Posts Tagged Tumor
by: Dr. Mercola
August 7, 2012
This benefit is dubious at best, as there is practically no difference in tooth decay rates between fluoridated and non-fluoridated countries, and no difference between states that fluoridate a high versus low percentage of their water.
Yet, while fluoride in drinking water does NOT decrease rates of tooth decay, numerous studies show that this chemical has a wide array of devastating health effects – one of them being lowered IQ.
Yet Another Study Links Fluoride to Lower IQ Levels
A review of brain studies involving the use of fluoride has concluded that one of the adverse effects of fluoride exposure on children is damage to their neurological development.1 According to the Harvard researchers, children who lived in high-fluoride areas had “significantly lower IQ than those in low fluoride areas,” with the authors noting:
“The results support the possibility of an adverse effect of high fluoride exposure on children’s neurodevelopment.“
This just adds to the growing number of animal and human studies demonstrating the damage fluoride inflicts on your brain, including your pineal gland. The results of one study looking at children’s intelligence in two towns – one with fluoridated water and one without – were particularly revealing, with about 28 percent of the children in the low-fluoride area scoring as “bright, normal or higher intelligence” compared to only 8 percent in the high-fluoride area.2
Further, 15 percent of children in the high-fluoride city had signs of mental retardation, compared with only 6 percent in the low-fluoride city. And the study even accounted for other potential variables, such as lead exposure, iodine deficiency or a history of brain disease or head injury. There have been over 23 human studies and 100 animal studies linking fluoride to brain damage.
by: Anthony Gucciardi
July 26, 2012
If the scientific link between fluoride exposure and a noted decreased in IQ is a conspiracy theory, then perhaps the Harvard researchers who just confirmed such a link should be tarred and feathered by the ‘evidence-based’ medical media. In a telling review of a variety of studies that have demonstrated just how significantly fluoride can damage the brain and subsequently your IQ, Harvard University scientists stated ”our results support the possibility of adverse effects of fluoride exposures on children’s neurodevelopment.”
The most outstanding component to the study is where it was published. Authors published their conclusion online in the July 20th edition of the prominent journal Environmental Health Perspectives, a federal government medical journal stemming from the United States National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The very same government that has continually asserted that water fluoridation is both perfectly safe and ‘effective’ at aiding the health of citizens who consume it on a daily basis.
In the past, the US government has actually been forced to call for lower fluoridation levels as previous research had also drawn a link between fluoride exposure and a host of neurotoxic effects. In the latest research by Harvard, it is made even more explicitly clear just how toxic fluoride can be to the body. In a written statement, researchers state:
“The children in high fluoride areas had significantly lower IQ than those who lived in low fluoride areas.”
Fluoride Lowers IQ, Sparks Tumor Growth
This should come as no surprise to those who have followed fluoride research over the past several years. As far back as 1977, for instance, epidemiological studies performed by the head of the Cytochemistry Section at the National Cancer Institute Dr. Dean Burk revealed that fluoride exposure led to increased tumor growth – even at levels as low as 1 ppm (the standard for United States drinking water). Beyond revealing an accelerated tumor growth rate of 25% in his research, fluoride was found to produce melanotic tumors, transform normal cells into cancer cells and increases the carcinogenesis of other chemicals.
In 1977, Dr. Burk estimated that fluoridation has actually caused about 10,000 deaths according to his research.
It will come as no surprise, then, that even the EPA — an agency charged with protecting the people — has classified fluoride as a substance with ”with substantial evidence of developmental neurotoxicity.” Perhaps the EPA is also run by blubbering conspiracy theorists. In another entry by study authors, it is explained how fluoride actually attacks the brain in unborn children and essentially launches a direct assault on their neurological development:
”Fluoride readily crosses the placenta. Fluoride exposure to the developing brain, which is much more susceptible to injury caused by toxicants than is the mature brain, may possibly lead to damage of a permanent nature.”
But will the United States government answer to the study? As mentioned, many studies have exposed the same correlation of IQ-crushing fluoride intake. Paul Connett, Ph.D. and director of the Fluoride Action Network was one of the many activists to speak out regarding the last study to highlight the association. At the time, there were 23 former studies on the matter, and Connett felt that this 24th study was by far the strongest. And what was done? Unfortunately, it was brushed under the rug by mainstream health organizations who continue to assert that fluoride is perfectly safe. Some even recommend supplementing with fluoride pills.
