|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 13:19:54 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 13:19:54 GMT -5
KOSA makes no medical claims, and its purpose is purely informative. KOSA also does not intend to promote any particular cure, nor do they suggest that patients should eventually abandon their ongoing therapies in favor of any others.Did Cancer Evolve to Protect Us? - www.scientificamerican.com/article/did-cancer-evolve-to-protect-us/?WT.mc_id=SA_HLTH_20141007Could cancer be our cells’ way of running in “safe mode,” like a damaged computer operating system trying to preserve itself, when faced with an external threat? That’s the conclusion reached by cosmologist Paul Davies at Arizona State University in Tempe (A.S.U.) and his colleagues, who have devised a controversial new theory for cancer’s origins, based on its evolutionary roots. If correct, their model suggests that a number of alternative therapies, including treatment with oxygen and infection with viral or bacterial agents, could be particularly effective...........
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 15:33:56 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 15:33:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 15:38:57 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 15:38:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 15:42:01 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 15:42:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 15:55:39 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 15:55:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 16:07:46 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 16:07:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 16:10:06 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 16:10:06 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 16:11:11 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 16:11:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 16:14:57 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 16:14:57 GMT -5
The present work illustrates unique design, construction and operation of an i-motif-based DNA nanomachine templated on gold nanoparticles (AuNPs), which utilizes pH-responsive dynamic motion of i-motif DNA strands and aggregational behavior of AuNPs to elicit programmed delivery of therapeutic siRNA. The pH-sensitive nucleic acids immobilized on the AuNPs consisted of three functional segments, i.e., an i-motif DNA, an overhanging linker DNA and a therapeutic siRNA. At neutral pH, the i-motif DNA is hybridized with the overhanging linker DNA segment of the therapeutic siRNA. However, in endosomal acidic pH, the i-motif DNA forms interstrand tetraplex, which could induce cluster formation of AuNPs resulting in endosomal escape of AuNP clusters, and produce a high gene silencing efficiency by releasing siRNA in the cytosol. Furthermore, the cluster formation of AuNPs accelerated photothermal ablation of cells when irradiated with laser. Precise and synchronized biomechanical motion in subcellular microenvironment is realized through judicious integration of pH-responsive behavior of the i-motif DNA and AuNPs, and meticulous designing of DNA. i-Motif-Driven Au Nanomachines in Programmed siRNA Delivery for Gene-Silencing and Photothermal Ablation - pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/nn5022567암세포만 찾아가 죽이는 나노입자 기술 개발돼 - news.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2014/09/22/2014092202290.html?news_Head1This technology seems to be of a great help to cancer patients. However, this still seems to have limitations like following, at least. 1. It is not possible for it to be delivered to bone of bone cancer patients. 2. This cannot prevent cancer cells from being created. 3. What happens to the dead cancer cells? 이 기술에도 적어도 아래와 같은 문제점이 있다. 1. 골수암 환자의 뼈에 도달시킬 수 없다. 2. 새 암 세포가 생기는 것을 막을 수 없다. 3. 사망한 암 세포는 어떻게 될 것인지에 대한 답이 없다.
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 10, 2014 16:29:34 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 10, 2014 16:29:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Oct 11, 2014 19:59:28 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Oct 11, 2014 19:59:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Nov 5, 2014 20:13:45 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Nov 5, 2014 20:13:45 GMT -5
Cancer is Not a Cell It's a Fungus (Candida), Preventive care is Deathcare in Sheep's Clothing.Amygdalin (a modified form named laetrile or Vitamin B17) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_b17Please be reminded that WikiPedia does not always provide accurate information.What many people in nutrition industry does not think of: 1. Not all people have good metabolism and/or digestion system to absorb nutritions they recommend. 2. KOSA has successfully treated many different kinds of challenging diseases without changing diet or nutriiton.
|
|
|
Cancer
Nov 7, 2014 21:23:17 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Nov 7, 2014 21:23:17 GMT -5
GM and herbicide cancer warning suppressed in retracted study Glyphosate promotes growth of human breast cancer cells at minute concentrations Glyphosate in humans and animals within the range with carcinogenic potential Carcinogenic potential of glyphosate known since the 1980s Epidemiological evidence that pesticides are associated with cancer risks Why glyphosate should be banned..... Glyphosate and Cancer - www.i-sis.org.uk/Glyphosate_and_Cancer.php
|
|
|
Cancer
Nov 20, 2014 23:59:23 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Nov 20, 2014 23:59:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Dec 1, 2014 15:08:32 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Dec 1, 2014 15:08:32 GMT -5
A questions is though, would it work every time?
