Posts Tagged: science

How Reliable Are Cancer Studies?

We all know that nothing is perfect, including science. But it would be very nice if lots of staunch people who worship science as a religion would get off of their proverbial ‘high horses’ and try to be more realistic.
This is a very important question because this is the crux of science. Science is supposed to be based on proof, evidence and a process to remove bias. Many see ‘science’ as the paragon, the absolute apex of information, and of society. This is understandable because we do need to be sure of the things we think and believe are true. It has allowed civilization to progress as far as it has.
But there is a problem when what we call science is different from what science is supposed to be, different from what people assume that it is. And therein lies the conundrum. Is a study really science and constitutes ‘proof’ if the conclusions and the actual study results can’t be replicated? Is ‘science’ really science if it has been corrupted for other objectives? Is ‘science’ really science if the scientists are controlled by profit-seeking corporations, politicians who have been bribed or otherwise incentivized to only search for cancer cures down authorized areas of research, or by regulators and government agencies who are in bed with Big Pharma?
It’s just irritating to hear people always talk about science as if it were the only thing that we can believe in. Evidently, most cancer studies, as demonstrated in this brief study, are not reproducible. This means that this so-called science isn’t as scientific or definite as many think it is. And that’s before we even start talking about hidden agendas for various things like protecting corporate Big Pharma profits, prestige, following the mainstream so you don’t get steamrolled by the Medical Establishment, etc.
Maybe this is a sign that there needs to be an overhaul of science, or a revolution in the way that scientific studies are performed. There has to be a way to improve the reproducibility of scientific experiments. There have to be ways to find and use cheaper, more effective, safer treatments for cancer than what Big Pharma, the Medical Establishment and the government are offering and/or allowing to be marketed to patients and consumers. There’s a difference between finding a cure for cancer no matter where or how it is, and finding a treatment for cancer upon which Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment can make billions of dollars of profit! These objectives are as different as night and day.
Often, many people are extremely biased against ‘unproven’ cancer treatment approaches. They fiercely attack people that have different views on cancer treatment. They ridicule and berate anyone who goes outside of traditional cancer treatments. This article exposes what many alternative cancer treatment practitioners and supporters have implicitly known and felt, but never had the proof to document–until now.
The major takeaway from this study is that people who attack alternative cancer treatments should probably try to be more open minded. It would be different if there were some conventional cancer treatments out there that were over 50-75% effective, but they aren’t. So to summarily dismiss ALL ‘alternative’ cancer treatments because they aren’t mainstream is highly biased because each approach is different and stands on its own merits. But ‘alternative cancer practitioners’ and their supporters usually have more logic in their approaches to cancer treatment than what Big Pharma and the Medical Establishment are offering. One common sense strategy is to refrain from the use of medicines and treatments that severely injure patients (like chemotherapy, radiation and often even immunology)!
Get More Alternative Cancer Treatment information right here…

(emphasis is mine)
In recent years, scientists have been dealing with concerns about a reproducibility crisis—the possibility that many published findings may not actually be true. Psychologists have grappled intensively with this problem, trying to assess its scope and look for solutions. And two reports from pharmaceutical companies have suggested that cancer biologists have to face a similar reckoning.
In 2011, Bayer Healthcare said that its in-house scientists could only validate 25 percent of basic studies in cancer and other conditions. (Drug companies routinely do such checks so they can use the information in those studies as a starting point for developing new drugs.) A year later, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis from Amgen said that the firm could only confirm the findings in 6 out of 53 landmark cancer papers—just 11 percent. Perhaps, they wrote, that might explain why “our ability to translate cancer research to clinical success has been remarkably low.”
But citing reasons of confidentiality, neither the Bayer nor Amgen teams released the list of papers that they checked, or their methods or results. Ironically, without that information, there was no way of checking if their claims about irreproducibility were themselves reproducible. “The reports were shocking, but also seemed like finger-pointing,” says Tim Errington, a cell biologist at the Center for Open Science (COS).
Elizabeth Iorns had the same thought, and she saw a way to do a better and more transparent job. She had founded a start-up called Science Exchange, which uses a large network of contract labs to provide research support to scientists—and in some cases, check their work. She contacted the COS, and together, they launched the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology—an initiative that used the Science Exchange labs to replicate key results from the 50 most cited papers in cancer biology, published between 2010 and 2012. (The COS recently used the same model for psychology studies to good effect.)
The results from the first five of these replication attempts were published today—and they offer no clean answers. Two of them largely (but not entirely) confirmed the conclusions of the original studies. One failed to do so. And two were inconclusive for technical reasons—the mouse strains or cancer cell lines that were used in the original studies didn’t behave in the same way the second time round. These uncertainties mean that it’s very hard to say whether each replication attempt “worked,” or whether each original study was actually reproducible.
“Everyone wants us to paint the project in black and white,” says Errington. “What percent of these papers replicate? I’ve been asked that so many times, but it’s not an easy question.” To him, the project’s goal isn’t to get a hard percentage, but to understand why two seemingly identical goes at the same experiment might produce different results, and to ultimately make it easier for one group of scientists to check another’s work.
The Reproducibility Project team pre-registered all of their work. That is, for each targeted paper, they wrote up their experimental plans in full, ran them past the original authors, and submitted them to the journal eLife for peer review. Only then did they start the experiments. Once the results were in, they were reviewed a second time, before being published.
The hardest part, by far, was figuring out exactly what the original labs actually did. Scientific papers come with methods sections that theoretically ought to provide recipes for doing the same experiments. But often, those recipes are incomplete, missing out important steps, details, or ingredients. In some cases, the recipes aren’t described at all; researchers simply cite an earlier study that used a similar technique. “I’ve done it myself: you reference a previous paper and that one references a paper and that one references a paper, and now you’ve gone years and the methodology doesn’t exist,” admit Errington. “Most people looking at these papers wouldn’t even think of going through these steps. They’d just guess. If you asked 20 different labs to replicate a paper, you’d end up with 10 different methodologies that aren’t really comparable.”
So, in every case, he had to ask the scientists behind the original experiments for the details of their work. Oftentimes, the person who actually did the experiments had left the lab, so an existing team member had to rummage through old notebooks or data files. The project ended up being hugely time-consuming for everyone concerned. “We spent a boatload of time trying to get back to ground zero,” says Errington.
And for what? The results of the first five papers show just how hard it is to interpret a replication attempt in this field. For example, in 2012, Levi Garraway at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute found that melanoma skin cancers frequently carry mutations in a gene called PREX2. His team then showed that these mutations accelerate the growth of human melanoma cells that were transplanted onto mice. But replicating team couldn’t confirm the latter result; in their experiment, the PREX2 mutations made no difference.
Does that mean that Garraway’s study was wrong? Not quite. Even though the replication team got their melanoma cells and mice from the same source as Garraway’s group, in their hands, the transplanted tumours grew much faster than had been reported. The PREX2 mutations made no difference because all the cells were already zooming along in sixth gear. Small differences in the ways the cells were grown or the mice were housed could have contributed to the differences between these studies, writes Roger Davis, a cell biologist at the University of Masschussetts Medical School, reviewed the PREX2 replication paper.
In another case, Irving Weissman from Stanford Medicine showed that cancer cells carry high levels of a protein called CD47, and antibodies that target this protein can slow the growth of human tumor cells that had been transplanted into mice. In this case, the replication experiment was inconclusive because all the transplanted tumors would spontaneously regress, antibodies or no.
Some might argue that these differences arise because the project relied on contractors, who lack the experience and artisanal skills of the scientists in the original teams. Iorns disagrees. “The teams were all selected for their technical expertise in the experiments being conducted,” she says. “They routinely run these types of experiments all the time.”
Instead, she and Errington argue that the differences stem from the inherent and underappreciated variability of the cells and animals being used in these studies. In psychology, researchers who replicate a study have no choice but to recruit different volunteers, who might differ from the original sample in critical ways. But in theory, cancer biologists should be able to use the exact same lineage of cells or breed of rodents—genetically identical and sourced from the same suppliers—which should behave in the same way. “But some of these models kind of fell apart, and you can’t dismiss that,” says Errington. He hopes that these results will spur other scientists to better explore those variations, and include more quality control steps in their work.
And perhaps the most important result from the project so far, as Daniel Engber wrote in Slate, is that it has been “a hopeless slog.” “If people had deposited raw data and full protocols at the time of publication, we wouldn’t have to go back to the original authors,” says Iorns. That would make it much easier for scientists to truly check each other’s work.
The National Institutes of Health seem to agree. In recently released guidelines, meant to improve the reproducibility of research, they recommend that journals ask for more thorough methods sections and more sharing of data. And in this, the Reproducibility Project have modelled the change they want to see, documenting every step of their project on a wiki.
“We want to applaud replication efforts like this,” says Atul Butte from the University of California, San Francisco, whose study was among the two that were successfully reproduced. “It is important for the public to have trust in scientists, and belief in the veracity of our published findings.” But he suggests that the team chooses their targeted studies in a “more impactful manner”—not by citations, but by those that are most likely to lead to new treatments.
In the meantime, the team still needs to finish its first wave of replications. They initially set out to replicate 50 old papers, but the unexpectedly high costs of doing so have forced them to scale back. “In the end, we think we’ll complete 30,” says Iorns.
For more info, go to: www.theatlantic.com

