CANCER UPDATE not from Johns Hopkins Kimmel

Below is a list of steps to beat cancer, supposedly from Johns Hopkins Kimmel School of Medicine in Baltimore.

However, the cancer center has strenuously denied it is from them, even publishing a denial and warnings:
“Information falsely attributed to Johns Hopkins called, “CANCER UPDATE FROM JOHN HOPKINS” describes properties of cancer cells and suggests ways of preventing cancer. Johns Hopkins did not publish the information, which often is an email attachment, nor do we endorse its contents.”

It first did the rounds about 5 years ago but has re-emerged recently with a few changes and improvements. Whatever, it’s pretty accurate.

Perhaps it’s just an anti-skeptic spoof out of the USA. … ….Apparently…
“Emails offering easy remedies for avoiding and curing cancer are the latest Web-influenced trend. To gain credibility, the anonymous authors falsely attribute their work to respected research institutions like Johns Hopkins. This is the case with the so-called “Cancer Update from Johns Hopkins.”

Perhaps it was an April 1st hoax?

“The gist of this viral email is that cancer therapies of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy do not work against the disease and people should instead choose a variety of dietary strategies.

Traditional therapies, such as surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation therapy, work. The evidence is the millions of cancer survivors in the United States today who are alive because of these therapies. We recognize that treatments don’t work in every patient, or sometimes work for awhile and then stop working, and there are some cancers that are more difficult to cure than others. These problems are the focus of ongoing cancer research.”

Read for yourself:

LATEST CANCER INFORMATION
from Johns Hopkins

AFTER YEARS OF TELLING PEOPLE CHEMOTHERAPY IS THE ONLY WAY TO TRY AND ELIMINATE CANCER, JOHNS HOPKINS IS FINALLY STARTING TO TELL YOU THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE WAY …

1. Every person has cancer cells in the body. These cancer cells do not show up in the standard tests until they have multiplied to a few billion. When doctors tell cancer patients that there are no more cancer cells in their bodies after treatment, it just means the tests are unable to detect the cancer cells because they have not reached the detectable size.

2. Cancer cells occur between 6 to more than 10 times in a person’s lifetime.

3. When the person’s immune system is strong the cancer cells will be destroyed and prevented from multiplying and forming tumors.

4. When a person has cancer it indicates the person has multiple nutritional deficiencies. These could be due to genetic, environmental, food and lifestyle factors.

5. To overcome the multiple nutritional deficiencies, changing diet and including supplements will strengthen the immune system.

6. Chemotherapy involves poisoning the rapidly-growing cancer cells and also destroys rapidly-growing healthy cells in the bone marrow, gastro-intestinal tract etc, and can cause organ damage, like liver, kidneys, heart, lungs etc.

7. Radiation while destroying cancer cells also burns, scars and damages healthy cells, tissues and organs.

8. Initial treatment with chemotherapy and radiation will often reduce tumor size. However prolonged use of chemotherapy and radiation do not result in more tumor destruction.

9. When the body has too much toxic burden from chemotherapy and radiation the immune system is either compromised or destroyed, hence the person can succumb to various kinds of infections and complications.

10. Chemotherapy and radiation can cause cancer cells to mutate and become resistant and difficult to destroy. Surgery can also cause cancer cells to spread to other sites.

11. An effective way to battle cancer is to STARVE the cancer cells by not feeding it with foods it needs to multiple.

What cancer cells feed on:

a. Sugar is a cancer-feeder. By cutting off sugar it cuts off one important food supply to the cancer cells. Note: Sugar substitutes like NutraSweet, Equal, Spoonful, etc are made with Aspartame and it is harmful. A better natural substitute would be Manuka honey or molasses but only in very small amounts. Table salt has a chemical added to make it white in colour. Better alternative is Bragg’s aminos or sea salt.

b. Milk causes the body to produce mucus, especially in the gastro-intestinal tract. Cancer feeds on mucus. By cutting off milk and substituting with unsweetened soy milk, cancer cells will be starved.

c. Cancer cells thrive in an acid environment. A meat-based diet is acidic and it is best to eat fish, and a little chicken rather than beef or pork. Meat also contains livestock antibiotics, growth hormones and parasites, which are all harmful, especially to people with cancer.

d. A diet made of 80% fresh vegetables and juice, whole grains, seeds, nuts and a little fruit help put the body into an alkaline environment. About 20% can be from cooked food including beans. Fresh vegetable juices provide live enzymes that are easily absorbed and reach down to cellular levels within 15 minutes to nourish and enhance growth of healthy cells.