|
|
|
Cancer
Dec 1, 2014 17:09:49 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Dec 1, 2014 17:09:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Dec 2, 2014 13:24:13 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Dec 2, 2014 13:24:13 GMT -5
The evidence is growing that using cellphones increases the risk of developing glioma, a deadly form of brain cancer. A Swedish study found that people who talked on cellphones for more than 25 years had triple the risk compared to those who used the phones for less than a year. The study, which was published in the journal Pathophysiology, found that people who used the phones the most — a total of 1,486 hours — doubled their risk of being diagnosed with glioma. A previous Swedish study found that people who used cellphones regularly before the age of 20 quadrupled their risk of the rare tumor. An article, also published in Pathophysiology stated that brain cancer is only the "tip of the iceberg" because the rest of the body shows effects other than cancers. The actual numbers of gliomas caused by cellphones may be much higher, says neurosurgeon and health expert Dr. Russell Blaylock. "Because of problems with reporting, many gliomas are never reported," he tells Newsmax Health. "It may take over ten years of heavy use to see a dramatic rise, and with younger ages now using cellphones for long periods and sleeping on them, we will definitely see a tremendous rise in brain tumors in the next ten years." Many studies that show cellphones are safe have been financed by the cellphone industry, he says. "Most studies were designed by the companies and conducted for too short a time to see statistical changes..... New Evidence Cellphones Cause Cancer - www.newsmaxhealth.com/Health-Wire/cellphones-brain-cancer-glioma/2014/11/24/id/609321/
|
|
|
Cancer
Dec 4, 2014 22:25:38 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Dec 4, 2014 22:25:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Jan 5, 2015 18:41:24 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Jan 5, 2015 18:41:24 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Feb 27, 2015 16:27:02 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Feb 27, 2015 16:27:02 GMT -5
The Science Is Conclusive: Mobile Phones Cause Cancer - www.theepochtimes.com/n3/1164338-the-science-is-conclusive-mobile-phones-cause-cancerThey say there’s only two things constant in this life: death and taxes. But a third viable contender might be cancer, which an extensive cohort of scientific research has found is caused by prolonged exposure to radiation from cell phones and their associated communication towers. Contrary to what you may have heard in the mainstream news, mobile phones and the antennas that allow them to communicate emit powerful, microwave radio frequencies capable of penetrating our bodies and cells. And constant exposure to these frequencies, according to the science, appears to be one of the leading causes of cancer in the modern age. Wireless Phone Radiation Can Lead to Brain CancerExtensive research into the connection between cell phone radiation and cancer has linked this ubiquitous modern technology to two main types of brain tumors: gliomas and acoustic neuromas. Information compiled by the ElectricSense.com has confirmed the following findings with regard to cell phones and brain cancer. 1) An independent study commissioned by U.S. wireless carrier T-Mobile found that cell phone radiation directly initiates and promotes the formation of cancer: 3) A review of 23 epidemiological studies conducted by seven scientists concluded that cell phones cause a “harmful association” between cell phones and cancer. The only included studies that didn’t suggest this were “lower quality” ones that researchers say “failed to meet scientific best practices” — these studies were all funded by the mobile phone industry: 4) Researchers from the Hardell Research Group, which is noted for conducting what many consider to be the highest-quality studies on the subject, found a “consistent pattern” of increased risks for both glioma and acoustic neuroma in conjunction with mobile phone use: 5) A study out of France observed similar outcomes associated with prolonged exposure to electromagnetic frequencies from mobile phones. Scientists noted higher rates of gliomas and temporal tumors from “occupational and urban mobile phone use.” In response, the EMF watchdog group Powerwatch noted that this study supports the categorization of mobile phone radiation as a “probable human carcinogen.” 6) A study of nearly 800,000 middle-aged UK women found that those who used cell phones for 10 years or more had a 250 percent increased risk of developing an acoustic neuroma. The longer the women used the phones, the higher their risk: 7) Similarly, a study conducted by the group Lonn found that acoustic neuromas are increasingly more likely to develop the longer a person uses a mobile phone: 8) In Sweden, researchers studying adult brain tumor cases found that individuals with the highest cumulative use of mobile phones also had the highest risk of developing brain cancer: 9) The Hardell group conducted a study in 2009 which found that RF-EMFs from mobile and cordless phones are directly associated with malignant brain tumors. This study specifically states that wireless radiation initiates and promotes carcinogenesis: Wireless Phone Radiation Also Triggers Pituitary, Thyroid, Stem Cell, Oral, Parotid, Lymph Node, Breast, Blood, Prostate and Eye Cancers1) The body’s “master” gland, also known as the pituitary