal cell changes, they said this is not clinically important because no treatment is given.

Lead researcher Dr Claire Rees, of Queen Mary University of London, said: “Trials may have overestimated efficacy by combining high-grade cervical disease with low-grade cervical changes that occur more frequently but often resolve spontaneously without progressing. We found insufficient data to clearly conclude that HPV vaccine prevents the higher-grade abnormal cell changes that can eventually develop into cervical cancer.”

Dr Rees added: “Abnormal cell changes are likely to have been overdiagnosed in the trials because cervical cytology was conducted at 6-12 months rather than at the normal screening interval of 36 months. This, too, means that the trials may have overestimated the efficacy of the vaccine, again because some of the lesions would have regressed spontaneously.”

The researchers also found that the trial populations had limited relevance and validity for real world settings. The women in the trials were older than the target population.

Calling for women to still attend regular cervical screening, co-author of the study, Professor Allyson Pollock, of Newcastle University, said: “We have good evidence that cervical screening significantly reduces the risk of cervical cancer in women regardless of whether they have been vaccinated.”

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/s-dra012120.php?fbclid=IwAR31FdTcv0lDCbkwUq_QAM2CTsNh7waF0TK_WbwdqJidIJiM4At4COfMoXU

Brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the leading cause of  cancer deaths in children

From phiremedical.org (Physicians’ Health Initiative for Radiation and Environment)

Brain tumours have overtaken leukaemia as the leading cause of  cancer deaths in children 1 (both are associated with EMR exposure). Children today have an unprecedented exposure that is higher than that experienced any generation before them and they have been shown to absorb more radiation than adults.

A five year old can absorb sixty percent more microwave radiation than an adult 2 and exposures in bone marrow can be up to ten times greater 3. Overall, they are more likely to suffer greater biological effects from EMR exposure because:

  • Children’s thinner skulls, and smaller bones allow greater absorption into bone and deeper tissues
  • Children’s brains (especially neonates) can have higher water content and so absorb more radiation
  • Children are smaller (a relatively higher proportion of their tissues may be closer to a point source) 4 5 6 7
  • Children have more vulnerable developing systems (e.g. neurological/reproductive)
  • Children have a longer time ahead for latent effects to manifest 8 9 10 11.

 

READ MORE

http://phiremedical.org/vulnerability-in-children/?fbclid=IwAR2lSncJ52lg3ShZoY1T-uieW6fJ69fWbUqxIFSwLlXED9L7japyd5PUn5c

CHRIS WARK: A Kick-Ass Plan to Beat Cancer Naturally | Stage 3 Cancer Survivor | Chris Beat Cancer