Read on »

Response to an Oncology Fellow

I came across an article on Forbes that was found on Quora. A person asked a question about alternative cancer treatments and wondered why alternative cancer treatments like vitamin C aren’t being used even though they are said to selectively kill tumor cells without side effects.  The answer was given by a Stanford oncology fellow.
He basically comes out and makes unsubstantiated claims and statements about various alternative cancer treatments. He says that vitamin C simply doesn’t work for cancer treatment by saying that it’s been out since the 1970’s (it’s really been around a lot longer than that). He makes the same blanket statement about all the other alternative cancer treatments, specifically naming Gerson therapy, Laetrile, coral chelation therapy, Japanese mushroom extract, and alkaline water.
Curiously, he mentions that some of his patients had paid ‘out of pocket’ for the above alternative cancer treatments but never addresses what the results of these treatments were. He does mention that all of them are cheaper than conventional cancer treatments. I was curious about the results of those people’s experiences with alternative cancer treatments (even though those would be anecdotal reports and not technically ‘scientific’).
His biggest proof of his claim that no alternative treatments work (he actually said that they don’t even qualify as treatments) is that the organizations paying for the treatments (i.e., the national health services in the various countries) would pounce on these treatments if they were cheaper and effective. He says that all you need to know is that since none of these organizations are even investing in any research on these alternative cancer treatments, that means that it’s because they simply don’t work.
Learn 5 Things You Can Do to Stop Your Cancer COLD…
Of course, you know that this isn’t such an airtight reasoning exercise as he has argued that it is. He has left out a number of elements that impact this situation greatly.  It’s not as simple a situation that he describes it to be.
I had a simple question that I haven’t seen any authorities answer. I want to know why there haven’t been any studies where an alternative cancer treatment, or even no treatment at all, is directly tested against a standard cancer treatment? If chemotherapy, radiation and surgery are so much better than these alternative treatments that don’t work, then why won’t anyone test them directly and compare the results.
In fact, why don’t they test chemotherapy drugs against controls that receive no treatment? They claim it’s an ethical issue, but how would you really know if chemotherapy and/or radiation work better than no treatment at all if you never directly test them? One researcher found that chemotherapy was virtually useless for treating cancer.
And why do they have such a huge problem admitting that their approaches to cancer treatment are a dismal failure, especially considering the enormous amounts of money that they’re spending on cancer treatment and cancer research.  Even more perplexing is that they continue to direct the research down the same old lines, using the same failed paradigm. In short, the body is viewed as a battlefield instead of as an integrated working mechanism with interrelated parts.
This is manifested in the thought that bad foods can cause disease, but good foods can’t lead to health. How can one be true and the other be false? This is what I’ve heard from mainstream medical sources, but it doesn’t make sense to me.  If bad food can make you sick, how is it possible for good food to not make you healthy? In fact, for decades, mainstream medicine denied that your choice in foods could even affect your level of health.
A problem with medical research in general is that the experiments are designed to evaluate drugs, as if drugs are the only way to treat diseases.  And because of this bias, there is no real incentive for Big Pharma companies to run expensive trials for natural substances for which they cannot secure patents. No company could finance an $800 million study (the average cost for running a properly recognized study) for a substance that they couldn’t patent and recoup that investment. And unfortunately, contrary to popular belief, no non-Big Pharma companies have the funds to run an $800 million dollar study on any of those natural substances. So it’s basically a “Catch-22” situation.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…
There are plenty of promising, non-patentable substances out there that are being studied all the time, but because they can’t be patented, we’ll never see a “double blind randomized” study on them for the above reasons. And although a lot of national health services pay a lot of money for health care, it doesn’t necessarily logically follow that they would want cheap, effective treatments for cancer or any other diseases. In government, they are usually incentivized to want bigger budgets because many departments and administrators are judged on the size of their budget. So to shrink their budgets would be akin to shrinking their fiefdoms, which they don’t want to do.
Lots of scientists and physicians challenge the status quo, but virtually all who do get punished by the mainstream medical establishment. There’s simply too much money that is being made because of the status quo, and anyone that challenges the conceptual framework of it is seen as an enemy of entrenched financial interests. And they ruthlessly defend their profits with an ‘by any means’ strategy. There isn’t a dirty trick in the book that is too sinister for them to employ.
I don’t want to believe that this is the state of affairs in modern medicine. But as I’ve studied, observed and analyzed it (as have others, including scientists and physicians), it’s a fact that there is bias and dogma in modern medicine. We’d like to think that everything they do is proven science, but there’s a lot more to it than that. It’s not such a simple situation. Most people don’t even want to entertain the idea that there is corruption and profiteering in modern medicine, but it’s the sordid truth. Not that this is proof, but I know of doctors who are very disgusted with the way that their options for treating and educating patients are severely curtailed by the medical authorities. They are simply not able to suggest or use treatments that they believe would be better for their patients. In my mind, that is a problem.
 

Read on »