gland, is responsible for producing hormones and regulating other key bodily systems. But a study out of France found that cell phone use greatly increases the risk that this important gland will become cancerous: 2) The thyroid gland, which similarly produces hormones in addition to regulating body temperature, is also affected by mobile phone radiation. An Israeli study found that rates of cell phone use are directly proportional to the risk of developing thyroid gland cancer: 3) Many health experts would contend that solar radiation poses the greatest threat to healthy skin. But a study out of Sweden found that melanoma risk is greatly accelerated by mobile phone use: 4) A controversial Powerwatch study found that cell phone use nearly triples the risk of neuroepithelial tumors, which are a result of stem cell cancer: 5) Another study out of Israel confirmed a direct association between cell phone use and cancers of the mouth. Based on 460 cases of parotid gland tumors, researchers observed a direct association between mobile phone radiation and cancers of the parotid, the salivary gland located right next to where users typically hold their phones: 6) A separate study, also out of Israel, found that parotid gland cancers have increased in prevalence by 400 percent in the country between 1970 and 2006, which scientists link to increased mobile phone use: 7) An extensive review of more than 12 separate studies looking at health outcomes from exposure to radiation from mobile phone, television and radio broadcast towers found that cancers in general, and specifically cancers of the brain and blood (leukemia), are greatly increased: 8) Lymph nodes, a key component of the immune system, don’t like cell phone radiation much, either. An Australian study found that typical exposure to cell phone radiation greatly increases lymphoma risk: 9) Back in the U.S., a study looking at young women with breast cancer found that regular use of smartphones can trigger the formation of breast cancer. This is especially true when women carry their phones in their blouses or bras, where phones are pressed directly against the breasts. 10) Researchers in Germany have also linked mobile phone radiation to uveal melanoma and other cancers of the eye: 11) Practically every other type of cancer not covered by one of the aforementioned studies was identified in a large-scale Brazilian study, which linked mobile phone radiation to cancers of the prostate, breasts, lungs, kidneys and liver. Shockingly, more than 80 percent of identified deaths in Brazil’s third largest city, Belo Horizonte, occurred less than 500 meters away from one of the city’s 300 cell phone antennas:
|
|
|
Cancer
Mar 11, 2015 21:17:13 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Mar 11, 2015 21:17:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Mar 23, 2015 19:15:39 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Mar 23, 2015 19:15:39 GMT -5
Although KOSA does not agree with all of these videos, these might be of help, because the western medicine has failed to find the cure and most importantly, the science of the western medicine needs to be challenged. If the western medicine is the ultimate science, there must have been the cure on all sorts of cancer. Because the western medicine has not discovered the cure yet, not all of what the western medicine knows may be accurate and, thus, it needs to be challenged. Various YouTube video clips about cancer - www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmwyXe7X5PcTSA45ycVSXqNb8zIKmPqby
|
|
|
Cancer
Mar 26, 2015 19:09:01 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Mar 26, 2015 19:09:01 GMT -5
Poor Angelina Jolie Pit
What if the percentage of ovarian cancer was a 49%? Would doctors still recommend her to take the surgery? If it was 49%, they would have still done so. What if it was 45%? I guess... 5 would be rounded up and it would be regarded as 50%, which would be regarded 100%. What if it was 44%?... The number of 50% of Angelina's chance is based on observation. Age, diet, work, exercise, whether, environment, and etc. must have been taken account of. Please watch below video, which will explain the problem of observation. "Truth That Lasts" - NNT - Must Watch Video - TED - saahm.proboards.com/thread/473/truth-lasts-nnt-watch-videoAnalyzing DNA and find out the chance of certain type of cancer seen to be very scientific. And, many people hear the trumpet of the triumph accomplished by the western medicine. Unless they find the root cause, the cure, how to successfully prevent and etc. are discovered, it is still too early to play the trumpet. As I pointed out earlier, unless they know for sure that Angelina would fall in 50% of no cancer or 50% of cancer, it is not science but simply gambling. Let's assume that you are a doctor has Angelina as one of your patients. Can you tell her that she doesn't have to worry because you are sure she is luckily in optimistic 50%? Can you tell her when it is 34% that she is safe? I guess not to all above, because you would have to be responsible for all the consequences when it goes wrong. Thus, you would still have to recommend her to get surgery even though it is mere 4% because you would have to be afraid of the incident that she has cancer developed. This is not science. This is not medicine. This is a typical example of western medicine's scare tactic. This is business. I truly feel sorry for poor Angelina. Her choice would cause lots of trouble on her lung, large intestine, stomach, spleen, kidney and liver, at least.
