GOVERNMENT STUDY FINDS ‘CLEAR EVIDENCE’ FOR HEART TUMORS FROM CELLPHONE RADIATION

Dr. MercolaGuest
Waking Times

Cellphones were classified as a Group 2B “possible carcinogen”1 in 2011 by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), an arm of the World Health Organization and the global gold standard for the classification of toxins.

This classification was based on evidence showing that nonionizing electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation from cellphones can trigger abnormal cell growth and tumors.2,3 In my view, this is a mistake and, just like smoking, I am confident it will be recategorized in the future to a 1A carcinogen.

Earlier this year, preliminary findings of two government-funded animal studies4 were published that further support the notion that cellphone radiation has carcinogenic potential.

The finalized report5 of these two studies — conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP), an interagency research program under the auspices of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences — was released November 1, 2018. While the preliminary report released in February 2018 significantly downplayed the findings, subsequent peer review upgraded the findings of risk.

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Brain and Heart Tumors

The NTP rates cancer risk based on four categories of evidence: “clear evidence” (highest); “some evidence;” “equivocal evidence;” and “no evidence” (lowest). According to the NTP’s final report, the two studies, done on mice and rats of both sexes, found:6

Clear evidence for heart tumors (malignant schwannomas) in male rats. These types of tumors started developing around week 70, and are very similar to acoustic neuromas found in humans, a benign type of tumor that previous studies have linked to cellphone use

Some evidence of brain tumors (malignant gliomas) in male rats. Glial cell hyperplasias — indicative of precancerous lesions — began developing around week 58.

(Incidentally, incidence of glioblastoma multiforme (the deadliest type of brain tumor) more than doubled in the U.K. between 1995 and 2015.7,8 According to the authors of the analysis, the dramatic increase is likely due to “widespread environmental or lifestyle factors,” which would include cellphone usage)

Some evidence of adrenal gland tumors in male rats, both benign and malignant tumors and/or complex combined pheochromocytoma

Equivocal or unclear evidence of tumors in female rats and mice of both genders

The studies also found evidence of:

Low body weight in female rats and newborns exposed to high levels of radiation during pregnancy and lactation

DNA damage and damage to heart tissue in exposed male and female rats, but not mice

Prostate, liver and pancreatic tumors in both rats and mice

Are Humans at Risk?

According to The New York Times:9

“‘We believe that the link between radio-frequency radiation and tumors in male rats is real,’ John Bucher, a senior scientist at the National Toxicology Program, said in a statement.

But he cautioned that the exposure levels and durations were far greater than what people typically encounter, and thus cannot ‘be compared directly to the exposure that humans experience’ …

The lowest level of radiation in the federal study was equal to the maximum exposure that federal regulations allow for cellphone users … The highest level was four times higher than the permitted maximum.”

While the NTP insists the exposure — nine hours a day for two years, which is the lifetime of a rodent — is far more extensive than that of heavy cellphone users, I would strongly disagree, seeing how many, especially the younger generation, have their cellphones turned on and near their body 24/7.

Many are literally sleeping with their phone beneath their pillow. What’s more, cellphones are not the sole source of radiofrequency (RF) EMFs. Wi-Fi and Bluetooth-enabled tablets, computers, smart TVs, wireless baby monitors, cordless phones, smart appliances, smart meters and nearby cellular phone basestations are sources of similarly harmful radiation, and most of us are exposed 24/7. So, my guess is that the duration of RF-EMF exposure is actually far greater than the one tested in the study.

Did NTP Minimize Press Coverage of Their Report?

According to Microwave News, the NTP may have purposely minimized press coverage of its final report, which upgraded the risks. “Reporters were given very little notice to join the NTP teleconference on the release of the report. Nor was there much time to prepare a story for publication,” Microwave News reports,10 adding they were not informed of the teleconference via email until 10:45 a.m. October 31.

The conference was held at 2 p.m. that same day. While NTP refused to state how many reporters were on the call, the transcript reveals only eight reporters asked questions, giving the impression that many likely missed the advisory. Editors also had precious little time to assign a reporter to cover the story. Microwave News adds:

“The news that the NTP now believes the cancer link is “real” was under embargo until the next day, November 1. That gave the news media less than 24 hours to prepare their stories, an unusually short time for a technically complex subject. The main reason for embargoes is to give reporters time to do their homework and prepare a clear and accurate write-up …

Even the fact that the report was coming out in less than a day was embargoed by the NTP. It apparently wanted no advance notice of any kind … There was one exception among major media outlets: The New York Times … As it happened, [William] Broad, a long-time member of the science desk, was already working on the story. He was making background calls a week earlier …

There’s a long history of New York Times science reporters — Broad included — downplaying, if not outright dismissing, news of electromagnetic health effects. Anyone wanting to conceal the fact that NTP had found ‘clear evidence’ that cellphone radiation could lead to cancer would likely leak the story to the Times. And the Times delivered.