To obtain live enzymes for building healthy cells try and drink fresh vegetable juice (most vegetables including bean sprouts) and eat some raw vegetables 2 or 3 times a day. Enzymes are destroyed at temperatures of 104 degrees F (40 degrees C).

e. Avoid coffee, tea, and chocolate, which have high caffeine. Green tea is a better alternative and has cancer-fighting properties. Water–best to drink purified water, or filtered, to avoid known toxins and heavy metals in tap water. Distilled water is acidic, avoid it.

12. Meat protein is difficult to digest and requires a lot of digestive enzymes. Undigested meat remaining in the intestines will become putrified and leads to more toxic build up.

13. Cancer cell walls have a tough protein covering. By refraining from or eating less meat it frees more enzymes to attack the protein walls of cancer cells and allows the body’s killer cells to destroy the cancer cells.

14. Some supplements build up the immune system (IP6, Flor-ssence, Essiac, anti-oxidants, vitamins, minerals, EFAs etc.) to enable the body’s own killer cells to destroy cancer cells. Other supplements like vitamin E are known to cause apoptosis, or programmed cell death, the body’s normal method of disposing of damaged, unwanted, or unneeded cells.

15. Cancer is a disease of the mind, body, and spirit. A proactive and positive spirit will help the cancer warrior be a survivor.

Anger, unforgiving and bitterness put the body into a stressful and acidic environment. Learn to have a loving and forgiving spirit. Learn to relax and enjoy life.

16. Cancer cells cannot thrive in an oxygenated environment. Exercising daily and deep breathing help to get more oxygen down to the cellular level. Oxygen therapy is another means employed to destroy cancer cells.

You could find a more-accurate summary on www.canceractive.com

, , , , ,

Chemotherapy doesn’t ‘cure’ cancer shock! False hopes dampened

Mainstream medical researchers are finally starting to admit that toxic chemotherapy drugs do absolutely nothing to cure cancer, and often cause cancer patients to die much more quickly than they otherwise would apart from getting the so-called “treatment.” Dr. Deborah Schrag from the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and her colleagues let the cat out of the bag in a recent study they published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), which revealed that most cancer patients have no idea that their disease will never be cured as a result of chemotherapy.

According to the study’s findings, as many as 69 percent of terminally ill lung cancer patients and 81 percent of terminally ill colorectal patients have no idea that chemotherapy drugs are fully incapable of curing their cancers. Though they are said to potentially help some cancer patients live slightly longer lives, chemotherapy drugs admittedly do not stop the growth or spread of cancer cells and tumors, which means many of the patients who opt for the treatment are not being told the full truth about its major shortcomings.

“There is a lot of harm in not having patients understand the finality of the disease,” said Dr. Hossein Borghaei, an oncologist from the Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia, who was not involved in the research. “[Chemotherapy drugs] are very powerful, they have a lot of side effects, the chemotherapy is going to harm you more than it helps you, and it can actually shorten your life. All of this should be taken into account.”

Dr. Borghaei’s statements are chilling because they affirm what we have been saying here at Natural News for quite some time — that chemotherapy is nothing but a sham “treatment” that puts cancer patients through needless pain and suffering while making the cancer industry rich. And perhaps the most disturbing part about this now-normalized form of medical quackery is that oncologists typically fail to disclose to their patients the fact that chemotherapy does not even cure cancer, which gives them false hope.

UK cancer charity, CANCERactive, has also covered several stories recently on the subject of chemotherapy – all can be found in Cancer Watch (http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2319&Title=Latest Cancer Research).

For example:

1. Chemotherapy can actually cause cancers to strengthen and return in the longer run.
2. Since Chemotherapy doesn’t kill off the cancer stem cells, the cancer will return.
3. Some bioactive natural compounds can kill off cancer stem cells.
4. Australian and American research studies show an effect in just 2% of patients since chemotherapy was regularly introduced.
5. the term ‘cancer management’ is rapidly replacing terms like ‘life-saving drugs’ and ‘cancer cure’ because pharmaceutical companies actually know that the truth is, chemotherapy doesn’t cure.

