By Ronnie Cummins
It has been a year since the Organic Consumers Association (OCA) joined with Mercola.com, National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), Fluoride Action Network (FAN), Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT), and Consumers for Dental Choice to form a new non-profit coalition, Health Liberty.
Over the past 12 months this alliance has proven to be a brilliant merging of talent, networks, resources and passion around consumer rights and protection.
Each of us in this coalition brings the knowledge gleaned from years of research on health and environmental issues, combined with strong track records of activism and successful campaigning for consumers' right to know what the potential risks are – to their health and to their communities – of food and other products they buy.
And each of us is committed to fighting on behalf of consumers everywhere for the right to make an informed choice about whether or not to avoid those risks. When it comes to genetically engineered foods, the risks to your health come from multiple angles. The genetic alteration itself can cause significant problems in animals and humans consuming the food, but the potential hazards of the chemicals sprayed in large quantities on such crops are just as great...
Genetically Engineered Foods: The Right to Know
With the help of our new coalition partners, and many other concerned organizations and individuals, the OCA has focused this past year on what we believe is the most critical threat to the health of consumers and our planet: genetically modified organisms (GMOs), also referred to as genetically engineered (GE) seeds and food.
With little or no regulatory restraints, labeling requirements, or scientific protocol, bio-engineers since the 1990s have been creating hundreds of new genetically engineered "Frankenfoods" and crops. The research is done with little concern for the human and environmental hazards and the negative socioeconomic impacts on the world's several billion farmers and rural villagers.
Since the advent of GMO testing, the OCA has relentlessly gone to bat against the biotech and agribusiness industries, Food Inc., and the FDA and the USDA, in an effort to protect human health and the environment from the potential hazards of these genetically modified organisms.
Over the years, we have fought the battle on numerous fronts, using every tactic in the book. Our latest and potentially most successful strategy has been to fight for consumers' basic right to know what is in their food – and to take that battle directly to voters, through citizens' initiatives.
This two-pronged strategy – demanding the basic right to know through the use of direct democracy tools - is our best chance at winning the fight against genetically engineered foods.
We believe that once food manufacturers are required to label any and all genetically modified ingredients in their food products – which will finally give consumers the ability to choose whether or not to buy those products – consumers will stop buying them, and manufacturers will stop making them.
That strategy has been successful in Europe and more than 20 other countries that require labeling of genetically engineered foods. Consumers in those countries have spoken clearly: We don't want those products. And manufacturers have responded by reformulating their products to be GMO-free.
Using Direct Democracy to Force GMO Labeling
The notion that consumers have the right to know about genetically engineered foods has gathered steam, culminating this year in an unprecedented number of state – and one federal – campaigns to require GMO labeling. The OCA has supported individual legislative efforts this past year in Washington State, Vermont, Hawaii, and Connecticut.
In all, 18 states tried and failed to pass popular GMO labeling legislation this year, watching cowardly Governors and state legislatures back down under the weight of massive lobbying efforts on the part of Big Biotech and in some states, threats of lawsuits from Monsanto.
But now we are on the verge of what we believe will be our first major victory – a citizens' ballot initiative in California that, if passed, will mark the single biggest victory in the GMO right to know battle, and will finally change the direction of food and farming in our country. Forever.
On May 2, campaign volunteers representing a broad and unprecedented health, environmental, and consumer coalition, spearheaded by the Organic Consumers Association, Mercola.com, Food Democracy Now LabelGMOs, Natural News, and scores of other groups, filed ballot petition papers signed by almost a million California registered voters to place a Citizens Initiative on the Ballot in November 2012 that will require labeling of genetically engineered foods and food ingredients, and ban the routine industry practice of labeling and marketing such foods as "natural."
This battle has not yet been won – we are stepping up efforts to educate California's voters on the dangers of genetically engineered foods, mobilize them to spread the word, and get out the vote.
To fund the campaign OCA, the Organic Consumers Fund (our grassroots lobbying ally), Mercola.com, and our allies have been forced to raise over $4 million dollars thus far, with another $4-6 million needed before November, to counter the anticipated $50 million dollar war chest of Monsanto, the biotech industry, and the Grocery Manufacturers Association. The good news is that although we may be outspent 10 to one, polls show that 80-90 percent of California voters support labeling of genetically engineered foods. In other words we are confident that we can win.
Scientists Warn about the Potential Health Hazards of Genetically Engineered Foods
An increasing number of scientists are warning that current gene-splicing techniques are crude, inexact, and unpredictable—and therefore inherently dangerous. Yet, pro-biotech governments and regulatory agencies maintain that genetically engineered foods and crops are "substantially equivalent" to conventional foods, and therefore require neither labeling nor pre–market safety-testing.
This Brave New World of Frankenfoods is frightening. Today, nearly 80 percent of all processed foods containing corn, soy, or canola oil contain unlabeled genetically altered ingredients. This, despite a long list of potential health hazards, including:
- Toxins and poisons: GE products clearly have the potential to be toxic and a threat to human health. In 1989, a GE brand of L-tryptophan, a common dietary supplement, killed 37 Americans. More than 5,000 others were permanently disabled or afflicted with a potentially fatal and painful blood disorder, eosinophilia myalgia syndrome (EMS), before it was recalled by the FDA.
- Increased cancer risks: In 1994, the FDA approved the sale of Monsanto's controversial recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). This genetically engineered hormone is injected into dairy cows to force them to produce more milk. Scientists have warned that significantly higher levels (400-500 percent or more) of a potent chemical hormone, Insulin-Like Growth Factor (igf-1), in the milk and dairy products of rBGH injected cows, could pose serious hazards such as human breast, prostate, and colon cancer. A number of studies have shown that humans with elevated levels of igf-1 in their bodies are much more likely to get cancer.
- Food allergies: The alarming rise in childhood allergies in the past two decades has been linked by scientists to the arrival of genetically engineered foods in the 1990s. In 1996, a major GE food disaster was narrowly averted when Nebraska researchers learned that a Brazil nut gene spliced into soybeans could induce potentially fatal allergies in people sensitive to Brazil nuts. Animal tests of these Brazil nut-spliced soybeans had turned up negative. People with food allergies whose symptoms can range from mild unpleasantness to sudden death, may likely be harmed by exposure to foreign proteins spliced into common food products. Since humans have never before eaten most of the foreign proteins now being gene-spliced into foods, stringent pre-market safety-testing (including long-term animal feeding and volunteer human feeding studies) is necessary in order to prevent a future public health disaster.
- Antibiotic resistance: When gene engineers splice a foreign gene into a plant or microbe, they often link it to another gene, called an antibiotic resistance marker gene (arm), that helps determine if the first gene was successfully spliced into the host organism. Some researchers warn that these arm genes might unexpectedly recombine with disease-causing bacteria or microbes in the environment or in the guts of animals or people who eat genetically engineered food. These new combinations may be contributing to the growing public health danger of antibiotic resistance—of infections that cannot be cured with traditional antibiotics, for example new strains of salmonella, e-coli, campylobacter, and enterococci
- Damage to food quality and nutrition: A 1999 study by Dr. Marc Lappe published in the Journal of Medicinal Food found that concentrations of the beneficial phytoestrogen compounds thought to protect against heart disease and cancer were lower in GE soybeans than in traditional strains. These and other studies, including Dr. Pusztai's, indicate that GE food will likely result in foods lower in quality and nutrition. For example, the milk from cows injected with rBGH contains higher levels of pus, bacteria, and fat.
GE Crops and Farming Techniques Threaten the Planet
From the decimation of the planet's critical honeybee and monarch butterfly populations, to the creation of superweeds and superinsects, to the depletion of valuable nutrient-rich farming soil, genetic engineering poses a dangerous, and potentially irreversible threat, to planet Earth.
Among the dangers of GE crops, are:
- Increased Pesticide Residues: Contrary to biotech industry propaganda, recent studies have found that US farmers growing GE crops are using just as many toxic pesticides and herbicides as conventional farmers and in some cases more. The "benefits" of these herbicide-resistant crops are that farmers can spray as much of a particular herbicide on their crops as they want-killing the weeds without damaging their crop. Scientists estimate that herbicide-resistant crops planted around the globe will triple the amount of toxic broad-spectrum herbicides used in agriculture. These broad-spectrum herbicides are designed to literally kill everything green.
- Damage to Beneficial Insects and Soil Fertility: In 1999, Cornell University researchers made a startling discovery. They found that pollen from genetically engineered bt corn was poisonous to Monarch butterflies. The study adds to a growing body of evidence that GE crops are adversely affecting a number of beneficial insects, including ladybugs and lacewings, as well as beneficial soil microorganisms, bees, and possibly birds.
- Creation of GE "Superweeds" and "Superpests": Genetically engineering crops to be herbicide-resistant or to produce their own pesticide presents dangerous problems. Pests and weeds will inevitably emerge that are pesticide or herbicide-resistant, which means that stronger, more toxic chemicals will be needed to get rid of the pests. Herbicide resistant "superweeds" are already emerging. GE crops such as rapeseed (canola) have spread their herbicide-resistance traits to related weeds such as wild mustard plants. Lab and field tests also indicate that common plant pests such as cotton bollworms, living under constant pressure from GE crops, are evolving into "superpests" completely immune to bt sprays and other environmentally sustainable bio-pesticides.
This will present a serious danger for organic and sustainable farmers whose biological pest management practices will be unable to cope with increasing numbers of superpests and superweeds. - Genetic Pollution: "Genetic pollution" and collateral damage from GE field crops already have begun to wreak environmental havoc. Wind, rain, birds, bees, and insect pollinators have begun carrying genetically-altered pollen into adjoining fields, polluting the DNA of crops of organic and non-GE farmers. An organic farm in Texas has been contaminated with genetic drift from GE crops grown on a nearby farm. Because they are alive, gene-altered crops are inherently more unpredictable than chemical pollutants-they can reproduce, migrate, and mutate. Once released, it is virtually impossible to recall GE organisms back to the laboratory or the field.
- Genetic "Bio-Invasion": By virtue of their "superior" genes, some GE plants and animals will inevitably run amok, overpowering wild species in the same way that exotic species, such as kudzu vine and Dutch elm disease have created problems when introduced in North America. What will happen to wild fish and marine species, for example, when scientists release into the environment carp, salmon, and trout that are twice as large, and eat twice as much food, as their wild counterparts?
Most Commonly Used Herbicide Found to be Carcinogenic
As if the health hazards of genetically altered food crops weren't bad enough, glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has also been deemed a major health hazard both to the environment, and to animal and human health. It is toxic to human cells, and according to a French research team, it is also carcinogenic. The team has studied the herbicide extensively, and published at least five articles on glysphosate's potential for wide-ranging environmental and human harm. Their research shows that glyphosate:Causes cell cycle dysregulation, which is a hallmark of tumor cells and human cancers
- Inhibits DNA synthesis in certain parts of the cell cycle—the process by which cells reproduce that underlies the growth and development of all living organisms
- Impedes the hatchings of sea urchins. (Sea urchins were used because they constitute an appropriate model for the identification of undesirable cellular and molecular targets of pollutants.) The delay was found to be dose dependent on the concentration of Roundup. The surfactant polyoxyethylene amine (POEA), another major component of Roundup, was also found to be highly toxic to the embryos when tested alone, and could therefore be a contributing factor
It doesn't matter that the Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health recently published "research" to the contraryii, the French team says―the world needs to know the truth about who did that "safety-finding" research. It was funded by none other than Monsanto itself! Is it any wonder they came to the conclusion that:
"[T]he available literature shows no solid evidence linking glyphosate exposure to adverse developmental or reproductive effects at environmentally realistic exposure concentrations."
The new Monsanto-funded safety research actually used the French team's original research to debunk the evidence that Roundup could have human or environmental safety issues. And that didn't sit well with the French team, which was so angered they wrote a detailed response to Monsanto's article, accusing the researchers of minimalizing the French group's work and publishing misleading information.
What Lies Ahead: The Food Fight of Our Lives
Monsanto and Food Inc.'s stranglehold over the nation's food and farming system is being challenged in a food fight that will largely determine the future of American agriculture. Genetically engineered foods have absolutely no benefits for consumers or the environment, only hazards.
After 20 years of biotech bullying and force-feeding unlabeled and hazardous genetically engineered (GE) foods to animals and humans, a critical mass of food and health activists have decided it's time to move beyond small skirmishes and losing battles and go on the offensive.
It's time to move the food fight over labeling GE food from the unfavorable terrain of Washington DC and Capital Hill, where Monsanto and Food Inc. exercise near-dictatorial control, to California, the heartland of organic food and farming and anti-GMO sentiment, where 90 percent of the body politic, according to recent polls, support GMO labeling.