Here’s the headline from its web site: ‘Study of Cellphone Risks Finds ‘Some Evidence’ of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats’ … [T]here is the obvious error in the headline: NTP found more than ‘some evidence’ — it saw ‘clear evidence’ … The subhead … ‘Many Caveats Apply, and the Results Involve Radio Frequencies Long Out of Routine Use,’ offers additional — unjustifiable — reasons to discount the NTP finding.”

The New York Times also claims the results are out of date due to the fact they used 2G, which is no longer in widespread use, and that 3G, 4G and 5G are “far less successful at penetrating the bodies of humans” due to the higher frequencies. However, there’s no evidence to suggest the newer technologies are safer. Quite the contrary. As noted by Microwave News:

“Two different German labs have exposed mice to 3G. Cancer promotion was found in each case. The lead author of the second study, Alex Lerchl, concluded that 3G signals ‘obviously enhance the growth of tumors’ … The fact is that we don’t know whether the higher G’s are any safer than 2G. Believing so is simply wishful thinking.”

The NTP also downplayed the risks by stressing that “high exposure” was associated with cancer in male rats, when in fact the results in some instances revealed a greater effect at a lower dose.

Such nonlinear dose response was also found in Lerchl’s study, in which a dose 50 times lower than the highest dose resulted in a greater response. “At this point, one can only guess where the threshold for RF effects may be. It could be lower than now commonly believed, possibly much lower,” Microwave News notes.

Why Evidence of Rodent Schwannomas Could Spell Trouble for Human Health

As explained by Louis Slesin, Ph.D., editor and publisher of Microwave News, the increased incidence of schwannomas in rodents exposed to radiofrequencies is of great concern for public health:11

“Schwann cells play a key role in the functioning of the peripheral nervous system. They make the myelin sheath, which insulates nerve fibers and helps speed the conduction of electrical impulses. There are Schwann cells just about everywhere there are peripheral nerve fibers. They are present in most organs of the body — whether mice, rats or humans.

Schwann cell tumors are called schwannomas. The NTP found schwannomas in many other organs, in addition to the heart, of rats chronically exposed to cellphone radiation. These included a variety of glands (pituitary, salivary and thymus), the trigeminal nerve and the eye … The NTP also saw schwannomas in the uterus, ovary and vagina of female rats.

The brain has no Schwann cells — the brain is part of the central nervous system. There, glial cells play a similar function. In fact, Schwann cells are a type of glial cell … Tumors of the glial cells are called gliomas. The NTP also saw an increase in glioma among the male rats exposed to GSM and CDMA radiation …

While schwannomas and gliomas are commonly noncancerous tumors, they can develop into malignant schwannomas or glioblastomas … The implication is that instead of searching for consistency in radio frequencies’ ability to cause cancer in specific organs, the emphasis should now be on specific cell types — beginning with Schwann cells in the periphery and glial cells in the brain.”

Mitochondrial Dysfunction Is the Primary Hazard of Cellphone Radiation

In my view, the primary hazard of cellphone radiation is not brain cancer per se but rather systemic cellular and mitochondrial damage,12,13,14,15 which can contribute to any number of health problems and chronic diseases. The process begins when low-frequency microwave radiation activates voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs)16 — channels in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, the VGCCs open up, allowing an abnormal influx of calcium ions into the cell. This increased intracellular calcium and the accompanying increase in calcium signaling appears to be responsible for a majority of the damage that occurs. This is reviewed in more detail in my interview with professor Martin Pall below.

For example, excess calcium activates nitric oxide, and while nitric oxide has many health benefits, massively excessive nitric oxide reacts with superoxide to produce peroxynitrites — extremely potent oxidant stressors.17 Peroxynitrites in turn:

  • Can cause single-strand DNA breaks18
  • Modify tyrosine molecules in proteins to create nitrotyrosine and nitration of structural protein.19Changes from nitration are visible in human biopsy of atherosclerosis, myocardial ischemia, inflammatory bowel disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis and septic lung disease20

This pathway of oxidative destruction — triggered by low-frequency radiation emitted from mobile devices — may partially explain the unprecedented growth rate of chronic disease since 1990,21 and is a far greater concern than brain tumors.

Heart Problems, Neurological Disorders and Infertility Are Risks of EMF Exposure

While an estimated 80,000 U.S. men, women and children are diagnosed with a brain tumor each year,22 another 787,000 people die from heart disease.23 So, while the relative rarity of brain cancer may lead you to believe that cellphone use is safe, that’s only because you’re looking at a less prevalent outcome.

Cellphone radiation has also been shown to have a significant impact on neurological and mental health,24 contributing to and/or worsening anxiety, depression and dementia, for example, and all of these conditions are rampant and growing more prevalent. (This also makes sense as brain dysfunction will occur much faster than a tumor, which can take decades.)

Research also suggests excessive EMF exposure is contributing to reproductive problems. For example, researchers have found prenatal exposure to power-frequency fields can nearly triple a pregnant woman’s risk of miscarriage.25

According to lead author and senior research scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research division, Dr. De-Kun Li,26 “This study provides fresh evidence, directly from a human population, that magnetic field exposure in daily life could have adverse health impacts,” adding his findings “should bring attention to this potentially important environmental hazard to pregnant women.”

