Search Results for: scientific evidence

Roundup causes cancer: Monsanto hid evidence for 40 years while lying to and defrauding Americans, FOIA documents show

No big surprise here for anybody that’s been watching.  Monsanto is up to their dirty tricks again.  Roundup is a toxin and a carcinogen.  I didn’t know it before, but suspected it. But, unfortunately, that didn’t stop me from using it.  But as usual, corporate profits are more important than people.  And down the line, the truth about GMO’s is going to come out too.  Unfortunately, the damage is already done and the genes that Monsanto has injected into plants will proliferate and nobody knows what will be the bad results.  But it’s pretty evident that nothing good will come out of Roundup or GMO’s.

 
(NaturalNews) The downfall of the Monsanto chemical empire could go down in history as having had its official launch in 2015, the year that its flagship herbicide Roundup was found by the World Health Organization (WHO) to be a probable cause of cancer in humans. 2015 is also the year that it was revealed that Monsanto has been hiding the dirty details of this deadly chemical formula from regulatory authorities for nearly four decades.
An independent research scientist by the name of Anthony Samsel procured some 15,000 pages worth of documents from Monsanto covering the full gamut of research on Roundup, the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the information contained in those pages isn’t pretty. In essence, Monsanto has known full well for nearly 40 years that Roundup and glyphosate are linked to organ damage and cancer, and yet this information was withheld from public purview as “proprietary trade secrets.”
As a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), Samsel has spent much of his career life studying the toxicological effects and bioactivity of Roundup. Based on a cohort of scientific data, he has come to the conclusion that Monsanto purposely failed to submit to regulators evidence showing that glyphosate isn’t as safe or biodegradable as the company claims.
“Monsanto misrepresented the data,” Samsel told listeners during a recent broadcast on the Progressive Radio Network (PRN) that aired on September 4. Monsanto “deliberately covered up data to bring the product [glyphosate] to market,” he added.
What did this critical data show? According to Samsel, Monsanto intentionally corrupted animal studies by using animals that were already sick with cancer and organ failures as controls. Based on the metrics used in these studies, this made those animals exposed to glyphosate appear no more afflicted than the control animals because all of the animals ended up getting sick.
It’s the same thing vaccine manufacturers do to make toxic vaccines appear “safe and effective”: they give “controls” a different kind of vaccine than the one being tested so that all the test subjects are injected with some kind of vaccine. Then, when rates of encephalitis, autism, and other conditions appear generally equal among the test group and the controls, Monsanto is able to make the false claim that no additional adverse effects were observed.
“In order to minimize and cancel out its adverse findings, Samsel explained that Monsanto had relied upon earlier historical animal control data, toxicological research with lab animals afflicted with cancer and organ failures, and completely unrelated to glyphosate,” explains an article by PRN about the scandal.
The PRN report adds that Monsanto routinely includes what it says are “extraneous studies” to hide or cancel out negative outcomes in other studies and make a particular chemical or GMO product appear safe when it actually isn’t. This criminal tactic has allowed Monsanto and other chemical giants to spread millions of tons of deadly chemicals around the world without penalty when such products never should have gained regulatory approval in the first place.
“In effect, glyphosate received licensure based upon a platform of junk tobacco science,” the report explains. “By ignoring cause and effect relationships behind the onset of multiple cancer and other life-threatening diseases throughout many of its research trials, Monsanto engaged in a radical scientific denialism that has since raked in tens of billions of dollars.”
For more info, go to: www.naturalnews.com

Is Baking Soda an Effective Cancer Treatment?

There is a lot of controversy about the findings of a Dr Tullio Simoncini regarding the use of sodium bicarbonate for cancer therapy.  He says that based on his study and experience, cancer is a fungus, candida albicans to be exact.  He also claims that he has been having great success in the treatment of solid tumors with the use of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda).  But mainstream medical authorities like the American Cancer Society have been negative about these developments.
The American Cancer Society web site on sodium bicarbonate is precisely worded.  They never actually come out and say that baking soda does not work on cancer.  They make a bunch of leading statements about the topic.  They basically say that available scientific evidence does not support claims that cancer is caused by yeasts or molds, that sodium bicarbonate treats cancer, and that these claims are not supported by clinical or scientific evidence.