Monsanto and their allies understand the threat that truth-in-labeling poses for the future of genetically engineered foods. As soon as genetically engineered foods start to be labeled in the US. millions of consumers will start to read these labels and react. They'll complain to grocery store managers and companies, they'll talk to their family and friends. They'll start switching to foods that are organic or at least GMO-free. Once enough consumers start complaining about GE foods and food ingredients; stores will eventually stop selling them; and farmers will stop planting them.
If you are willing to volunteer or donate money to this campaign visit the Organic Consumers Fund website or call the OCA office at 218-226-4164. It's time to stand up to Monsanto and win the Food Fight of our lives. Please join us!
About the Author
Ronnie Cummins is the founder and Director of the Organic Consumers Association. He has been a writer and activist since the 1960s, with massive expertise in human rights, anti-war, anti-nuclear, consumer, labor, environmental, and sustainable agricultural areas. He is the author of several published articles, a children's book series called Children of the World, and Genetically Engineered Food: A Self-Defense Guide for Consumers.
About the Organic Consumers Association
The Organic Consumers Association (OCA) is an online and grassroots 501(c)3 public interest organization promoting health, justice, and sustainability. It prides itself as the only organization in the United States focused on promoting the views and interests of the country's estimated 76 million organic and socially responsible consumers.
The OCA participates in the important issues of food safety, industrial agriculture, genetic engineering, children's health, corporate accountability, Fair Trade, environmental sustainability, and other key topics. The Organic Consumers Fund, a 501(c)4, is the OCA's grassroots action and lobbying arm.
References:
- i [1] 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
[2] 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
[3] 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
[4] Marc, J., Mulner-Lorillon, O., and Belle, R. 2004b. Glyphosate-based pesticides affect cell cycle regulation. Biol. Cell. 96: 245–49
[5] 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 - ii Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health 2012: 15(1)
This is a fantastic analogy I refer people to when they wish to understand my limitations from ME/CFS. It's a story written by Christine Miserandino called 'The Spoon Theory', based on her experience of explaining what it's like to live with Lupus to a close friend. Granted, some of us may have less 'spoons', smaller 'spoons', or 'spoons' of different shapes, but the analogy still applies to everyone with ME/CFS and really gets the point across!http://www.butyoudontlooksick.com/navigation/BYDLS-TheSpoonTheory.pdf
It is 5 PM EDT: we have 22 hours to earn these ME/CFS non-profits some money! please vote and share this post via facebook or twitter. Thank you! -ME/CFS Assist
via Phoenix Rising Forums:
We started out with seven CFS non-profits in the running for $175,000 in the Chase Community Giving Contest. We knew the contest was going to get really volatile in the last couple of days and it has with four organizations dropping like rocks.
With only 22 hours left in the contest only three organization appear assured of taking home any money; the IACFS (AACFS), the CFSKnowledge Center and Mass CFIDS.
Rocky Mountain and Wisconsin have dropped precipitously and are now hanging on the skin of the teeth at positions 89 and 99. Even small drops now will kick them out. The fine New Jersey CFS Association which has done so much over the years is now off the leaderboard as is the exciting Foundation devoted to studying what may be a key culprit in CFS - enteroviruses.
We can turn this around. A similar situation happened last year with PANDORA and we managed to turn it around and get them in the winnings. Pandora then funded a researcher who ultimately was able to get millions of dollars in NIH grants.
This is worth taking your time to do.
We have 22 hours to do get these non-profits some money. If you haven't already, please vote and ask for your friends to vote for the following organizations at the following links.
IACFS/ME (AACFS) http://bit.ly/s48mcK CFSKnowledgeCenter - http://bit.ly/lkvWpU
Wisconsin CFIDS - http://bit.ly/mlmr0c
New Jersey CFS Association - http://bit.ly/tXpa46
Mass CFIDS Association - http://bit.ly/sJXeQ9
Enterovirus Foundation - http://bit.ly/lzhRfi
Connecticut CFIDS Foundation - http://bit.ly/uqIqF7
CFIDS and Fibromyalgia Self-Help Program - http://bit.ly/kfjQuZ
Chronic Fatigue Association of Georgia - http://bit.ly/kdavB3
To find out more on how to vote click here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/content.php?499-Two-Weeks-for-250-000-(or-more)-for-ME-CFS-Supports-with-Chase-Community-Giving-(Nov-8th-22nd)
Thanks!
Here's some news about cell phones and cancer which even the mainstream media has found impossible to ignore. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization (WHO), has declared after a review of the research that cell phones are possible cancer-causing agents. The expert panel ruled that there was some evidence that cell phone use was linked to two types of tumors—brain tumors (gliomas) and acoustic neuromas.
Some scientists say the IARC classification is still not strong enough, and that cell phone radiation should have been classified as a "Probable Human Carcinogen" based on the existing science, but evidently there were not enough studies to classify it more strongly at this time.
Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. says,
"The existing science is very clear there is risk of cancer from cell phone use. The warning might have been 2A if there were a larger number of animal studies showing this, or if there were a larger number of up-to-date human studies. It's important to recognize the Interphone study on which the classification to a large extent relied was completed in 2004, and current studies reflecting usage patterns today would be far more damning, possibly earning a Class 1 "Human Carcinogen."
However, according to Electromagnetic Health:
"Nonetheless, the IARC opinion is a breath of fresh air to many, and restores some integrity to a badly tarnished IARC ... The IARC classification of cell phones as a 'possible human carcinogen' will now travel throughout the world, influencing governments far and wide, for the 1st time providing an official scientific basis on which governments, schools and parents can legitimately call for precautionary behavior regarding these radiation-emitting devices."
Professor Dariusz Leszczynski, of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority in Finland, explains why this should probably be considered big news:
"... for the first time a very prominent evaluation report states it so openly and clearly: RF-EMF is possibly carcinogenic to humans. One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as 'gold standard' in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim."
WHO's Group 2 Classification of Cancer Risk
"This category includes agents for which, at one extreme, the degree of evidence of carcinogenicity in humans is almost sufficient, as well as those for which, at the other extreme, there are no human data but for which there is evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals. Agents are assigned to either Group 2A (probably carcinogenic to humans) or Group 2B (possibly carcinogenic to humans) on the basis of epidemiological and experimental evidence of carcinogenicity and mechanistic and other relevant data.
The terms probably carcinogenic and possibly carcinogenic have no quantitative significance and are used simply as descriptors of different levels of evidence of human carcinogenicity, with probably carcinogenic signifying a higher level of evidence than possibly carcinogenic."
So as you can see, while some journalists and scientists are now downplaying the IARC decision, saying the IARC classification of cell phones as possibly carcinogenic does not mean cell phones cause cancer, and even preposterously claiming that there is no evidence of this at all, there is no uncertainty that IARC, a highly respected scientific body, is now clearly saying there is evidence of carcinogenicity, otherwise they would not have classified in category 2B.
See Citizens for Health commentary on this, including comments on the 2B classification by 20+ year veteran of the IARC, Dr. Annie J. Sasco of Bordeaux Segalen University, France
Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org says,
"We expect to see continued spin from all directions, attempting to confuse the public and raise doubt, for some time to come. Thus it is especially important citizens be able to spot the misinformation and recognize there is an extraordinary propaganda machine in motion. We expect this will get LOUDER until industry is one day forced to cry 'Uncle" under the expected landslide pressure lawsuits and from governments."
Already, three senior members of Congress are calling on the General Accounting Office (GAO) to conduct a "thorough review" of the science and "adequacy" of current FCC exposure guidelines. These include Representatives Ed Markey (MA), Henry Waxman (CA) and Anna Eshoo (CA). And Reuters reports the Supreme Court is considering the fate of existing cell phone safety litigation in light of the WHO classification.
The IARC decision came only days after the Council of Europe, elders from 47 European countries, has called for a dramatic reduction in EMF exposure to humans from call phones and wireless technologies.
It is important to realize, however, that cell phones may not all be the same. Although all cell phones emit radiation, CDMA cell phones, such as those used by Sprint and Verizon, do not pulse their signals like the GSM phones used by AT&T and T-Mobile.
According to Dr. Joel Moskowitz, Director of the Center for Family and Community Health at the University of California, Berkeley, "GSM phones emit about 28 times more radiation on average compared to CDMA phones according to one published study." Dr. Moskowitz recommends switching to a CDMA carrier if you want to reduce your radiation exposure.
Magda Havas, PhD of Trent University, Canada, agrees pulsed radiation is more dangerous:
"Pulsed radiation is much more harmful and the true intensity is not provided as it is "averaged" during a period of time (30 minutes for public exposure in US). The average of the pulse (maximum reading) and the minimum reading
gives a false low reading. Engineers like to measure averages but living organisms react to extremes so these average readings under estimate the potential for harm if the radiation is pulsed."
Sources:
Electromagnetic Health May 31, 2011
Gizmodo May 31, 2011
The New York Times May 31, 2011
Video Transcript
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
This is truly a groundbreaking moment; one that I and other safety advocates have worked toward for over a decade. I personally began warning my readers about the potential health hazards of cell phones and the need to adhere to the precautionary principle in the late 1990's. So those of you who have been long-time readers of this newsletter, you've had more than 10 years to consider the evidence and implement safety precautions for yourself and your family.
Cell Phone Radiation Declared "Possible Carcinogen"
On May 21, 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), a committee of 27 scientists from 14 different countries working on behalf of the World Health Organization (WHO), concluded that exposure to cell phone radiation is a "possible carcinogen" and classified it into the 2B category. This is the same category as the pesticide DDT, lead, gasoline engine exhaust, burning coal and dry cleaning chemicals, just to name a few.
The group did not perform any new research; rather the decision is based on a review of the previously published evidence, including the Interphone study results published so far (about 50% have still not been released) and the Hardell studies. This is the same evidence that the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Cancer Society (ACS), among others, have previously waved aside; calling it "reassuring," and claiming it showed "no evidence" of harm.
Finally, this international committee of experts has now declared otherwise. Only days before the meeting commenced, a key 'expert', Dr. Anders Albom of the Karolinska Institute, was let go from the expert group after it was revealed he had failed to disclose a potential telecom industry conflict on his WHO conflict-of-interest statement. Anders Albom and others long suspected of ties to the telecom industry had recently been featured in the spoof poster created by activists below, "The Science of the Lambs".
Christopher Wild, Director of IARC, opened the IARC meeting on carcinogenicity of RF calling for scientists to understand the gravity of the upcoming decision for society.
Cell Phones—A Worldwide Health Hazard
As you probably know, over five billion people worldwide, about 80 percent of the world's population, now has a cell phone. This fact alone makes this an extremely important issue as it affects the vast majority of people on Earth—not to mention the detrimental impact it may have on insects, such as bees, and other animals. Many Third World countries have actually circumvented the infrastructure of landlines entirely, and have gone straight to using cell phones.
It's important to realize that while this type of radiation exposure may not pose an immediate short-termthreat to your health, as it is not an ionizing type of radiation (like x-rays) that can break chemical bonds and directly damage DNA, cell phones emit a radio frequency field in the microwave band that interacts with your own bio signaling system, which can over time cause a variety of health problems and raise your risk of cancer. Cancers associated with this radiation include brain tumors (gliomas), acoustic neuromas, meningiomas, salivary gland tumors, eye cancers, testiculal cancers and leukemia.
And, importantly, in some people, acute symptoms from cell phone radiation can also be debilitating, greatly impairing cognitive function, even for long periods after cell phone use. And while DNA is not directly impacted, its repair processes are impacted, the end result being damaged and malfunctioning DNA, with unknown consequences for future generations.
Don't be misled by those saying there is not DNA damage just because the power is not hot enough to separate electrons from atoms. DNA has been shown to be exquisitely sensitive to these fields, according to research by Martin Blank, PhD of Columbia University and others. In fact, it is "exquisitely sensitive" to EMFs, Blank says, across the entire spectrum of frequencies (i.e. from the low frequency ELFs, such as from electricity, to the higher frequency radiofrequency and microwaves from cell phones and WiFI, due to DNA's 'coil of coil structure'.
In 2008, the year for which we have the most recent statistics, there were 237,913 new cases of brain cancers and about two-thirds of these were gliomas.
The WHO scientific committee, relying on much research from the Swedish Hardell group and IARC's own 13-country Interphone data, found that cell phone radiation exposure increased the risk of this type of cancer by as much as 40 percent. However, other experts who have reviewed the evidence believe it may be far worse than that, warning that it may actually double your risk of developing brain cancer.