According to Li, there are at least six other studies, in addition to two of his own, showing this link.27,28,29,30,31 EMF exposure may also play a significant role in testicular cancer and male infertility.

Studies have linked low-level electromagnetic radiation exposure from cellphones to an 8 percent reduction in sperm motility and a 9 percent reduction in sperm viability.32,33 Wi-Fi equipped laptop computers have also been linked to decreased sperm motility and an increase in sperm DNA fragmentation after just four hours of use.34

US Food and Drug Administration Stands Firm on Cellphone Safety

NTP’s final report has now been given to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the two agencies involved in the regulation of cellphones and assessment of health risks. Unfortunately, the FDA appears unwilling to change its stance on cellphone safety.

This is no surprise as the telecommunication industry has far more political lobbying influence than Big Pharma and Big Food combined. To expect anything other than full support for the telecommunication industry would be irrational.

In a November 1 press statement, Dr. Jeffrey Shuren, director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, reaffirmed the agency’s position, saying:35

“The Food and Drug Administration is charged with ensuring cellphones — and any radiation-emitting electronic product — are safe for the public to use. Our scientific expertise and input, along with other health agencies, are used by the [FCC] to set the standards for exposure limits of radiation from cellphones, called radiofrequency energy …

We reviewed the recently finalized research conducted by our colleagues at the [NTP] … [W]e disagree, however, with the conclusions of their final report regarding ‘clear evidence’ of carcinogenic activity in rodents exposed to radiofrequency energy.

In the NTP study, researchers looked at the effects of exposing rodents to extremely high levels of radiofrequency throughout the entire body. This is commonly done in these types of hazard identification studies and means that the study tested levels of radiofrequency energy exposures considerably above the current whole body safety limits for cell phones … [T]hese findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage.

NTP hosted a three-day peer review of this study in March, as part of their normal process for issuing scientific reports … which included an assessment of the study methods and data by a panel of 15 peer reviewers to determine the basis of evidence for the final report.

Based on their assessment, the panel voted to upgrade the conclusions from some evidence to clear evidence for malignant heart schwannomas in male rats, and from equivocal (ambiguous) to some evidence for malignant gliomas of the brain and benign tumors of the adrenal gland in male rats. It’s important to note that the vote does not mean new data or findings were reported in the final assessment …

Based on our ongoing evaluation of this issue, the totality of the available scientific evidence continues to not support adverse health effects in humans caused by exposures at or under the current radiofrequency energy exposure limits. We believe the existing safety limits for cellphones remain acceptable for protecting the public health.”

NTP Findings Have Already Been Reproduced, and at Power Levels Below FCC Limits

While the FDA insists it “must thoroughly evaluate and take into consideration the totality of the data, and do so within the context of the complete body of evidence rather than drawing conclusions from the results of a single study,” it fails to address the elephant in the room, which is the corroborating evidence published by the Ramazzini Institute just one month after the NTP released its preliminary report in February 2018.

The Ramazzini study36 reproduces and clearly supports the NTP’s findings, showing a clear link between cellphone radiation and Schwann cell tumors (schwannomas)37,38,39 — but at a much lower power level than that used by NTP.

While NTP used radiofrequency (RF) levels comparable to what’s emitted by 2G and 3G cellphones(near-field exposure), Ramazzini simulated exposure to cellphone towers (far-field exposure). Ramazzini’s rats were exposed to 1.8 GHz GSM radiation at electric field strengths of 5, 25 and 50 volts per meter40 for 19 hours a day, starting at birth until the rats died either from age or illness.

To facilitate comparison, the researchers converted their measurements to watts per kilogram of body weight (W/kg), which is what the NTP used. Overall, the radiation dose administered in the Ramazzini study was up to 1,000 times lower than the NTP’s — and below the U.S. limits set by the FCC — yet the results are strikingly similar.

As in the NTP studies, exposed male rats developed statistically higher rates of heart schwannomas than unexposed rats. They also found some evidence, although weaker, that RF exposure increased rates of glial tumors in the brains of female rats.

The fact that the Ramazzini study used a radiation dose well below FCC limits yet still reproduced the NTP’s findings of cancer really weakens the FDA’s claims of safety.

Feeling Lonely Or Depressed, Then Limit Social Media Time Per New Study

Source: Activist Post

By Catherine J. Frompovich

One of the ‘things’ that figuratively blows my mind is how anyone can spend so much time on social media networks, ostensibly interacting with once-removed humans!  The lack of real, one-on-one personal interaction is missing, regardless of what social media addicts think.