In regards to the last breaking study, Connett stated:
“In this study we found a significant dose-response relation between fluoride level in serum and children’s IQ…This is the 24th study that has found this association, but this study is stronger than the rest.”
Will the latest Harvard-backed study be ignored by major public health organizations, or will serious change be initiated?
Monday, March 19, 2012
By: Tony Isaacs
[NaturalNews] In a groundbreaking new study just published in the peer reviewed journal Stem Cells, researchers at UCLA’s Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center Department of Oncology found that, despite killing half of all tumor cells per treatment, radiation treatments on breast cancer transforms other cancer cells into cancer stem cells which are vastly more treatment-resistant than normal cancer cells. The new study is yet another blow to the failed and favored mainstream treatment paradigm of trying to cut out, poison out or burn out cancer symptoms (tumors) instead of actually curing cancer.
Senior study author Dr. Frank Pajonk, associate professor of radiation oncology at the Jonsson Center, reported that induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSC) “were generated by radiation-induced activation of the same cellular pathways used to reprogram normal cells into induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) in regenerative medicine.” Pjonk, who is also a scientist with the Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regenerative Medicine at UCLA, added “It was remarkable that these breast cancers used the same reprogramming pathways to fight back against the radiation treatment.”
In the new study, Pajonk and his team irradiated normal non-stem cell cancer cells and placed them into mice. Through a unique imaging system, the researchers observed the cells differentiate into iBCSC in response to radiation treatments. Pjonk reported that the newly generated cells were remarkably similar to non-irradiated breast cancer stem cells. The team of researchers also found that the radiation-induced stem cells had a more than 30-fold increased ability to form tumors compared with non-irradiated breast cancer cells.
Despite mounting evidence, mainstream medicine clings to surgery, chemo and radiation and ignores natural solutions
Despite all the billions of dollars spent on cancer, the 40 year “war on cancer” has been a losing one by any honest evaluation. One hundred years ago, anywhere from 1 in 50 to perhaps 1 in 100 people could be expected to develop cancer. Now it is estimated that 1 in every 2 men and 1 in every 3 women will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetimes. Despite more people around the world developing cancer and dying from cancer every year, mainstream medicine continues to cling to failed treatments which more often than not fail to eliminate the cancer and help cancer spread and return more aggressively than ever. Notably, two of the three major mainstream cancer treatments – radiation and chemo – are themselves highly carcinogenic.
One might think that the new study provided ample reasons to rethink using radiation. However, the study authors looked at the results as an opportunity to continue and enhance the use of radiation by finding ways to control the cell differentiation. What the scientists failed to note is that natural alternatives have already been found which prevent the development of cancer stem cells.
As just one example, Natural News reported in May 2010 that a University of Michigan study had found a compound in broccoli and broccoli sprouts which had the ability to target cancer stem cells. See:
The researchers failed to note how cancer cells fought against unnatural treatments. They also failed to take into account the mounting evidence that the best way to beat cancer as well as avoid it is to build and enhance our natural first line of defense – our immune system.
The safest and most effective way to enhance the natural immune system and fight cancer in general is by working with nature. It is also by far the least expensive way, and therein likely lies the rub. You can’t patent and profit from nature like you can with mainstream drugs and treatments.
Note: Neither NaturalNews nor this author condone the inhumane use of animals in medical studies.
Other sources included:
One of the main reasons I have created this blog at the suggestion of many friends is in order to help other’s protect their health as I had people help mine, while also allowing it to thrive thereafter. I do post about many other topics, as I believe in spreading awareness while increasing the foundation of knowledge that one currently has. Yet, spreading awareness about the dire chemicals and dangerous additives added to our foods is very important to me. This is due to very serious health issues I have had to endure for over a decade. One of the facts I have learned conducting research is that Aspartame is, by far, the most dangerous substance on the market that is added to foods. I myself and many others have become healthier by avoiding this Neurotoxin.
I implore you, to be proactive. I do not ask you to believe me, I just urge you to do your own due diligence. There is extensive information out there, and a plethora of articles about Aspartame and its dangers.
Keep in mind, some of the 92 documented side effects of Aspartame are migraines, dizziness, birth defects, seizures, nausea, numbness, muscle spasms, weight gain, rashes, depression, fatigue, irritability, cause cancer, tachycardia, insomnia, vision problems, hearing loss, heart palpitations, breathing difficulties, anxiety attacks, slurred speech, loss of taste, tinnitus, vertigo, memory loss, and joint pain.