|
|
|
Cancer
Apr 6, 2015 9:46:49 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Apr 6, 2015 9:46:49 GMT -5
Is my smartphone killing me smartly? - jervisdabreo.com/thetechcorner/is-my-smartphone-killing-me-smartly/There are over 200 different types of cancers and even more factors and reasons for them developing within the human body. There is also an increase in the occurrence of cancer in our society as well as the amount of lives claimed by the disease on a daily basis worldwide. Now, when we consider the fact that just about 10% of cancer cases are linked to being hereditary and the other 90% to lifestyle and other environmental factors, questions must be asked. Questions such as, “are our smartphones killing us smartly?” Now I’m sure you may be wondering what I’m up to, after all I am talking about cancer on a technology blog. Well, in as much as the link between certain cancers and the use of technology (like cellphones, smartphones etc.) is inconclusive, it does not change the fact that there may (or may not) be a direct relationship between the two and if there is and we’re just not aware of it as yet, then there are certain best practices that we should consider from now before it’s too late. True story: A very close friend of mine started complaining about these headaches she was having, she said she would go to bed feeling fine and wake up the next morning with headaches. This went on for some time before she told me about it. Now, I’m not a doctor, but you do not need to be a doctor to ask “common sense” questions. So I asked her what had changed between her waking without headaches and the onset of the problem. Long story short, she had gotten a BlackBerry smartphone and had started sleeping with it under her pillow so she would hear its alarm on mornings. I simply asked her to try sleeping without the device close to her bed and see if the headaches would go away – she did and the headaches went away. Were the headaches caused by the device? Well, what do you think? What I do know is that BlackBerry smartphones are among the devices with the highest SAR rating in the world – meaning they give off a lot of radiation. SAR (Specific Absorption Rate) is the government-monitored radiation level standard for cellphones. In short it is a way of measuring the quantity of radio frequency energy that is absorbed by the human body where devices with lower numbers are healthier. See here for more on SAR. Please feel free to share your thoughts and views in the comment section below. I’d love to hear from you.