More and more, younger generations apparently are devoid of real, in-person social interactions and may not realize the impact that form of communication has upon their mental health and overall wellbeing.  Scientists, and others, are beginning to understand the ramifications of such behaviors as ‘not normal’ due to the unhappy, negative feelings social media participation apparently creates within certain individuals.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania decided to study social media FOMO, “the fear of missing out” and published their findings/results in the December 2018 issue of the Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology.  Here’s the 18-page PDF for that study titled “NO MORE FOMO: LIMITING SOCIAL MEDIA DECREASES LONELINESS AND DEPRESSION,” which I’d like to encourage everyone to read and take seriously, since there are too many “triggers” inducing various forms of mental illness in today’s digital world.

As the Conclusion of the above article says,

[….] Our study is the first ecologically valid, experimental investigation that examines multiple social media platforms and tracks actual usage objectively. The results from our experiment strongly suggest that limiting social media usage does have a direct and positive impact on subjective well-being over time, especially with respect to decreasing loneliness and depression. That is, ours is the first study to establish a clear causal link between decreasing social media use, and improvements in loneliness and depression. It is ironic, but perhaps not surprising, that reducing social media, which promised to help us connect with others, actually helps people feel less lonely and depressed.

All 143 participants [108 women, 35 men] in the study were required to have the following social media contacts: Facebook, Instagram and Snapchat accounts, and to own an iPhone.

The subject pool consisted of students enrolled in psychology courses for which they could participate in studies to earn course credit.

For years medical science has realized a form of depression that results as Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD), an emotional reaction to lack of and decreased sunlight during winter months.  Now, in the digital age, my opinion as a retired healthcare professional prompts me to rethink what medical science—and mental health services, in particular—need to consider: the impact of electromagnetic frequencies (EMFs/RFs) emitted in Gigahertz (GHz) bandwidths by the devices social media fans use to ‘connect’.  Those frequencies can contribute to what’s medically called IEI (idiopathic environmental intolerance) or electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS), which can include depression, brain fog and other symptoms.

Society, in general, and science in particular, may be awakening to the negative ramifications of what the smart, digital age being forced upon everyone by high tech corporations, governments and the One World Order cabal is doing to humans, not to exclude Nature, wildlife and the environment.

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available

Propaganda Machine of $4.3 Billion Influenza Vaccine Industry Is in Full Swing

Source: Humans Are Free

Flu season is upon us again — the time of year when the steady message is “Have you gotten your flu shot yet?”

Considering the many studies showing flu vaccines offer minimal protection against illness even when well-matched to circulating viral strains, the fact that vaccination continues to be touted as your first line of defense against influenza suggests this annual campaign is more about generating conformity for profit rather than actually improving and protecting public health.

Questionable Data Used to Support Annual Flu Vaccination Campaigns

Statistics reveal that in most years, flu shots are at best 50 to 60 percent effective at preventing lab confirmed type A or B influenza requiring medical care.1 In the decade between 2005 and 2015, the influenza vaccine was less than 50 percent effective more than half of the time.2

The 2017/2018 flu vaccine was a perfect example of this trend. The overall adjusted vaccine effectiveness against influenza A and B virus infection was just 36 percent.3

According to a 2014 meta-analysis,4 71 people have to be vaccinated in order for a single case of influenza to be avoided — a ratio that speaks to the ineffectiveness of this annual routine. Adding insult to injury, evidence5 (which was confirmed three years later6) suggests flu vaccination may double your risk of contracting pandemic influenza or a more serious bout of influenza.

Research7 published in 2011 also warned the seasonal flu vaccine appears to weaken children’s immune systems and increases their chances of getting sick from influenza viruses not included in the vaccine.

When blood samples from healthy, unvaccinated children and children who had received an annual flu shot were compared, the unvaccinated group had naturally built up more antibodies across a wider variety of influenza strains compared to the vaccinated group.8

Evidence also shows you can get vaccinated, show few or no symptoms and still shed and transmit influenza to other people.9,10 Flu vaccines are also associated with debilitating and potentially lifelong side effects such as Guillain-Barré syndrome and chronic shoulder injury related to vaccine administration.

2018/2019 Flu Season Brings Back Failed Nasal Spray Vaccine

Flu vaccines are by their nature a tricky business because influenza viruses are constantly evolving and public health officials have to guess at least six months before the flu season starts which type A and B influenza virus strains might end up being predominant so drug companies can manufacture the vaccines.

When the strains chosen do not match the strains actually causing most of the disease in any given flu season, the vaccine’s failure rate significantly increases. But it’s also important to realize that the majority of respiratory influenza-like illness that people experience during any given flu season is not type A or B influenza.11

When you get a sore throat, runny nose, headache, fatigue, low grade fever, body aches and cough, most of the time it is another type of viral or bacterial respiratory infection unrelated to influenza viruses.12

In fact, data13,14,15,16 shows other types of viruses are responsible for about 80 percent of all respiratory infections during any given flu season. The flu vaccine does not protect against or prevent any of these other types of respiratory infections causing influenza-like-illness (ILI) symptoms.

The chance of contracting actual type A or B influenza, caused by one of the three or four influenza virus strains included in the vaccine, is much lower compared to getting sick with another type of viral or bacterial infection during the flu season.