Both Natural News in America and CANCERactive in the UK regularly cover research on the Junk Science behind chemotherapy, which (for example) despite claims that new biologics are the weapons of choice, is still given to virtually every person with cancer at the present time.

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/037768_chemotherapy_oncologists_hype.html#ixzz2AyzKVgbs

, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

New Blockbuster Diabetes Drugs may well increase cancer risk, according to Dr Mercola

Several studies of the newest blockbuster drug for diabetes, Januvia, have implicated these very common drugs to cause a number of different cancers. They will likely be removed from the market but perhaps not until they’ve killed many.

There simply is no reason these dangerous drugs should ever be used as they fail to treat the cause of the disease. Anyone on them now ideally should stop taking them and follow a healthy eating plan, which will radically improve, if not completely resolve, their diabetes.

Acknowledged side effects of Januvia and Janumet, include anaphylaxis and acute pancreatitis—both of which can be lethal. Anaphylaxis is in fact such a grave hazard with this drug that it actually carries a black box warning for lactic acidosis: “If acidosis is suspected, discontinue Janumet and hospitalize the patient immediately.”

This new class of drugs inhibits the enzyme DPP-4 which also happens to be a tumor suppressor. Studies have shown that when you suppress DPP-4 (which is precisely what these drugs do), cancer cells are allowed to proliferate. According to Januvia’s drug information, the drug inhibits the DPP-4 enzyme for 24 hours, and you take it daily, effectively permanently blocking the activity of a tumor suppressor gene.

None of the safety studies on Januvia addressed its impact on tumor growth prior to approval.

Januvia is now the number one best-selling drug in the oral diabetes market. Should such a blockbuster drug be proven to be connected to cancer, it’s a HUGE loss not only to Merck, but several other major pharmaceutical companies that have developed similar drugs. Drug companies like Merck could make MASSIVE amounts of money from these clearly dangerous drugs while cancer slowly and quietly grows in patients taking them.

For the full story: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/12/20/dpp4-inhibitors.aspx?e_cid=20121220_DNL_art_1

 

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2878

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=594

 

, , , , , , , , ,

 

 

Everybody is missing the point on screening mammography

A debate has sprung up over the last few weeks. It is not a new debate; it concerns mammography. Recently there has been research that shows 4000 people in the UK are unnecessarily treated as a result of ‘Over-diagnosis’ by screening mammograms. The ‘pro’ side immediately says ‘1300 lives are saved and have to be set against this’. And then journalists from the Telegraph and BBC jump in on the act. Unfortunately, few know their facts. I won’t be updating our article on mammography at CANCERactive because, as usual, we were well ahead of this debate. What I thought you might like to read is the essence of my piece to the Telegraph, and why I think everybody seems to be missing the important issue:

Firstly, there is no confirmed research data that mammography saves 1300 lives a year in the UK. Until recently the Cancer Research UK website admitted that fact. There are various studies and reports, for example, showing the figures of 1300, 850 and zero. Take your pick.

Secondly, whilst people have been debating issues such as over-diagnosis and unnecessary treatment and distress, the debate has missed the fact that mammography can likely cause breast cancer. For example, about 25 per cent of breast cancers are linked to inherited genes where the person usually has one of the pair defective, and only one operating correctly. American research is quite clear that these people are at greater risk of developing breast cancer if sent off from an early age for an annual mammogram ‘to be safe’. The cumulative radiation is statistically far more likely to damage a single gene than a pair.

Thirdly, some ‘diagnosed’ women consider having double mastectomies. The idea of a double mastectomy is palpable non-sense with no evidence whatsoever in terms of numbers over who might have been prevented from developing cancer! Cancer is an all over body disease with symptoms like cancer markers, low blood oxygen and poor immune response evident throughout the body. If you have a BRCA1 or 2 problem, it will cause poor immune recognition or DNA replication control everywhere in your body. If a woman has toxic chemicals in her body, they will not only collect in the fatty breast tissue but in other such tissue too.

Fourthly, to add to the confusion, about 50 per cent of the ‘irregularities’ detected by mammography are lobular, and 50 per cent ductal. While Christies, Manchester were warning some 5 years ago that DCIS could be extremely dangerous and were looking at trials to see which drug might be used to prevent an aggressive cancer developing, at the annual Breast Cancer Symposium in America a paper was presented showing that DCIS was caused by calcium deposits, and 80 per cent never became cancers. The finding that women with the highest blood levels of vitamin D and omega-3 do not develop breast cancer may be linked to their effects with calcium.