94.3K subscribers
If you or someone you know is fighting cancer, you need to watch this! Chris Wark shares his emotional journey from refusing chemotherapy with stage 3 cancer to beating cancer through diet, exercise, intuition and faith. He’s now been cancer-free for 15 years. SHOW INTRODUCTION: If you’ve ever wanted to heal from illness, feel your greatest, or literally heal from cancer, then do we have the Chris Beat Cancer show for you! Today I’ll be talking with Chris Wark, speaker, patient advocate, wellness crusader, and the author of one of the most brilliant books I’ve ever read on health, Chris Beat Cancer. And that’s just what I want to talk with him about today, about how to listen to your instincts, step out in faith, and take massive action to help heal our bodies. 🌟PRIVATE COACHING w/Michael Sandler! http://www.inspirenationshow.com/coac… [Book a FREE Consultation Today!] 🌟GET YOUR INSPIRE NATION “BACKSTAGE” PASS! https://www.patreon.com/inspirenation [Private videos, highlights, sneak peaks & prizes – a new winner every month!] WEBSITE: http://www.InspireNationShow.com Subscribe NOW to Inspire Nation: http://www.tinyurl.com/youtubeinspire SUBSCRIBE TO OUR PODCAST! —Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/inspirespotify —Apple Podcasts: http://www.tinyurl.com/InspireNation —Google Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/InspireGooglePlay —iHeart Radio: http://www.iheart.com/show/263-inspir… LET’S CONNECT! Inspire Nation –Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/InspireNatio… –Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/inspire7billion –Google+: https://plus.google.com/+Inspirenatio… Michael Sandler –Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/runswithspirit MORE ON CHRIS WARK: http://www.ChrisBeatCancer.com Chris Wark was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer in 2003, at 26 years old. After surgery, he opted out of chemotherapy and used nutrition and natural therapies to heal. He began sharing his story in 2010 with a mission to inspire people to take control of their health and reverse disease by radically transforming their diet and lifestyle. Chris reaches millions of people per year as a blogger, podcaster, speaker and global health coach through his social media channels and his website http://www.chrisbeatcancer.com. Chris Beat Cancer Topics Include: What happened to Chris Wark at age 26? What happened when he tried out for The Apprentice? How was he diagnosed with Cancer? What was he told by the oncologist? What was the shift Chris made at this time? What does commitment have to do with anything? What’s the importance of trusting your intuition? What’s it mean to step out on faith? What do you do if things don’t feel right? What’s it mean to truly have something to live for? What’s it mean to “overdose on nutrition” How can food fuel our health? What’s the problem with health-care today (and how can we overcome it)? What is the Beat Cancer Mindset? What’s the importance of accepting total responsibility for your health? What’s the importance of being willing to do whatever it takes? What does it mean to take massive action? How important is it for our health to make bold plans for the future? How important is gratitude in our health? What’s the importance of a plant-based diet? How can we use plants to beat cancer and return us to perfect health? How important is stress reduction in a return to perfect health? How do we need to change our internal languaging? How do we move past negative self-talk? What’s the importance of forgiveness? What’s it mean to choose faith?

 

 

Image by Shad0wfall from Pixabay

Cell phone tower shut down at elementary school after eight kids are diagnosed with cancer in ‘mysterious’ cluster

“There is scant evidence that cell phone towers pose a real risk to humans”
Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit”

SURE!

Do watch Josh del Sol’s ‘Take Back Your Power’ doco. He explains how the industry levels are set. Like the 1080 crowd in NZ these corporations know exactly how to not find things in their testing and research. Ask the many scientists (also in the doco) whose services are not required if they find the ‘wrong’ results. EWR

From dailymail.co.uk

  • The affected students at Weston Elementary School in Ripon are all under the age of 10
  • They each have different types of cancer: brain, kidney, liver and lymphoma 
  • There is scant evidence that cell phone towers pose a real risk to humans
  • But even skeptics say the number of cases in this cluster is unusual
  • Sprint, which owns the tower, has shut it down despite insisting the radio frequency levels are 100 times below the federal limit
  • A private investigator for the patients’ moms found the levels were higher than reported

Monica Ferrulli, who son Mason was diagnosed with brain cancer in 2016, told CBS: ‘It is classified as a possible carcinogen.

‘That tells us that there is some evidence out there.

‘We’re not naive to the fact that there could be other components out there – other environmental influences… but the bottom line that we feel in regards to this tower is it doesn’t belong there… if there’s any indications that its unsafe.’

READ MORE

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-6886561/Cell-phone-tower-shut-elementary-school-eight-kids-diagnosed-cancer.html?ito=facebook_share_article-top&fbclid=IwAR2nOvBHOvY3sS40JlfOjG6z1M-iobQ7O430VVqxtXFSZdUozno9KkS_ZEc

Photo credit: Daily Mail UK

Johnson & Johnson, ovarian cancer risks, and the law

From whenwomeninspire.com

Across America, women are taking the fight to Johnson & Johnson. The massive company behind many of the nation’s favorite products has come under fire amongst claims that their product, talcum powder, can cause ovarian cancer. If you want to take part in this class action lawsuit, make sure you seek out a professional compensation lawyer and get the Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks details here.