All of that said, there are several different types of influenza vaccines to choose from in any given year. This year, the live attenuated nasal spray vaccine (FluMist), which the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices did not recommend during the 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 seasons due to its extreme ineffectiveness, is back and once again being recommended by the CDC.17

For the 2018/2019 season, FluMist is approved for nonpregnant individuals between the ages of 2 and 49. Exceptions18 include children taking aspirin- or salicylate-containing medications, those with suppressed immune function, children aged 2 to 4 who have asthma, those who have taken an antiviral drug in the previous 48 hours, and a few others.

High-Dose Flu Vaccine for Seniors — ‘Costs Outweigh Benefits’ Canadian Experts Say

You also have the injectable inactivated influenza vaccines, including a high-dose version for seniors over the age of 65, which contains four times the amount of antigen as the regular dose of the standard vaccine.

In Canada, infectious disease experts have spoken out against the vaccine, saying it’s not effective enough to justify its high cost, which is about five times that of the regular flu vaccine.19

According to British Columbia’s provincial health officer Bonnie Henry, research suggests 200 seniors would have to be vaccinated with Fluzone High-Dose to prevent a single case of influenza, and 4,000 would have to be vaccinated to prevent one flu-related hospitalization.20

Due to its poor performance, British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta, New Brunswick and Newfoundland will not cover the cost of Fluzone High-Dose for seniors who would otherwise get free regular flu shots.

The Globe and Mail reports:21

“The divergent policies are part of a continuing debate over the targeted flu shot that experts say has major implications for future influenza vaccination programs — and the amount of money it costs to deliver them …

“Danuta Skowronski, epidemiology lead of influenza and emerging respiratory pathogens at the BC Centre for Disease Control, said the benefits don’t justify the price.

“She also said the new flu shot has only been studied for a few seasons and that there are unanswered questions health policy officials should consider before they get locked into an expensive multiyear agreement.

“For instance, emerging research suggests people who get repeat flu shots every year may actually experience reduced immunity in subsequent years. That could have implications for seniors who receive a high dose of the flu shot, she said.”

U.S. Government Statistics: Flu Shot is the Most Dangerous Vaccine in America

What You Need to Know About Flu Vaccines Made From Dog Kidney and Insect Cells

A relative newcomer in the vaccine lineup is the quadrivalent influenza vaccine called Flucelvax, which became available during the 2017/2018 season. Approved for individuals over the age of 4, this vaccine is unique in that it uses dog kidney (MDCK) cells for production.22

Traditionally, candidate vaccine strain influenza viruses, i.e., the viruses selected for inclusion in the vaccine, have been produced using fertilized chicken eggs.

Flucelvax viruses are grown in cultured animal cells instead.23 (Another relatively new technology uses insect (army worm) cells to produce a recombinant quadrivalent influenza vaccine, Flublok, for individuals over 18 years old.24,25)

As the effectiveness of conventional flu shots continues to leave much to be desired, the new Flucelvax vaccine was touted as a new-and-improved version that would protect more people once flu season hit. In reality, a study26 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed its benefit was quite modest.

While flu vaccines overall were only 24 percent effective in preventing flu-related hospitalizations in people aged 65 and older, the Flucelvax vaccine had an effectiveness rate of 26.5 percent in that population — hardly a major improvement.

It’s been known for some time that growing flu vaccines in eggs may lead to problematic mutations that make them less effective against circulating influenza viruses. Such was the case during the 2016 to 2017 flu season, when H3N2 viruses were prevalent.

Writing in PNAS,27 researchers noted, “Human vaccine strains grown in eggs often possess adaptive mutations that increase viral attachment to chicken cells.” They identified a mutation in the flu vaccine strain that produced antibodies that didn’t work well to neutralize the H3N2 viruses circulating that year.

But the hope that cell-based vaccines might solve this problem appears overly optimistic. Dr. John Treanor, a flu vaccine expert at the University of Rochester Medical Center, told STAT News in 2017,28 “There wasn’t convincing evidence that it [cell culture flu vaccine] was better, so why would anyone spend extra money to buy that?”

This was before the FDA data came in on the 2017 to 2018 season, which offered proof that the effectiveness was virtually identical to the conventional egg-based version.

Lack of Quality Vaccine Science and Transparency

In his 2013 article,29 “Influenza: Marketing Vaccine by Marketing Disease,” BMJ associate editor Peter Doshi, Ph.D., points out the lack of quality science underpinning the annual call for flu vaccination and the government’s lack of transparency. He noted that in its marketing of influenza vaccines, the CDC fails to uphold its pledge “to base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data, openly and objectively derived.”

The Vaccine Reaction summarizes Doshi’s comments, in part:30

“Promotion of influenza vaccines is one of the most visible and aggressive public health policies today … Closer examination of influenza vaccine policies shows that although proponents employ the rhetoric of science, the studies underlying the policy are often of low quality, and do not substantiate officials’ claims.

“The vaccine might be less beneficial and less safe than has been claimed, and the threat of influenza appears overstated … Mandatory vaccination policies have been enacted … forcing some people to take the vaccine under threat of losing their jobs.