|
|
|
Cancer
Apr 9, 2015 17:30:07 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Apr 9, 2015 17:30:07 GMT -5
French researchers reveal the shocking truth about GM corn - hsionline.com/2014/07/14/hidden-poison/It’s like an evil monster that was let loose. And no one can get it back into its cage. The “Dr. Frankenstein” that created this genetically modified monster, Monsanto, is doing everything it can to keep you from finding out how dangerous it is. But this news is so important it just can’t be kept quiet. So when scientists in France were recently able to republish a shocking study they had done — one the industry tried to suppress — it was a big victory. A victory for the researchers and for us. Because the truth is that Monsanto’s GM corn is slowly but surely killing us. I smell a rat Two years ago French scientists published an alarming study. They discovered that rats eating Monsanto’s GM corn, the kind made to survive after being sprayed with its Roundup pesticide, suffered serious health effects. Things like severe organ damage and deadly tumors. And guess where they got the idea to do the study in the first place? Right out of Monsanto’s own research! Monsanto’s very own studies had found signs of toxicity in rats when they ate GM corn. But those studies were stopped after just 90 days! Unbelievably that’s all the testing that Monsanto did. The French team got hold of Monsanto’s data. They decided to repeat the studies, only now for two years. They wanted to see if those signs of toxicity developed into something more serious. And they sure did — big time. The rats died. And they died from giant cancerous tumors and damage to their livers and kidneys. The French researchers said that “serious diseases like organ damage and tumors take time to develop and become obvious.” Just testing the rats for 90 days was “too short” a time. But here’s where things started to smell like a rat — a great big genetically modified Monsanto rat. Last year, the journal where this study was published formally retracted it. This is unheard of in a scientific publication unless plagiarism or fraud is involved. But those French researchers just finally got that study republished in an open-source online journal. Now everyone will be able to learn just how dangerous this corn is. You see, you get a tiny dose of Roundup every time you eat GM corn. And corn is in a whole lot of food products. It’s used as a filler in processed food, in oils and even in soda — think high fructose corn syrup. Once you start looking at ingredients you’ll be shocked at how much corn you’re actually eating and drinking. Now, you’re only getting a tiny bit of Roundup residue, but a little bit goes a long way. That’s because Roundup can disrupt your hormones. And as Laura Vandenberg, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of Maryland explains, it only takes the slightest change in our hormones to cause permanent damage. “Hormones act in the parts-per-billion” or trillion level, she said. “That’s like a drop of water in an Olympic-sized swimming pool.” The Roundup gets inside, and stays inside, of GM crops because it’s a “systemic” pesticide. And that’s exactly how it’s meant to work. The good news is that organic corn is still real — and not sprayed with Roundup. And lately, more and more companies, even big ones like General Mills, Kellogg’s and even Walmart have been hopping on the organic bandwagon with more and more products. And an easy way to avoid not just corn, but other GM foods as well, is with the non-GMO shopping guide put out by The Institute for Responsible Technology. Buying GMO-free foods is a way to tell Monsanto that you’re not a lab rat. And you won’t be part of its big experiment to see how many trillions it can make before everyone realizes what a big mistake it was to let its mad scientists take control of our food supply. You can download the shopping guide here. Sources: “Roundup herbicide linked to tumors, organ damage” Leah Zerbe, June 23, 2014, Rodale News, rodalenews.com “French scientists revive assault on pesticide, GM corn” Richard Ingham and Celine Serrat, June 24, 2014, Yahoo news, news.yahoo.com “New study: GMO sweet corn rare in U.S. supermarkets” Press release, Friends of the Earth, November 14, 2013, enewspf.com
|
|
|
Cancer
Apr 21, 2015 12:49:41 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Apr 21, 2015 12:49:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
Cancer
Apr 21, 2015 12:59:08 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on Apr 21, 2015 12:59:08 GMT -5
Scientists find link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer - www.sciencealert.com/uh-oh-scientists-find-link-between-muscle-building-supplements-and-testicular-cancerMen who take body-building supplements such as creatine or androstenedione have up to a 177 percent higher chance of developing testicular cancer than men who don’t, new research suggests. And the risk is worse if you started using young. It’s very preliminary work, but the results could help to explain why testicular cancer has become far more common (more than 1.5 times more common, to be precise) than it was in the ‘70s, along with society's growing consumption of supplements. "The observed relationship was strong," said epidemiologist and study-leader Tongzhang Zheng, from Brown University in the US, in a press release. "If you used at earlier age, you had a higher risk. If you used them longer, you had a higher risk. If you used multiple types, you had a higher risk." This is the first study to link testicular cancer to body-building supplements, but it was inspired by earlier research that suggested body-building supplements, namely androstenedione, could damage the testes. To work out what was going on, the team conducted detailed lifestyle interviews with nearly 900 men in the US - 356 of them had been diagnosed with testicular cancer, while 513 had not. They asked about how often they were using supplements, but also about other potential risk factors, such as smoking, drinking, exercise habits, previous injuries to the region, and family history. After taking into account all these factors, the team found that men who took muscle-building supplements had on average a 65 percent greater risk of developing testicular cancer compared to those who didn’t. And this risk increased to 177 percent if the men used more than one type of supplement. It also shot up significantly if the men had started using supplements before the age of 25, or for more than three years. The results have been published in the British Journal of Cancer, and offer epidemiologists an important insight into what causes the poorly understood cancer, and why it's on the rise. "Testicular cancer is a very mysterious cancer," said Zheng. "None of the factors we’ve suspected can explain the increase." Of course, correlation doesn’t equal causation, and more work needs to be done to find out exactly what’s happening here. But the researchers think they now have a solid lead to follow, and the best part is that, if this link is confirmed, it'll be simple and quick for men to significantly reduce their testicular cancer risk.