An extra four months of life with fewer side effects compared to chemotherapy

I don’t mean to sound crass or unsympathetic, but it just appears to me that the bar is set extremely low if it is cause for celebration and accolades that an immunotherapy drug gives someone an extra 4 months of life when compared to chemotherapy.
It would seem that a real cause for celebration would be for something more along the lines of 4 extra years of life with fewer side effects than chemotherapy. Or 14 extra years of life.
I guess that it’s all relative. We know that chemotherapy isn’t a cure. But it’s recommended to the majority of cancer patients. I wonder why that is.
I noticed in the article that they tested the new immunology treatment relative to chemotherapy. They don’t dare test it against something like Essiac or IV vitamin C because it would probably beat Big Pharma treatments so badly that nobody would ever consider using either.
Einstein is attributed to saying that the repeating of something that isn’t working is akin to insanity. Or maybe it’s craftiness. Or an orchestrated strategy to maximize profits by not killing the chemotherapy gravy train with something relatively non-toxic and highly effective in treating cancer.
Regardless of whether or not you believe that forces and people in Big Pharma are hiding cheap cures, one thing you can’t deny is that oncology is stubbornly bound to using chemotherapy and radiation to treat cancer. It’s been in use for many decades, with few to no signs of letting up.
If you’re like me, you would prefer more objectivity and truth in science. But unfortunately, politics and profits often dictate what it studied and what does and doesn’t get reported. We’d be naïve to deny the effect that bias and other objectives play in science. It’s not a comfortable thing to admit, but it’s the truth.
The difference between us and them is that we readily admit that we have bias. Big Pharma and others who drumbeat the dogmatic call for ‘science’ are often not willing to even admit the bias in their ‘science.’  And it’s a lot worse for the science zealots who call people that question what is called ‘science’ all sorts of names that are an attempt to destroy and malign us without truly answering the questions and concerns that we discuss.
Or worse yet, they are not willing to view science as a process, but view it as a form of religion that cannot be questioned or challenged. It took me a while to truly understand that the way that science is currently structured, it often misses the essence of truth. And it often has more in common with religion than with what could be known as the scientific method.
With all that said, we refer to this article that shows once again that progress in oncology is moving along at a snail’s pace, at best.  Regardless of what you believe about cancer and Big Pharma dogma or conspiracies to hide cures, we have to admit that the cost to benefit ratio for all that has been spent (money and man-hours of research performed) on cancer research is paltry even if you’re the most optimistic person who believes everything that the PR says about oncology.
At this rate, they will never have any cures that aren’t toxic. And they will only have expensive, pharmaceutical-based or expensive procedures that are even more costly than the ones that aren’t cures already. The country will go bankrupt if costs continue to rise. Many patients are already going bankrupt from expensive medical treatments.
It’s really time for a paradigm change in oncology, among other things.
Find out how you can stop your cancer…

Patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer survive four months longer with fewer side effects on an immunotherapy drug called atezolizumab compared to chemotherapy, according to a phase 3 clinical trial published in The Lancet.
The trial enrolled 1225 advanced non-small-cell lung cancer patients who have no more treatment options, but this study used an early analysis of the first 850 patients from the trial. Half of the group were given atezolizumab and the other half were given docetaxel chemotherapy, which is the standard treatment for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer.
Patients given atezolizumab — a drug that blocks the programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) protein — survived for an average of 13.8 months, compared with 9.6 months for those on chemotherapy.
As well as the benefits in survival, atezolizumab also had fewer side effects than chemotherapy with 14.8% (90 of 609) of those given the drug having grade three or four side effects compared with 42.7% (247 of 578) of those given chemotherapy. However, 46 (of 609, 7.6%) of the patients given atezolizumab still gave up treatment due to side effects, as well as 108 (of 578 patients, 18.7%) of those on chemotherapy.
“Lung cancer is the most common cancer affecting 1.8 million people each year worldwide. It is also the leading cause of cancer death worldwide and survival remains stubbornly low. Recently, important advances in the treatment of the disease have come from immunotherapies that target the PD-L1 and PD-1 pathway,” said Dr Achim Rittmeyer, lead author, University Goettingen, Germany. “Atezolizumab reinvigorates patients’ immune systems against cancer, and our trial has shown that this has significant results for their survival.”
Other immunotherapies for non-small-cell lung cancer, such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, are designed to block PD-L1’s counterpart, the programmed cell death protein 1 (PD-1) which is located on the immune cell surface. Normally the PD-L1 and PD-1 proteins signal to one another to activate the immune system to attack tumours.
For more info, go to: www.sciencedaily.com

Read on »

Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC

The next time somebody tells you how ‘high and mighty’ ‘science’ is, you can think about this report on some of the shenanigans so-called ‘scientists’ have been perpetrating.
I’m not saying that ALL of them operate like this, but the major take-away from this is that you can’t just go around blindly believing what experts and researchers say just because they say that it’s ‘science,’ or you’re leaving yourself vulnerable to falsehoods under the guise of truth.
It’s time for people to start using their thinking and reasoning faculties more because at this point there are a lot of profiteering and cronyism going on in science and research, as well as other fields of endeavor. But here we focus on health and how profits can have more impact on your health and treatments than truth.
Many times, scientific conclusions are reached based on political and economic factors more so than on the efficacy of the treatment. That’s how we can have poisons and toxins being used as medicines when there are safer, cheaper, more effective options. The more effective, safer, cheaper options are not profitable for Big Pharma, and they are not under Big Pharma control. So they are not marketed or promoted. Marketing and promotions is literally selling things for a profit. If there’s no profit in cheap cures, they will not be made known to the public. That’s simple business practice.
Just because someone is a scientist or physician doesn’t mean that they have the power to override entrenched financial interests that manipulate the regulation, funding and dissemination of research findings and treatment standards, nor that they necessarily want to. And it also doesn’t mean that patients will receive the best treatments. Unfortunately, patients usually receive the most profitable treatments for Big Pharma.
Big Pharma is highly interested in keeping most people taking vaccines because they make big money on them. But most people don’t know that vaccines also insure that people will be sicker over the long term so that it keeps people paying customers to the Medical Industry. This means that vaccines help raise long term profits for the Medical Establishment.
Find out how you can stop your cancer…

 