About the lawsuit regarding Johnson & Johnson ovarian cancer risks

The claims come after the resurfacing of a study from 1982. As a result of this study, a group of researchers took their findings to Johnson & Johnson. They told them that the results of their research clearly suggested a link between talcum powder and a higher risk of developing cancer.

Twelve years later, in 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition also appealed to the company to ask them to recall the products and stop making talcum powder with its current ingredients.

The group spearheading the lawsuit versus the company claim that the company knowingly ignored the research and never told the public about it. They didn’t put warning labels on their products, and they even advertised that people use the potentially cancerous products on high-risk parts of their bodies.

READ MORE

https://whenwomeninspire.com/2019/11/28/johnson-johnson-ovarian/

Chris Wark: How He Beat Cancer and Inspired the World with Real Food

Excellent information. Just over an hour’s watch. To skip the intro Chris starts at around 6 minutes. EWR

49.9K subscribers

Click here for your free Fat-Burning Kit: http://fatburningman.com/bonus We’re here today with Chris Wark, the inspiration behind the popular blog and podcast, Chris Beats Cancer. Chris is a speaker and personal health coach with clients all over the world, including celebrities and even medical doctors. We’re going to explore the relationship between diet and cancer. Specifically, how a poor diet can lead to cancer and speed its growth, and how a clean, nutrient-dense diet could help reverse it. Like the show on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/fatburningman Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/fatburnman

Foods that fight cancer

331K subscribers
Dr. Dawn Mussallem, a breast cancer expert and cancer survivor, shares information about foods that fight and prevent cancer. Hear from other experts at the 2019 Capture the Moment Cancer Education Symposium on March 2 in Orlando, Florida. Sign up at https://capturethemomentorlando.event….
Image by congerdesign from Pixabay

Johnson & Johnson accused of hiding the asbestos in its baby powder for decades

Oh how the corporations care about you & your babies. Not! …

Johnson & Johnson has long been the undisputed leader in baby product sales and has always tried to portray itself as a gentle, caring company. But a startling new report by Reuters suggests otherwise. The report indicates that small amounts of asbestos have been lurking in some of the company’s talc — the substance that makes baby powder powdery — going back to the 1970s. The company allegedly didn’t openly communicate results, and at times purposely obfuscated them, to both consumers and the Food and Drug Administration.

The information Reuters examined came to light this past summer. Johnson & Johnson was sued by 22 women who claimed the company’s baby powder caused their ovarian cancer, resulting in a $4.7 billion verdict against the company. As a result, old company documents revealing the deception were made public. On Friday, this news tanked the company’s stock, which dropped 11 percent.

This is just the latest in a string of bad news for the company, which has already been battling lawsuits and terrible PR. In recent years, Johnson & Johnson faced some backlash after it was discovered that its iconic golden baby shampoo contained formaldehyde-releasing ingredients. The company removed those chemicals (although they’re probably safe in the amount present in personal care products) and even recently overhauled its entire baby range to compete with smaller brands that have embraced so-called “clean” ingredients.

Most recently, it’s been battling lawsuit after lawsuit alleging that talc use caused plaintiffs’ cancers. Notably, some evidence from a 2016 lawsuit suggested that in the early ’90s, the company targeted black and Hispanic women, who already used the powder in the genital area in higher numbers than white women, for “more aggressive marketing.” There are another 11,700 plaintiffs lined up for cases against J&J, all related to talc.

J&J has vehemently denied that its talc contained asbestos throughout these suits. The link between ovarian cancer and talc is not conclusive, and it’s still not clear that the tiny amounts of asbestos reported in J&J’s past testing were capable of causing the cancers in the past and current lawsuits. But what’s not in dispute is that asbestos is indeed a well-established carcinogen.

The negative publicity from the high legal payouts and Reuters’s seemingly damning evidence of sneaky behavior from the company in the past has brought the issue of hygiene product safety and consumer trust to the forefront. The FDA has very little regulatory power over hygiene products and cosmetics. But this news, which comes at a time when consumer demand is putting a lot of pressure on legislators, may finally mean that laws change.