|
|
|
Cancer
May 13, 2015 19:53:50 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on May 13, 2015 19:53:50 GMT -5
Not all the contents of this article is supported by KOSA.
|
|
|
Cancer
May 13, 2015 20:35:20 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on May 13, 2015 20:35:20 GMT -5
Health experts say cancer threat from cell phones is greater than we think - ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dailybrew/health-experts-say-cancer-threat-from-cell-phones-is-greater-than-we-think-162857426.htmlCan your phone or tablet give you cancer? A large group of international scientists thinks so. Almost 200 scientists and academics from over three dozen countries have issued a letter calling for the United Nations, World Health Organization and governments around the world to tighten regulations around electro-magnetic field (EMF) exposure coming from handheld devices. Anthony Miller, University of Toronto Professor Emeritus at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, is one of 190 signatories, including eight Canadians, to the letter. He noted that the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has already flagged EMF as a possible human carcinogen. The letter’s signatories also say much of the research saying EMF is safe is commissioned and paid for by telecom companies. Miller expresses concern that this practice is prevalent in Canada. “I think part of the problem here is that the reassurances we keep getting from the manufacturers and distributors of WiFi – Rogers, Bell and whatever – and Health Canada are not sufficiently satisfactory, particularly for the possible risks to children,” Miller said in a conversation with Yahoo Canada. Health Canada experts were unavailable for an interview, but a response to the letter was issued late yesterday. “The prevailing scientific evidence demonstrates that the health of Canadians is well protected from RF (Radio Frequency) energy by the human exposure limits in Safety Code 6,” the Health Canada statement said, citing the relevant regulatory provision. “Health Canada’s conclusions are consistent with the findings of other international bodies and regulators, including the World Health Organization, the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, and the United Kingdom Health Protection Agency.” But Miller said those findings aren’t consistent with the latest research. “A recent study in Sweden, and also a large study in France, say the potential risks are more than the IARC group felt, and this should be regarded as a possible human carcinogen – category 2B. Once you’re in that situation, then it’s impossible to ignore it.” Miller stresses that many cancers result from prolonged exposure to a carcinogen. Just because specific cases cannot be immediately identified, it doesn’t mean potentially dangerous damage isn’t being done, he said. “We’re talking about people of all ages now being cumulatively exposed to radio frequency fields, and those particularly who use their cell phones and hold them against their ear, and tend to use the same side of the head most of the time, as most of us do. Also children who are exposed to EMF from laptops – particularly in schools where this can be fairly prominent. Health Canada said it is continuously monitoring new research on the long-term effects of RF and EMF. “Departmental scientists considered all available peer-reviewed scientific studies when developing the exposure limits in the revised Safety Code 6,” the starment said. “Should new scientific evidence arise demonstrating that exposure to RF fields poses a health risk to Canadians, Health Canada will take the appropriate action to safeguard the health of Canadians.” For Miller, that’s not enough. “People must understand there is a potential hazard, and perhaps they’ll take action. And that is what Health Canada is meant to do – protect the health of the public. “We have to act now, in my view, and that is why I signed this statement.”