Statistics don’t lie, but statisticians certainly can. In his book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC,” investigative journalist James Grundvig exposes what really goes on at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In it, he reveals how the agency has engaged in massive fraud, misinformation and manipulation of vaccine information. What made Grundvig write such a book?
“A couple of reasons,” he says. “One is I have an autistic son who’s 16 years old now. He’s one of the 5,000 cases kicked out of vaccine court [for] thimerosal poisoning.
Number two, I’m first generation Norwegian-American. Poul Thorsen, the main manipulator — but not the only one — is of Danish descent. I was introduced to an alliance [that asked me] to track down Thorsen over in Denmark, a culture and country I know very well.”
Danish Scientist Charged in Vaccine Research Scam
Thorsen is a major player and an essential character in this real-life drama. In 2011, he was charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. A federal grand jury alleged Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008.
He stole the money while serving as the principal investigator for a program studying the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines. At the time, The Copenhagen Post reported that:1
“… [Thorsen] submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University … instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account …
Thorsen’s research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as ‘The Danish Study,’ is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection.”
As of 2014, Thorsen was permanently expelled from Denmark’s university hospital system. Thorsen has been a fugitive for the past five years. Yet his whereabouts are no secret. As noted by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. in a 2015 Forbes article:2
“The fact that he is roaming free and is easy to find, despite the U.S. Federal indictment … suggests a lack of enthusiasm by HHS and CDC to press for his capture and extradition.
The agency undoubtedly fears that a public trial would expose the pervasive corruption throughout CDC’s vaccine division and the fragility of the science supporting CDC’s claims about thimerosal safety.”
The Master Manipulator
Thorsen’s spectacular demise was likely the result of an inside tip to Aarhus University. But was he really the sole person responsible for the creation of these manipulated studies? According to Grundvig’s investigation, the CDC appears to have had a clear hand in the deception.
In 1999, Thorsen — who had earned his Ph.D. in Denmark the year before — was invited to the CDC in Atlanta as a foreign visiting scientist. He arrived at a time when there was a lot of discussion between vaccine makers and the CDC to remove thimerosal from vaccines.
Thorsen ended up being hired full-time to conduct five studies on Danish people, as the Danes had a preexisting database covering the entire population.
In the U.S., no federal health authority was collecting this kind of comprehensive vaccination and health data. “That was the beginning of five corrupt Danish studies that were done: four on thimerosal; one on MMR,” Grundvig says.
The Link Between Thimerosal and Autism
To this day, most doctors will tell you the science is settled and there’s no link between vaccines and autism. In reality, the science is FAR from settled. In 2000, two secret meetings took place. The first one, in May, took place in Puerto Rico. This meeting covered aluminum adjuvants in vaccines. The second meeting took place in Simpsonwood5 three weeks later.
“In those meetings, they talked about how they all realized — the scientists within those meetings, from the CDC, from college institutions, from Big Pharma vaccine makers — all agreed that thimerosal is a problem, and aluminum is a problem. But they can’t change overnight and lose that kind of money …
These two meetings produced results from foreign scientists, like Dr. Thomas Verstraeten out of Belgium. The CDC realized they had a major problem on their hands with the general public. They found thimerosal … is dangerous to the brain, especially of babies, infants and children.”
The CDC desperately needed to prove there’s no link between vaccines and autism, and Thorsen ended up being the guy hired to produce that evidence. Had the CDC not covered up the truth, we’d probably have an entirely different discussion on vaccines today.
As noted by Grundvig, some of Thorsen’s studies kept getting extended because the CDC simply wasn’t comfortable with the results; even with manipulation, they kept showing an association between the number of vaccines and the rise of autism.
“What’s amazing is Thorsen coming from Denmark. Thimerosal was banned in Denmark in 1991 — fully enacted in 1992. Vaccines today in Denmark have no thimerosal whatsoever. So, you have Thorsen agreeing to do whatever the CDC wanted to, which was manipulate the data, to lose data, to produce results that would favor [thimerosal],” Grundvig says.
CDC Whistleblower Confirms Vaccine-Autism Cover-Up
In his book, Grundvig explains how, were the studies done properly using valid scientific criteria, they would have revealed some incredible insights. For starters, they would have shown that autism is in fact correlated with thimerosal exposure.  Brian Hooker is one of the researchers who has gone back to re-evaluate Thorsen’s studies. In 2017, Danish scientists will again redo the studies, to hopefully settle the matter.
Thorsen was hardly the only manipulator of data at the CDC, however. Dr. William Thompson, a research scientist at the CDC’s National Center for Immunizations and Respiratory Diseases (NCIR), is another. He co-authored four studies refuting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism, as well as thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism.
According to Thompson, one of the studies found that African-American boys who received the MMR vaccine before the age of 36 months had an increased risk for autism.8 He also maintains that other CDC studies have found a relationship between thimerosal and tics, which are associated with autism.9
Clearly, there’s no way for the truth to get out unless we have skilled investigative journalists like Grundvig bringing us the full story. After that, it’s a matter of sharing the information, because you can be sure this information will not appear in The New York Times or on your local news station. It’s suppressed by design.
Thimerosal Is Still a Major Vaccine Ingredient
In the early 2000s there was a major push to remove thimerosal from vaccines, but it never took the form of law. Instead, vaccine makers were encouraged to reduce or eliminate thimerosal in their vaccines on a voluntary basis. Some did so, but according to Grundvig, even vaccines that claim to be thimerosal-free are not entirely devoid of it.
“If you read the labels, it says “thimerosal-depleted” … They remove [thimerosal] in the process. It’s filtered out, but it’s not filtered out 100 percent. There’s still thimerosal in all of the thimerosal-containing vaccines as there were before, just a lot less. However, in the flu vaccine, it’s full bore thimerosal.
It’s the cheapest and fastest way to make it. I don’t think that vaccine makers are interested in changing the 20th century recipe to making vaccines. It’s cheap and fast. That’s all they care about. They do not care about safety. They don’t care about children’s health. With poor children’s health, they are able to take care of children, on the other end … with drugs and treatments and so forth. They continuously make money off every American citizen out there,” Grundvig says.

More Information
If you have an interest in vaccine safety and/or autism, you won’t want to miss out on Grundvig’s book, “Master Manipulator: The Explosive True Story of Fraud, Embezzlement, and Government Betrayal at the CDC.” It clearly reveals why we cannot blindly trust our federal health agencies.
We must educate ourselves and understand the political and financial dynamics that underlie the recommendations coming from these agencies. Failing to do so can quite literally be dangerous to your health. In this case, Grundvig has done a remarkable job of explaining the situation at the CDC that has allowed the claim that thimerosal-containing vaccines have no role in autism.
This is not to say that there are no other factors involved in autism. Evidence suggests Roundup and other glyphosate-containing pesticides may play a role. Ditto for other toxic exposures and electromagnetic field (EMF) exposures. Having an unbalanced gut microbiome also appears to influence the outcome. There are many variables that, when combined, can result in autism. Still, that does not mean we should give vaccines a free pass.
Projections suggest that within the next 25 years, half of all children will be autistic. There is no way a culture can survive with half of the population being in the autistic spectrum. We’re looking at the collapse of society if the rise in autism isn’t stopped or reversed, and that means addressing ALL known factors.
For more info, go to: articles.mercola.com

Read on »

Some More Science for the Doubters

Here’s another from a slew of natural substances that have some anti-cancer, anti-tumor activity. And it’s nowhere near being as toxic and deadly as chemotherapy or radiation.  There are a lot of these, so we’re going to start sharing information about these substances that are actually backed by some scientific studies.
To be sure, just because we haven’t YET found the science that supports the effectiveness of some alternative treatments doesn’t mean that they don’t work. Remember, gravity worked before Newton wrote his treatise on it!
The question becomes one of whether or not you’re going to wait (and possibly die) before the news about some of these alternative cancer treatments is announced on CNN or are you going to do your own investigation and possibly reap the benefits from them.  In an perfect world, it wouldn’t have to be this way. But this is the world we live in, so you’re going to decide what you’re going to do to increase your chances of beating cancer. Personally, I would look into everything I possibly could to save myself from the ravages of cancer and the associated risks that come along with it.
Get More Alternative Cancer information right here…

Chinese olive fruit has promising potential in cancer treatment.
The methanol-ethyl acetate partitioned fraction from Chinese olive fruits inhibits cancer cell proliferation and tumor growth by promoting apoptosis through the suppression of the NF-κB signaling pathway.
Food Funct. 2016 Nov 21. Epub 2016 Aug 21. PMID: 27869910
Shu-Chen Hsieh, Wang-Ju Hsieh, An-Na Chiang, Nan-Wei Su, Yu-Te Yeh, Yi-Chun Liao
Chinese olives (Canarium album L.) have historically been used for medicinal purposes rather than commercially for oil. In this report, we reveal that the methanol-ethyl acetate partitioned fraction from Chinese olive fruits (MEO), of which ellagic acid accounted for 12%, exhibited profound anti-proliferative activities in the human colon cancer cell line, HCT116. Additionally, oral administration of MEO remarkably inhibited the tumor growth of subcutaneously implanted CT26 cells, a mouse colon carcinoma cell line, in BALB/c mice. Treatment with MEO induced a significant increase in the percentage of apoptotic cells and resulted in poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) cleavage, suggesting that MEO inhibits cancer cell proliferation by promoting apoptosis. Our study also showed that MEO exerted the most potent effect on the inhibition of NF-κB-mediated signaling among the partitioned fractions from Chinese olives. This process employed the use of reporter-based bio-platforms that are capable of detecting the activation of NF-κB. In addition, phosphorylation of NF-κB signaling-associated proteins, IKKα/β, IκBα, and p65, was reduced in MEO-incubated cancer cells, indicating that MEO suppresses NF-κB activation. Moreover, MEO treatment significantly suppressed lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced cancer cell proliferation, demonstrating that MEO promotes cancer cell apoptosis through the inhibition of the NF-κB signaling pathway. In summary, our findings demonstrate that the methanol-ethyl acetate partitioned fraction from Chinese olive fruits inhibits cancer cell proliferation and tumor growth by promoting apoptosis through the suppression of NF-κB signaling. Therefore, the Chinese olive fruit has promising potential incancer treatment.
 