Baby powder and asbestos

Talc is a natural mineral that is mined from the earth. It’s not totally certain that talc, and its end product talcum powder, is safe even in its purest form. In some cases, it can also be contaminated with asbestos. Asbestos — a category of fibrous minerals known to cause cancer — often shows up in the same mines where talc is, causing contamination.

Health organizations globally recognize asbestos as a carcinogen, causing cancers like mesothelioma and ovarian cancer, especially among people like miners, construction workers, and factory employees who have been exposed to it in large quantities. It gets fuzzier when trying to determine exactly how much exposure is required to actually cause cancer; no one knows how little is enough to set off the very complex chain of events that lead to the disease.

The Reuters report indicates that it’s probably “impossible” to completely purify mined talc and definitely impossible to test for asbestos thoroughly and conclusively in all commercial batches. This all adds up to a recipe for consumer concern — and lawsuits.

The Reuters article, by Lisa Girion, focuses heavily on reports and testing that J&J did in the 1970s on both its baby powder and its Shower to Shower product that was marketed to adults. It weaves a tale of how the company appears to have misled consumers and even the FDA after scientists figured out that asbestos was harmful and that it was showing up in talc samples. The FDA at one point in the ’70s was determining whether and how to regulate it. Girion writes:

J&J didn’t tell the FDA about a 1974 test by a professor at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire that turned up asbestos in talc from J&J. … Nor did the company tell the FDA about a 1975 report from its longtime lab that found particles identified as “asbestos fibers” in five of 17 samples of talc from the chief source mine for Baby Powder. “Some of them seem rather high,” the private lab wrote in its cover letter.

READ MORE

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2018/12/14/18141265/johnson-johnson-talc-asbestos-lawsuits-cover-up-stock-price?fbclid=IwAR0VeCH8VkoURcF9KfGSs7Z4qunS63uz6PpqV74H6vd2fnq4EPyTZjFa8gE

Photo: pixabay.com

GARDASIL VACCINE FOUND TO INCREASE CERVICAL CANCER RISK BY 44.6% IN WOMEN ALREADY EXPOSED TO HPV

From wakingtimes.com

In our September 18th debate for Spectrum TV, Kaiser’s Chief of Pediatrics, Dr. Robert Riewerts, parroted Pharma’s popular canard that the Gardasil vaccine has eliminated cervical cancer in Australia—the first country to mandate the jab. This is false.

… Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination.
Slide 1: Table 17 from Merck’s own clinical studies.

The table shows that Gardasil actually increases the risk of cervical cancer by a terrifying 44.6% among women who were exposed to HPV infection prior to vaccination. If anyone ever bullies you to take Gardasil, look up “Gardasil Vaccine Insert” on your cell phone to see all of the adverse events and show them this table. [From original BLA. Study 013 CSR. Table 11-88, p. 636]

READ MORE

https://www.wakingtimes.com/2019/10/11/gardasil-vaccine-found-to-increase-cervical-cancer-risk-by-44-6-in-women-already-exposed-to-hpv/

Photo credit: Pixabay.com

Cancer risk from tap water much higher than previously believed… is your water truly clean?

Check out also our articles on water at ‘categories’ at the left of the page. We’ve drawn attention frequently to chlorine being a carcinogen. Then there’s the fluoride scam as well. Check also at the main menu for those topics. EWR

(Natural News) New research published in the open-access journal Heliyon reveals that “drinking water” from the tap isn’t all that drinkable after all, seeing as how it often contains carcinogenic chemicals that increase cancer risk in people exposed to it.

Over the course of a lifetime, warns the Environmental Working Group (EWG), the study’s author, simple exposure to carcinogenic tap water could be cumulatively linked to some 100,000 cancer cases over the course of a lifetime.

Even though this carcinogenic tap water technically meets federal guidelines for what’s considered “safe,” EWG researchers found that carcinogens like arsenic, as well as the byproducts of radionuclides such as uranium and radium, are, in fact, contributing to cancer at current levels.