Friday, March 09, 2012
By: Aurora Geib
[NaturalNews] The laws governing the sale of drugs and food additives require substances be safe for human consumption. The artificial sweetener aspartame primarily consumed in beverages and as a popular sugar substitute has consistently been found to cause tumors and brain seizures in animal subjects. In 2005, a European Cancer Research Center, the Ramazzini Foundation, called for an urgent re-examination of aspartame in food and beverages to protect children. This call is made in the face of the US FDA stand that aspartame is safe for human consumption on the ground that “aspartame as a carcinogen is not supported by data.”
Aspartame: A brief history
As early as 1960 aspartame was determined to be a dangerous chemical and the emerging research years later only served to affirm the true nature of this artificial sweetener. Over the years, aspartame has been found to create holes in brain tissue, adversely affect the brain and nerve development in the fetus, cause cancer, migraines, headaches, seizures, convulsions and even retinal damage. With this amount of negative findings, aspartame should have been removed from the market years ago!
Ironically, aspartame was indeed removed from the market after it was already approved for limited use based on tests selected by Searle, the company who originally produced the artificial sweetener. This was after Dr. John Olney, a research psychiatrist from Washington School of Medicine, revealed that consumption of aspartic acid, a major ingredient in aspartame, produced holes in the brains of animal subjects.
After two task forces that found questionable laboratory practices as well as findings, the FDA ordered a grand jury investigation of aspartame studies, but lawyers for the government failed to initiate a legal action against Searle. Time ran out, and the grand jury investigation had to be terminated. Of interest to note was that one of the lawyers for the government, U.S. attorney William Conlon, later joined the law firm representing Searle.
Unfazed by this setback, the FDA this time recommended a Public Board Inquiry which recommended that aspartame be kept off the market until further tests could prove that it did not cause tumors. This led to a formation of another team of experts brought together to look into the Public Board of Inquiry’s conclusions. This team found itself in a deadlock over aspartame approval, causing the FDA Commissioner not to approve aspartame this time.
In April 1981, Dr. Arthur Hayes was appointed the new Commissioner for the FDA and he later approved aspartame for use in dry goods. In 1983, he also approved aspartame for use in diet drinks, conveniently leaving months later to work for Searle’s advertising agency.
Warning to aspartame consumers
We can only guess and read between the lines what kind of politics it took to get aspartame approved. After more than 8,000 complaints on Nutrasweet side effects, a list of symptoms attributed to aspartame from complaints submitted to the FDA was made public. This list included among others: hallucinations, diarrhea, seizures, depression, migraine, fatigue and insomnia. Aspartame has also been linked to tumors, cancer and infertility.
Except for a brief declaration that carefully controlled clinical studies showed aspartame is not an allergen, the FDA merely issued an advisory that products containing aspartame must include a warning to phenylketonurics, people sensitive to the compound phenylalanine. It still continues to adhere to its stand that “aspartame as a carcinogen is not supported by data.”
Aspartame was never tested on humans before its approval. Now, it is found in 6,000 products and consumed by more than 250 million people, with Americans consuming around half of the world supply. By default, we have now become the test subjects for aspartame’s safety. Unwittingly we are providing evidence to aspartame’s toxicity through the devastating effects it is slowly producing among its consumers. The list of complaints submitted to the FDA as well as from anecdotal reports does not seem to end anytime soon. If the government chooses to turn a blind eye on aspartame, let us at least choose not to be a willing conspirator and suffer the consequences of being a willing victim.
Monday, February 27, 2012
By: Jonathan Benson
[NaturalNews] Did you know that vaccinating your cat with the typical, recommended feline vaccination schedule may lead to your furry friend developing cancer? In a recent article published in The Ledger, Karri Miller, Central Florida’s only full-time board certified veterinary oncologist, admits that inflammation caused by vaccines can cause some cats to develop cancer years down the road — and yet she still recommends that people have their pets vaccinated.
A telling admission about the serious risks associated with vaccines, Miller’s report highlights the fact that at least one out of every 10,000 cats develops “vaccine-associated sarcomas” as a result of getting vaccinated. Whether it is the mandatory rabies vaccine, or the host of other viral and bacterial vaccines commonly administered to felines, vaccinated cats admittedly have an increased risk of developing cancer in response to the injections.