Wireless Industry Grasping for Straws
Needless to say, the wireless industry is now scrambling to counteract the bad press. John Walls, vice president for public affairs for The Wireless Association (CTIA) was quoted in the New York Times, stating:
"This IARC classification does not mean cell phones cause cancer.''
He also noted that both the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have evaluated the evidence, concluding that cell phone radiation does not pose a health threat.
Well, the last time I checked, the FDA couldn't even distinguish between the health effects of raw- versus pasteurized milk laced with genetically modified growth hormones, so I'm not so sure they're qualified to evaluate something as complex as the health effects of non-ionizing radiation… And the FCC, while it regulates the media industry, including telecommunications services, it is also politically tied to those industries. At least one of the current commissioners (who make the decisions) is a former telecommunications industry lobbyist.
Additionally, as clearly stated on the FCC's website, the FCC's "primary jurisdiction does not lie in the health and safety area, and it must rely on other agencies and organizations for guidance in these matters." Hence, it stands to reason that a "thumbs up" from the FCC is not all it's cracked up to be.
In all likelihood they too may eventually be forced to recognize the IARC's classification of cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic, and change exposure guidelines for industry for microwave radiation from wireless technologies so that the standards are based on what we know is happening biologically, not simply on assumptions of physicists. An excellent write-up on the FDA and FCC conflicts and the failure of our government on this was published on ElectromagneticHealth.org last summer:
ElectromagneticHealth.org asked,
"If the FCC says it relies on the safety expertise of the FDA, and states it considered opinions from the FDA in setting its safety guidelines, but the FDA officially does not review the safety of radiation-emitting consumer products such as cell phones and PDAs before they can be sold, as it does with new drugs or medical devices, then where is the responsibility for assuring safety actually domiciled?"
The New York Times also quotes Dr. Meir Stampfer, a professor of epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and a paid adviser for the cell phone industry:
"It's a very thoughtful group, but the important thing is putting it into the perspective of what 'possible' means, and the likelihood that this is really something to be concerned about. The evidence doesn't support that. Comparing this to going out in the sun or any number of normal everyday activities that we're not really concerned about, I would put cell phones in the lower part of that category.''
His outdated knowledge about the "danger" of sun exposure notwithstanding, I cannot help but think that this is little more than a grasping for straws, supporting his telecom client's interests.
John Maris, MD of Children's Hospital in Philadelphia, has also recently made a statement in which he said, several times, "there is nothing at all to be worried about".
Misinterpreting the intent of the 2B classification of cell phone radiation as a potential carcinogen, Maris said
"The World Health Organization released a cautionary statement to say that we just need more information. That does not mean that cell phones cause cancer."
However, if we simply needed 'more information', cell phone radiation would not have been classified as a possible carcinogen by this esteemed body. And they made this decision before publishing the remaining almost 50 percent of the Interphone study, including much of the results from studies on tumors closest to where the cell phone us held against the head.
Cell phone radiation has the potential to harm your health, just like DDT or lead, which is what experts in the field have been saying for years. That doesn't mean that every person exposed to those substances will get cancer.
But it raises your overall risk, depending on a number of other factors, such as your general state of health, which in part is dependent on exposure to other toxins through food, air, and water, just to name a few. And I believe it's important to remember that when we're talking about toxins in general, it's your accumulated toxic load that matters most. So in that sense, heavy users of cell phones and other wireless gadgets are at exponentially increased risk, and should at the very least be warned so that they can make educated decisions about their self-imposed level of exposure.
Why You Should Take Notice of the IARC's Conclusion
Darius Leszczynski, an electromagnetic field (EMF) scientist with the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland, points out in a recent blog post that one of the factors that lend extra weight to the IARC's decision is that of the 27 working group members (Three of the 30 IARC members did not participate in the final voting process. One had previously been removed from the group due to a previously undisclosed potential conflict of interest.), a clear and overwhelming majority voted for the 2B classification. It was not a decision fraught with controversy and disagreement.
"This should be recognized as a strong mandate, for the IARC and the WHO, to classify RF-EMF (including mobile phone radiation) as 2B agent – possibly carcinogenic to humans," Leszczynski writes.
… One has to remember that IARC monographs are considered as "gold standard" in evaluation of carcinogenicity of physical and chemical agents. If IARC says it so clearly then there must be sufficient scientific reason for it, or IARC would not put its reputation behind such claim."
An excellent review of the dynamics surrounding the IARC decision, including the industry supporting views of the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Peter Inskip, who walked out of the meeting before the vote, can be found on Microwave News.
What Does this Mean Long-Term?
Some nations have already adopted the precautionary principle, and have previously issued precautionary advice to mobile phone users. Now that cell phone radiation has been classified as a "possible carcinogen," these messages can be strengthened in a meaningful way to reach more people, across the world.
Additionally, we're still in the infancy of EMF science as it relates to understanding the mechanism of the human health effects. One of the most beneficial effects this classification can have is to increase support for more research, as only when the mechanisms of action are better understood can causation be proven.
Research funds have begun to dry up in recent years, but that doesn't mean we don't need more research. It just means that those holding the purse strings thought it wasn't worth looking into further since the potential for health hazards seemed remote, based on conventional thinking about the biological effects of non-ionizing radiation, or because the findings would be detrimental to the cell phone industry.
Government officials rely on the wireless industry for financial support, and the health of our entire economy is deeply intertwined at this point with telecom industry interests.
Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch in the U.K. makes the important point that we are basing our insight, even in the IARC evaluation, on research conducted many, many years ago, and usage patterns have changed. He says that a review of the incidence of brain tumors conducted in the U.K. show that in fact the incidence rates for malignant temporal and frontal lobe tumors IS in fact rising.
Philips says,
"The graph below, created from research by de Vocht et al shows a rise in brain tumors in the regions of the brain closest to where you hold a cell phone. Tumors in other areas of the brain are actually decreasing."
This is an extremely important finding says Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org, as other countries have not separated out their overall brain tumor incidence data by type and location of tumor so insights like this, that brain tumors are actually on the rise, can be gleaned.
If we fail to continue researching the effects of this type of radiation, we throw away the opportunity to perhaps alter the technology in such a way that it significantly reduces the health impacts. I believe doing nothing is not an option at present, and hopefully the IARC's decision will help usher in greater research and safer technologies.
Rees says greater transparency in research funding is also urgently needed:
"Universities must be upfront and disclose the extent of their funding from telecom industry sources. This way, when statements downplaying the known cancer risks are made by academics, any telecom industry potential influence can be better assessed and clearer to the public."
Three Important Factors to Remember that May Reduce Health Risks
The major take-home fact that everyone needs to be concerned about is to protect your children, as they're clearly the most vulnerable. This includes unborn babies as well, so pregnant women may want to take extra precautions.
Increasing numbers of children are now using cell phones at an ever younger age, and it's important to realize that this exponentially increases their risk of cancer and any other wireless radiation-related health problems over their lifetime. According to professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden, those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!
So I believe you really need to set limits, if you're a parent.
How to Pick the Phone Carrier with the Lowest EMF
Please remember, you cannot determine safety by the SAR (specific absorption rate) on your phone. Buying a low SAR phone is a false sense of security, because the SAR rating has nothing to do with the non-ionizing radiation emitted and only is gauge of the intensity of the heating effect, and simply comparing one phone to another. One thing you can do, which hardly anyone is discussing, is to pick your cell phone carrier appropriately. There are two primary technologies used to distribute cell phone signals in the U.S.:
- CDMA
- GSM
As it turns out, GSM is far more dangerous because it emits 28 times more radiation than CDMA phones. In the United States, there are two primary CDMA networks: Verizon and Sprint. Most of the others use GSM, but you need to check with your specific carrier to confirm.
Common Sense Tips to Lower Your Cell Phone Risks
While the IARC panel, being a science not policy organization, did not make many specific recommendations to consumers, IARC Director Christopher Wild did take it upon himself to publically state:
"Given the potential consequences for public health of this classification and findings it is important that additional research be conducted into the long-term, heavy use of mobile phones. Pending the availability of such information, it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hands-free devices or texting."
And, Jonathan Samet, leader of the IARC RF-Carcinogenicity working group, of University of Southern California, has said:
"The 2B designation was not limited to cell phones. It has "broad applicability" to all sources of RF radiation" according to Microwave News, something the general news media has not yet zeroed in on.
Keep in mind that completely eliminating exposure is close to impossible. Even if you don't use a cell phone and your home is wireless-free, you can be exposed to microwave radiation from your neighbor's wireless devices or while visiting "hot spots" or traveling near cell phone towers. That said, there's still plenty you can do to minimize your exposure and help safeguard your children's health:
- Children Should Never Use Cell Phones: Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cell phone, or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cell phone radiation than adults, because of their thinner skull bones, and still developing immune and neurological systems.
- Reduce Your Cell Phone Use: Turn your cell phone off more often. Reserve it for emergencies or important matters. As long as your cell phone is on, it emits radiation intermittently, even when you are not actually making a call.
Leave an outgoing message on your phone stating your cell phone policy so others know not to call you on it except in emergencies. - Use a Land Line at Home and at Work: Although more and more people are switching to using cell phones as their exclusive phone contact, it is a dangerous trend and you can choose to opt out of the madness.
- Reduce or Eliminate Your Use of Other Wireless Devices: You would be wise to cut down your use of these devices. Just as with cell phones, it is important to ask yourself whether or not you really need to use them every single time.
If you must use a portable home phone, use the older kind that operates at 900 MHz. They are no safer during calls, but at least some of them do not broadcast constantly even when no call is being made. Note the only way to truly be sure if there is an exposure from your cordless phone is to measure with an electrosmog meter, and it must be one that goes up to the frequency of your portable phone (so old meters won't help much). As many portable phones are 5.8 Gigahertz, we recommend you look for RF meters that go up to 8 Gigahertz, the highest range now available in a meter suitable for consumers.
Alternatively you can be very careful with the base station placement as that causes the bulk of the problem since it transmits signals 24/7, even when you aren't talking. So if you can keep the base station at least three rooms away from where you spend most of your time, and especially your bedroom, it may not be as damaging to your health.
Ideally it would be helpful to turn off or disconnect your base station every night before you go to bed. Levels of microwave radiation from portable phones can be extraordinarily high, according to Camilla Rees.
"Portable phone radiation can be as high or higher than a wireless router, though most people would have no idea that this common device at their bedside could be harmful".
You can find RF meters at www.emfsafetystore.com. But you can pretty much be sure your portable phone is a problem if the technology is labeled DECT, or digitally enhanced cordless technology.
- Limit Your Cell Phone Use to Where Reception is Good: The weaker the reception, the more power your phone must use to transmit, and the more power it uses, the more radiation it emits, and the deeper the dangerous radio waves penetrate into your body. Ideally, you should only use your phone with full bars and good reception.
- Also seek to avoid carrying your phone on your body as that merely maximizes any potential exposure. Ideally put it in your purse or carrying bag. Placing a cell phone in a shirt pocket over the heart is asking for trouble, as is placing it in a man's pocket if he seeks to preserve his fertility.
- Don't Assume One Cell Phone is Safer than Another.There's no such thing as a "safe" cell phone, and do not rely on the SAR value to evaluate the safety of your phone. Always seek CDMA carriers over GSM as they have far lower radiation in their signaling technology. And remember, eliminating cell phone use, or greatly lowering cell phone use from phones of all kinds, is where true prevention begins.
- Keep Your Cell Phone Away From Your Body When it is On: The most dangerous place to be, in terms of radiation exposure, is within about six inches of the emitting antenna. You do not want any part of your body within that area.
- Respect Others Who are More Sensitive: Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others' cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used. If you are in a meeting, on public transportation, in a courtroom or other public places, such as a doctor's office, keep your cell phone turned off out of consideration for the 'second hand radiation' effects. Children are also more vulnerable, so please avoid using your cell phone near children.
- Use Safer Headset Technology: Wired headsets will certainly allow you to keep the cell phone farther away from your body. However, if a wired headset is not well-shielded the wire itself acts as an antenna attracting ambient information carrying radio waves and transmitting radiation directly to your brain. Make sure that the wire used to transmit the signal to your ear is shielded.
The best kind of headset to use is a combination shielded wire and air-tube headset. These operate like a stethoscope, transmitting the information to your head as an actual sound wave; although there are wires that still must be shielded, there is no wire that goes all the way up to your head.
We Can WIN this Battle
This latest development reminds me of the statements made by two famous men: Gandhi, and Arthur Schopenhauer, about the stages all truths must go through before being fully integrated into any society:
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi
All truth passes through three stages.
- First, it is ridiculed.