“The vast majority of community water systems meet legal standards,” stated Olga Naidenko, vice president for science investigations at EWG. “Yet the latest research shows that contaminants present in the water at those concentrations – perfectly legal – can still harm human health.

To learn about ways to purify your tap water for safe drinking, be sure to check out WaterFilters.news.

Cancer-causing contaminants are present in nearly 50,000 community water systems throughout the U.S.

With funding from the Park Foundation, the EWG study identified 22 different contaminants with carcinogenic risks in 48,363 community water systems throughout the United States. Based on EWG’s calculations, this covers the water systems that service about 86 percent of the U.S. population.

READ MORE

https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-23-cancer-risk-from-tap-water-higher.html

Paradoxical Effect of Anti-HPV Vaccine Gardasil on Cervical Cancer Rate

Posted on:

Wednesday, February 6th 2019 at 12:30 pm

Written By:

Nicole Delépine

Originally published on www.docteur.nicoledelepine.fr

“How wonderful that we have met with a paradox. Now we have some hope of making progress”. Niels Bohr (Nobel prized for his works on the structure of the atom and chemical reactions)

Changing the natural history of cancer that increases in frequency and occurs faster.

It takes a long time to affirm that a preventive action really protects. But the failure of this supposed protection can sometimes be very quickly obvious. To prove that the Titanic was truly unsinkable would have required decades of navigation on the most dangerous seas of the world. Demonstrating that it wasn’t, took only a few hours … This » Titanic » demonstration is unfortunately reproduced by the Gardasil vaccination.

Evidence that vaccination increases the risk of invasive cancer can be rapid, if the vaccine changes the natural history of cancer by accelerating it. The analysis of trends in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer published in official statistics (registers) was studied in the first and most fully vaccinated countries (Australia, Great Britain, Sweden and Norway). Unfortunately, it’s the case for HPV vaccines.

Pre-vaccination period: spectacular success of cervical smear screening with a steady decrease in the rate of invasive cervical cancer.

In all countries that performed smear screening, the pre-vaccination period from 1989 to 2007 was marked by a significant decrease in the standardized incidence of cervical cancer.

In less than 20 years, the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased from:

  • 13.5 to 9.4 in Great Britain [1]
  • 13.5 to 7 in Australia [2]
  • 11.6 to 10.2 in Sweden [3]
  • 15.1 to 11 in Norway [4]
  • 10.7 to 6.67 in the USA [5]
  • 11 to 7.1 in France

Globally, in the countries that used smear screening, the average annual rate of decline was 2.5% between 1989 and 2000 and 1% between 2000 and 2007, resulting in a total decrease of nearly 30% across 1989-2007.

Era of vaccination: reversal of the trend. Gardasil’s prevention failure erases the beneficial effects of the smear and accelerates the onset of cervical cancer.

Since vaccination, in all the countries implemented with a large vaccination program, there is a reversal of the trend, with a significant increase in the frequency of invasive cancers in the most vaccinated groups. Let’s look at OFFICIAL sources.

AUSTRALIA: contrary to the FAKE NEWS OF THE MEDIA AND POLITICS, REGISTER DOES NOT SHOW CANCERS OF THE CERVIX DISAPPEAR, BUT INCREASE.

Australia was the first country to organize routine immunization for girls (April 2007 school-based program for females aged 12–13 years, July 2007 time-limited catch-up program targeting females aged 14–26 years) and then for boys (2013). According to the last Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publication (2018 publication describing the detailed rates until 2014) [6], the standardized incidence in the overall population has not decreased since vaccination 7/100000 in 2007 versus 7.4 in 2014.

This global stabilization results from two contradictory trends that only appear by examining trends, according to age groups.