Cancer Surgeon Rebukes Prince of Wales Support for Alternative Cancer Treatments

I found an article in which a leading breast cancer surgeon strongly admonished the Prince of Wales for him publicly supporting alternative cancer therapy for cancer patients.  Although this report isn’t as timely as I would have liked (around 2004), it is very instructive as to the mindset of many medical professionals, and how they view things.  I decided to analyze what the physician was saying so that you could better see how they think.
Michael Baum, emeritus professor of surgery at University College London basically told Prince Charles that he was full of it.  The Prince was supporting the Gerson therapy for cancer (and many other diseases).  I do realize that this therapy doesn’t work for everybody (no treatment or therapy has a 100% cure rate), but Dr. Gerson did have a success rate that was higher than that for conventional cancer treatments(which is said to really be closer to 3% than what they claim it is).

Cancer Lies and the Medical Establishment

This is another hard hitting video in the installment that reveals a lot of the lies, misconceptions and truth about the Cancer Industry and how the Medical Establishment works to maximize profits at the expense of helpless, misled, confused cancer patients.  This is not pretty, but it is the absolute truth.  Most physicians can’t speak out about this for the very high risk that they may lose their medical license to practice.  This video is a short 10 minutes, but it is crammed full of the essence of the problem with the conventional cancer treatment paradigm, and the reason why things have been this way for over 50 years.

In short, chemotherapy is derived from chemical warfare agents (specifically, the one called mustine). This is why most chemotherapeutic drugs are cytotoxic (kill cells).  They work by disrupting cellular division and DNA metabolism.  This is highly toxic, but is especially dangerous to fast-growing cells of the body, and not just cancer cells.  Cancer researchers can secure great profits, status, acclaim, grants and awards, jobs, papers and publications without succeeding in treating or curing cancer.

Paw Paw-Alternative Cancer Treatment-Part 7

Dr. McLaughlin discusses more of his cancer research that demonstrates that Paw Paw chemicals are very cytotoxic to tumor cells, but are not very toxic to normal cells.  He also compares Paw Paw acetogenins with the popular chemotherapy drugs Taxol® and cisplatin.

Dr. McLaughlin says that his research has shown that Paw Paw chemicals are extremely toxic to Multi Drug Resistant (MDR) tumor cells.

‘Poisonous herbicide is invading the food chain’, experts warn – as traces found in popular breakfast foods

Our environment is constantly and consistently being polluted by these corporations like Monsanto. Once they release these poisons, there’s virtually no way that their spread can be controlled. It’s the same thing with GMO’s as well. But this article here verifies that our food chain is being contaminated, this time by Roundup, generic name glyphosate. Glyphosate is a proven carcinogen, and not only is it being found in the food, but it’s also being doused over many of the crops that we eat, organic or not.  Now how can Monsanto get a pass on contaminating our food supply as well as getting regulator approval on using a cancer-causing herbicide on plants that people are eating? Think about it…

It is the most important meal of the day, or so the saying goes. But, while enjoying your favorite breakfast, experts warn you may be eating more than you bargained for.A new series of tests by the Alliance for Natural Health-USA has revealed popular breakfast foods including eggs, bagels, wholewheat bread and coffee creamers include ‘alarming’ levels of a widely-used agricultural herbicide.
Ten of the 24 foods – both organic and regular – tested contained traceable levels of glyphosate.
It is the active ingredient in the world’s most widely used herbicide, Roundup, developed by Monsanto and first released in 1974.
Increasing scientific studies point to glyphosate residues being ubiquitous in the environment, raising fears it could be common in foods.
Last year, the World Health Organization moved to classify glyphosate a probable human carcinogen.
It has been linked to a number of cancers, including breast, thyroid, kidney, pancreas, liver, bladder and myeloid leukemia.
Gretchen DuBeau, executive and legal director of ANH-USA, said: ‘Glyphosate has been linked to increases in levels of breast, thyroid, kidney, pancreatic, liver and bladder cancers and is being served for breakfast, lunch and dinner around the world.
‘The fact that it is showing up in foods like eggs and coffee creamer, which don’t directly contact the herbicide, shows that it’s being passed on by animals who ingest it in their feed.
‘This is contrary to everything that regulators and industry scientists have been telling the public.’
Researchers purchased regular and organic versions of 12 popular breakfast foods and breakfast food ingredients, totaling 24 items for testing.
The categories tested were: flour, corn flakes, instant oatmeal, bagels, yogurt, bread, frozen hash browns, potatoes, cream of wheat, eggs, non-dairy creamers and dairy based coffee creamers.
The tests revealed 10 of the 24 items contained traceable levels of glyphosate.