Vaccine task force says keep injecting cats with cancer-causing vaccines, but do so in spots that will be easy to remove tumors later
The issue has become so serious, in fact, that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) developed a “Vaccine-Associated Feline Sarcoma Task Force” (VAFSTF) back in 1996 to keep track of the prevalence of the condition, and to investigate ways to help mitigate and prevent it. Besides simply not vaccinating cats at all, the only thing this task force has really come up with so far as a solution is to simply inject vaccines in different spots on cats’ bodies so that, should a tumor end up developing there, it will be easy to treat it with surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation (http://www.avma.org/vafstf/sitercmnd.asp).
In other words, vaccines will continue to cause cancer in cats, so the best way, in these experts’ minds, to address the problem is to inject vaccines in areas that will be easier for surgeons to access in the event that they have to remove a tumor at the site. Never would these experts caution cat owners against getting the harmful vaccines in the first place, of course, or at the very least reduce the number of vaccines they choose to get for their cats.
In her article, for example, Miller actually suggests that cat owners continue to get their cats vaccinated with whatever vaccines their veterinarians recommend because “[t]he risk of developing a tumor from a vaccine may be much less than your cat catching a deadly virus that could have been prevented with a vaccine,” in her opinion. And if your cat does get cancer, Miller, of course, recommends surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy as appropriate treatment.
However, according to Dr. Don Hamilton, a veterinary homeopath in New Mexico, most pet vaccines are largely useless anyway because they cause “at least as much illness as they have ever prevented.” In many cases, he says, vaccines simply do not offer the protection their advocates claim they do, and they typically weaken pets’ immune systems and create more chronic illness than if those pets were allowed to simply develop their own natural immunity through proper nutrition (http://www.holisticat.com/vaccinations.html).
Monday, February 06, 2012
By: John Phillip
[NaturalNews] Colon cancer is the third leading cause of cancer deaths annually, a statistic that remains constant despite increased awareness of the deadly disease. Researchers from the Science and Technology Institute of Food and Nutrition in Spain have published the result of a study in the journal Molecular Nutrition & Food Research detailing the potent anti-carcinogenic effect of the natural chocolate compound, cocoa. Scientists determined for the first time that regular consumption of cocoa negates the inflammatory effect of digestive oxidative stress that results in intestinal complaints and is a precursor to the genesis of colon cancer. Cocoa is now considered a superfood as it has been shown to improve blood lipids and help prevent cardiovascular disease in past research. The result of this current study demonstrates that a daily dose of the compound can help prevent colon cancer progression.
Researchers studied rats that had been fed a cocoa-rich diet consisting of twelve percent cocoa, as compared to a control group that received the same diet with the chocolate compound enrichment. Both groups were exposed to a chemical known to induce colon cancer. Animals such as mice and rats have been used for decades to conduct this type of research because they exhibit a similar line of carcinogenesis that is comparable to humans.
Cocoa polyphenols from dark chocolate significantly lower colon cancer risk
The study leader, Dr. Maria Angeles Martin Arribas noted “Being exposed to different poisons in the diet like toxins, mutagens and pro-carcinogens, the intestinal mucus is very susceptible to pathologies…foods like cocoa, which is rich in polyphenols, seems to play an important role in protecting against disease.” After a period of eight weeks, the scientists were able to confirm the protective effect of cocoa polyphenols in protecting against this insidious form of digestive cancer.
The study results showed a marked decrease in the number of pre-malignant neoplastic crypts in the lining of the colon in the cocoa-treated group as compared to the control animals. Further, the researchers found a rise in antioxidant defenses in the supplemented rats and a decrease in oxidative stress biomarkers that are known to be protective against chemical exposure and the prevention of colorectal cancer.
The team concluded that the protective effect of the bioactive compounds in cocoa stopped cell-signaling pathways that typically promote cell proliferation and lead to tumor development. The treated animals also exhibited a much higher degree of apoptosis, or normal programmed cell death of potentially cancerous tissues. It is important to note that milk chocolate is not a good source of cocoa due to its low concentration of the polyphenol and high sugar content, known to promote cancer. Choose a dark chocolate with a minimum 70 percent cocoa content to significantly lower the risk associated with colorectal cancer.