For more info, go to: www.greenmedinfo.com

Read on »

Apigenin-A Promising Anti-Cancer Bioflavonoid

I notice that some complain that there aren’t any (or many) scientific cites and references in some of the articles on this site. So I’m making a more concerted effort to give those out as they do exist. I hope that this helps people as we often get overexcited about promising natural treatments for cancer and other diseases.
Sometimes it seems as if there isn’t any science behind the claims that many people make about alternative cancer treatments, so by doing this maybe we can give more credibility to the things that we say. Many people just assume that there isn’t any science on this stuff so it’s probably better for everyone to start to refer to more journal articles regarding these things.
Apigenin is another promising flavonoid compounds that’s naturally found in fruit, as it’s a citrus bioflavonoid. Most flavonoids have anti-oxidant, anti-tumor and anti-inflammatory activity. Grape seed extract is another flavonoid, along with pycnogenol which comes from pine bark of a tree known as Pinus pinaster.
I think that there are a lot of sources of information about apigenin out there. One article has 44 cites to studies that were performed on apigenin.
This is an abstract of a study that some scientists performed recently. I thought it was interesting and hope that it proves to be of value to you if you’re searching for natural compounds and non-pharmaceutical approaches that may enable you to help yourself back to optimum health.
For more information, here are some of the best alternative cancer web sites you can find to get yourself educated!

Downregulation of NEDD9 by apigenin suppresses migration, invasion, and metastasis of colorectal cancer cells.
Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 2016 Nov 15 ;311:106-112. Epub 2016 Aug 20. PMID: 27664007
Jin Dai, Peter G Van Wie, Leonard Yenwong Fai, Donghern Kim, Lei Wang, Pratheeshkumar Poyil, Jia Luo, Zhuo Zhang
Apigenin is a natural flavonoid which possesses multiple anti-cancer properties such as anti-proliferation, anti-inflammation, and anti-metastasis in many types of cancers including colorectal cancer. Neural precursor cell expressed developmentally downregulated 9 (NEDD9) is a multi-domain scaffolding protein of the Cas family which has been shown to correlate with cancer metastasis and progression. The present study investigates the role of NEDD9 in apigenin-inhibited cell migration, invasion, and metastasis of colorectal adenocarcinoma DLD1 and SW480 cells. The results show that knockdown of NEDD9 inhibited cell migration, invasion, and metastasis and that overexpression of NEDD9 promoted cell migration and invasion of DLD1 cells and SW4890 cells. Apigenin treatment attenuated NEDD9 expression at protein level, resulting in reduced phosphorylations of FAK, Src, and Akt, leading to inhibition on cell migration, invasion, and metastasis of both DLD1 and SW480 cells. The present study has demonstrated that apigenin inhibits cell migration, invasion, and metastasis through NEDD9/Src/Akt cascade in colorectal cancer cells. NEDD9 may function as a biomarker for evaluation of cancer aggressiveness and for selection of therapeutic drugs against cancer progression.
 
For more info, go to: www.greenmedinfo.com

Read on »

Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter

This is just an example of how ‘science’ has become highly politicized. This is a report of a group of Nobel laureates, reputably the best of the best in science and thought, but here they are endorsing GMOs for mass consumption. This is highly irresponsible and is either the result of these people not doing their homework, or them just doing it to ‘go along to get along’.  It’s so bad that a group of honest scientists from South American countries denounced this.

We must ask ourselves, “Why would a group of Nobel laureates put their ‘stamp of approval’ on unproven and potentially dangerous and irreversible addition of genetically modified crops into the food supply of billions of people without any extended experimental trials?”  This is unprecedented, and represents a potential for huge damage to the majority (if not all) of the people on Earth.
This genetic technology is not as precise and controlled as we have been led to believe. Scientists today are engaged in creating all types of altered organisms with no real concept of the wide-reaching ramifications of their actions.  Take for instance the use of Roundup pesticide on crops that have been genetically modified to have a resistance to it. It sounds like a great idea until you factor in the unintended consequence of the rapid proliferation of weeds that have also developed a resistance to Roundup as well. This is because genes don’t just stay put where you place them. They also move between species and throughout the environment. So now farmers are reported to have to use lots more Roundup pesticide to kill the weeds that are resistant to it than Monsanto originally projected. And this is only one such ‘unintended consequence’ of the use of genetic modification technology.
It’s pretty much analogous to a ‘bull in a china shop’ approach to genetic modification. Scientists today simply do not have enough knowledge to reliably predict all of the long-term effects and consequences of their tinkering with the genes of organisms.  The worst part is that once these genes have been unleashed into the world and into various organisms, there is no way to stop it, reverse it or remove these genes and their effects from people and the world. So it basically converts everyone on the planet into a guinea pig in a big, uncontrolled experiment, all without your consent. Preliminary tests have been causing concerns that GM crops are having the effect of reducing fertility of subsequent generations of subject animals who have been exposed to foods with GM elements inside.
This article is a bit long, but very illustrative of just how far-reaching the politicization of science has become, and just how ridiculous it can be. If the highest scholars in the world can support something as inherently dangerous as GMOs, it’s not that far of a reach to show that cancer research and treatment has also been politicized as well. In fact, you could make an argument that most ‘science’ is more marketing dressed up as science than truth.  It’s why problems in society are proliferating instead of getting solved. And this is especially for problems that lead to some people getting massive amounts of money because of the existence of these problems. In a corporately controlled society, what person or company whose profits are dependent upon the existence of a problem would actually follow through with eradicating that problem?
Get a free book-10 Things that Every Cancer Patient Should Know…
 

By Brandon Turbeville
In late June 2016, over 100 Nobel laureates signed a letter attacking the environmental organization Green Peace and calling on the group to end their opposition to GMOs.

The letter asks Greenpeace to end its attempt to block golden rice from being introduced into the developing world. “We urge Greenpeace and its supporters to reexamine the experience of farmers and consumers worldwide with crops and foods improved through biotechnology, recognize the findings of authoritative scientific bodies and regulatory agencies, and abandon their campaign against ‘GMOs’ in general and golden rice in particular,” states the letter.
Spearheaded by Richard Roberts, chief scientific officer of New England Biolabs and Phillip Sharp, the 1993 Nobel Prize winner in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery of the genetic sequences known as entrons, the campaign has a website which includes a list of signatories to which it is attempting to add more names.
We’re scientists. We understand the logic of science. It’s easy to see what Greenpeace is doing is damaging and anti-science. Greenpeace initially, and then some of their allies, deliberately went out of their way to scare people. It was a way for them to raise money for their cause.
Roberts quote alone illustrates the religious nature of what has now become know as “scientism.” This means that there is a set of beliefs which must never be challenged and that there are individuals who represent the authority of these beliefs and who themselves must never be questioned unless they get out of line and go off script. It maintains the same cult-like following where masses of people obsessed with “science” believe what is handed down to them without critical thought and will lash out in righteous indignation at anyone who has dared not to outsource their brain so easily.
In fact, we can easily take Roberts words and put them in the mouth of religious leaders.
We’re pastors. We understand the Bible. It’s easy to see what the gay lobby is doing and how they are damaging society and are anti-Biblical. From the very beginning, the gay lobby has gone out of their way to scare people and it was only a way for them to raise money for their organization.
See how utterly stupid that was?