European research has shown that depending on the density of the tissue, screening mammography may be only 65 per cent accurate at best. Other studies have shown that in order to detect the cancer it has to be of sufficient size – a size produced by about 20 cell divisions. At 40 you are dead. Screening mammography is neither accurate nor early detection.

How many of the 4000 women who are then unnecessarily treated die as a result of the chemotherapy drugs provided? How many have impairment to their heart and/or lungs as a result of radiotherapy? Is it is more than the 1300? But surely even this question is off the point: Why are we using such an outdated and inaccurate system which can lead to quite barbaric consequences (double mastectomy?).

Surely, the energy, time and the money would be better spent developing blood tests that are already coming through from private companies in Nottingham and America that can spot cancer in the pre-cancer stages.

This argument about screening mammography is completely off the real point and is propagated by vested interests. How many hospitals and cancer centres would be stuck with an expensive machine if an accurate blood test were available tomorrow? (Although I should point out that mammography is the current gold standard once a cancer has been confirmed and further information is required.)

The real question we should be asking is this: ‘How do we develop a simple, accurate and early diagnosis test for cancer?’ The answer has nothing to do with mammography.

For a fuller report see:

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1420&Title=Breast cancer screening and cancer risk

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=666&Title=False Positive Mammograms

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=671&Title=Mammograms and Obese Women

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2644&Title=The Development of Thermal Imaging

, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

Puzzling prediction of falling cancer death rates made ahead of fund raising drive

According to ‘experts’ at the charity Cancer Research UK, cancer death rates in the UK are set to fall by almost 17 per cent by 2030. And better diagnosis and treatment is the main reason (sic) for the change.  The figures were released in the run-up to Stand Up To Cancer, a fundraising partnership between Cancer Research UK and Channel 4.

This is all rather puzzling because in 2011, when claiming cancer death rates were falling in breast cancer and colon cancer, they predicted an increase in the number of cancer cases and deaths from cancer as the population ages over the next twenty or so years.

The ‘experts’ also claim that the improved outlook reflects the fact that fewer people are smoking. So is ‘prevention’ really the key? Or could it even be something else?

To quote from the CRUK press release, ‘In 2010 an estimated 170 people in every 100,000 members of the general population died from cancer. By 2030 this is forecast to fall to 142 per 100,000.

Ovarian cancer is expected to see the biggest drop in numbers of patients dying, at 42.6 per cent. Incidence of the disease is expected to reduce from 9.1 women per 100,000 to 5.3 per 100,000 by 2030. Death rates for breast cancer are predicted to fall by 28 per cent, for bowel cancer by 23 per cent and prostate cancer by 16 per cent.

A few cancers show a reverse trend, with larger numbers of people dying. Death rates for oral cancer are likely to rise by 22 per cent, as incidence rises from 2.9 to 3.5 per 100,000 people. For liver cancer, death rates are predicted to go up by 39 per cent, with incidence increasing from 4.2 to 5.9 per 100,000’.

Professor Peter Sasieni, Cancer Research UK epidemiologist at Queen Mary, University of London, said: “Our latest estimations show that for many cancers, adjusting for age, death rates are set to fall dramatically in the coming decades. And what’s really encouraging is that the biggest cancer killers, lung, breast, bowel, and prostate, are part of this falling trend.

“Because old age is the biggest risk factor for cancer and more people are living longer, they have a greater chance of developing and, unfortunately, dying from the disease. But overall the proportion, or rate, of those who die from cancer is falling.”

Why this is puzzling is because the absolute numbers of cancer cases has doubled in the last thirty years and a team of oncologists working with MacMillan had predicted it would double again in the next twenty years. That would mean about 4 million people with cancer in Britain.

According to the 2011 census, the population for England and Wales has increased by 3.7 million from 2001; and (to quote) ‘buoyed by increased life expectancy, sustained immigration and robust fertility levels, the number of residents jumped 7.1% from 52.4 million in 2001 to 56.1 million in 2011’. If that continues, in twenty years time we will have about 65 million people in England and Wales in 2031. According to figures about 350,000 ‘older’ people are retiring abroad each year, while about 650,000 younger foreign people are coming into the country.