- Second, it is violently opposed.
- Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
Arthur Schopenhauer We are now entering into the third phase described by Schopenhauer:
Acceptance.
This is the typical transition, and it's not just related to health; it's really related to any principle of truth because truth is something that you really can't suppress for very long. It will eventually surface, and it's exactly what we're now seeing in so many areas.
For example, I was one of the first public figures to recommend and encourage the use of vitamin D because of all of its amazing health benefits, and for years I've sought to dispel the beliefs of many dermatologists and expert medical groups that the sun is dangerous. Nothing could be further from the truth as long as you have reasonable and rational exposure to it. This is one major area where we've already made a huge impact.
Here are four more health challenges that are currently being violently opposed under the current paradigm:
- Water fluoridation
- Genetically modified (GM) food
- Mercury amalgams
- Vaccinations
I address these four issues in the video above, so if you haven't done so already, please listen to it, or read through the transcript.
More Information
Now that we've established safer ways of using your cell phone, I just want to emphasize how excited and delighted I am about this recent announcement from the IARC because it really is a vindication of much of the work that I've been doing. Over the years, I've posted more than 200 articles about this topic.
To learn more, please see my dedicated EMF site.
I highly recommend setting aside an hour to listen to ElectromagneticHealth.org founder Camilla Rees' interview with Karl Maret, MD. With an extensive background in medicine, electrical engineering, and biomedical engineering, Dr. Maret is uniquely qualified to speak on the topic of electromagnetic fields, and he shares some of the most compelling arguments to date on why you must use extreme caution when it comes to cell phones, cordless phones, smart meters and other forms of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).
You can also listen to an important 20-minute speech by Martin Blank, PhD, who spoke at the November 18, 2010 Commonwealth Club of California program, "The Health Effects of Electromagnetic Fields," co-sponsored by ElectromagneticHealth.org. Dr. Blank speaks with deep experience and commanding authority on the impact on cells and DNA from electromagnetic fields, and explains why your DNA is especially vulnerable to electromagnetic fields of all kinds.
An "Elephant in the Room"?
On a final note, Camilla Rees of ElectromagneticHealth.org cautions that while the IARC decision was a true watershed event, especially given IARC's own 13-country Interphone study downplayed brain tumor risk when published last May, with news headlines heralding "No Risk Found", she says:
"This first IARC classification is just the tip of the iceberg. There is a big elephant in the room most people are not seeing.
Microwave radiation emitted by cell phones is the same kind of radiation emitted by other wireless technologies, such as WiFi routers, portable phones, wireless baby monitors and cell towers.
The distinction is that the cell phone has more power at the head, and they operate at different frequencies. But given society is blanketing itself in this radiation at a range of frequencies, and the radiation is known to cause DNA damage, cancer, impaired fertility, cognitive impairment, such as memory changes, interference with learning and wildlife and ecosystem effects, we feel it is urgent that federal research funding be immediately allocated to examining this issue in the broader sense, far beyond the cell phone and brain tumor issue"
Fertility and Other Concerns
Fertility impacts from wireless radiation is one of the issues that is of greatest concern, given the number of people exposed to wireless technologies. Last Fall Rees published a "Letter to Parents on Fertility and Other Risks to Children" discussing these concerns that every parents will want to read.
And this month, Holistic Primary Care, a large circulation magazine for physicians and health practitioners, has published a piece on fertility by Alasdair Philips of Powerwatch entitled "Male Infertility Linked to Cell Phone EMF Exposure" Philips reviews the damage to sperm morphology and motility, fertility, as well as DNA and testicular changes . All men, or parents of a male child, will want to understand the fertility damage now occurring and take steps to create EMF-free environments.
Beyond fertility impairment, Rees says there is grave concern among scientists, such as Dr. Blank, about EMF's impact on our genetic material:
"If we do not look at this subject now, with significant federal resources, the damage occurring to the human species, as well as to animals and nature, may not be reversible. It is important public health officials understand the consequences of their inaction, or slow action, on this urgent public health issue".
Joel Moskowitz, PhD of UC Berkeley and others, as well, have proposed a $1 per year surcharge on cell phones to fund a $300 million federal research fund immediately.
Rees says an immediate step schools should take is to swap out wireless networks and exchange them with hard-wired connections.
"This will lessen long-term damage to our children as well prevent the short-term cognitive difficultiess occurring that impair learning. This investment in our children's health is essential".
Rees, who is founder of ElectromagneticHealth.org is also founder of Campaign for Radiation Free Schools (Facebook).
"What I don't understand", Rees says, "is how a trillion dollar industry could have emerged without our government expressing concern about human exposure to microwave radiation, when we have known for over a half century that microwaves are biologically active. There has been a terrible failure of government here. I hope we can learn from this.
Congress needs to place public safety above commercial interests. We have seen health overlooked in so many areas of society, for example in government support of Big Pharma, Big Telccom, Big Agra, etc.,at the expense of public health, and it is our responsibility as citizens to stand up and let our representatives in Congress understand what we value, and actively vote those representatives in government out of office if they are not concerned with our values and responding to serious public health issues."
Readers can sign the EMF Petition to Congress here
Related Links:
Latest EMF News
European Leaders Call for Ban of Cell Phones and WiFi in Schools
Cell Phones Raise Children's Risk of Brain Cancer 500 Percent
This is an informative, well-documented offering about how one mans' novel cancer treatment has tried to be suppressed because it worked, threatening Pharma and the FDA. At present he is having 50-60% of tumours disappear with his gene-targeted treatment. If patients have had radiation or chemo at dangerous levels previous to receiving his treatment, many autopsies show they die of their side effects, while their bodies are cancer-free from Burzynski's treatment. At present, he is also reporting a better relationship with the FDA.
-ME/CFS Assist
Below article via Mercola.com
Important! The producers of this powerful film are allowing a full and FREE preview through June 13th! Please tell everyone you know to watch this film in it's entirety through June 13, 2011.
Visit the Mercola Video Library
Burzynski, the Movie is the story of a medical doctor and Ph.D biochemist named Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski who won the largest, and possibly the most convoluted and intriguing legal battle against the Food and Drug Administration in American history.
In the 1970’s, Dr. Burzynski made a remarkable discovery that threatened to change the face of cancer treatment forever. His non-toxic gene-targeted cancer medicine could have helped save millions of lives over the last two decades had his discovery not been criminally suppressed by the US government, as his therapy, called “antineoplastons,” have been shown to effectively help cure some of the most “incurable” forms of terminal cancer.
This documentary takes you through the treacherous 14-year journey Dr. Burzynski and his patients have had to endure in order to finally obtain FDA-approved clinical trials of antineoplastons.
His story is yet another testament that fact can be far stranger than fiction, as the film exposes the powerful, unscrupulous forces that work to maintain the status quo of the medical- and pharmaceutical industry at any cost—including the lives of millions of people.
Sources:
Burzynskimovie.com
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski was born in the early 1940's in Poland, and was trained as both a biochemist and a physician. He's spent the last 35 years developing and successfully treating cancer patients suffering with some of the most lethal forms of cancer at his clinic in Houston, Texas.
I recently interviewed Dr. Burzynski about his cancer treatment—a gene-targeted approach using non-toxic peptides and amino acids, known as antineoplastons. Here, I will follow up with a review of his recently released documentary, Burzynski, The Movie.
It's an absolute jaw-dropper...
For anyone who has ever been affected by cancer, either directly or indirectly, the facts presented in this film will hit you like a rude slap in the face.
You will learn that not only did the US Federal government spend 14 years actively suppressing a cancer treatment that had a FAR greater success rate than any other treatment available, they also spent well over $60 million of US taxpayer dollars trying to put the inventor of the treatment in jail in order to steal his patents and either suppress or cash in on his discovery.
This film is an absolute MUST-SEE, as the summary I'm about to present below simply cannot do it justice. It's available for purchase at BurzynkiMovie.com, where you can view the first half-hour for free. The site also contains a large number of video clips, as well as a full transcript of the entire film, along with links to all the documentation presented.
What's so Special about Dr. Burzynski's Treatment?
The story begins back in the early 1970's when Dr. Burzynski discovered that people with cancer lacked a certain peptide, while those who were cancer free had a plentiful supply of it.
This finding eventually led him to create a medical treatment referred to as antineoplastons. The drug contains a mixture of peptides and derivatives of amino acids. These were known to act as molecular switches, but as genome research blossomed and science progressed, Dr. Burzynski discovered they also work as genetic switches, and that is why antineoplastons work so well. They're actually able to turn on cancer suppressing genes, while simultaneously turning oncogenes (cancer genes) off.
As explained in the film:
"Our bodies contain two categories of genes that allow cancer to flourish: oncogenes, and tumor suppressor genes. When someone has cancer, they have a higher level of oncogenes switched on, with a higher level tumor suppressor genes switched off.
The goal is to tell the body to both switch back on the tumor suppressor genes, and turn off as many oncogenes as possible."
While other gene targeting cancer drugs now exist, they're only capable of targeting a small number of specific cancer genes. Antineoplastons, on the other hand, targets a wide spectrum of cancer genes—about 100 of them at once. In a very simplistic way, antineoplastons are to cancer what a broad-spectrum antibiotic is to infectious disease.
Success Rates of Chemo and Radiation versus Antineoplastons
The film features several remarkable case stories of people who were successfully cured of cancer, but it's when the clinical trial data of conventional therapies versus antineoplastons are stacked against each other that the benefits of antineoplastons become really obvious:
Radiation or Chemotherapy Only- -ME5 of 54 patients (9 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
- Toxic side effects
Antineoplastons Only
- 5 of 20 (25 percent) were cancer free at the end of treatment
- No toxic side effects
Tackling Childhood Brain Tumors
Dr. Burzynski was so confident in his antineoplastons that he even accepted the most difficult and "hopeless" cases, such as childhood brain tumors. Conventional medicine has little or nothing to offer in these cases, and the side effects can be as horrific as the disease itself, if not more. Furthermore, the best outcome conventional treatment can offer is to slow down the growth of the tumor.
Using antineoplastons, however, Dr. Burzynski has been able to successfully cure many of these otherwise hopeless cases, such as Jessica Ressel.
She was 11 years old when she was diagnosed with brainstem glioma—an incurable brain tumor. After learning that she would die no matter what toxic drugs and radiation treatments she underwent, the family decided to not put her through it. When they found Dr. Burzynski, they literally had nothing to lose...
Twelve months later—after having initially been told she had but a few months to live, and given no chance of survival at all—MRI's confirmed she was cancer-free. Her brain tumor was completely resolved. Today, Jessica is a healthy 24-year old woman, pregnant with her second child.
Even more interesting, while some of Dr. Burzynski's patients did eventually die after the five-year mark, most who did NOT undergo chemotherapy prior to getting antineoplastons have gone on to live normal, healthy lives—yet another indication that in many cases, the conventional treatments are more lethal than the disease itself.
Side Effects of Chemotherapy Drugs
Here's just a sampling of the side effects of three conventional chemotherapy drugs:
- Doxorubicin (nick-name: Red Death)—leukemia, heart failure, infertility, mouth sores
- Etoposide—leukemia, nerve damage, inability to fight infections
- Cisplatin—kidney damage, hearing damage, nerve damage, infertility
Another chemo drug, Mitotane, which is derived from DDT, is also used for pediatric patients even though no studies have ever been performed to ascertain its safety or effectiveness in children.
Dr. Burzynski's Troubles Begins...
The legal battle Dr. Burzynski found himself embroiled in over his invention is convoluted to say the least. There are many bizarre twists and turns, and I strongly urge you to watch the documentary to fully appreciate what happened.
Dr. Burzynski had tried to get the FDA to review and approve antineoplastons since 1977, to no avail. To make sure he would not get into trouble for using the experimental therapy in his practice, his legal team reviewed federal and Texas state laws, confirming that he was acting within the laws and could use antineoplastons in his own practice "to meet the immediate needs of patients," since he was a licensed physician. Particularly if no other alternatives were available to the patient. He could not engage in interstate commerce, however, so he had to restrict the use of the drug to his home state of Texas.
But word spread, and patients started traveling to his office from out of state.
Suddenly, in 1984, he found out that agents from the Texas board of medical examiners were traveling to patients across the country trying to convince them to file charges against him.
What followed next truly challenges the rational mind.
Texas Board of Medical Examiners Try to Strip Away his Medical License
In 1988, despite not breaking any laws, and having produced more evidence than was required to show that his treatment was effective and that no harm was coming to his patients from it, the Texas medical board charged him with breaking a law that didn't exist, claiming it was grounds for revoking his medical license.
