Tag Archives: genes

Scientists, Using Software to Fight Dubious Cancer Research

WHILE TRAWLING THROUGH scientific studies on cancer research in 2015, Jennifer Byrne noticed something strange. One after another, papers were describing strikingly similar experiments involving a particular gene associated with breast cancer and childhood leukemia. Byrne, a professor of molecular oncology at The University of Sydney, recognized the gene immediately because she was part of a team that cloned it two decades earlier.

The problem, she realized upon closer inspection, was that the papers, all of them from China, referred to the wrong nucleotide sequence — a unique series of letters that describes the makeup of a given piece of DNA — being used to deactivate the gene and observe the resulting effects in cancer cells. Either the experiments weren’t examining what they claimed, or they hadn’t been done as described.

“The sequence was being described as one thing, but was sometimes used as if it were something different,” Byrne says. “It’s a bit like applying the same barcode to different items in a supermarket, so you get charged for a pair of shoes when you are actually buying a bag of lettuce.”

What’s worse, each dubious paper contained the seeds of potentially more bad research.

READ MORE

https://undark.org/article/software-byrne-cancer-research-fraud/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=SocialWarfareShares

The ‘Deadly Breast Cancer Gene’ is a Myth, Lancet Study Confirms

Sayer Ji, Green Med Info
Waking Times 

new Lancet Oncology study, reported widely in the mainstream media, confirms that the so-called “breast cancer genes,” i.e. BRCA1/2, do not have the power to determine breast cancer survival outcomes, as widely believed by the medical profession.

The study titled, “Germline BRCA mutation and outcome in young-onset breast cancer (POSH): a prospective cohort study,” found,

“[There is] no significant difference in overall survival or distant disease-free survival between patients carrying a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation and patients without these mutations after a diagnosis of breast cancer.”

The BBC broke down the study’s findings in greater detail, in their online article titled, “Breast cancer survival ‘unaffected by faulty gene‘”

“The study, published in The Lancet Oncology, found 12% of 2,733 women aged 18 to 40 treated for breast cancer at 127 hospitals across the UK between 2000 and 2008 had a BRCA mutation.

The women’s medical records were tracked for up to 10 years.

During this time, 651 of the women died from breast cancer, and those with the BRCA mutation were equally likely to have survived at the two-, five- and 10-year mark as those without the genetic mutation.

This was not affected by the women’s body mass index or ethnicity.

About a third of those with the BRCA mutation had a double mastectomy to remove both breasts after being diagnosed with cancer. This surgery did not appear to improve their chances of survival at the 10-year mark.”

The study has powerful implications for the future of breast screening programs and the standard of care for ‘breast cancer’ patients. So powerful is the belief that BRCA genes ’cause’ breast cancer, that millions around the world consider it fact. Celebrities like Angelina Jolie have added fuel to the fire of this dangerous myth, by electing to have her breasts removed ‘prophylactically’ due to her BRCA status and the recommendations of her physicians. I discussed questionable nature of this decision in a previous article titled, Did Angelina Jolie Make A Mistake By Acting On The ‘Breast Cancer Gene’ Theory? I elaborated further on the topic in an article titled, “Pinkwashing Hell: Breast Removal as a Form of ‘Prevention‘.”

READ MORE

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2018/01/17/deadly-breast-cancer-gene-myth-lancet-study-confirms/?utm_source=Waking+Times+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=2b8798e717-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_25f1e048c1-2b8798e717-54601985

Developments in Chemical Biotechnology Continue to Threaten Environmental and Human Health

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

Story at-a-glance

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

By Dr. Mercola

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

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

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

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

Court Will Determine Roundup’s Role in Cancer

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

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

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

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

EPA Has a History of Protecting Chemical Industry

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

READ MORE

 

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