And it should be noted that Cancer Research ‘experts’ are not talking about total numbers of cases of cancer, nor total numbers of deaths. But the rate per 100,000 of population. So if the number of people increasing the population by 7 per cent due to ‘sustained immigration and robust fertility levels’ continues you might expect a decline in cancer death rates anyway. Especially if the average age falls across the population.

The other claim that is interesting is that the main reason is due to better diagnosis and treatment. Three years ago CRUK said it was all down to better diagnosis and treatment and I chided them at the time. They conveniently ignore the fact that over two thirds of cancer patients now build their own integrative treatment programmes, search the Internet for alternative treatments, visit complementary centres that are independent (like Maggie’s, The Haven and Penny Brohn) or part of the Hospital (like the Butterfly Centre and the Rainbow Centre). Some people even take themselves off abroad for life-extending treatments. Then there has been an explosion in coverage of what people can do to help themselves from the utterings of the Daily Mail to charities such as CANCERactive. Only recently the American Cancer Society stated that there had been an ‘explosion’ in complementary research since 2006 and that there was ‘overwhelming evidence that complementary therapies like diet, weight control and exercise could increase survival and stop a cancer returning.

It seems that Cancer Research UK think your personal efforts count for little.

Better diagnosis? It is definitely coming with a possible avalanche of private companies and blood tests, but up to now …  mammograms and PSA tests? The Nordic Cochrane has said that mammograms do ‘more harm than good’, with up to 30 per cent being misdiagnosed (of course you are ‘cured’ if misdiagnosed). The American Preventative services Task Force said much the same about the PSA test.

Better treatments? Well if you read the recent articles on the new breed of biologics, or ‘designer drugs’, such as the article we printed by Professor Karol Sikora, you’d be more than a little underwhelmed. There are alternatives coming – like localised hyperthermia (Ablation, HIFU) but the ‘old school’ is none too happy about the possibility of becoming redundant. And anyway it can’t work on blood and lymph cancers.

And this is another little area that needs attention. Blood and lymph cancers account for about 80,000 cases in the UK currently; twice the number of breast cancers diagnosed. But they are divided into about ten different types – there are four different lymphomas. Yet no one divides breast cancer by ductal or lobular in the overall numbers. It’s also an inconvenient truth that at current growth rates lymphoma could become the number one cancer in the next twenty years.

Old age the biggest risk factor and an ageing population? Recent research shows that the historical 80 per cent of cancers in the over-65 age group is less and less the case. 40 per cent of breast cancers are now developed by women below 60 years of age. Prostate cancer has multiplied six-fold in the forty-something age group; oesophageal cancer has boomed amongst forty-somethings; some child cancers have tripled.

And I just loved the bit about ‘age-corrected statistics’. I really must have my age corrected one day.

If smoking reduction is such a big factor, how come cancer cases are set to double in absolute terms despite a fall in smokers? If prevention is so important why aren’t we doing more about the 50 per cent of cancers that aren’t your fault? Look up most blood or lymph cancers on American web sites. They will tell you about the links to pesticides, toxic ingredients in everyday toiletries and household products, heavy metals, environmental toxins beyond asbestos.

Perhaps the European REACH project, if 1000 toxic ingredients really are cut from personal care, toiletry and household products in the next 15 years, will see a great reduction in cancer levels.

Stand up to Cancer fund raising? Of course if you can convince people that you really are succeeding in beating cancer by doing what you are doing, they may well give you more funds.

Cancer Research UK is a great charity and I am sure it does its level best to help people. It is sad that, if the numbers of people with cancer are going to double in the UK to four million, anybody tries to claim that somehow we are beating cancer because of better diagnosis and drugs, however the numbers are massaged.

I am at this point reminded of MD Anderson’s quote that ‘All the exciting new developments in cancer are coming in areas other than chemotherapy’. I think I will file the press release and bring it out again in 1930 to see what really did happen. Somehow I fear the current strategy will just see more cases of cancer and more deaths whatever spin is put on it. And I haven’t even talked about whether the country can afford it or not!