They didn't have a case, but kept the charges going by continuing to file slightly amended complaints, until finally, in 1993, the case went to trial. By then, 60 of Dr. Burzynski's patients had filed a petition for the medical board to stop harassing their doctor—a petition that the board successfully eliminated from the trial by filing a motion to strike it from the record.
Testifying on Dr. Burzynski's behalf, however, was a leading expert from none other than the National Cancer Institute (NCI), Dr. Nicholas Patronas, MD, a board certified radiologist since 1973, and the founder and chief of Neurology at the NCI. Even he recognized the absurdity of the board's case, and put his own career on the line to testify.
The judge ruled in Dr. Burzynski's favor, confirming that no laws had been broken.
You'd think that would be the end of it. But not so in this case. Instead of accepting defeat, the Texas medical board filed charges against Dr. Burzynski with the Texas Supreme Court.
The Method Behind the FDA's Madness
It eventually came to light that the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had pressured the Texas medical board to revoke Dr. Burzynski's medical license—despite the fact that no laws were broken, and his treatment was proven safe and effective.
But WHY?
It's been stated many times that a crime can be solved simply by following the money, and this case is no exception. The FDA and the pharmaceutical industry had realized that if Dr. Burzynski's discovery—which he owned the patent for—received a fair review, chemotherapy and radiation would rapidly dwindle into obscurity, effectively crippling the industry. Not only that, but if antineoplastons were approved, billions of dollars of cancer research funds would get funneled over to one single scientist who had exclusive patent rights...
Dr. Richard Crout, Director of the FDA Bureau of Drugs, once wrote in a 1982 newsletter:
"I never have and never will approve a new drug to an individual, but only to a large pharmaceutical firm with unlimited finances."
It became clear that ever since 1977, when Dr. Burzynski first tried to get antineoplastons approved, the FDA had begun scheming to eliminate the threat he and his discovery posed to the entire cancer industry...
The Harassment Continues Unabated
The FDA, under the direction of Commissioner Dr. David Kessler, called no fewer than FOUR different grand jury investigations into Dr. Burzynski's practice, despite the fact that none of the grand juries ever found him to be at fault, and no indictment ever came from any of the investigations.
But the FDA did not let up.
Finally, in 1995, just days after the final grand jury investigation, which also had found no fault, Dr. Burzynski was inexplicably indicted on charges of fraud, and 75 counts of violating federal law. If found guilty, he now faced 290 years in federal prison, and $18.5 million in fines.
A year later, in a bizarre twist brought about by congressional and public pressure, the FDA agreed to accept all of Dr. Burzynski's patients into a series of 72 FDA-supervised phase 2 clinical trials.
A 1996 article in The Washington Post noted:
"The prosecution marks the first time the FDA has tried to jail a scientist for using a drug on which he is conducting FDA authorized clinical trials."
Federal Government Spent $60 Million Trying to Bury Dr. Burzynski
This second trial cost American tax payers a whopping $60 million just in legal fees alone—that's not counting the cost of continually harassing him (including several raids on his office) and his patients over the preceding 11 years. Dr. Burzynski spent $2.2 million on his own defense, $700,000 of which was raised by Dr. Julian Whitaker through requests for donations in his newsletter Health & Healing.
On March 4, 1997, the judge declared it a mistrial, due to a deadlocked jury. However, after stating the government had not presented sufficient evidence in its case, he ordered that Dr. Burzynski be acquitted of 42 of the 75 counts.
But the FDA wasn't done yet. They took him to court AGAIN!
Third Time's the Charm...
At this point, many were becoming increasingly aware that something very bizarre and unusual was going on. Jurors from the first trial even joined patients in protests outside the court house. One clear-headed juror from the previous trial stated:
"Please don't waste my money abusing the system to make sure that you maintain your power!"
On May 28, 1997, after three hours of deliberation, the jury came back with their final verdict: Not Guilty.
By now you're probably thinking that this victory surely must mark the end of the wrongful harassment of Dr. Burzynski.
But no. It gets worse.
Secret Dealings Hide True Intents
While this ongoing drama unfolded over the course of more than a decade, something even more sinister was taking place behind the scenes, unbeknownst to Dr. Burzynski and his legal counsel.
In 1989, Dr. Burzynski had retained Dr. Dvorit Samid as a research consultant, and she did a lot of work with the antineoplaston ingredients. At the time, Dr. Samid worked at the Uniformed Services Medical School in Baltimore. She later transferred to the National Cancer Institute.
By 1990—while the Texas medical board kept filing one amended complaint after the other against Dr. Burzynski, in an effort to revoke his license—he had decided that the easiest way to keep the government from putting him out of business or in prison, was to partner with a pharmaceutical company. As luck would have it, he'd treated the sister-in-law of the Chairman and CEO of Élan Pharmaceuticals, and Élan eagerly drafted a letter of intent stating they would aggressively pursue the filing of the necessary protocols with the FDA for approval and marketing of antineoplastons.
Dr. Samid began working closely with Élan on the project. But once the financing, licensing agreements and royalties had been negotiated and agreed upon, Élan suddenly changed its tune, stating they had significant doubt as to whether the active substances could be patented, which would render an agreement meaningless.
As it turns out, Élan had instead partnered with the National Cancer Institute (NCI), where Dr. Samid got the position of section chief. They then co-sponsored laboratory research and clinical trials on just one of the antineoplastons' ingredients—an ingredient that Dr. Burzynski had NOT been able to patent due to the fact that it was already known. However, he had also already determined it to be very limited in terms of effectiveness on its own, over a decade ago.
Élan and the NCI spent tens of millions of dollars testing this single ingredient... Not surprisingly, it failed. Dr. Burzynski had already established that the ingredients must be used in combination in order to be effective. After realizing they could not duplicate the effectiveness of Dr. Burzynski's antineoplastons, the NCI finally agreed to conduct his clinical trials under the direction of Dr. Michael Friedman.
Sabotaging Trials—Par the Course for the National Cancer Institute
How do you sabotage a clinical trial?
It's actually easier than you might think. You'll have to watch the film to get all the details, but in summary, the trials were closed prior to completion, and were written off with the statement that "no conclusion can be made about the effectiveness or toxicity of antineoplastons." But it was clear, based on the study data, that seven of the nine patients enrolled received NO antineoplastons whatsoever! The others received dosages that were far lower than recommended.
Adding insult to injury, in 1999, about a year after Dr. Burzynski had been acquitted a third and final time, the NCI published these invalid trials in the medical literature, citing antineoplastons as a complete failure. So sure, Dr. Burzynski was a free man; cleared of all charges and free to practice medicine, but now the National Cancer Institute had effectively undermined the credibility and commercial viability of his medical discovery...
What the film reveals next, truly boggles the mind.
After the National Cancer Institute intentionally violated all protocols of their own antineoplaston trials, and after all state and federal agencies had failed in their 14-year campaign to remove Burzynski from society—after all of the dust settled—a profound truth began to emerge.
Theft and Patent Infringement—All in a Day's Work
In October 1991—while the Texas medical board kept filing amended complaints against him in an effort to revoke his license, due to pressure from the FDA—the National Cancer Institute (NCI) had conducted a site visit to Dr. Burzynski's clinic, and verified that "anti-tumor activity was documented by the use of antineoplastons."
As it turns out, a mere 17 days after this visit, the United States of America as represented by "The Department of Health and Human Services," filed a patent for antineoplastons AS2-1... one of the two antineoplastons Dr. Burzynski had already patented.
The inventor listed?
"Dr. Dvorit Samid," Dr. Burzynski's former research consultant. The patent states:
"The invention described herein may be manufactured, used and licensed by or for the government, for governmental purposes, without the payment to us of any royalties thereon."
Over the next four years, while the witch hunt to put Dr. Burzynski behind bars was in full swing, the US Government filed 10 more patents antineoplastons.
By the summer of 1995, around the time that Burzynski was indicted for fraud and 75 counts of violating federal law, Dr. Michael Friedman—who sabotaged the NCI antineoplastons trials—had left the NCI and become Deputy Commissioner of Operations for the FDA, working directly under FDA Commissioner Dr. David Kessler—the man responsible for dragging Dr. Burzynski in front of no less than four different grand juries a few years earlier.
In November of 1995, a month into Dr. Burzynski's trial, where he faced 290 years in prison, the US Patent office approved the first US Government patent for antineoplastons. Between 1995 and 2000, the US Patent office approved all 11 copycat patents on antineoplastons AS2-1....
Who Pays for Their Crimes?
By now your head is probably spinning, so let's recap.
Dr. Burzynski developed a cancer treatment that surpassed all other treatments on the market, and the FDA, the pharmaceutical industry, and the National Cancer Institute all knew it. They also knew he was the sole owner of the patents for this therapy, and these two facts combined, threatened the entire paradigm of the cancer industry.
The cancer paradigm is based on very expensive machines and toxic drugs. There's an enormous amount of money to be made in this paradigm, and Dr. Burzynski single-handedly threatened to overturn it.
So they tried to copy his invention using a single non-patented ingredient. It failed. The next step was to steal the whole thing right from under him. There was just one problem. They knew they couldn't use the stolen patents as long as Dr. Burzynski walked free and had the ability to defend his rights to them... So they concocted 75 fraudulent charges to tuck him away in jail for the rest of his life.
Fortunately for us, they failed in that too.
Dr. Whitaker sums it up nicely when he says:
"How can the US Patent office be corrupted to the point they issue patents for a medical treatment that's already been patented and issue them to someone who had nothing to do with their discovery or use? And how can the Patent office then assign these fraudulent patents to some of the most powerful institutions in the American government? And, imagine, all of this was done while these same agencies were spending millions of taxpayer dollars trying to put Dr. Burzynski in jail, so he could not fight the criminal theft of his discovery!"
As I said in the beginning, the facts of this case challenge the mind of any sane and rational person, but make no mistake about it: These things did happen, and Dr. Burzynski has all the documentation to back it up.
The US Government did harass and intimidate, and they did try to falsely imprison a brilliant scientist, simply because he'd discovered an effective cancer therapy, while simultaneously engaging in patent infringement.
Now, while this was an enormous personal hardship for Dr. Burzynski, the US Government also, through their enormous greed, in a very direct way prevented millions of cancer patients to receive a non-toxic therapy that could have saved their life. Remember, Dr. Burzynski has been trying to get antineoplastons reviewed and approved since 1977, to no avail. It's absolutely heartbreaking to consider the cost of this criminal behavior in terms of human life, including young children.
The Deadly, But Highly Profitable, Cancer Paradigm
While the stolen patents are filled with useful information about the benefits and efficacy of antineoplastons, one statement in particular sums up the problem with the current cancer paradigm:
"Current approaches to combat cancer rely primarily on the use of chemicals and radiation, which are themselves carcinogenic and may promote recurrences and the development of metastatic disease."
Dr. Burzynski's therapy, as you may recall, is non-toxic, giving patients the option to at least not suffer more grievous harm from the treatment itself, in addition to a significantly greater chance of being cured.
I'm sure that whenever someone donates their hard-earned money or participates in a pink-ribbon walkathon, they believe they're doing a good thing. They believe they're helping fund vital cancer research that will hopefully, some day, find a cure for cancer. Little do they know that much of this money goes toward perpetuating the status quo of cancer treatment, namely highly toxic drugs and expensive machines—the same old paradigm centered around profit.
As of 2010, the National Cancer Institute's annual budget is $5.2 billion. Dr. Burzynski cannot get a single dime of it. All of his research into antineoplastons over the past 35 years has been self-funded.
Think about that for a moment. Not one dime has been funneled toward developing one of the most promising cancer therapies to emerge in the past three decades... Are you still convinced they have your best interest at heart, and are diligently working to "find a cure for cancer".
Related Links:
Cancer Breakthrough: 50-60% Success Rate, Cures the Incurable
The Cancer Treatment So Successful - Traditional Doctors SHUT it Down
Is it Time to Boycott This 'Anti' Cancer Charity?
I agree health consumers need protecting, but in this case, they need protection form the agency that vows to protect them: Quackwatch. After investigating this site, and corresponding with the MD that maintains it, I've found them to be:- pro-FDA
- anti-organics (on many counts, both personal and environmental)
- anti-health food
- anti-supplementation ('we get enough in our diet, even when we eat junk food')
- anti-Traditional Chinese Medicine
- anti many herbal remedies, like Essiac
- pro-FDA daily recommended nutrient allowances
- refusing to regard Environmental Illnesss or Multiple Chemical Sensitivites as anything other than psychosomatic complaints
According to their own 25 criteria on how to spot a quack, I would be labelled as one for making the above statements. Please stay away from this site; it's about 85% bad advice.