|
|
|
Cancer
May 19, 2015 12:58:36 GMT -5
Post by Master Kim on May 19, 2015 12:58:36 GMT -5
One Of The Most Important Scientists In The World: “Most Cancer Research Is Largely A Fraud” - www.collective-evolution.com/2015/05/11/one-of-the-most-important-scientists-in-the-world-most-cancer-research-is-largely-a-fraud/“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organisations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.” ( source) The above quote comes from Linus Pauling, Ph.D, and two time Nobel Prize winner in chemistry (1901-1994). He is considered one of the most important scientists in history. He is one of the founders of quantum chemistry and molecular biology, who was also a well known peace activist. He was invited to be in charge of the Chemistry division of the Manhattan Project, but refused. He has also done a lot of work on military applications, and has pretty much done and seen it all when it comes to the world of science. A quick Google search will suffice if you’d like to learn more about him. This man has been around the block, and obviously knows a thing or two about this subject. And he’s not the only expert from around the world expressing similar beliefs and voicing his opinion. Here is another great example of a hard hitting quote when it comes to scientific fraud and manipulation. It comes from Dr. Marcia Angell, a physician and long time Editor in Chief of the New England Medical Journal (NEMJ), which is considered to be one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world. I apologize if you have seen it before in my articles, but it is quite the statement. “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” ( source) The list goes on and on. Dr. John Bailer, who spent 20 years on the staff of the National Cancer Institute and is also a former editor of its journal, publicly stated in a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science that: “My overall assessment is that the national cancer program must be judged a qualified failure. Our whole cancer research in the past 20 years has been a total failure.” ( source) He also alluded to the fact that cancer treatment, in general, has been a complete failure. Another interesting point is the fact that most of the money donated to cancer research is spent on animal research, which has been considered completely useless by many. For example, in 1981 Dr. Irwin Bross, the former director of the Sloan-Kettering Cancer Research Institute (largest cancer research institute in the world), said that: “The uselessness of most of the animal model studies is less well known. For example, the discovery of chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of human cancer is widely-heralded as a triumph due to use of animal model systems. However, here again, these exaggerated claims are coming from or are endorsed by the same people who get the federal dollars for animal research. There is little, if any, factual evidence that would support these claims. Practically all of the chemotherapeutic agents which are of value in the treatment of human cancer were found in a clinical context rather than in animal studies.” ( source) Today, treating illness and disease has a corporate side. It is an enormously profitable industry, but only when geared towards treatment, not preventative measures or cures, and that’s an important point to consider. Another quote that relates to my point above was made by Dr. Dean Burk, an American biochemist and a senior chemist for the National Cancer Institute. His paper, “The Determination of Enzyme Dissociation Constants ( source),” published in the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1934, is one of the most frequently cited papers in the history of biochemistry. “When you have power you don’t have to tell the truth. That’s a rule that’s been working in this world for generations. And there are a great many people who don’t tell the truth when they are in power in administrative positions.” ( source) He also stated that: “Fluoride causes more human cancer deaths than any other chemical. It is some of the most conclusive scientific and biological evidence that I have come across in my 50 years in the field of cancer research.” ( source) In the April 15th, 2015 edition of Lancet, the UK’s leading medical journal, editor in chief Richard Horton stated: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Science has taken a turn toward darkness.” ( source) n 2005 Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, currently a professor in disease prevention at Stanford University, published the most widely accessed article in the history of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) entitled Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. In the report, he stated: “There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false.”In 2009, the University of Michigan’s comprehensive cancer center published an analysis that revealed popular cancer studies are false, and that there were fabricated results arising due to conflicts of interest. They suggested that the fabricated results were a result of what would work best for drug companies. After all, a large portion of cancer research is funded directly by them. You can read more about that story here. There is so much information out there, and so much of it is coming from people who have been directly involved in these proceedings. There is really no shortage of credible sources willing to state that we live in a world of scientific fraud and manipulation. All of this can be attributed to the “corporatocracy” we live in today, where giant corporations owned by a select group of “elite” people have basically taken control over the planet and all of its resources. This is precisely why so many people are flocking towards alternative treatment, as well as focusing on cancer prevention. Much of what we surround ourselves with on a daily basis has been linked to cancer. Everything from pesticides, GMOs, multiple cosmetic products, certain “foods,” smoking, and much much more. This is something that is never really emphasized, we always seem to just assume that donating money to charities will make the problem go away, despite the fact that their business practices are highly questionable. That being said, so many people have had success with alternative treatments like cannabis oil – combined with a raw diet or even incorporated into their chemotherapy regimen – that we should not feel as though there is no hope for the future. The official stance on cannabis is a great example of the very practice of misinformation that I’m talking about. Its anti-tumoral properties have been demonstrated for decades, yet no clinical trials are taking place. I am going to leave you with this video, as I have done in previous articles. It provides a little food for thought. Ignorance is not the answer, although this information can be scary to consider, it’s nothing to turn a blind eye towards. Alternative Cancer Cures Exist and Have Been Suppressed - Kimberly Carter Gamble
|
|