Vaccinated age groups women have seen their risk increase:

100% increase for those aged 15 to 19 (from 0.1 in 2007 to 0.2 in 2014)

113% increase (from 0.7 to 1.5) in groups aged 20 to 24 more than 80% of them were catch up vaccinated when 13 to 17 years old.

But, as the figures are very small, this increase does not reach statistical significance.

About a third increase for 25-29 group (from 5.9 to 8,p=0.06) and for 30-34 (from 9.9 to 12.4 c=0.80 p=0.01) less vaccinated. These increases are statistically significant cannot be due to hazard.

A drama known to one top athlete: Sarah Tait

This increased risk of cancer following vaccination was dramatically illustrated by the sad story of Sarah Tait, olympic rowing champion, at the 2012 London Olympics. This champion saw her life shattered in full glory: she suffered invasive cervical cancer a few years later, being vaccinated and died at age 33. Of course, we don’t know if vaccination was the direct cause of her cancer, but she has, statistically, a one in two chances of having suffered from a cancer linked to vaccination (to be part of the 113% increase of cancer observed after vaccination). In addition, we remark that cancer appears very early in this woman.

Non vaccinated women continue to benefit from screening with pap smear

During the same period, older women (and therefore unvaccinated) saw their cancer risk decrease significantly:

  • less 17% for women aged 55 to 59 (from 9.7 to 8.1)
  • less 13% for women aged 60 to 64 ( from 10.3 to 8.9)
  • less 23% for those aged 75 to 79 (from 11.5 to 8.8)
  • and even less 31% for those aged 80 to 84 (from 14.5 to 10)

GREAT BRITAIN: THE PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL PROMOTING CANCER

In UK, a national program was introduced in 2008 to offer HPV vaccination routinely to 12–13-year-old and offer catch-up vaccination to girls up to 18 years old. The UK national program initially used the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix), but, changed in 2012 to use the quadrivalent vaccine (Gardasil). HPV vaccination coverage in England has been high with over 80% of 12–13 years old receiving the full course coverage. The catch-up cohort has been lower covered (ranging from 39% to 76%).

Since the vaccination, the standardized incidence in the overall population increased from 9.4 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.6 in 2015. We observe contrasting trends between the age groups.

Vaccination promoters expected cervical cancer rates decrease in women aged 20 to 24 from 2014, as vaccinated adolescents enter their second decade. However, in 2016, national statistics showed a sharp and significant increase in the rate of cervical cancer in this age group. This information of 2016 has unfortunately not been publicized. They could have served as an alert.

Women aged between 20 and 25 yearsvaccinated for more than 85% of them, when they were between 14 and 18 years old, have seen their cancer risk increase by 70% in 2 years (from 2.7 in 2012 to 4.6 per 100,000 in 2014 p = 0.0006) and those aged 25 to 30, ( aged between 18 and 23 at the time of the vaccination campaign) have seen their cancer risk increase by 100% between 2007 and 2015 [7] (from 11 / 100,000 to 22 / 100,000 ).

Women 25 to 34 years, (less vaccinated, only exposed to some catch-up vaccinations), have seen their risk increased by 18% (from 17 in 2007 to 20 in 2014).

In Great Britain, as in Australia, older, unvaccinated women have seen their risk decrease:

(-13% for women aged 65 to 79 and -10% for those over 80), most likely because continuation of smear screening.

SAME PARADOXICAL PHENOMENON OF GARDASIL IN SWEDEN: THE RATE OF CANCER INCREASES IN THE VACCINATED AGE GROUPS. ALERT!

In Sweden, Gardasil has been used since 2006. The vaccination program was rolled out in 2010, with vaccination coverage of 12-year-old girls approaching 80%. In 2012-2013, with a catch-up program, almost all girls aged 13 to 18 were vaccinated.