A new study is causing fresh doubts about the safety of genetically modified crops. The research found Bt toxin, which is present in many GM crops, in human blood.
Bt toxin makes crops toxic to pests, but it has been claimed that the toxin poses no danger to the environment and human health; the argument was that the protein breaks down in the human gut. But the presence of the toxin in human blood shows that this does not happen.
India Today reports:
“Scientists ... have detected the insecticidal protein ... circulating in the blood of pregnant as well as non-pregnant women. They have also detected the toxin in fetal blood, implying it could pass on to the next generation.”
Sources:
India Today May 11, 2011
Reproductive Toxicology February 18, 2011
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
Cry1Ab, a specific type of Bt toxin from genetically modified (GM) crops, has for the first time been detected in human and fetal blood samples. It appears the toxin is quite prevalent, as upon testing 69 pregnant and non-pregnant women who were eating a typical Canadian diet (which included foods such as GM soy, corn and potatoes), researchers found Bt toxin in:
- 93 percent of maternal blood samples
- 80 percent of fetal blood samples
- 69 percent of non-pregnant women blood samples
Writing in the journal Reproductive Toxicology, the researchers noted:
"This is the first study to reveal the presence of circulating PAGMF [pesticides associated with genetically modified foods] in women with and without pregnancy, paving the way for a new field in reproductive toxicology including nutrition and utero-placental toxicities."
This GM insecticide toxin is already showing up in fetal blood, which means it could have an untold impact on future generations.
Bt Toxin is a Built-In Pesticide
Upwards of 85 percent of U.S. corn crops contain a special gene added that allows them to produce an insecticide. This way, when bugs attempt to eat the corn they're killed right away (specifically their stomach is split open) because the plant contains an invisible, built-in pesticide shield.
The particular gene added to most corn crops is a type of Bt-toxin -- produced from Bacillus thuringiensis bacteria. Genetic engineers remove the gene that produces the Bt in bacteria and insert it into the DNA of corn (and cotton) plants.
They claim that Bt-toxin is quickly destroyed in human stomachs -- and even if it survived, it won't cause reactions in humans or mammals ...
But studies are now showing that this is not the case, as Bt toxin is readily passing into the human bloodstream and animal studies have already shown that Bt-toxin does cause health effects in animals, including potentially humans. As Jeffrey Smith, executive director of the Institute for Responsible Technology, wrote:
"Mice fed natural Bt-toxin showed significant immune responses and caused them to become sensitive to other formerly harmless compounds. This suggests that Bt-toxin might make a person allergic to a wide range of substances.
Farm workers and others have also had reactions to natural Bt-toxin, and authorities acknowledge that "People with compromised immune systems or preexisting allergies may be particularly susceptible to the effects of Bt."
In fact, when natural Bt was sprayed over areas around Vancouver and Washington State to fight gypsy moths, about 500 people reported reactions—mostly allergy or flu-like symptoms. Six people had to go to the emergency room.
… The Bt-toxin produced in the GM plants is probably more dangerous than in its natural spray form. In the plants, the toxin is about 3,000-5,000 times more concentrated than the spray, it doesn't wash off the plants like the spray does, nd it is designed to be more toxic than the natural version.
In fact, the GM toxin has properties of known allergens and fails all three GM allergy tests recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."
GM Insecticide Poisons Also Showing Up in Waterways
Given that Bt toxin has now been confirmed in the human bloodstream, it should come as no surprise that it has also infiltrated the environment. According to one study, 50 of the 217 streams, ditches and drains near cornfields that researchers tested were found to contain Cry1Ab above six nanograms per liter.
The protein is getting into the waterways via corn stalks, leaves, husks and cobs that blow into the water -- a phenomenon that's incredibly common since farmers often leave such material in fields to help minimize soil erosion.
Eighty-six percent of the streams tested contained various corn material with the potential to transmit Bt-toxin into the water. Further, because the study was conducted six months after crops were harvested, it indicates that the GM protein lingers in the environment. Now that this GM toxin is showing up in waterways, it has the potential to devastate aquatic life and continue to spread, uncontrolled and unrestricted, across the entire United States and world.
GM Foods May be Leaving GM Proteins in Your Body
In case it's not clear, I want to reiterate that this new study in Reproductive Technology has confirmed that if you eat GM foods that contain the insecticidal Bt toxin, it appears likely that it will be transferred to your bloodstream.
As I mentioned earlier, as of right now about 85 percent of the corn grown in the United States is genetically engineered to either produce an insecticide, or to survive the application of herbicide. And about 91-93 percent of all soybeans are genetically engineered to survive massive doses of Roundup herbicide.
What this means is that nearly ALL foods you buy that contain either corn or soy, in any form, will contain GM components unless it's certified organic by the USDA.
There's very convincing evidence that eating these genetically modified foods spells nothing but trouble for your health. As Smith discusses in this interview, scientists have discovered a number of health problems related to genetically modified foods in general, however these studies have been repeatedly ignored by both the European Food Safety Authority and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In the only human feeding study ever published on genetically modified foods, seven volunteers ate Roundup-ready soybeans. These are soybeans that have herbicide-resistant genes inserted into them in order to survive being sprayed with otherwise deadly doses of Roundup herbicide.
In three of the seven volunteers, the gene inserted into the soy transferred into the DNA of their intestinal bacteria, and continued to function long after they stopped eating the GM soy.
However, the GM-friendly UK government, who funded the study, chose not to fund any follow up research to see if GM corn -- which contains the BT toxin -- might also transfer and continue to create insecticide inside your intestines. Now the evidence has come through nonetheless, as the study in Reproductive Technology shows that it does transfer, at least to your bloodstream (and the bloodstream of your baby if you're pregnant).
This is extremely concerning, as in this interview Smith also mentions an Italian study where they fed BT corn to mice. As a result, the mice expressed a wide variety of immune responses commonly associated with diseases such as:
- Rheumatoid arthritis
- Inflammatory bowel disease
- Osteoporosis
- Atherosclerosis
- Various types of cancer
- Allergies
- Lou Gehrig's disease
I've gone on record saying that due to the amount of GM crops now grown in the United States, EVERY processed food you encounter at your local supermarket that does not bear the "USDA Organic" label is filled with GM components. So you're eating GM foods, and you have been for the last decade [since 1996], whether you knew it or not. You can thank Congress for this, and the USDA and Monsanto. What ultimate impact these GM foods will have on your health is still unknown, but increased disease, infertility and birth defects appear to be on the top of the list of most likely side effects. How to Say "No" to GMOs If you don't already have a copy of the Non-GMO Shopping Guide, please print one out and refer to it often. It can help you identify and avoid foods with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Also remember to look for products (including organic products) that feature the Non-GMO Project Verified Seal to be sure that at-risk ingredients have been tested for GMO content. You can also download the free iPhone application that is available in the iTunes store. You can find it by searching for ShopNoGMO in the applications. If you're feeling more ambitious, you can also order the Non-GMO Shopping Tips brochure from the Institute of Responsible Technology in bulk and give it to your family and friends. When possible, buy your fresh produce and meat from local farmers who have committed to using non-GM seeds and avoid non-organic processed foods as much as possible, as again these are virtually 100-percent guaranteed to contain GM ingredients. Related Links: GMO Poisons Found in Indiana Waterways
Why Did Officials Approve this Toxic Corn Chip that Creates a ‘Pesticide Factory’ in Your Gut?
Enjoy Pesticides in Every Bite of GMO Food?
Posted By Dr. Mercola | May 24 2011
The 130-page document linked below explains in detail why the American Cancer Society may be far more interested in accumulating cash than curing any disease. The ACS has close ties to the mammography industry, the cancer drug industry, and the pesticide industry.
It is riddled with conflict of interest.
And in fact, according to the report, the ACS has a reckless, if not criminal record on cancer prevention. Over and over again, they have promoted drugs and screening while ignoring environmental causes.
The report states, in part:
"The ACS ... [has] long continued to devote virtually exclusive priority to research on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, with indifference to prevention, other than faulty personal lifestyle, commonly known as 'blame the victim,' ... Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated".
Sources:
Prevent Cancer (pdf)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
The American Cancer Society (ACS) is:
"[A] nationwide community-based voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer through research, education, advocacy, and service."
That sounds all well and good, and a lot of people put their faith in this organization and dutifully participate in its highly publicized National Breast Cancer Awareness Month campaign each year, which includes the widespread promotion of mammography screening.
Little do they realize that the ACS is doing precious little to combat cancer, at best, and may actually hinder real progress, at worst…
Rampant Conflicts of Interest
In the report titled AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY—More Interested In Accumulating Wealth Than Saving Lives, Dr. Samuel S. Epstein, chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition, plainly lays to bare the many conflicts of interest that hamper the effectiveness of this organization.
For example, the ACS has close financial ties to both makers of mammography equipment and cancer drugs. But that's just for starters. Other conflicts of interest include ties to, and financial support from, the pesticide-, petrochemical-, biotech-, cosmetics-, and junk food industries—the very industries whose products are the primary contributors to cancer!
Once you realize that these conflicts of interest are there, it becomes quite easy to understand why the ACS never addresses the environmental components of cancer, and why information about avoidable toxic exposures are so conspicuously absent from their National Breast Cancer Awareness campaigns.
"This is no accident," Dr. Epstein writes. "Zeneca Pharmaceuticals--a spin-off of Imperial Chemical Industries is one of the world's largest manufacturers of chlorinated and other industrial chemicals, including those incriminated as causes of breast cancer.
Zeneca has also been the sole multimillion-dollar funder of the National Breast Cancer Awareness Month since its inception in 1984, besides the sole manufacturer of Tamoxifen, the world's top-selling anticancer and breast cancer "prevention" drug, with $400 million in annual sales.
Furthermore, Zeneca recently assumed direct management of 11 cancer centers in U.S. hospitals. Zeneca owns a 50 percent stake in these centers known collectively as Salick Health Care."
It's no small irony that Tamoxifen has been found to cause cancer and increase risk of death, while several top-notch preventive strategies and many safe and effective cancer treatments are ignored.
The ACS, along with the National Cancer Institute, virtually exclusively focus on cancer research and the diagnosis and the chemical treatment of cancer. Preventive strategies, such as avoiding chemical exposures, receive virtually no consideration at all.
"Giant corporations, which profited handsomely while they polluted air, water, the workplace, and food with a wide range of carcinogens, remain greatly comforted by the silence of the ACS. This silence reflected a complex of mindsets fixated on diagnosis, treatment, and basic genetic research, together with ignorance, indifference, and even hostility to prevention."
"Not surprisingly, the incidence of cancer over past decades has escalated, approximately parallel to its increased funding," Dr. Epstein writes.
Many also do not realize that when they donate money to the American Cancer Society, the majority of it may never go further than the bank accounts of its numerous well-paid executives.
Cancer Recommendations Based on Profit, Not Superior Science and Results
The two major cancer "prevention" strategies that the ACS continuously pushes, regardless of what the science says, are:
- Mammography
- Sun avoidance
Unfortunately, they're DEAD wrong on both accounts. Mammography has been shown to be an avoidable potential cause of breast cancer itself, and sun exposure has in recent years been proven to be essential for the prevention of cancer, including skin cancer. Why would they advocate what could be cancer-promoting behavior?
Follow the money!
"Indeed, despite promises to the public to do everything to "wipe out cancer in your lifetime," the ACS has failed to make its voice heard in Congress and the regulatory arena," Dr. Epstein writes.
"Instead, the ACS has consistently rejected or ignored opportunities and requests from Congress, regulatory agencies, unions, environmental and consumer organizations to provide scientific evidence critical to efforts to legislate and occupational, environmental, and personal product carcinogens."
The Two Myths of Cancer
Dr. Epstein also points out two glaring myths perpetuated by the American Cancer Society:
- Dramatic progress has been made in the war against cancer, and
- Rising cancer mortality statistics are primarily due to smoking and an aging population
Meanwhile, global cancer rates have doubled in the last three decades, and their "war on cancer" strategy completely ignores, and oftentimes denies the obvious links between cancer and toxic exposures through pesticide-laden foods, toxic personal care products, cancer-causing medical treatments and drugs, and industrial pollution.
This despite the fact that we know far more about these influences today than ever before in history—in fact, there is evidence suggesting that cancer is a recent man-made disease caused primarily by toxic overload.
Cancer is on the Rise, and Toxic Chemicals are MAJOR Factors
According to the latest statistics compiled by the American Heart Association, cancer surpasses heart disease as the top killer among Americans between the ages of 45 to 74. The odds are very high that you or someone you know has cancer or has died from it.