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

 

 

Fish oils claimed to beat breast cancer drug for effectiveness

The omega-3 essential fatty acid known as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) is more effective at reducing the size of breast cancer tumours than the chemotherapy drug cisplatin, and can also reduce that drug’s harmful side effects, reports a new study published in the journal Cell Division. However, readers should not jump up and down in excitement quite yet in our view: The research was done on mice not humans: The lead researcher A.M. El-Mowafy of Egypt’s Mansoura University claimed, “Our results suggest a new, fruitful drug regimen in the management of solid tumours based on combining cisplatin and possibly other chemotherapeutics with DHA. DHA elicited prominent chemo-preventative effects on its own, and appreciably augmented those of cisplatin as well. Furthermore, this study is the first to reveal that DHA can obliterate lethal cisplatin-induced nephrotoxicity (kidney damage and renal tissue injury).” In animals who received 125 milligrams per kilogram of DHA, tumour growth was 38 percent less than in animals who received a placebo. Animals receiving cisplatin had 55 percent less tumour growth, while those treated with 250 milligrams per kilogram of DHA had 79 percent less. The combination of DHA and cisplatin not only reduced tumour growth by 81 percent compared with a placebo, it also returned white blood cell counts to normal levels. The 250 milligram per kilogram dose of DHA was nearly as effective at restoring a normal white blood cell count as the DHA-cisplatin combination. It is up to you to make your own mind up. (Source: Natural News)

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=527

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=2519

 

 

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the same week that the MHRA has advised that parents and carers should not give oral echinacea to the under 12s, a government study has found that at least a third of all drugs given to the same age group have never been through clinical trials for children, nor are they approved or licensed for anything other than adult use.

It seems like only a couple of weeks ago GSK was being fined in America for kids using its unapproved drugs. So are the UK Government going to take action?

Not quite yet. The Department of Health report, ‘written by leading child health experts’ is calling for an investigation by the drugs’ watchdog (the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency). Could this be the same MHRA?

Believe it or not, prior to 2007, drugs companies had no obligation to test medicines on children!

New drugs must now be tested on kids before being licensed but drugs already out there? Don’t be silly.

So the EU and MHRA effectively ban echinacea ‘due to the possible risk of rare allergic reactions in under 12s’, but 30 per cent of all drugs given to under 18s, and 95 per cent of all drugs given to babies in intensive care haver NEVER been tested on children.

Is there any chance of a ‘rare allergic reaction’ from any or all of these adult drugs used on a three day old baby? The list would include painkillers, antibiotics, asthma inhalers and even, yes you’ve guessed it, those perfectly safe cancer drugs, that have never been known to cause a side-effect even in an adult.

In a statement which sounded dangerously like it had been borrowed from a herbalist or a vitamin salesman, Warren Lenny, a professor of respiratory child health was quoted in the press as saying ‘By no means are we using dangerous medicines. If a medicine has been on the market for 30 years, no company is going to spend millions of pounds testing it on children.’ However, he went on to say that it has been shown that using an unlicensed drug on children does indeed increase the risk of side-effects.

Another Professor, Ian Lewis of Alder Hey Children’s NHS Trust, sounded even more like a herbalist when he said, ‘Most of the drugs we use in Children’s cancer like leukaemia have not been formally tested in children but have cured many of them’.

Apparently, we are going to get a formal response from the Dept of Health later this year.

The world is becoming a very weird place.

, , ,

 

 

Cancer becoming an ever younger disease

New data, which makes a mockery of officialdom´s view that cancer is an old person´s disease with rates rising in line with an aging population, has emerged.

The risk of developing cancer in your middle age has now risen by more than a third since 1980. Breast cancer rates increased by 50 per cent. And prostate cancer rates grew a whopping 6 fold in middle aged men! (Ed: As usual, the report from Cancer Research UK, bumbles on about better screening, lifestyle factors such as obesity, and promises more and better treatments. Why is it only CANCERactive that talks about the significant environmental causes of cancer and the need for the precautionary principle to be adopted by Government and Health bodies alike? We want a more rigorous control on known carcinogens at state level – from BPA to formaldehyde – in everyday products, proper warnings on labels and real cancer prevention education. This study comes at the same time other experts are warning that the cost of treatments will become untenable. The UK cancer programme continues to look in the wrong direction. Where, oh where, is there a serious concern over cancer prevention.  Ultimately, our children will be the biggest losers.)  CANCERactive, Britain’s Number 1 Cancer Prevention web site, CLICK HERE

http://www.canceractive.com/index.aspx

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=715&Title=Cancer Prevention Main Features

 

 

, ,

 

Breast Chemotherapy shown to cause brain damage, again

We have run previous studies in Cancer Watch showing this same finding, so this study on breast cancer published in Archives of Neurology comes as no real surprise. In this study, researchers from Stamford University Medical School followed 25 breast cancer patients who had had chemotherapy treatment – comparing them with 19 breast cancer patients who had surgery and other treatments and 18 healthy women.