Or better yet, let’s try one that really get Americans shaking in their boots:
We’re imams. We understand the Quran. It’s easy to see what women’s rights groups are doing and how they are damaging society and stand in opposition to the Quran. From the very beginning, the women’s rights lobby has gone out of their way to scare people and it was only a way for them to raise money for their organization.
Regardless of what you think about the gay lobby and women’s rights, simply stating that you are a pastor or an imam doesn’t really prove anything. It certainly doesn’t solve the argument. Likewise, stating that you are a scientist doesn’t shut down debate on the issue of GMOs. In fact, it doesn’t even mean that your opinion is valid.
But since these scientists would like to pursue the false appeal to authority, we can produce scientists of our own. The Union of Latin American Scientists Committed to Society and Nature (UCCSN-AL) recently released a letter of their own denouncing the one produced by the Nobel laureates.
The scientists stated:
[Transgenesis] cannot be considered an advanced science anymore because it is based on fallacious and anachronistic assumptions. Its defenders have oversimplified the scientific rationale behind GMOs to the point that the technology cannot be considered valid anymore: they have discarded rigorous science. The lack of scientific ground that justifies GMOs is also the reason why its promoters deny complex systems of knowledge, such as indigenous peoples’ cultures and livelihoods. Transgenic technology is the geopolitical instrument for colonial domination of our time.
The UCCSN-AL also points out that GMOs are not necessary to feed the world’s population.
The four GM crops that are marketed massively are mainly intended for the production of biofuels and animal feed for poultry, pork and beef cattle industries: activities that consume more than 65% of the GM corn and soybean produced in the few countries that grow them, a very inefficient system from an energy point of view of agricultural production. Around these crops there is an oligopoly of transnational corporations that control the production of seeds and grains; the storage, transportation and marketing of genetically modified commodities; and the mass production of animals, which are increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. In this regard, it is clear that this model does not contribute to the goal of feeding the world, but instead competes with and overpowers traditional food production…
The problem of lack of food is not caused by low production, but by the way the world food system is designed. It has undermined the traditional systems of food production, and therefore nutrition and food sovereignty of peoples.
The scientists also question, as have many others, the claims that GMOs produce higher yields.
We question the promises made by GMOs proponents that these crops would have higher yields. Each of the countries in the Southern Cone where GM soybean is grown has different performance. The highest yields are registered in Brazil and Argentina, where the national agricultural research centres have dedicated many years to conventional breeding of this crop. On the other hand, in Ecuador, a GM free country, soybean yields are higher than in Bolivia and Paraguay.
Another example is canola or rapeseed. In Canada (where they mainly use GM seeds), yield averages between 1986 and 2010 were 1,459 kg/ha, whereas in Western Europe, where conventional seeds are used, the average yield in the same period was 3,188 kg/ha.
“Ecosystems are complex and dynamic, involving the interaction of multiple factors,” the group says.

In terms of the risks to human health, UCCSN-AL states:
Scientists who defend the safety of GM crops and food argue that it has been consistently found that GMOs are as safe (or more) than the crops obtained with any other breeding methods; that they do not produce environmental impacts and that even they increase global biodiversity. Despite these statements being repeatedly invoked by GM proponents, they are not backed by serious scientific research, and, moreover, the claims are never referenced”. In contrast, in the last years, scientific evidence supported by independent researchers has grown, showing the environmental and human health problems related with cultivation and consumption of GMOs.
UCCSN-AL also points out the health risks posed to humans of the heavy amounts of herbicide sprayed on herbicide-tolerant crops.
In the analysis of GM crops we must consider the technological package to which these crops are inextricably associated. The majority of GM crops are resistant to herbicides, mainly the questioned glyphosate. In Latin America (the region with the fastest increase of GM crop acreage), the negative impacts on human communities settled in the areas where these crops are grown are undoubted.
In the last decade, the health conditions of these populations has been depressed, there has been a significant increase of cancer, congenital malformations, genetic damage, autoimmune diseases and other health issues, associated with the pesticides and the practices that are part of the technological package of GM cultivation. It is clear that to evaluate the impacts of this technology it is impossible to analyse GM seeds individually when the main genetic modification is to make the plant resistant to a herbicide. In the environment it has been shown that water bodies are contaminated and that pollinators are declining, as well as other beneficial species that ensure the health of the soil and the local biodiversity.
Furthermore, there are millions of hectares planted with GM seeds containing a gene that
allows them to synthesize the Bt toxin, an insecticide that is produced in the GM plant, which has been incorporated to control Lepidoptera larvae. However, it has been shown that this toxin indiscriminately affects different species of insects, reducing their biodiversity and damaging human health of those who are in contact with the toxin.
“Every day there is more medical, scientific and agronomic evidence showing the impacts, risks, and uncertainties of this irrational model of production, both for the health of rural workers, peasants and farmers, as well as for these rural residents and consumers of foods produced with this technology,” the scientists add.
On the issue of golden rice, specifically, UCCSN-AL says that golden rice was originally designed “as a generic drug for malnourished children in ‘poor countries,’” and that golden rice is not even available because the groups and individuals promoting it have been unable to “reach a workable formulation for distribution.”
As GM Watch writes, “In fact the rice is not even ready for commercial production, let alone distribution, as it has failed to give sufficiently high yields in the field, as the IRRI, the body responsible for rolling out the crop, has admitted.”
On golden rice, UCCSN-AL has this to say:
The nutritional problems of a population are not related with the lack of a specific nutrient (in this case… pro-vitamin A), but with the general conditions of poverty and the loss of food sovereignty that has forced thousands of farmers communities to leave their lands or to be subordinated to agribusiness, whose only priority is to meet their voracious need to increase profits through monoculture, agroindustry and agro-export by occupying lands that used to be devoted to safe and nutritious food production. To believe that malnutrition problems will be overcome through bio-fortified genetically modified food is to ignore this reality.
In order to meet the golden rice demand, millions of hectares will need to be planted in tropical and subtropical areas, and will need to expand over territories that today are use to grow food sovereignty crops, which will face the typical problems associated with large-scale monoculture. In addition, hundreds of plant species rich in pro-vitamin A, known, gathered or cultivated for a long time by local communities in the entire world will be affected. Each community can and must choose, in a sovereign way, what to eat, according to their cultural preferences and traditions, and how to meet their nutritional needs.
Who will benefit from golden rice? As with other GM crops, golden rice will also be controlled by large agribusiness companies. The nutritional scheme based in golden rice will involve the control of agribusiness over the whole value chain: from seed to distribution. Given the fact that it is a global trend to forbid farmers to save their seeds, even if golden rice will be patent-free, the seed will be corporately controlled. What would happen then with traditional rice producers and with the thousands of peasant traditional varieties of rice that they hold?
Regarding trade, in many countries, rice producers do not have any influence in price fixation. Nationally, the price is set by local powerful groups that control both processing and distribution of rice. Internationally, the price is set at the Bangkok and Chicago Stock Exchange. The international trade of golden rice would be controlled by the same economic groups that control other GM commodities. Accordingly, golden rice will not generate food sovereignty and, on the contrary, it will increase dependence for both producers and consumers.
All the funds that would be spent in the promotion and implementation of ‘golden rice’ crops around the world could be used in the promotion of diversified crops, to promote and strengthen local and regional nutrition and food sovereignty, as well as in the recovery and adoption of healthy eating habits.
UCCSN-AL boldly questions the methodology and independence of the Nobel Prize winners that signed the letter attacking Greenpeace.
The science that is promoted by the Nobel Prize Laureates that signed the letter has been developed in a context dominated by a reductionist techno-science, that is being developed without social control, generating environmental problems and health impacts, often with catastrophic and irreversible effects.
Although formally the Nobel Prize aims to recognize and reward people who have done outstanding research, invented revolutionary techniques, or have made notable contributions to society in the areas of Medicine and Physiology (and in other fields), it has supported scientific research that encourages corporate control on productive processes, and has facilitated the privatization of knowledge and life. In the field of biotechnology, the Nobel Prize has recognized waves of scientific innovations that led to the development of genetic engineering, at the expense of technologies with wider application which are not controlled by oligopolies of transnational corporations. Several of them are signatories of the letter. Their activities have been the key to developing the biotechnology industry. Several still hold commercial interest in this area, or are involving in research funding by the industry. For example, one of the promoters of the letter, Phillip A. Sharp, is co-founder of Biogen (now Biogen Idec) Inc. and Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (a pharmaceutical company that develops drugs based on RNAi).