Environmental/lifestyle factors are increasingly being pinpointed as the culprits, such as:
Pesticide- and other chemical exposures
Pharmaceutical drugs
Processed and artificial foods (plus the chemicals in the packaging)
Wireless technologies, dirty electricity, and medical diagnostic radiation exposure
Obesity
Stress
Poor sleeping habits
Lack of sunshine exposure and use of sunscreens
Genetics have more or less been ruled out as a primary factor, although diet, lifestyle and toxic exposures have been found to turn genes on or off that contribute to the development and malignancy of cancer.
Still, focusing on research into the genetic underpinnings of cancer along with screening methods that can also cause harm cleverly avoids the obvious, which is finding the underlying contributing factors so that people can avoid them!
The "problem" with that solution is that it would put tremendous financial strain on all the industries that support the ACS…
American Cancer Society has Financial Interests in Mammography
The health risks of mammography have been discussed since the early 1990's when Dr. Epstein began speaking out about them. As for how these misguided mammography guidelines came about,
Epstein has previously said:
"They were conscious, chosen, politically expedient acts by a small group of people for the sake of their own power, prestige and financial gain, resulting in suffering and death for millions of women. They fit the classification of "crimes against humanity.""
As Dr. Epstein points out in his report, ACS' role in the promotion of mammography is far from altruistic as the Society has numerous ties to the mammography industry, which includes but is not limited to:
- Five radiologists have served as presidents of ACS
- ACS commonly promotes the interests of mammogram machine and film manufacturers, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak and Piker
- The mammography industry not only conducts research for the ACS and its grantees, its representatives also serve on ACS advisory boards, and donates considerable funds.
- DuPont, who makes mammogram film, is also a substantial backer of the ACS Breast Health Awareness Program; produces educational films; and aggressively lobbies Congress for legislation promoting the nationwide availability of mammography services.
Unfortunately, what the American Cancer Society is not making clear in their heavy mammography marketing materials are the risks involved, some of which may actually raise your risk of breast cancer, particularly if you follow the ACS' recommended regimen of yearly mammograms starting at the age of 40.
In 2009, revised mammogram guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); a group of health experts that makes preventive health care recommendations based on their review of published research.
They found that the benefits of mammogram screening do not outweigh the risks for women under the age of 50. Therefore, they recommend that women wait to get regular screenings until the age of 50, and only get one every other year thereafter. The ACS did not modify their recommendations however, and still recommend yearly mammograms starting at 40.
There ARE Safer Screening Options
Many still believe that mammography is the only breast cancer screening method out there. This is highly unfortunate, and I urge you to educate yourself and your female friends and family members on this matter.
The reason you may not have heard about this option is because it's not financially tied to the ACS or any other public health agency. It's called thermographic breast screening, and works by measuring the radiation of infrared heat from your body and translating this information into anatomical images.
Thermography uses no mechanical pressure or ionizing radiation—the two factors that can contribute to the creation of breast cancer.
It detects the potential for cancer by imaging the early stages of angiogenesis -- the formation of a direct supply of blood to cancer cells, which is a necessary step before they can grow into tumors of size. This early diagnostic power is yet another major benefit of thermography.
Breast Cancer Prevention Tips
"The verdict is unassailable. The ACS bears a major decades' long responsibility for losing the winnable war against cancer," Dr. Epstein writes.
Reforming the ACS is, in principle, relatively easy and directly achievable. Boycott the ACS. Instead, give your charitable contributions to public interest and environmental groups involved in cancer prevention. Such a boycott is well overdue and will send the only message this "charity" can no longer ignore."
I agree. It's profoundly sad that one of the so-called leaders against cancer simply will not spread the word about the many ways women can help prevent breast cancer in the first place, and ignores research into safer alternative screening methods and treatment of cancer, choosing instead to protect the financial interests of the biggest contributors to the toxic overload that's at the root of this growing problem.
Cancer Advancements that Need to Become Mainstream Knowledge
In the last 30 years the global cancer burden has doubled, and is estimated to nearly triple by 2030. We must begin to take cancer prevention seriously. Three cancer advancements in particular merit special mention. These advancements have not yet been accepted by conventional medicine, and they must be.
Number 1: Radically Reduce Your Sugar Intake—Normalizing your insulin levels is one of the most powerful physical actions you can take to lower your risk of cancer. Unfortunately, very few oncologists appreciate or apply this knowledge today. The Cancer Centers of America is one of the few exceptions, where strict dietary measures are included in their cancer treatment program.
Chronic insulin resistance will cause major damage in your body. The most recognized of these is diabetes, but that is far from the only one. As Ron Rosedale, M.D. said in one of my most popular articles, Insulin and Its Metabolic Effects:
"It doesn't matter what disease you are talking about, whether you are talking about a common cold or cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis or cancer, the root is always going to be at the molecular and cellular level, and I will tell you that insulin is going to have its hand in it, if not totally control it."
The good news is that controlling your insulin levels is relatively straightforward. First, limit your intake of processed foods, grains and sugars/fructose as much as possible to prevent your insulin levels from becoming elevated in the first place.
Number 2: Vitamin D—There's overwhelming evidence pointing to the fact that vitamin D deficiency plays a crucial role in cancer development. Researchers within this field have estimated that about 30 percent of cancer deaths could be prevented each year simply by optimizing the vitamin D levels in the general population. Countless people around the world have an increased risk of cancer because their vitamin D levels are too low due to utter lack of sun exposure...
On a personal level, you can decrease your risk of cancer by MORE THAN HALF simply by optimizing your vitamin D levels with sun exposure. And if you are being treated for cancer it is likely that higher blood levels—probably around 80-90 ng/ml—would be beneficial.
The health benefits of optimizing your levels, either by safe sun exposure (ideally), a safe tanning bed, or oral supplementation as a last resort, simply cannot be overstated. In terms of protecting against cancer, vitamin D has been found to offer protection in a number of ways, including:
- Regulating genetic expression
- Increasing the self-destruction of mutated cells (which, if allowed to replicate, could lead to cancer)
- Reducing the spread and reproduction of cancer cells
- Causing cells to become differentiated (cancer cells often lack differentiation)
- Reducing the growth of new blood vessels from pre-existing ones, which is a step in the transition of dormant tumors turning cancerous
To learn the details on how to use vitamin D therapeutically, please review my previous article, Test Values and Treatment for Vitamin D Deficiency.
Number 3: Exercise—If you are like most people, when you think of reducing your risk of cancer, exercise doesn't immediately come to mind. However, there is some fairly compelling evidence that exercise can slash your risk of cancer.
One of the primary ways exercise lowers your risk for cancer is by reducing elevated insulin levels, which creates a low sugar environment that discourages the growth and spread of cancer cells.
Controlling your insulin levels and optimizing your vitamin D level are two of the most powerful steps you can take to reduce your cancer risk. For example, physically active adults experience about half the incidence of colon cancer as their sedentary counterparts, and women who exercise regularly can reduce their breast cancer risk by 20 to 30 percent compared to those who are inactive.
Additionally, exercise improves the circulation of immune cells in your blood. Your immune system is your first line of defense against everything from minor illnesses like a cold right up to devastating, life-threatening diseases like cancer.
The trick about exercise, though, is understanding how to use it as a precise tool. This ensures you are getting enough to achieve the benefit, not too much to cause injury, and the right variety to balance your entire physical structure and maintain strength and flexibility, and aerobic and anaerobic fitness levels. This is why it is helpful to view exercise like a drug that needs to be carefully prescribed to achieve its maximum benefit.
It's important to include a large variety of techniques in your exercise routine, such as strength training, aerobics, core-building activities, and stretching. Most important of all, however, is to make sure you include high-intensity, burst-type exercise, such as Peak 8. Peak 8 are exercises performed once or twice a week, in which you raise your heart rate up to your anaerobic threshold for 20 to 30 seconds, and then you recover for 90 seconds.
These exercises activate your super-fast twitch muscle fibers, which can increase your body's natural production of human growth hormone. For detailed instructions, please see this previous article.
Additionally it is likely that integrating exercise with intermittent fasting will greatly catalyze the potential of exercise to reduce your risk of cancer and stimulate widespread healing and rejuvenation.
Additional Anti-Cancer Strategies
Additional lifestyle guidelines that will help protect you against cancer include:
- Get appropriate amounts of animal-based omega-3 fats.
- Eat according to your nutritional type. The potent anti-cancer effects of this principle are very much underappreciated. When we treat cancer patients in our clinic this is one of the most powerful anti-cancer strategies we have.
- Eat as many vegetables as you are comfortable with. Ideally, they should be fresh and organic. Cruciferous vegetables in particular have been identified as having potent anti-cancer properties. Remember that carb nutritional types may need up to 300 percent more vegetables than protein nutritional types.
- Have a tool to permanently erase the neurological short-circuiting that can activate cancer genes. Even the CDC states that 85 percent of disease is caused by emotions. It is likely that this factor may be more important than all the other physical ones listed here, so make sure this is addressed. My particular favorite tool for this purpose, as you may know, is the Emotional Freedom Technique.
- Maintain an ideal body weight.
- Get enough high-quality sleep.
- Reduce your exposure to environmental toxins like pesticides, household chemical cleaners, synthetic air fresheners and air pollution.
- Reduce your use of cell phones and other wireless technologies, and implement as many safety strategies as possible if/when you cannot avoid their use.
- Boil, poach or steam your foods, rather than frying or charbroiling them.
Vaccinations are an important consideration for everyone, especially those with ME/CFS. Some severely disabling cases of ME/CFS started with vaccinations (like Lynn Gilderdale's, who was 100% bedridden for almost two decades before finally committing suicide). Vaccinations disrupt the normal functioning of the immune system; an issue that people with ME/CFS already face. They are also implicated in Autism, a neuro-immune disease (like ME/CFS). I cannot tell you what to do regarding your personal choices, though I can tell you to research the issue of vaccination thoroughly before making a decision. And, as always, follow the money and the belief system behind the motivation of vaccine proponents.
-ME/CFS Assist
American prosecutors are attempting to extradite a Danish scientist.
Poul Thorsen has been charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering; a federal grand jury alleges that Thorsen stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008.
Thorsen is said to have used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson. He is said to have stolen the money while serving as the 'principal investigator' for a program that studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines.
The Copenhagen Post reports:
"... [O]ver the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, 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."
Another prominent name in vaccine medicine, Dr. Paul Offit, well-known shill for the vaccine industry, has also been called out for making false and unsubstantiated statements about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report looking into the ties between vaccine supporters and the vaccine industry.
On April 18, 2011, the California Orange County Register issued a retraction of an August 4, 2008 article containing disparaging statements made by Dr. Offit about Attkisson.
According to Adventures in Autism:
"Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false. Attkisson had previously reported on the vaccine industry ties of Dr. Offit and others in a CBS Evening News report 'How Independent Are Vaccine Defenders?'"
The unsubstantiated statements included a claim that Attkisson "lied", and a claim that CBS News sent a "mean spirited and vituperative" email. Offit also told the OC Register that he provided CBS News "the details of his relationship ... with pharmaceutical company Merck", but documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose all of his financial relationships with Merck.
Sources:
Atlanta Journal Constitution April 14, 2011
WKAR Atlanta April 13, 2011
The Copenhagen Post April 15, 2011
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
When two of the biggest names in vaccine research and support turn out to be guilty of fraud, major deception, lying and making unsubstantiated statements, it really calls into question the validity of their work on the vaccine front … and that's putting it mildly.
Yet, this news has only been quietly shared by a handful of media outlets.
Countless American parents are putting their trust, and their child's lives, in the hands of the U.S. Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) every time they vaccinate their children. Yet two of the CDC's "go-to guys" have now been caught red-handed lying and, in the case of Dr. Poul Thorsen, committing outright fraud. This includes:
- Dr. Poul Thorsen, who was involved in several key studies the CDC uses to support their claims that MMR and mercury-containing vaccines, among others, are safe.
- Dr. Paul Offit, a very well-known and frequent proponent of mandatory vaccination, whose views are promoted by the AAP and who previously served as a member of The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). ACIP is a 15-member panel of immunization experts, selected by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. They provide advice and guidelines to the CDC on vaccine-preventable diseases.
CDC Vaccine Researcher Charged with Wire Fraud, Money Laundering and Stealing Grant Money
Dr. Poul Thorsen is most widely known for a 2003 study known as the "Danish Study," which reported there was a 20-fold increase in autism in Denmark after mercury-based preservatives like thimerosal were banned from vaccines. The research team therefore concluded that mercury-containing vaccines were safe.