“The main assertion of the CDC that fuels the push for flu vaccinations each year is that influenza comes with a risk of serious complications which can cause death …

“The only randomized trial of influenza vaccine in older people found no decrease in deaths. This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes.

“Even when the vaccine is closely matched to the type of influenza that’s prevalent … randomized, controlled trials of healthy adults found that vaccinating between 33 and 100 people resulted in one less case of influenza … For most people, and possibly most doctors, officials need only claim that vaccines save lives, and it is assumed there must be solid research behind it.”

Health Care Worker Flu Shot Mandates Are Based on Four Invalid Trials

A perfect example of what Doshi is talking about was published January 2017. This scientific analysis31,32 of four randomized controlled trials, which claim vaccinating health care workers against influenza offers significant protection for patients, were in fact overstated, and grossly so.

According to the authors:

“In attributing patient benefit to increased health care worker influenza vaccine coverage, each cluster randomized controlled trial was found to violate the basic mathematical principle of dilution by reporting greater percentage reductions with less influenza-specific patient outcomes … and/or patient mortality reductions exceeding even favorably-derived predicted values by at least six- to 15fold.

“If extrapolated to all long-term care facilities and hospital staff in the United States, the prior cluster randomized controlled trial-claimed number needed to vaccinate of 8 would implausibly mean > 200,000 and > 675,000 patient deaths, respectively, could be prevented annually by health care worker influenza vaccination, inconceivably exceeding total U.S. population mortality estimates due to seasonal influenza each year, or during the 1918 pandemic, respectively.

“More realistic recalibration based on actual patient data instead shows that at least 6,000 to 32,000 hospital workers would need to be vaccinated before a single patient death could potentially be averted.”

The researchers concluded that these four trials, which are the basis for policies of enforced vaccination of health care workers “attribute implausibly large reductions in patient risk to health care worker vaccination, casting serious doubts on their validity,” adding that “The impression that unvaccinated health care workers place their patients at great influenza peril is exaggerated.”

Independent Scientists Unable to Obtain Vaccine Trial Data

Europe also suffers from the same lack of transparency in vaccine research and public policy, as evidenced by Cochrane scientists’ failure to obtain the necessary vaccine trial data required to evaluate the quality of 11 clinical trials on the HPV vaccine held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Detailed information about a study’s design, conduct and outcome can only be found in the trial’s clinical study report (CSR), which drug companies are required to submit when applying for a new drug license. Transparimed.org reports:33

“Since 2014, in theory, independent scientists can access these documents by filing a request with the European regulator. In practice, the Cochrane team reports:

“‘After three years, we had obtained just 18 Clinical Study Reports (62 percent of the EMA’s 29 reports) … Unfortunately, the reports still lacked important sections, such as protocols and serious harms narratives … Only three reports included completed case report forms … One study report of 4,263 pages was released in 17 files across seven batches over 12 months.'”

What’s more, the Cochrane scientists discovered that the EMA itself does not always receive all of the scientific evidence, as some of the submitted CSRs were incomplete. The team’s attempts to obtain the CSRs directly from the drug companies were equally fruitless.

According to Cochrane:

“Although GlaxoSmithKline published versions of its Clinical Study Reports on its trial register, the reports often lack serious adverse events narratives and case report forms, and the data on serious adverse events in the reports we downloaded was heavily redacted.”

Needless to say, without access to the CSRs, independent scientists such as the Cochrane group cannot assess the benefits and harms of the drugs or vaccines under review with any significant degree of accuracy or confidence.

“In our view, independent researchers ought to be able to obtain complete and unredacted Clinical Study Reports within a reasonable time frame without too many constraints or limitations,” Cochrane writes.

“[R]egulators should release complete and coherent Clinical Study Reports… Urgent changes are essential for open and transparent assessment of the harms and benefits of interventions.”

Professor Makes Bizarre Claim for Children’s ‘Vaccination Rights’

In related news, Arthur L. Caplan, Ph.D.,34 a New York University (NYU) professor and founding head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine, raised more than a few eyebrows by claiming that a child’s presumed right to be vaccinated supersedes the parents’ legal right to exercise informed consent to vaccination on behalf of minor children.

In plain English, Caplan believes minor children should be vaccinated according to government recommendations regardless of whether parents have made an informed decision to decline one or more vaccinations for their child. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction,35 Caplan “claims that vaccinating children represents a higher moral imperative than respecting the informed consent rights of parents.”

“‘I want to point out a moral stance that I don’t think has gotten enough attention, which is that every child has the right to be vaccinated,’ said Caplan. ‘We keep talking about parents’ right to say yes or no, to avoid mandates or requirements, or to do what they choose to do. Someone has to speak up and say, ‘Well, what about the kids? Don’t they have any rights?’

“Caplan believes that if parents refuse to vaccinate their kids the government has the right to override the legal right of parents to make medical care decisions for their children. Caplan argues that the government has the duty to vaccinate the children without the consent of the parents and by force, if need be.”

In other words, what Caplan is saying is that parents should be prevented from making medical care decisions, especially vaccination decisions, on behalf of their minor children if those decisions do not conform with government policy. What kind of freedom is that? Coming from a self-appointed medical ethicist, this is scary, mind-boggling stuff. It’s barely one step away from all children being treated like property of the government.

Disturbingly enough, attempts to move this kind of public health policy and law forward are already underway, and parents everywhere need to join in the fight to retain their right to make medical decisions for their minor children. If government officials can vaccinate your child against your will, there’s no telling where it will end. As reported by The Vaccine Reaction:

“Legislation has been introduced in states like California that would seek to give government the right to make health care decisions for children, even against the wishes of their parents, if the state deems the decisions to be in the best interests of the children.

“Such legislation would also allow government authorities to take legal physical custody of children in cases where parents refuse to comply with mandates forcing or coercing them to vaccinate their children.

“The thrust of Caplan’s thought process is that, at least when it comes to vaccination of children, parents should be stripped of their informed consent rights. Apparently, Caplan takes the view that the informed health care decisions that parents make for their children are just not relevant if those decisions conflict with government policy.

“But it is precisely this ‘long held legal right to make informed, voluntary decisions about pharmaceutical products and medical procedures that carry risks for their children,’ says Barbara Loe Fisher of the National Vaccine Information Center, that is ‘all that stands between parents and exploitation of their children by those in positions of power in society with a personal or professional vested interest in forcing every child to use pharmaceutical products that are not safe or effective for every child.'”

By Dr. Joseph Mercola, Guest author

From the author: The existing medical establishment is responsible for killing and permanently injuring millions of Americans, but the surging numbers of visitors to Mercola.com since I began the site in 1997 – we are now routinely among the top 10 health sites on the Internet – convinces me that you, too, are fed up with their deception. You want practical health solutions without the hype, and that’s what I offer.

References:

Scientists have discovered a way to destroy cancer tumors using nothing but sound waves

Source: Natural News

By Earl Garcia

A recent breakthrough in high-intensity focused ultrasound therapy (HIFU) technology has proven its use as an effective cancer treatment. A multi-institutional research team from China developed a semi-enclosed, spherical cavity transducer that can produce a focused, standing-wave field with a subwavelength-scale focal region and extremely high ultrasound intensity. The spherical cavity transducer appeared to generate tighter focal regions and greater pressure amplitude compared with the traditional concave spherical transducer. Researchers said the level of intensity generated by the new transducer design may lead to significant improvements in HIFU therapy. The findings were published in the Journal of Applied Physics.

HIFU is a non-invasive, targeted treatment that makes use of sound waves to eradicate cancer cells. HIFU uses an ultrasonic transducer to convert electrical signals into sound waves, then concentrates ultrasound into a small focal region to raise the temperature to more than 65 decrees Celsius, thereby killing cancer cells in the process without inducing damage to surrounding tissues. The technique works in the same manner as focusing sunlight through a lens, which helps eliminate the disease-causing cells.

HIFU can be used as an alternative to traditional cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and surgery.

Sound waves prove to be viable cancer treatment in various studies

High-intensity focused ultrasound therapy proved to be a highly-effective cancer treatment in various studies and clinical trials.

For instance, researchers at the University College Hospital in London examined 625 men with prostate cancer and found that 93 percent of patients who underwent HIFU alone remained cancer-free at five years following the treatment, without requiring surgery or radiotherapy. Data also showed that only one to two percent of patients who had HIFU treatment suffered long-term urinary incontinence, compared with 10 to 20 percent of patients who had surgery. In addition, only 15 percent of patients in the HIFU group developed erectile dysfunction compared with 30 to 60 percent of surgical patients.

“The results of this study are impressive and have the potential to transform prostate cancer treatment for many men in the future. It is extremely exciting technology and these results show that in men diagnosed early by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood testing, this targeted therapy could be as effective as surgery to remove the whole prostate gland or radiotherapy and cause far fewer side effects,” said study co-author Tim Dudderidge.

The findings were presented at an annual meeting of the European Association of Urology in Munich, Germany.

A British clinical trial funded by the Medical Research Council has also found that 95 percent of patients who underwent HIFU therapy for prostate cancer remained cancer-free at 12 months after the treatment. The researchers also found that none of the respondents suffered urinary incontinence during the follow-up period.

Another sound wave innovation to watch out for

Researchers at the University of Alberta in Canada have developed a new technique that uses focused sound waves to activate minute particles known as nanodroplets. According to the researchers, the new technique was as accurate as using needles in biopsy.

“With a little bit of ultrasound energy, nanodroplets phase-change into microbubbles. That’s important because ultrasound can really oscillate these microbubbles. The microbubbles absorb of the ultrasound energy and then act like boxing gloves to punch the tumor cells and knock little vesicles off. That led us to detect some genes that were indicative of the aggressiveness of the tumour. That’s potentially very powerful. You can get a genetic characterization of the tumour, but do it relatively non-invasively,” said engineering professor Roger Zemp.