All were asked to solve problems, sort cards and other mental tasks. Their brains were simultaneously monitored using Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging. The 25 who had had chemo made more errors in the problems and the MRI scans showed reduced activity in areas of the brain responsible for working memory, cognitive control, monitoring and planning. This gives credence to the many women who have complained to their doctors in the past about ´foggy thinking´ after chemo.

The lead researcher Shelli Kesler said: ´This is a huge validation for these women who are telling their doctors ´something is wrong with me.´

Doctors have hitherto been quite dismissive when patients have complained of foggy thinking – in extreme cases there has been loss of vision, hearing and even dementia. Kesler added: ´This shows that when a patient reports she is struggling with these types of problems, there´s a good chance there has been a brain change.´

CANCERactive Breast Cancer overview CLICK HERE:  http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=651&Title=Breast Cancer

 

, , , ,

 

Brain cancer clusters exist

By Virginia Farver, Fort Collins, CO, USA

I lost my beautiful, 29-year-old son Rich to glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) brain cancer on October 11, 2008.

Early in 2008, Rich was working as a teaching assistant in Political Science at San Diego State University (SDSU), where he had received his master’s degree.  He was a very kind young man who would occasionally go golfing with the professors.

He was in the process of applying for law school, but had confided to me, “I don’t know that I can make it through law school because I can’t remember things.”  He was having headaches, memory problems, nosebleeds and excessive sweating and fatigue.  I had been noticing that something was off with him. He needed to sleep all the time. There was a blood vessel coming from the right side of his head through his hairline and protruding across this forehead. His girlfriend Jennifer told me he would sleep for hours, curled up like a cat during the day by the patio window. This was not like him.

At the time of Rich’s GBM diagnosis in March 2008, Dr. V. Tantuwaya from Poway, CA told us that his cell phone was the culprit.  Rich’s tumor was located in his right frontal lobe and he was right-handed.  This is referred to as an ipsilateral tumor, one on the same side as where the phone was held.

Rich wanted to live. He had always been a good kid, never drank or did drugs. At 6’2”, he’d been on varsity basketball in high school, and was very healthy. So cancer was unthinkable. I told Rich I’d do anything to keep him alive. But after surgery, chemo and radiation, with nine MRIs, multiple hospitals and hospice, he died, seven months following diagnosis.

I learned that similar brain cancers were happening to others on campus.  An English teacher, Laurel Amtower, thanked SDSU colleagues for their support before she went through chemo and radiation.  She died, too, leaving a 12-year-old daughter.  She didn’t realize that some she thanked were probably partly responsible for her death.

On August 7, 2009, nine months after Rich’s death, I found articles and a video about a “Brain Cancer Cluster on the San Diego State University Campus.”  I read these (listed below) several times before ending up on the floor. I contacted the SDSU Administration, but was bounced around from one person to another. I then drove to San Diego and stayed the whole month of October 2009.  I met off-campus with some professors mentioned in the articles. They told me they had asked for a toxicology study, as there is a huge cell tower right next to the building where Rich spent most of his time grading papers and doing research: Nasatir Hall.

After I returned home, the SDSU Administration sent me an epidemiological report written by a Dr. Thomas Mack.  In the third paragraph, Dr. Mack stated he has, “no known knowledge of any chemical or radiation concerns and therefore there are none.”   That’s not a scientific conclusion, it’s a cover-up.

I e-mailed Dr. Mack, and he called me at home!  I asked him about this cell tower on top of the Communications Building. This rises over Nasatir Hall, where most of the brain cancer victims were located. Dr. Mack quickly denied the connection to the cancer cluster.  I then told him of everyone’s concerns. He said, “They should be concerned.”  This made me furious. It didn’t make any sense. And the SDSU Administration would not conduct a toxicology study because of Dr. Mack’s report!  Like some professors, I have requested a study on several occasions, but have received no response.