But the study was actually a masterfully done example of lying by omission, because at the same time the apparent autism increase took place a new law had been put into place in Denmark that required autism cases to be reported on the national level. There was also a new clinic dedicated to autism treatment opened. These two factors were likely the driving forces behind the sudden increase in reported autism cases, but the researchers failed to disclose them.
Despite the obvious ramifications of these omitted "details," the CDC has relied on the Danish Study to "prove" their case that MMR vaccine and mercury are safe for your kids.
Adding fodder to the fire, an investigation by Aarhus University (where Thorsen held a faculty position) and the CDC uncovered that Thorsen had not only falsified documents but was also receiving salaries from two universities (which is a violation of the universities' rules). Then in 2009 Thorsen disappeared amidst serious fraud charges and with nearly $2 million that was supposedly used for research.
Now a federal grand jury in Atlanta has indicted Thorsen and charged him with 13 counts of wire fraud, 9 counts of money laundering and stealing more than $1 million in grant money from the CDC over a four-year period.
It turns out that Thorsen was reportedly submitting fraudulent invoices with fabricated expenses to the CDC, and using the money to purchase cars, a motorcycle, a home and cashier's checks. The Copenhagen Post reported:
"Thorsen helped two Danish government agencies obtain research grants, which amounted to $11 million between 2000 and 2009, whilst he was working as a visiting scientist at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the 1990s.
He returned to Denmark as the 'principal investigator' for the programme, which studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines, allegedly putting him in charge of the administration of the funding.
It is alleged that over the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, 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."
CDC Gives Nearly $15 Million to Thorsen's Research Center
Thorsen's research center, the North Atlantic Epidemiology Alliances (NANEA), has received $14.6 million from the CDC since 2002, according to the Huffington Post. Many of the resulting "research" studies from NANEA have been used to support supposed vaccine safety. As the Huffington Post stated:
"Questions about Thorsens's scientific integrity may finally force CDC to rethink the vaccine protocols since most of the other key pro vaccine studies cited by CDC rely on the findings of Thorsen's research group.
These include oft referenced research articles published by the Journal of the American Medical Association, the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the New England Journal of Medicine and others. The validity of all these studies is now in question."
However, this measure of common sense seems lost on the CDC, who stated in regard to Thorsen's research:
"Dr. Thorsen was one of many co-authors on these research projects. All of these were subject to extensive peer review and we have no reason to suspect that there are any issues related to the integrity of the science."
Paul Offit also Called Out for Lying
Dr. Paul Offit is another pro-vaccine big-wig, the same man who has notoriously stated that infants can tolerate 10,000 vaccines at once.
In 2008, veteran CBS journalist Sharyl Attkisson wrote an article detailing Offit's many ties to the vaccine industry, and noting that Offit failed to inform CBS about exactly how much money he and his employer, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, are paid by Merck, the manufacturer and marketer of numerous vaccines, including Gardasil, hepatitis B, chicken pox, shingles, MMR, and the rotavirus vaccine that Dr. Offit helped invent.
In response, Offit gave Attkisson's article a scathing review and his rebuttal was posted in the Orange County (OC) Register shortly after Attkisson's report ran in the CBS Evening News. Now the OC Register has issued a retraction of Offit's rebuttal, stating:
"An OC Register article dated Aug. 4, 2008 entitled "Dr. Paul Offit Responds" contained several disparaging statements that Dr. Offit of Children's Hospital of Philadelphia made about CBS News Investigative Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson and her report. Upon further review, it appears that a number of Dr. Offit's statements, as quoted in the OC Register article, were unsubstantiated and/or false …
Unsubstantiated statements include: Offit's claim that Attkisson "lied"; and Offit's claim that CBS News sent a "mean spirited and vituperative" email "over the signature of Sharyl Attkisson" stating "You're clearly hiding something." In fact, the OC Register has no evidence to support those claims.
Further, Offit told the OC Register that he provided CBS News "the details of his relationship, and Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's relationship, with pharmaceutical company Merck." However, documents provided by CBS News indicate Offit did not disclose his financial relationships with Merck, including a $1.5 million Hilleman chair he sits in that is co-sponsored by Merck."
A Pattern of False Accusations
Offit seems to have a pattern of falsely accusing people of lying. Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC), sued Offit in 2009 for defamation and also named reporter Amy Wallace and Conde Nast after Offit said "She lies" in an article published by Wired magazine without providing any evidence supporting his baseless accusation.
Fisher asked the Fourth Circuit federal court in Virginia for a jury trial and $1 million in damages but Judge Claude Hilton dismissed the lawsuit primarily on the grounds that both Fisher and Offit are public figures and that, in his opinion, Offit said "she lies" in the heat of spirited public debate.
In Hilton's opinion, Offit's accusation was protected under the First Amendment right to free speech. Attorney Jonathan Emord filed an excellent brief opposing the motion to dismiss that argued there is good evidence that Offit knew exactly what he was doing when he falsely accused Fisher of lying and that libel per se is not protected by the First Amendment.
Fisher stated:
"I was not able to get my day in court in front of a jury of my peers to defend myself against Offit's false accusations. But I am very glad a respected veteran journalist, who Offit tried to defame, has had the public record set straight.
It is never too late to ask for justice or get the record corrected when bullies like Offit engage in a smear campaign against people who disagree with him. It is ironic that in my libel case, the judge said Offit has a right to defame public figures in the spirit of free speech when Offit's real goal is to censor free speech about vaccine risks by demonizing anyone who criticizes vaccine safety."
Offit Named "Vaccine Denialist of the Decade"
Case in point, Offit's new book "Deadly Choices: How the Anti-Vaccine Movement Threatens Us All" attempts to discredit some of the highest profile names that dared to question vaccine safety, including Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, and Barbara Loe Fisher. As the Age of Autism reported, the book:
" … Deride[s] those who have any concerns whatsoever about the safety of the current vaccine schedule. There is plenty of sympathy for parents of children who have died of infectious diseases, but perfunctory dismissal in cases where parents blame vaccines."
Their intriguing article from December 2010 names Offit as the "Denialist of the Decade" and points out numerous questionable omissions and other curiosities from Offit's book, such as not mentioning the fact that the U.S. government concluded childhood vaccines contributed to symptoms of autism in 9-year-old Hannah Poling.
According to Age of Autism:
"Anyone concerned about any of these things fits Offit's definition of anti-vaccine, because vaccines don't cause any of them, because Paul Offit says so ...
Yet Offit himself yields an amazing amount of ground by describing unsafe vaccines -- including early polio shots and a rotavirus vaccine that was the immediate predecessor of his own. His technique is to situate all this as historical, part of the triumphant march of progress into the bright sunshine of vaccine safety."
They make an interesting point in that Offit actually describes historical instances where vaccines were dangerous, yet fails to realize the connection that the same safety issues could be ongoing today. Offit wrote:
"When Barbara Loe Fisher burst onto the scene, several vaccines had serious side effects, every year causing allergic reactions, paralysis, or death. Public health officials and doctors didn't hide these problems. But they didn't do anything to correct them, either. And most parents had no idea they existed."
Despite this acknowledgement, he states that a study involving vaccinated and unvaccinated children to gauge which group is ultimately healthier would be "an entirely unethical experiment."
Mainstream Media Message: Silence Vaccine Critics, Protect Proponents
There also appears to be a pattern of censorship in the mainstream press, which has barely featured the news about Dr. Thorsen's fraud charges and has not carried stories exposing Dr. Ofitt's lies, yet has widely circulated criticism against Dr. Andrew Wakefield, who has investigated the connection between developmental disorders and bowel disease, and early exposure to vaccines.
There are tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars of profits involved in the vaccine industry, and as a consequence there's major pressure to suppress scientific evidence documenting vaccine risks, such as the findings Dr. Wakefield uncovered.
Even Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has tried to censor what the media reports in regard to vaccines. As Age of Autism reported, Sebelius stated:
"There are groups out there that insist that vaccines are responsible for a variety of problems, despite all scientific evidence to the contrary. We (the office of Secretary of Health and Human Services) have reached out to media outlets to try to get them not to give the views of these people equal weight in their reporting."
There is immense pressure to keep negative press -- like the fact Age of Autism reports that Dr. Offit earned at least $29 million, and perhaps as much as $55 million, as part of a $182-million sale by the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia of its worldwide royalty interest in the Merck Rotateq vaccine that Offit helped invent … or the fact that a key player in the autism research the CDC uses to support vaccine safety has been accused of criminal activity -- quiet.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) -- to whom the vaccine industry gives millions for conferences, grants, medical education classes and even to help build their headquarters -- even sent a letter to CBS containing misinformation about NVIC in an attempt to strong arm the network into taking down our Times Square billboard message, which encourages everyone to make informed vaccine choices.
Always Remember This When Seeking the Truth
The truth is, questionable ethical practices have long been associated with the pharmaceutical (including vaccines) industry.
Numerous times in the past 50 years they (and their paid shills) have been accused of falsifying drug study results, paying bribes, covering up or omitting side effects and deaths, and denying responsibility when drugs are pulled off the market or vaccines end up permanently injuring or killing people.
This begs the question, with a track record like this, how can you believe anything they say?
Unfortunately, it is often naïve to trust blindly, even when a prominent figure has earned the respect of his peers and comes complete with a laundry list of credentials (as was the case with Thorsen).
Instead, if you want to stand even a chance of getting the truth, you also have to consider the hidden motivations behind their recommendations and research.
- What do they believe in?
- Where is their loyalty?
- Where is their money coming from?
- What does a company, or an individual, stand to gain financially from a government vaccine mandate?
You've simply got to investigate the source of your information, especially when it comes to your, or your child's, health. And remember too that many pediatricians today listen to the advice of Paul Offit and research studies by Thorsen, so you've got to take that into account when seeking advice, too. Eventually, I do believe that truth will prevail.
Remember the words of German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer who, 200 years ago, said all truth goes through three stages:
- First it is ridiculed
- Then it is violently opposed
- Finally it is widely accepted as self evident
Gandhi also held a similar belief and famously said:
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
The good news is that many issues -- including the right to transparency in vaccine research and safety, and the right to vaccine choice -- are in the Violent Opposition / Fighting phase. As you can see, we know what comes next!
Get instant access to the full Food Matters documentary, on sale now at WebSeed.com:
http://programs.webseed.com/Food_Matters__NN.htm
Some of what you'll learn as you watch the Food Matters documentary:
* How to use food as medicine
* Raw foods, superfoods and nutrition
* Who needs vitamins?
* Is organic better than conventional?
* How safe is our food?
* How the body heals itself
* Foods for depression, anxiety and mental illness
* Natural treatments for lowering cholesterol
* Natural therapies for cancer
* Which Pharma drugs might be causing more harm than good?
* The best ways to detox and remove heavy metals, pesticides and chemicals from your body
... and much more.
Here's what some of the world's top nutrition and health experts say about Food Matters:
"This film lays out the inconvenient truth the food industry doesn't want you to hear - that nearly all degenerative disease is actually caused by the processed, nutrient-depleted food being consumed in first-world nations around the world. 'Food Matters' dares to reveal how we can stop this cycle of destruction and restore true health to ourselves and our planet."
- Mike Adams, the Health Ranger founder of Natural News.com
"James and Laurentine provide a radiant beacon of hope with steps you can do today to take control of your health and begin healing. This is such important information - and much aligned with my personal health philosophies. It's time to get it out to everyone who will listen. I encourage you to order a copy of Food Matters today and watch it with your friends and family."
- Dr Joseph Mercola of Mercola.com
"Food Matters is a must see for those looking to take control of their health."
- John Gray, PhD, NY Times Best Selling Author of Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
"Anyone who is serious about their health needs to see this stunning film."
- Christiane Northrup, MD, author of Mother-Daughter Wisdom, The Wisdom of Menopause and Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom
"Outstanding"
- John Robbins, author of Diet for A New America
"This eye-opening documentary is important to anyone who has ever taken the safety of our nation’s food supply for granted. 'Food Matters' is destined to be a classic."
- Jordan Rubin, NY Times Best Selling Author of The Maker’s Diet
"Food Matters is to getting healthy as The Secret is to becoming wealthy."
- Ed Bauman, Bauman College: Holistic Nutrition and Culinary Arts
"YES! Food Matters! This riveting, inspiring film is a giant step forward in awakening people’s consciousness about what we are putting into our bodies and how we are nourishing ourselves and our planet."
- Alissa Cohen, Author of Living on Live Food
Get instant access to the full Food Matters documentary, on sale now at WebSeed.com:
http://programs.webseed.com/Food_Matters__NN.htm
|
RSS Feed