Breakfast food
Glyphosate level (parts per billion)
EPA allowable daily intake is 75 ppb

1. Instant oatmeal – strawberries and cream
1,327.1

2. Wholewheat bagels
491.9

3. Organic multi-bagels
151.5

4. Wholegrain bread – wholewheat
403.0

5. Organic killer wholewheat bread
136.4

6. Hot cereal – wholegrain
260.6

7. Large eggs
102

8. Organic cage-free, antibiotic-free large eggs
169

9. Organic coffee creamer
104

10. Organic soy creamer (non-GMO)
86

Source: The Alliance for Natural Health USA

The presence of glyphosate in eggs and dairy products supports the fear that the chemical is accumulating in the tissue of these animals, and therefore presumably also in human tissue, via a process called bioaccumulation.
Ms DuBeau said they decided to carry out the tests to see ‘how ubiquitous this toxin has become in our environment’.
‘We expected that trace amounts would show up in foods containing large amounts of corn and soy,’ she said.
‘However, we were unprepared for just how invasive this poison has been to our entire food chain.’
Furthermore, experts warned, testing for glyphosate alone does not even portray the full picture.
The amounts detected by the tests undertaken do not include any analogs of glyphosate, such as N-Acetylglyphosate, which is used by DuPont in its GMO formulations.
These analogs may also be present in food and would add to the amount of glyphosate accumulated in human tissue.
Glyphosate and its analogs are known endocrine disrupters for humans.
Ms DuBeau and her colleagues conclude that clearly Americans are consuming glyphosate on a daily basis.
The true safety of this chemical, just last year identified as a probably carcinogen by the WHO, is unknown.
Current EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) standards have not been rigorously tested for all foods and all age groups.
Evidence linking glyphosate with the increased incidence of a host of cancers is reason for immediate reevaluation by the EPA and FDA, the ANH-USA said.
For more info, go to: www.dailymail.co.uk

Alternative Cancer Treatment vs Conventional Cancer Treatment: A Paradigm Choice

I had an interesting exchange with a person who, evidently, supports the establishment cancer industry position on cancer treatments, cancer cures, cancer research and related issues. I didn’t think that a comment I had made on the Huffington Post in response to another comment would have engendered such a response, but it did. I found it to be very illustrative of many of the things that I have discussed here on smashcancer.com.  But I also thought that by examining what was being said by this person, I could use it as a learning tool. I could see from our ‘dialogue’ that there was no point in trying to have a logical discussion of our points because this person basically had her mind made up.
I can understand how someone could, and would, believe the medical authorities. They’re the authorities! They are the ones that have all of the institutions, the schools, the degrees, the fellowships, the publications, the experts, and associated things. They are the ones that spend and/or expend the resources of time and money to study things like cancer, and they report their findings to us. They are people, and they and their family members suffer & die from cancer, just like everybody else does. So who in their right mind would question their dedication, their work, their never-ending quest to beat cancer?

Does Aspartame Cause Cancer?

Aspartame is one of the most widely used artificial sweeteners in the world. It is added to approximately 6,000 consumer foods, beverages, chewable vitamin supplements, laxatives, milk drinks, pharmaceutical drugs and supplements, shake mixes, teas, instant coffees, wine coolers, condiments, etc.  It is also sold under the trade names Equal, NutraSweet, and Canderel.  It was originally produced by G.D. Searle, but this company was purchased by Monsanto in 1984.
The dangers of aspartame use has been a very contentious issue. The FDA, and other large corporations and regulators have claimed that aspartame is a harmless chemical. But others have argued that aspartame is very dangerous.  After a careful examination of the evidence, it would appear that aspartame is harmful.  This is in addition to the controversy surrounding the scientific studies that were used to justify the approval of aspartame for human consumption.

Prostate Cancer Screening Fallacy Explained

I found an interesting article about how misleading cancer screening accuracy and statistics can be. The old saying is that there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
The article says that Rudy Giuliani cited data comparing prostate cancer statistics from Britain versus those from the United States. The report said that in Britain, 44% of men diagnosed with prostate cancer were alive 5 years, and that in the US, about 81% of these men were alive 5 years later. He then concluded that the 5 year survival rate for prostate cancer in the US was about twice as high as that in England.

How Not to Treat Cancer

I couldn’t contain myself after going to a blog that discusses cancer treatments. They were essentially talking negatively about homeopathic treatments for cancer in this blog post.  I found it interesting.  I am not sure about the effectiveness of homeopathy treatments for any disease.  Personally, I haven’t seen or found any evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy.  It seemed to me to be an easy target for derision.  I noticed that they didn’t choose to discuss any more efficacious treatments, such as Laetrile/B-17, Hoxsey’s formula, Essiac, etc.
So I went ahead and posted my own comments on the topic.  I think it was a board that will probably be adverse to my comments and views, but I went ahead and posted it anyway.  I’ll just post here what I said and let you check it out: