Study Finds A Strong Link Between Cell Phone Use and Cancer

Study Finds A Strong Link Between Cell Phone Use and Cancer Biography

Source(google.com.pk)

Study Finds A Strong Link Between Cell Phone Use and Cancer

The dangers of cell phone use have long been debated but for the first time a clear connection between cell phone use and higher risk of cancer has been established in a study by Tel Aviv University.

Sci
entists from TAU, Rabin Medical Center and the Technion examined the saliva content of 20 long-term heavy cell phone users, defined as a mean of 12 years of 30 hours per week of use. Their spit was compared to a control group of mostly deaf people who do not use a cell phone or use them only for text messaging.

In their study, published in the scientific journal Antioxidants and Redox Signaling, the researchers noted:

"Increasing use of mobile phones creates growing concerns regarding harmful effects of radiofrequency nonionizing electromagnetic radiation on human tissues located close to the ear, where phones are commonly held for long periods of time."

They concluded that compared to the non-users, cell phone users' saliva showed much higher indications of oxidative stress, regarded as a major risk factor for cancer.

How does cell phone use increase the risk of cancer?
Cell phones emit radiation. There are two types of radiation: ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. Cell phones emit radiation of the non-ionizing type. This means, there isn't sufficient energy to knock an electron off a molecule. This kind of radiation was once considered harmless. But a growing number of studies like this one are pointing to numerous adverse biological effects of non-ionizing radiation.

Oxidative stress, as found in the Tel Aviv cell phone study, reflects an imbalance between the systemic manifestation of reactive oxygen species and the ability to detoxify or repair the resulting damage. It's a process that damages human cells, including DNA, through the creation of toxic peroxide and free radicals. This damage caused by oxidative stress is linked to cellular and genetic mutations, which can cause the development of tumors.

Evidence building

This isn't the first time cell phones have been linked to cancer. In 2011 the World Health Organization, concluded that emissions from cell phones are "possibly carcinogenic" and classified them as a possible "Category 2B carcinogen."

The results of the Tel Aviv study don't reveal a conclusive "cause and effect" relationship between cellular phone use and cancer but they add to the building evidence that cell phone use is harmful. The results also point to a new direction for further research.

A potential avenue of future research would be to analyze an individual's saliva prior to cell phone use, and then again after several intense minutes of cell phone use. The author of the Tel Aviv study, Dr. Hamzany, says this would allow researchers to see if there is an immediate response such as a rise in molecules that indicate oxidative stress.

As evidence on the harmful effects of cell phones mounts, so does the number of people using these handheld devices.

Ancient Ayurveda Beats Clonazepam in Clinical Trial for Anxiety Disorder

Ancient Ayurveda Beats Clonazepam in Clinical Trial for Anxiety Disorder Biography

Source(google.com.pk)

Ancient Ayurveda Beats Clonazepam in Clinical Trial for Anxiety Disorder

Researchers from India have proven in a randomized clinical study using international protocols that an ancient Ayurveda remedy for anxiety outperformed the benzodiazepine drug Clonazepam (Klonopin) in relieving severe anxiety.

The researchers, from India's National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (NIMHANS), tested 72 patients in a hospital setting who were diagnosed with severe generalized anxiety disorder using the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS). The test subjects were all adults between 20 and 55 years old of both sexes and most had experienced their anxiety disorder for seven years or more. They were also diagnosed with comorbid generalized social phobia.

The researchers randomly divided the patients into three groups. One group was given the standard anti-anxiety medication Clonazepam (Klonopin) at the standard prescriptive dose of .75 milligrams per day (.25mg morning, .50mg night). Another group received 200 milligrams of an Ayurvedic herbal remedy called Manasamitra Vataka (also Manasamitra Vatakam) – in two doses (100 mg each).

A third group was given the same dosage of Manasamitra Vataka but this was added to the patients' receiving an Ayurvedic treatment called Shirodhara therapy – where warmed Brahmi taila oil is poured onto the forehead of the patient.

The patients each continued their treatments for 30 days, and were evaluated at day 15 and day 30. Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) testing was conducted along with Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HARS) analysis of the patients' progress.

At the end of thirty days' treatment, the researchers found that the Manasamitra Vataka group on average had a 73% improved disposition according to the BAI testing, while the Clonazepam group on average improved 67% using the same scale. Using the HARS test scale, those patients receiving the Manasamitra Vataka plus the Shirodhara therapy saw a 91% average improvement in symptoms, while the Clonazepam group experienced a 76% improvement.

The researchers concluded that the Ayurvedic treatment not only exceeded the performance of the benzodiazepine, but came with no side effects. The researchers noted:

Mammograms Linked To An Epidemic of Misdiagnosed Cancers

Mammograms Linked To An Epidemic of Misdiagnosed Cancers Biography

Source(google.com.pk)

Mammograms Linked To An Epidemic of Misdiagnosed Cancers

For most of the twentieth century, mastectomy was the first line treatment for Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), and younger patients were more likely to undergo the procedure. Even after lumpectomy and radiotherapy were shown to be at least as effective for invasive cancer as mastectomy, still in 2002, 26% of DCIS patients were still receiving mastectomy.1

The most common scenario today following diagnosis of DCIS is for the oncologist to recommend lumpectomy, followed by radiation and hormone suppressive therapies such as Arimidex and Tamoxifen. The problem here is that women are not being educated about the nature of DCIS or the concept of "non-progressive" breast cancers. There is still the black and white perception out there that you either have cancer, or do not have cancer.

In a poll on DCIS awareness published in 2000, 94% of women studied doubted even the possibility of non-progressive breast cancers.2  In other words, these women had no understanding of the nature of DCIS. And why would they? Major authorities frame DCIS as "pre-cancerous," implying its inevitable transformation into cancer. When the standard of care for DCIS is to suggest the same types of treatment used to treat invasive cancer, very few women are provided with the information needed to make an informed decision.

Early detection through x-ray mammography has been the clarion call of Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns for a quarter of a century now.  However, very little progress has been made in making the public aware about the crucial differences between non-malignant lesions/tumors and invasive or non-invasive cancers detected through this technology. When all forms of breast pathology are looked at in the aggregate, irrespective of their relative risk for harm, disease of the breast takes on the appearance of a monolithic entity that you either have, or don't have; they call it breast cancer.

The concept of a breast cancer that has no symptoms, which can not be diagnosed through manual palpation of the breast and does not become invasive in the vast majority of cases, might sound unbelievable to most women. However, there does exist a rather mysterious clinical anomaly known as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), which is, in fact, one of the most commonly diagnosed and unnecessarily treated forms of "breast cancer" today.

What women fail to understand—because their physicians do not know better or have not taken care to explain to them—is that they have a choice when diagnosed with DCIS. Rather than succumb to aggressive treatment with surgery, radiation and chemo-drugs, women can choose watchful waiting. Better yet, a radical lifestyle change can be focused on eliminating exposure to chemicals and radiation, as well as improved exercise and nutrition. This choice is not being made in most cases because the medical community is not informing their patients that there is such.

Mammograms Linked To An Epidemic of Misdiagnosed Cancers

Is X-Ray Mammography Finding Cancer or Benign Lesions?

Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS): Cancer or Benign Lesion?
Between 30-50% of new breast cancer diagnoses obtained through x-ray mammography screenings are classified as Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS).3  DCIS refers to the abnormal growth of cells within the milk ducts of the breast forming a calcified lesion commonly between 1-1.5 cm in diameter, and is considered non-invasive or "stage zero breast cancer," with some experts arguing for its complete re-classification as a non-cancerous condition.

Because DCIS is almost invariably asymptomatic and has no palpable lesions, it would not be known as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the use of x-ray diagnostic technology. Indeed, it was not until the development and widespread application of mammography in the early 1980s as the central push behind National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns that rates of DCIS diagnosis began to expand to their present day epidemic proportions.4,5 It is no wonder, therefore, that the United States, which has one of the highest x-ray mammography rates, also has the highest level of DCIS in the world. As of January 2005, an estimated one-half million U.S. women were living with a diagnosis of DCIS.6

Proponents of breast screenings claim they are saving lives through the early detection and treatment of DCIS, regarding it as a potentially life-threatening condition, indistinct from invasive cancers. They view DCIS a priori as  "pre-cancerous" and argue that, because it could cause harm if left untreated it should be treated in the same aggressive manner as invasive cancer. The problem with this approach is that while the rate at which DCIS progresses to invasive cancer is still largely unknown, the weight of evidence indicates that it is significantly less than 50%—perhaps as low as 2-4%.

Indeed, the 10-year survival rates of patients with DCIS (96%-98%) post-treatment speaks volumes to the relatively benign nature of the condition.7,8  Another study found that at the 40-year follow-up period 40% of DCIS lesions still had no signs of invasiveness.9  Adding even more uncertainty, another study showed that coexisting DCIS independently predicts lower tumor aggressiveness in node-positive luminal breast cancer, indicating its possibly protective role. 10

Watchful Waiting (Around Doing Nothing of Use)
A solid argument can be made that watchful waiting is the most appropriate response to the diagnosis of DCIS, and that in many cases DCIS would be better left over-diagnosed and under-treated. As one paper discusses:

"The central harm of screening is over-diagnosis—the detection of abnormalities that meet the pathologic definition of cancer but will never progress to cause symptoms." 11

A solid body of evidence has emerged suggesting that when DCIS is left undiagnosed and untreated rarely will it become malignant. DCIS was in fact poorly named from the outset, as it is does not behave like most carcinomas (cancers).  Cancer, like the constellation named after it, derives from the Greek word for Crab, indicating the manner in which is expands outward in uncontrolled growth. In situ means exactly the opposite, "in place." An unmoving cancer is therefore a contradiction in terms. These problems with classification have not gone unnoticed in the medical journals:

"Despite the presence of the word carcinoma, ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is the poster child for this problem (a senior pathologist involved in developing classification systems confided to one of us that he regretted the use of the term carcinoma in DCIS). No one believes that DCIS always progresses to invasive cancer, and no one believes it never does. Although no one is sure what the probability of progression is, studies of DCIS that were missed at biopsy (1,2) and the autopsy reservoir (3) suggest that the lifetime risk of progression must be considerably less than 50%." 12

The true irony here is that while participation in x-ray mammography is considered by the public a form of breast cancer prevention and "watchful waiting," it has become—whether by design or accident—a very effective way of manufacturing breast cancer diagnoses and justifying unnecessary treatment. This is not unlike what has been seen with prostate cancer screenings that track Prostate Specific Antigen (PSA); the aggressive treatment of lesions/tumors identified through PSA markers may actually increase patient mortality relative to doing nothing at all.

Women diagnosed with DCIS are simply not given the option to decline treatment. The problem is illustrated below:

"Because the 'best guess' is that most DCIS won't progress to invasive cancer, the risk of over-diagnosis would be expected to be greater than 50%. The problem with over-diagnosis is that it leads to overtreatment. Because it is impossible to determine which individuals are over-diagnosed, almost everyone gets treated as if they had invasive cancer." 13

Over-diagnosis is a huge problem, discussed in greater depth here:

"Over-diagnosis plays havoc with our understanding of cancer statistics. Because over-diagnosis effectively changes a healthy person into a diseased one, it causes overestimations of the sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of screening tests and the incidence of disease (13). As the MLP and a recent analysis of Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)1 data illustrate (14), over-diagnosis also markedly increases the length of survival, regardless of whether screening or associated treatments are actually effective. However, over-diagnosis does not reduce disease-specific mortality because treating subjects with pseudo-disease does not help those who have real disease. Consequently, disease-specific mortality is the most valid end point for the evaluation of screening effectiveness." 14

Ultimately DCIS over-diagnoses contribute to the appearance that conventional breast cancer screenings and treatments are more successful and less harmful than they actually are, while at the same time making the industry far more profitable than otherwise would be the case.  ∆

Sayer Ji is the founder of GreenMedInfo.com, the world's largest, open source and evidence-based natural medicine and toxicology database, with close to 20,000 indexed across 2500 Diseases and 1500 Substances. He can be reached at Sayerji@greenmedinfo.com

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer About Biography

Source(google.com.pk)

How X-Ray Mammography Is Accelerating The Epidemic of Cancer

While a growing body of research now suggests that x-ray mammography is causing more harm than good in the millions of women who subject themselves to breast screenings, annually, without knowledge of their true health risks, the primary focus has been on the harms associated with over-diagnosis and over-treatment, and not the radiobiological dangers of the procedure itself.

In 2006, a paper published in the British Journal of Radiobiology, titled "Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme," revealed the type of radiation used in x-ray-based breast screenings is much more carcinogenic than previously believed:

Recent radiobiological studies have provided compelling evidence that the low energy X-rays as used in mammography are approximately four times - but possibly as much as six times - more effective in causing mutational damage than higher energy X-rays. Since current radiation risk estimates are based on the effects of high energy gamma radiation, this implies that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancers for mammography X-rays are underestimated by the same factor.[1]

In other words, the radiation risk model used to determine whether the benefit of breast screenings in asymptomatic women outweighs their harm, underestimates the risk of mammography-induced breast and related cancers by between 4-600%.

The authors continued
Risk estimates for radiation-induced cancer – principally derived from the atomic bomb survivor study (ABSS) – are based on the effects of high energy gamma-rays and thus the implication is that the risks of radiation-induced breast cancer arising from mammography may be higher than that assumed based on standard risks estimates.

This is not the only study to demonstrate mammography X-rays are more carcinogenic than atomic bomb spectrum radiation. There is also an extensive amount of data on the downside of x-ray mammography.

Sadly, even if one uses the outdated radiation risk model (which underestimates the harm done),* the weight of the scientific evidence (as determined by the work of The Cochrane Collaboration) actually shows that breast screenings are in all likelihood not doing any net good in those who undergo them.

In a 2009 Cochrane Database Systematic Review,** also known as the Gøtzsche and Nielsen's Cochrane Review, titled "Screening for breast cancer with mammography," the authors revealed the tenuous statistical justifications for mass breast screenings:

Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm.[2]

In this review, the basis for estimating unnecessary treatment was the 35% increased risk of surgery among women who underwent screenings. Many of the surgeries, in fact, were the result of women being diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), a "cancer" that would not exists as a clinically relevant entity were it not for the fact that it is detectable through x-ray mammography. DCIS, in the vast majority of cases, has no palpable lesion or symptoms, and some experts believe it should be completely reclassified as a non-cancerous condition.

A more recent study published in the British Medical Journal in 2011 titled, "Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modeling of Forrest report," not only confirmed the Gøtzsche and Nielsen's Cochrane Review findings, but found the situation likely worse: 

This analysis supports the claim that the introduction of breast cancer screening might have caused net harm for up to 10 years after the start of screening.[3]

So, let’s assume that these reviews are correct, and at the very least, the screenings are not doing any good, and at worst, causing more harm than good. The salient question, however, is how much more harm than good? If we consider that, according to data from Journal of the National Cancer Institute (2011), a mammogram uses 4 mSv of radiation vs. the .02 mSv of your average chest x-ray (which is 200 times more radiation), and then, we factor in the 4-600% higher genotoxicity/carcinogenicity associated with the specific "low-energy" wavelengths used in mammography, it is highly possible that beyond the epidemic of over-diagnosis and over-treatment, mammograms are planting seeds of radiation-induced cancer within the breasts of millions of women.***

With the advent of non-ionizing radiation based diagnostic technologies, such as thermography, it has become vitally important that patients educate themselves about the alternatives to x-ray mammography that already exist.  Until then, we must use our good sense - and research like this - to inform our decisions, and as far as the unintended adverse effects of radiation go, erring on the side of caution whenever possible.

Additional Reading

Is X-ray Mammography Findings Cancer or Benign Lesions?

The Dark Side of Breast Cancer Awareness Month

Does Chemo & Radiation Actually Make Cancer More Malignant?

*This discrepancy in radiation risk models/estimates follows from two fundamental problems: 1) the older risk model was based on higher-energy radiation emissions, such as are given off from atomic bomb blasts 2) it was a crude model, developed before the discovery of DNA and a full understanding of radiotoxicity/genotoxicity.

** Keep in mind that the Cochrane Database Review is at the top of the "food chain" of truth, in the highly touted "evidence-based model" of conventional medicine. Cochrane Database Reviews are produced by The Cochrane Collaboration, which is internationally recognized as the benchmark for high quality, evidence-based information concerning the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of common health care interventions. The organization, comprised of over 28,000 dedicated people from over 100 countries, prides itself on being an "independent" source of information, and historically has not been afraid to point out the corrupting influence of industry, which increasingly co-opts  the biomedical research and publishing fields.

***The low-energy wavelengths cause double strand breaks within the DNA of susceptible cells, which the cell can not repair. Through time these mutations result in "neoplastic transformation"; radiation has the ability to induce a cancerous phenotype within formerly healthy cells that has cancer stem cell-like (CSC) properties.

[1] Enhanced biological effectiveness of low energy X-rays and implications for the UK breast screening programme. Br J Radiol. 2006 Mar ;79(939):195-200. PMID: 16498030

[2] Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009(4):CD001877. Epub 2009 Oct 7. PMID: 19821284

[3] Possible net harms of breast cancer screening: updated modelling of Forrest report. BMJ. 2011 ;343:d7627. Epub 2011 Dec 8. PMID: 22155336

IGF-1 in rBGH Milk Is A Potential Risk Factor For Both Breast and Gastrointestinal Cancers. - GreenMedInfo Summary

Abstract Title:
Unlabeled milk from cows treated with biosynthetic growth hormones: a case of regulatory abdication.

Abstract Source:
Int J Health Serv. 1996;26(1):173-85. PMID: 8932606

Abstract Author(s):
S S Epstein

Article Affiliation:
School of Public Health West, University of Illinois, Chicago 60612, USA.

Abstract:
Levels of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) are substantially elevated and more bioactive in the milk of cows hyperstimulated with the biosynthetic bovine growth hormones rBGH, and are further increased by pasteurization. IGF-1 is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, as evidenced by marked growth-promoting effects even in short-term tests in mature rats, and absorption is likely to be still higher in infants. Converging lines of evidence incriminate IGF-1 in rBGH milk as a potential risk factor for both breast and gastrointestinal cancers.

Article Published Date : Jan 01, 1996
Study Type : Commentary
Additional Links
Diseases : Breast Cancer : CK(2372) : AC(660), Gastrointestinal Cancer : CK(43) : AC(11)
Problem Substances : IGF-1 : CK(1) : AC(1), Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) : CK(2) : AC(2)

Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup-Cancer Link

Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup-Cancer Link About Information Biography

Source(google.com.pk)

Monsanto-Funded Science Denies Emerging Roundup-Cancer Link

Monsanto-funded research has been proliferating as uncontrollably as their genetically modified (GM) plants, and the bugs increasingly resistant to them.

Two studies have appeared in scientific journals in the past eight months, both funded by Monsanto, and both discrediting a Roundup herbicide-cancer link.[i][ii]
The context within which these new studies are appearing is the growing body of experimental research indicating that the active ingredient in Roundup, glyphosate, along with the surfactants and related "inactive" ingredients found within glyphosate-based formulations, cause genetic damage associated with cancer initiation, and at levels far below those used agricultural applications and associated with real-world exposures.[iii] [iv] [v] [vi] [vii]

This has put manufacturers and proponents of glyphosate, as well as "Roundup Ready" GM plants in a vulnerable position. If, the precautionary principle is employed and a much-needed reclassification of glyphosate as a class III carcinogen to a class II or I occurs, the increasingly global dominance of GM-based food crop systems will come to a screeching, regulation-induced halt.

So, given the threat posed by non-industry funded research on glyphosate’s toxicity,  Monsanto has been putting money into research and development -- but not in the reputable sense of the phrase -- by paying for research to develop the storyline that, despite damning research to contrary, Roundup is still safe.

The newest study, published in the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology titled, "Epidemiologic studies on glyphosate and cancer: A review," declared its glaring conflict of interest in the following manner:

Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors have disclosed the funding source for this research. JSM [study author] has served has a paid consultant to Monsanto Company. Final decisions regarding the content of the manuscript were made solely by the four authors.

Acknowledgment

This research was supported by the Monsanto Company, St. Louis, Missouri

Even if no such conflict was explicitly declared, industry-funded research is almost exclusively positive, minimizing or denying harms to exposed populations associated with the products they are evaluating.

A salient example is the recent summary of 176 studies by Baker[viii] which found that published research looking into the impact of Bisphenol A on human health resulted in exclusively pro-industry findings:

Funding	Harm	No Harm
Industry	0	13 (100%)
Independent (e.g. government)	152 (86%)	11 (14%)

Adding to the problem, the editorial boards of some of the journals within which the questionable science is printed are populated by paid consultants of the very industries they publish ostensibly impartial research on.

For example, the editor of the journal Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology within which latest Monsanto-funded glyphosate-cancer review was published, Gio Batta Gori, is notorious for being a tobacco industry consultant and for publishing junk science in his journal, which has been called: "A Scientific Journal with Industrial Bias as Its Specialty."

His journal published research in 2003, provided by the same company, Exponent, which employs three of the researchers who authored the latest glyphosate-cancer study, as well as one author on the 2011 glyphosate-cancer study, on the purported non-carcinogenicity of dioxin, a highly toxic ingredient in Agent Orange.

Given these obvious conflicts of interest, from the bottom up and the top down, the time has come for people to enact reform with their dollars and their forks, and when worthwhile ballot initiative emerge, their votes.

#1: Stop buying anything not explicitly labeled non-GMO or certified organic, which amounts to the same assurance.

#2: Grow it yourself, or support local organic growers.

#3: Support the California Ballot Initiative to label GMOs.

[i] Developmental and reproductive outcomes in humans and animals after glyphosate exposure: a critical analysis. J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev. 2012 ;15(1):39-96.
[ii] Epidemiologic studies of glyphosate and non-cancer health outcomes: a review. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2011 Nov ;61(2):172-84. Epub 2011 Jul 21.

[iii] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Boulben, S., Hureau, D., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2002. Pesticide Roundup provokes cell division dysfunction at the level of CDK1/cyclin
B activation. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15: 326–31.

[iv] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., Durand, G., and Belle, R. 2003. Embryonic cell cycle for risk
assessment of pesticides at the molecular level. Environnemental. Chemistry. letters. 1: 8–12.

[v] Marc, J., Belle, R., Morales, J., Cormier, P., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2004a. Formulated
glyphosate activates the DNA-response checkpoint of the cell cycle leading to the
prevention of G2/M transition. Toxicol. Sci. 82: 436–42

[vi] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect
cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49.

[vii] Marc, J., Le Breton, M., Cormier, P., Morales, J., Belle, R., and Mulner-Lorillon, O. 2005.
A glyphosate-based pesticide impinges on transcription. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol.
203:1–8.

[viii] Baker, Nena (2008). The Body Toxic. North Point Press. p. 142. [cited from Lessig 2011, p. 25 Lay summary].

Will The GMO-Breast Cancer Link Be Pink-Washed Away?

GMO-Breast Cancer About Information Biography 

Source(google.com.pk)

GMO-Breast Cancer 

With Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) less than two weeks away, the latest bombshell GMO/Roundup study produced by a French research team, and presently making international headlines, is well-timed. The researchers found, in the first long-term GM corn and Roundup feeding study of its kind, that female rats, exposed to concentrations well below official safety limits, developed massive, progressive mammary tumors which either lead to premature death, or required euthanasia due to their great suffering.

Why would this be of concern to BCAM? After all, BCAM is the annual pinkwashing celebration, where people collectively and forcibly remove the thought of there being preventable and treatable causes of breast cancer from their minds, hurl themselves over the lemming-like cliff of cause-marketing, e.g. Buckets for a Cure, sacrificing their time, energy and money raising billions more for a pharmaceutical cure for a pharmaceutically incurable condition.  This annual ritual celebrates ribbon-wearing vacuity, pretending like "carcinogens" don't exist, or that it doesn't matter that a carcinogen-producing chemical company, now defunct Imperial Chemical Industries, and its  pharmaceutical subsidiary, Zeneca, co-founded Breast Cancer Awareness Month in 1985.  

Zeneca, of course, merged with Astra AB in 1999, becoming AstraZeneca, manufacturer of the breast cancer blockbuster drugs Arimidex and Tamoxifen. By pushing for widespread adoption of breast screenings they generated millions of new and future customers (mammography-induced breast cancer), even while one of the main forms of mammography-detected cancer, Ductal Carcinoma In Situ (DCIS), is often intrinisically benign, better left untreated with conventional, highly toxic "therapies" like radiation and chemotherapy.

The conflict of interest here is as devastating as it is obvious, which is why we hope the new finding linking GM corn and Roundup herbicide to breast cancer will compel BCAM to respond, and change their awareness strategy to become more patient- versus industry-friendly. One thing is for sure. The study's findings were not vague or equivocal, but disturbingly clear...

In an interview, Dr. Michael Antoniou, molecular biologist at Kings College, London, and a member of the CRIIGEN scientific council who funded the study, said

This is the most thorough research ever published into the health effects of GM food crops and the herbicide Roundup on rats. It shows an extraordinary number of tumors developing earlier and more aggressively - particularly in female animals.  I am shocked by the extreme negative health impacts.

The rat has long been used as a surrogate for human toxicity. All new pharmaceutical, agricultural and household substances are, prior to their approval, tested on rats. This is as good an indicator as we can expect that the consumption of GM maize and the herbicide Roundup, impacts seriously on human health.

Here are some passages excerpted directly from the study

Suffering inducing euthanasia and deaths corresponded mostly in females to the development of large mammary tumors. These appeared to be clearly related to the various treatments when compared to the control groups. These tumors are generally known to be mostly estrogen-dependent (Harvell et al., 2000). We observed a strikingly marked induction of mammary tumors by R[roundup] alone, a major formulated pesticide, even at the very lowest dose administered. R[oundup] has been shown to disrupt aromatase which synthesizes estrogens (Richard et al., 2005)...  [pg. 9]

In conclusion, it was previously known that glyphosate consumption in water above authorized limits may provoke hepatic and kidney failures (EPA). The results of the study presented here clearly demonstrate that lower levels of complete agricultural glyphosate herbicide formulations, at concentrations well below officially set safety limits, induce severe hormone-dependent mammary, hepatic and kidney disturbances. [pg. 10]

Breast cancer, by the way, is the #1 form of cancer which afflicts women today, and cancer the #2 cause of mortality in women. What if women were being advised to equate "prevention," not with exposing their breasts to highly carcinogenic x-ray wavelengths, i.e. "early detection via mammography" but with removing all non-organic, pesticide-laden and GMO food in their diet, immediately?  Would this not be an excellent precautionary step to take, given the latest findings on their carcinogenicity?

GMO-Breast Cancer

No, BCAM won't advocate this point. Nor will Susan G. Komen, one of BCAM's partners. How do we know this? It is easy to confirm. Simply go to their respective websites (note: BCAM decommissioned their website last year and created a one page landing page) and type in the word "carcinogen," and you will find the word has been virtually pinkwashed out of the conversation, and where it does occur on the Susan G. Komen website search results page in 3 places, you will find information minimizing the link between smoking and breast cancer: "Because there is no established link between smoking and breast cancer risk, it is unlikely secondhand smoke exposure is related to an increase in risk." Common sense, of course is not applicable, since the church of scientism and their priest-like "experts" have not proven, unequivocally in clinical studies that smoking can harm your breast health.  Outrageous!

Or, according to Susan G. Komen, "The scientific evidence to date shows no link...between organocholorine [pesticides] and breast cancer risk."[i]

Get the drift? This is not an organization that is advocating for the identification and removal of the preventable causes of breast cancer, rather, is doing the exact opposite, either by pretending there are no environmental causes (must be in the genes somewhere folks), or minimizing or denying that exposure to carcinogens actually cause cancer.

If pink doesn't make you see red, you may not be understanding what is going on here. Perhaps a few more outrageous examples will suffice .... Acrylamide, found in fried foods, is a carcinogen, and has been recently linked to breast cancer, but you can find a bucket of KFC emblazoned with the pink ribboned theme.  Eli Lilly now manufactures and owns one of Monsanto's notorious inventions: recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), used to increase mammary gland size and productive capacity in cows, and linked to breast cancer, and also produces cancer drugs like Gemzar, profiting on both ends. [ii]  Or just look at the thousands of products now being pimped in the name of BCAM and pinkwashing campaigns manufactured either with, or including known human carcinogens.

We all need to wake up. Breast Cancer Awareness Month needs to be renamed Pinkwashing Awareness Month, and the true causes and cures for cancer disseminated to those folks whose very lives depends on the availability of such information.  The carcinogenicity of Roundup herbicide and GMO food will continued to be denied by self-appointed authoritative organizations, non-governmental and governmental alike, but we can make a difference today by exercising our right not to purchase or consume products that contain these ingredients. California's Proposition 37 is a great place to start. Please support the Just Label It initiative today.