In this country, the standardized incidence of cervical cancer in the global population has increased steadily since vaccination from 9.6 per 100000 in 2006 to 9.7 in 2009, 10.3 in 2012 and 11.49 in 2015 [8]. This increase is mostly due to the increase in the incidence of invasive cancers among women aged 20-24 whose incidence doubled (from 1.86 in 2007 to3.72 in 2015 p<0.001) [9] and in women aged 20 to 29 the incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix increased by 19% (from 6.69 to 8.01)

In contrast, as in Australia and Great Britain, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer has been observed in women over 50, a group that has not been included in the vaccination program. The incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix decreased between 2007 and 2015 by 6% for women aged 50 to 59 (from 14.24 to 13.34), and 4% for those aged 60 to 69 (12.63%). at 12.04,) 17% for those aged 70 to 79 (from 15.28 to 12.66) and 12% for those over 80 (from 15.6 to 13.68).

IN NORWAY

Cancer registry shows an increase in the standardized incidence of invasive cancer of the cervix from 11.7 in 2007 to 12.2 in 2009, 13.2 in 2012 and 14. 9 2015 [10].

This increase is due -almost exclusively- to young women, which include all vaccinated, as evidenced by the sharp decline of the average age of onset of the cervix cancer from 48 years in 2002-2006 to 45 years in 2012-2016.

Between 2007 and 2015, the incidence of invasive cervical cancer increased by 8% among women aged 20 to 29 (from 7.78 to 8.47). [11]

During the same period, a decrease in the incidence of invasive cancer was observed in older women, not involved in the vaccination program: -11% for women aged 55 to 64 (15.47 to 13.7), -16% for those aged 65 to 74 (17.7 to 14.71) and -29% for those aged 75 to 85 (18.39 to 13).

IN USA

In this country, vaccination coverage is lower than in previous countries (close to 60%).

According to the Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2015 [12], the standardized incidence of invasive cervical cancer remains stable (+0.1) since vaccination.

In US, the same discrepancy is observed according to age groups, but of lesser amplitude. Women over 50, benefit a 5% decrease in their risk (from 10.37 per 100000 in 2007 to 9.87 in 2015), whereas younger women, which include vaccinated, have given their risk increase of 4% (5.24 in 2007 to 5.47 in 2015).

WITNESS COUNTRY: FRANCE 

The evolution of these countries, with high immunization coverage, can be compared to the trend observed in metropolitan France, where HPV vaccination coverage is very low (around 15%). France can be considered, for this reason, as a control country. In France [13] the incidence of cervical cancer has steadily decreased from 15 in 1995 to 7.5 in 2007, 6.7 in 2012 and 6 in 2017, much lower than those of countries with high vaccine coverage.

This decrease in incidence was accompanied by a decrease in mortality from 5 in 1980 to 1.8 in 2012 and 1.7 in 2017.

It is paradoxical and very worrying that these excellent French results, with low cervix cancer rate and low related mortality, could be jeopardized by an obligation considered in the short term by our policies, for some misinformed and other big pharma links [14].

DRAMATIC AND UNEXPECTED PARADOXICAL EFFECT OF GARDASIL: THE ALERT MUST BE GIVEN TO DECISION MAKERS AND THE MEDIA. 

In all countries that achieved high HPV vaccination coverage, official cancer registries show an increase in the incidence of invasive cervical cancer.

For women under 20, the crude numbers are too small to reach statistical significance, but the similar increases in all the studied countries constitutes a strong alarm signal.

For women 20-30 the incidence increases after catch up vaccination, and is highly significant (p<0.01or 0.001). In these same countries, during the same period, older women, not vaccinated, have seen their risk of cervical cancer continue to decline.

Similarly, in metropolitan France, a country with low vaccination coverage, the incidence of cervical cancer continues to decline at a rate comparable to the pre-vaccination period.

These paradoxical results plea for a rapid revision of recommendations and intensive research to explain this catastrophic issue.

For additional research on the health risks of the HPV vaccine, visit the GreenMedInfo database on the subject. 


References

[1] Cancer Research UK, Cervical Cancer (C53): 1993-2015, European Age-Standardized Incidence Rates per 100,000 Population, Females, UK Accessed 08 [ 2018 ].