The UCCSN-AL also points out that the June letter was not the first time Nobel laureates have defended GMOs in a public statement.
Some years ago, a similar declaration was promoted by Norman Borlaug, father of the Green Revolution (1970 Nobel Prize), who saw a second Green Revolution in agrobiotechnology, without making any critical analysis of the impacts caused by the first one.
Previously, Paul Hermann Müller was awarded with the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for the discovery of DDT as a contact poison of high efficiency against many arthropods. Ironically, due to the dramatic effects of DDT on the environment and on human health, the scientific work and citizen mobilization against pesticides began, a struggle that still continues.
Now the signatories of this letter in defence of GMOs and golden rice privilege the paradigm of corporations that genetic uniformity is needed to raise production. This is particularly serious because we know that the genetic diversity is essential to deal with hunger and is the only alternative to climate change.
With this background we wonder if the opinion of Nobel Prize laureate scientists necessarily is an irrefutable, neutral and objective opinion. The background presented here, and the lack of robust and well-founded arguments of the letter, show that this is not the case.
A[t] UCCSN-AL we believe that decision-making process on the adoption of new technologies, such as those that make possible GM crops, and others that are emerging (e.g. nanotechnology, synthetic biology and geo-engineering), should not only involve the so-called hard scientists, but it must incorporate the opinion of other fields of knowledge, as well as the opinion of social movements, civil society organizations, and of legitimate representatives of different social groups. Because scientific and technological knowledge is always part of a social process, it is crossed by tensions, conflicts and contradictory interests. Science is never neutral, absolute or definitive; it is always susceptible to changes and revisions, and must be subject[]s to permanent debate.
UCCSN-Al concludes its statement by writing:
Scientific work must be developed with ethical responsibility and it must be committed to nature and society, and because of that, we reject the concepts stated in the letter and denounce the genocidal role of industrial farming based on GM crops, and we stress the need to defend, promote, and multiply the modes of food production that were culturally developed by the peoples of our region, and therefore are vital to ensure autonomy, environmental sustainability, safety and food sovereignty.
We concur with the statement of the UCCSN-AL and would like to point out that simply being awarded the Nobel Prize does not make an individual morally or intellectually superior since previous winners have been the likes of Al Gore, Barrack Obama, and Henry Kissinger and 2016 sees the terrorist group the White Helmets being nominated for the same. The prize named after one of the largest armament manufacturers should not carry as much weight as it does in terms of public opinion and it most certainly should not be used to form public policy.
This article (Scientist Group Slams GMO-Pushing Nobel Laureates In Damning Letter) can be republished under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Brandon Turbeville, source and Natural Blaze.com.
Brandon Turbeville – article archive here – is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies,Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1 and volume 2, The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria, and The Difference it Makes: 36 Reasons Why Hillary Clinton Should Never Be President. Turbeville has published over 600 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV. He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com.
For more info, go to: www.activistpost.com

Read on »

FDA Warns Ovarian Cancer Tests Not Reliable

If these ovarian cancer tests aren’t reliable, then what the heck is going on? Are they misdiagnosing people?  Is this putting people in danger? What is being done about this? Looks like another big money grab if companies are marketing these tests even though they don’t work. What do the people that are all about ‘science’ have to say about this?
As I’ve said before, ‘science’ isn’t as straightforward as many people like to claim. Everybody wants things to be proven and documented, but often people just label something as being ‘scientifically proven’ when it is really isn’t. It is sometimes just a way for people to get others to accept an unproven conclusion by just claiming that it is ‘science’.  But I’ve explained in the past that science is really not a ‘thing’ but is really a process to identify and minimize bias in experimental observations.
Contrary to many beliefs, there is no way to eliminate all bias in observations because any time you approach anything, there is inherent bias and this is true in every case. The problem with the mainstream approach is that they often approach an issue with an attitude that there is NO bias in their observations.  And that is the very definition of bias.  Unfortunately, science has become politicized (if it wasn’t always politicized).  If you think this isn’t true, ask Galileo, Copernicus, Semmelweis and others who made discoveries that conflicted with the status quo of the time.  Most were either forced to recant, or were effectively ‘excommunicated’ and/or professionally ostracized, just like they do with most people that buck the trends today, contrary to popular belief.
This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s the way that society usually operates.
Get your free report that shows things that every cancer patient should know…

Screening tests for ovarian cancer are not reliable and should not be used, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns.
“Despite extensive research and published studies, there are currently no screening tests for ovarian cancer that are sensitive enough to reliably screen for ovarian cancer without a high number of inaccurate results,” the agency said in its warning.
“However, over the years, numerous companies have marketed tests that claim to screen for and detect ovarian cancer,” the FDA added.
But these tests may lead to delays in effective preventive treatments for high-risk women who have no symptoms, or result in unnecessary medical tests and/or surgery for those who do not have the disease, the agency noted.
According to the American Cancer Society, the most common screening test is called the CA-125 blood test. In many women with ovarian cancer, levels of this protein are high. But the problem with using it is that common conditions other than cancer can also cause high levels of CA-125, the cancer society says.
That’s why women should not rely on ovarian cancer screening tests to make health or treatment decisions, the FDA said in its warning. This is especially important for women who have a family history of ovarian cancer or the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutations, which raise the risk of both breast and ovarian cancer, the agency added.
Doctors should not recommend or use ovarian cancer screening tests in the general population, and they need to understand they are not a substitute for preventive measures that may reduce the chances of disease in high-risk patients, the FDA said.
The warning was issued after a review of available evidence from clinical trials and the recommendations of health care groups and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) said Thursday that it supports the FDA warning.
“Obstetrician-gynecologists should be aware that tests currently marketed to screen women for ovarian cancer are not based on data,” Dr. Thomas Gellhaus, ACOG president, said in a statement. “ACOG is in agreement with the FDA and recommends against using these offered tests to screen for ovarian cancer,” he added.
“Currently, it appears that the best way to detect ovarian cancer is for both the patient and her clinician to have a high index of suspicion of the diagnosis in symptomatic women,” Gellhaus noted.
“Persistent and progressive symptoms such as an increase in bloating, pelvic or abdominal pain, or difficulty eating or feeling full quickly, should be evaluated,” he said.
Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death in women. In 2013, almost 21,000 women in the United States were diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and more than 14,000 women died from the disease, according to ACOG.
For more info, go to: www.drugs.com

Read on »

The Science Delusion

I had a Twitter discussion with someone about cancer treatments.  I made a comment about a particular article that this person referenced with regards to quack cancer treatments. Now I’m not going to deconstruct this entire article right here, as you can find most of my writings about various problems with this article in other posts I have made on this site, some of which are What is Science and How Does It Relate to Cancer? ; Useful Idiots in Medicine and Cancer Research;  Flaws in Current Cancer Drug Discovery Methods,  Medical Slavery-Paying Big Pharma for No Cures;  The Cancer Industry Owns the Media and Your Mind,  and Crapitalism Meets Big Pharma Cancer Treatments. There are others, but this is just a taste.

In my search to bring more expansive views to science, philosophy and other related disciplines (even though philosophy is the foundational science), I came across this TED Talk featuring Dr. Rupert Sheldrake, PhD speaking on a topic he calls “The Science Delusion”.  Oftentimes, most seem to get confused as to what science really is. I have covered this in an above article, but no matter how much it is covered, many people get utterly confused about it.  Dr Sheldrake references this confusion and questions whether what we call science today is truly a process that is used to minimize and identify bias in experimental investigations, or whether it is just dogma and a predetermined belief system that more closely resemble religion that is fraught with bias and unidentified assumptions.