I then looked into the tower on my own.  Owned by Sprint, it has HPWREN or High Performance Wireless Research and Educational Network on it, with a BackBone Node to the UC-SD Supercomputer Center.  It also has a GWEN, or Ground Wave Emergency Network, with emissions known to hug the ground.  These towers are capable of sending signals hundreds of miles, including to several remote laboratories across California.  There is an additional tower on campus on the KPBS News Station. Similar towers are on many college campuses across the US, via the Lambda or Tera Grid, also called the ‘smart’ grid.  Engineers are developing “smart”, or “AMI” meters, appliances and whatever else they can dream up to deploy microwave radiation everywhere. This grid is the “military-industrial complex” of which President Dwight Eisenhower warned US citizens of in his 1961 Farewell Speech.  He warned of its grave consequences.  I know of these consequences.

After Laurel Amtower died of brain cancer on August 29, 2010, I contacted NBC in San Diego.  At first, Producer Paul Krueger was interested in doing another story.  After I gave him this new information, SILENCE.

I then contacted the San Diego Tribune.  A reporter called me at home.  He told me that this story would NEVER get out in San Diego.  I asked, “Why?” He said, “Because of money.”  I also contacted the CA Governor’s office and area Representative Marti Emerald.  Both referred me back to SDSU.

For a month in October 2011, I stood hours each day outside the campus cafeteria, where the kids would congregate and walk to get to their classes.  I had about 15 signs taped up against the wall.  One said, “Will you be the next victim?”  Others said, “Read your cell phone manuals. They say not to hold the phone to your head. Don’t keep it in your pocket. It will do genetic damage.”  Others warned about WiFi and more.

They looked frightened, but they would still grab their cell phones. They would text while walking and ignore everything around them. Some would take pictures, or would peek out of the side of their eyes.  A few talked with me.

While there, I walked to Nasatir Hall. Kids were sitting all around. The leaves were dying on the trees. Measurements on an RF meter were beyond the range of the meter.  Some kids were high up on outdoor balconies at their dorms, near the levels of the massive discs and antennas on the towers.

When I went directly to Room 131, where Rich and others who died of cancer had worked, I found it all closed up.  A policeman asked me what I was doing there. I told him about my son. He asked me about the towers and told me he has two young children.

The known SDSU brain cancer victims are listed below. In addition to the brain cancers there are also breast cancers in the vicinity. The professors are afraid for both their health and their jobs.  I’ve told the SDSU Administration, “I’m not going away!”

• RICH FARVER – DIAGNOSED AND DIED FROM GBM BRAIN CANCER, 2008/ NASATIR HALL, ROOM 131

• CHARLES CUTTER – DIAGNOSED AND DIED FROM GBM BRAIN CANCER, 2008/ NASATIR HALL, ROOM 131

• LOU TERRELL – DIAGNOSED WITH LYMPHOMA BRAIN CANCER, 2008/ NASATIR HALL, ROOM RIGHT NEXT TO 131

• DWIGHT ANDERSON – DIAGNOSED WITH DIFFERENT FORM OF CANCER AND DIED 2008/ NASATIR HALL, ROOM 131

• RICHARD FUNSTON – DIAGNOSED AND DIED FROM GBM BRAIN CANCER IN 90′S WITH CELL TOWER PRESENT/ NASATIR HALL, ROOM 131

• MRS. KATHY O’HARA – DIAGNOSED WITH GBM BRAIN CANCER MAY 2008/ KPBS NEWS STATION ON CAMPUS

• MS. LAUREL AMTOWER – DIAGNOSED WITH GBM NOVEMBER 2009, DIED AUGUST 29, 2010/ ARTS AND LETTERS BUILDING, RIGHT NEXT TO NASATIR HALL

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=1503

http://www.canceractive.com/cancer-active-page-link.aspx?n=154&Title=Brain Cancer

 

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

SDSU brain cancer articles and video:

www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local-beat/Coincidence-or-Cluster.html www.nbcsandiego.com/news/health/SDSU_Room_Haunted_by_Cancer__San_Diego.html www.healthjournalism.org/blog/tag/brain-cancer www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2009/03/san-diego-cancer-clusters-hazard-o

 

, , , , , , ,