[2] AIHW [2]. 13. AIHW 2017. Cancer in Australia 2017. Cancer series no. 101. Cat. No. CAN 100. Canberra: AIHW.

[3] NORDCAN, Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries 3.1.2018

[4] Bo T Hansen, Suzanne Campbell, Mari Nygård Long-term incidence of HPV related cancers, and cases preventableby HPV vaccination: a registry-based study in Norway BMJ Open 2018; 8: e019005

[5] Table 5.1 Cancer of the Cervix Uteri (Invasive) Trends in SEER Incidence and US Mortality SEER Cancer Statistics Review 1975-2012

[6] Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017 Australian Cancer Incidence and Mortality (ACIM) books: cervical cancer Canberra: AIHW. <https://www.aihw.gov.au/acim-books>.

[7] A Castanona, P Sasienia Is the recent increase in cervical cancer in women aged 20-24 years in England a cause for concern? Preventive Medicine 107 (2018) 21-28

[8] Nationellt Kvalitetsregister für Cervix cancer prevention (NKCx), https://nkcx.se/templates/_rsrapport_2017.pdf [in Swedish]

[9] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from https://www.ancr.nu, accessed it 30 / 09 / 2018.

[10] Cancer in Norway 2016

[11] Engholm G, Ferlay J, Christensen N, Hansen HL, Hertzum-Larsen R, Johannesen TB, Kejs AMT, Khan S, Olafsdottir E, Petersen T, Schmidt LKH, Virtanen A and Storm HH: Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Prevalence and Survival in the Nordic Countries, Version 8.1 (28.06.2018). Association of the Nordic Cancer Registries. Danish Cancer Society. Available from https://www.ancr.nu, accessed is 1 / 10 / 2018

[12] SEER 9 National Center for Health Statistics, CDC

[13] Francim, HCL, Public Health France, INCa. Projections of Cancer Incidence and Mortality in Metropolitan France in 2017 – Solid Tumors [Internet]. Saint-Maurice: Public health France [updated 02/01/2018; viewed on the 09/05/2018

[14] https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/gardasil-alerte-risque-imminent-d-206314 Gardasil, alert, imminent risk of mandatory vaccination against HPV unnecessary, and sometimes dangerous, for girls and boys.

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.
SOURCE
HPV

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/paradoxical-effect-anti-hpv-vaccine-gardasil-cervical-cancer-rate

Electropollution and the Decline in Health of a Nation

The biggest health threat to the US is electropollution. The explosion of iPhones, Blackberries, WiFi, WiMax, video game consoles and even remote-control toys has fundamentally changed our electrical environment. You can’t see it, you can’t taste it, you can’t touch it; but the air all around us is increasingly filled with electromagnetic radiation (EMR) that is penetrating our bodies and disrupting our body chemistry – perhaps forever.
Every moment of every day, invisible fields of electrons are striking our bodies like tiny darts, triggering dozens of bio-chemical reactions, which undermine our health and stealthily lay the groundwork for disease.
How does this happen? As Nobel-prize nominee, Dr. Robert Becker described in “The Body Electric,” our brains; our hearts and every one of the seven trillion cells in our bodies operate on electrical impulses. These minuscule electrical fields can easily be disrupted by the electropollution around us, especially when frequency wavelength is in the brainwave region (0-33 hertz), or matches up with and resonates with electrically-charged particles like ions and chemicals or organs of the body. Becker also found that healing only takes place if the current at the point of injury is negatively charged. When it turns positive, the healing process shuts down. So, even our ability to heal is fundamentally dependent upon electrical fields and thus subject to interference from ambient EMR. In the 1960s NASA found that astronauts would lose up to 50% of their bone mass in just weeks without the presence of the earth’s natural electromagnetic field. Later an artificial version of the earth’s electromagnetic field was added to the spacecraft, which reduced the problem.
READ MORE

http://emfrefugee.blogspot.com/2011/12/electropollution-and-decline-in-health.html