The difference between these 2 systems is that one is expansive, answers questions, solves problems, and leads to progress in society.  The other one compounds problems, doesn’t solve problems, and leads to stagnation and the proliferation of problems in society. Science honestly pursued would lead to the solving of problems and the exponential growth of improvements in society because the more you progress in one discipline, it would lead to analogous progress in other areas due to a synergistic effect.  Likewise for a dogmatic, predetermined belief system such as the one that led to the Dark Ages in Europe. A closed belief system with logical fallacies and untrue assumptions leads us to ‘unsolvable’ problems (i.e., the National Debt, crime, drugs, the elusive cure for cancers and other chronic diseases, war, terrorism, etc.) instead of solving them. In fact, the system will actually come to support and generate problems because they protect and perpetuate the status quo!
Dr Sheldrake also speaks on what he terms the 10 Dogmas of Science that he has found are the biggest underlying assumptions that form the foundation of what is commonly called ‘modern science’.  In this video (only 18 minutes long), he identifies these assumptions. His conclusion is that NONE of these 10 dogmas are true or can stand up to rigorous analysis. He predicts that this philosophical materialism view will eventually be abandoned and that this will lead to  a scientific revolution.
The 10 Dogmas of Science are:

Nature is mechanical
Matter is unconscious
The Laws of Nature are fixed
The total amount of matter & energy is fixed
Nature is purposeless
Biological heredity is material (i.e., all in your DNA)
Memories are stored in your brain as material traces
Your mind is inside your head
Psychic phenomena are impossible
Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Dr. Sheldrake didn’t have enough time to analyze all of these assumptions in this short video, but he does in his book.  This is very revolutionary information to people who just blindly yell about what is scientific and what isn’t. This has direct application to cancer research and their relation to ‘alternative’ cancer treatments, as well as other things. This will hopefully get you to think more expansively about things before we start putting labels on what is scientific and what isn’t because a lot of things that are being called science are closer to the opposite of science.
8 of the Best Alternative Cancer Web Sites right here…
 

Read on »

Glyphosate/Roundup is Poison

Contrary to Monsanto corporate propaganda and paid ‘science’ toadies, glyphosate (Roundup) is highly toxic and poisonous. Natural News has an article here that cites various references that all document the disaster known as glyphosate (Roundup). It is highly toxic and dangerous to human life. But it is also the best selling herbicide in America, so of course Monsanto just pays off regulators, government officials, politicians, etc., to protect profits. And if people have to suffer and die, who cares? They were going to die anyway, or so goes the ‘corporate actions speak louder than corporate propaganda‘ meme.
So we must know that if you are to protect yourself from glyphosate, you’re going to have to do it yourself because there is no end to the widespread use of it in sight. But even if you don’t use it yourself, most of the grains foods are contaminated with it, even organic foods. You can forget about the regulators and others who have the ability to reduce the use of it because they’re all on the Monsanto ‘gravy train’.
Science could work if you could take some of the profit and politics out of it. But as long as you have those elements a part of it, science is going to be manipulated to yield the result that makes the most money for corporations. And that’s exactly what we see going on today. It doesn’t matter what ‘externalities’ are caused by dousing our foods in this, and other, toxic chemicals.
8 of the Best Alternative Cancer Web Sites right here…

(NaturalNews) According to biotech industry and its army of mercenary trolls and science shills, glyphosate is perfectly safe to eat and doesn’t cause cancer.
Of course, that claim holds about as much scientific credibility as Big Tobacco’s claim that “smoking cigarettes doesn’t cause lung cancer or heart disease” — the “scientific” mantra of the tobacco era… dutifully repeated by the Journal of the American Medical Association for decades, by the way.
The truth, of course, is that smoking cigarettes causes cancer. So does eating glyphosate. It’s basic biochemical cause and effect. Those who deny this link are denying the laws of chemistry and biology.
Following is a list of toxic effects caused by glyphosate, AMPA, and Roundup as revealed in animal studies, laboratory studies in human cells, and human epidemiological and clinical case studies: Severe liver and kidney damage + Chronic kidney disease; Disruption of hormonal systems which can potentially lead to multiple organ damage and hormone-dependent cancer; Developmental and reproductive toxicity, including damage to sperm and miscarriage and premature birth + Disruption of beneficial gut bacteria, favouring the growth of botulism-causing bacteria in cows; Damage to DNA; Birth defects; Neurotoxicity; Cancer.
– GMO Myths and Truths A Citizens Guide to the Evidence on Genetically Modified Crops by Claire Robinson Mphil and Michael Antoniou
Monsanto has convinced millions of farmers, the American government, and the European Commission that glyphosate is safe. Yet the picture is not so clear. Studies published in 2010 show glyphosate causes birth defects in frogs and chicken embryos at amounts smaller than farmers and gardeners leave in food. Older studies document other dreadful effects of glyphosate, including cancer, endocrine disruption, damage to DNA, and deleterious malformations of the reproductive, neurological, and developmental systems of animals and humans. Researchers also link glyphosate to miscarriages in humans and livestock. Monsanto and government authorities have known about the toxic effects of glyphosate since the 1980s. And both the industry and regulators have kept the public in the dark. Genetic engineering, in other words, represents imperial politics of the worst kind, aiming at no less than the control of the world’s food by agribusiness.
– Poison Spring The Secret History of Pollution and the EPA by E G Vallianatos and McKay Jenkins

Another problem with GMO foods is they contain glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Monsanto s herbicide Roundup – the most common weed killer in the United States. If you are consuming foods containing wheat, sugar, corn, or soy, unless they are organic, they will contain glyphosate residues. Glyphosate is a hormone disrupter and has been clearly linked to infertility and miscarriage in cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, and poultry that are raised on GMO feed. Glyphosate has been linked to hormone-dependent cancers, even at extremely low levels. A 2013 study in Entropy concluded that glyphosate may be “the most important factor in the development of multiple chronic diseases and conditions that have become prevalent in Westernized societies.” The study further concluded that glyphosate may “enhance the damaging effects of other food-borne chemical residues and toxins in the environment to disrupt normal body functions [including gut bacteria] and induce disease.
– The Great American Health Hoax – The Surprising Truth About Modern Medicine by Raymond Francis
But the researchers used the same strain that Monsanto had used in its 90-day study on the maize and in its rat studies with glyphosate. And this strain is a standard one used in long-term toxicity studies and in cancer studies as well. So if the use of that strain invalidates Seralini’s study, it also invalidates those Monsanto studies and the all the other studies in which it’s been employed -studies that include many other GE foods. Moreover, the absurdity of the argument looms larger in light of the fact that the rats consuming the GE maize (or the Roundup alone) displayed a quicker onset of tumors, and a higher incidence of them, than did the control rats – which demonstrated that something besides their pedigree exerted a tumor-inducing effect. Yet, although their criticisms were utterly unwarranted, a host of GE advocates doggedly maintained the effort to discredit the study.
– Altered Genes Twisted Truth How the Venture to Genetically Engineer Our Food Has Subverted Science by Steven Druker

For example, while Roundup is toxic to human placental cells at levels 10 times lower than those found in agricultural use, the toxicity of glyphosate alone was measured at half or less. In an animal cell study, Roundup – but not glyphosate alone – disrupted the cell cycle, “the universal process by which cells reproduce.” This may be linked to human diseases, including cancer and Roundup caused significant changes in rat liver activity, while glyphosate alone had no effect. Roundup’s higher toxicity is often attributed to the inert ingredient POEA (polyethoxylated tallowamine), which helps the herbicide penetrate into leaves. It appears to help the toxin penetrate into human cells as well. In spite of conclusive evidence that inert ingredients increase toxicity, many of the safety assessments on herbicides conducted by manufacturers for the EPA test only the active ingredient.
– Genetic Roulette The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods by Jeffrey M Smith
 
For more info, go to: www.naturalnews.com

Read on »