Age-reversing pill that Nasa wants to give to astronauts on Mars will begin human trials within six months

Source: Daily Mail

By Harry Pettit

Scientists have made a discovery that could lead to a revolutionary drug that actually reverses ageing.

The drug could help damaged DNA to miraculously repair and even protect Nasa astronauts on Mars by protecting them from solar radiation.

A team of researchers developed the drug after discovering a key signalling process in DNA repair and cell ageing.

During trials on mice, the team found that the drug directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or old age.

‘The cells of the old mice were indistinguishable from the young mice after just one week of treatment,’ said lead author Professor David Sinclair.

Human trials of the pill will begin within six months.

THE ANTI-AGEING DRUG TRIALS

The experiments in mice, from a team at the University of New South Wales, suggest a treatment is possible for DNA damage from ageing and radiation.

It is so promising it has attracted the attention of Nasa scientists in their quest to reach Mars.

While our cells can naturally repair DNA damage – such as damage caused by the sun – this ability declines with age.

The scientists identified that the call signalling molecule NAD+, which is naturally present in every cell in the body, has a key role in protein interactions that control DNA repair.

Treating mice with an NAD+ ‘booster’ called NMN improved their cells’ ability to repair DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or old age.

Human trials of NMN therapy will begin within six months.

‘This is the closest we are to a safe and effective anti-ageing drug that’s perhaps only three to five years away from being on the market if the trials go well,’ said Professor Sinclair.

The work has drawn the attention of Nasa, which is considering the challenge of keeping its astronauts healthy during a four-year mission to Mars.

Even on short missions, astronauts experience accelerated ageing from cosmic radiation, suffering from muscle weakness, memory loss and other symptoms when they return.

On a trip to Mars, the situation would be far worse: Five per cent of the astronauts’ cells would die and their chances of cancer would approach 100 per cent.

Professor Sinclair and his colleague Dr Lindsay Wu were winners in NASA’s iTech competition in December last year.

‘We came in with a solution for a biological problem and it won the competition out of 300 entries,’ Dr Wu said.

Cosmic radiation is not only an issue for astronauts. We’re all exposed to it aboard aircraft, with a London-Singapore-Melbourne flight roughly equivalent in radiation to a chest x-ray.

Professor David Sinclair (front centre) and his research team. During trials on mice, the group found that their anti-ageing pill directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing. Human trials will begin within six months

Professor David Sinclair (front centre) and his research team. During trials on mice, the group found that their anti-ageing pill directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing. Human trials will begin within six months

Professor David Sinclair (front centre) and his research team. During trials on mice, the group found that their anti-ageing pill directly repaired DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing. Human trials will begin within six months. In theory, the anti-ageing pill could mitigate any effects of DNA damage for frequent flyers. The other group that could benefit from this work is survivors of childhood cancers.

Dr Wu says 96 per cent of childhood cancer survivors suffer a chronic illness by age 45, including cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancers unrelated to the original cancer.

‘All of this adds up to the fact they have accelerated ageing, which is devastating,’ he said.

‘It would be great to do something about that, and we believe we can with this molecule.’

The experiments in mice, from a team at the University of New South Wales, suggest a treatment for these issues is possible through a new drug.

While our cells can naturally repair DNA damage – such as damage caused by the sun – this ability declines with age.

The scientists identified that the call signalling molecule NAD+, which is naturally present in every cell in the body, has a key role in protein interactions that control DNA repair.

Treating mice with an NAD+ ‘booster’ called NMN improved their cells’ ability to repair DNA damage caused by radiation exposure or ageing

For the past four years, Professor Sinclair and Dr Wu have been working on making NMN into a drug substance with their companies MetroBiotech NSW and MetroBiotech International.

The human trials will begin this year at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in Boston.

68 STUDENTS REMOVED FROM CLASS IN ROCHESTER BECAUSE PARENTS REFUSE TO VACCINATE

I choose not to be Vaccinated. There is enough evidence out there to make anyone suspicious about these vaccines.

Timothy Frappier

Source: Collective Evolution

To vaccinate or not?

This was a big question in the 2016 US presidential elections as a result of the mounting controversy surrounding mandatory childhood vaccination.

In 1798, the first vaccination was scientifically documented, and ever since, they have changed how we look at human health and medicine.

Vivian Chou writes in a Harvard blog:

The impacts of vaccines have ranged from the 1979 eradication of polio in the US and the 1980 eradication of smallpox worldwide, to prevention of cancer of the liver and the cervix. In fact, vaccines have been so influential that some scientists consider them among the greatest successes in public health.

Many would say that vaccinations are one of the greatest accomplishments in public health, while others strongly oppose them — particularly those given to children — arguing that they are unnecessary, ineffective, and dangerous. And so, a growing number of parents are choosing not to vaccinate their children.

To get a more in depth heavily sourced article as to why this is happening, you can refer to this article;

The Top 6 Reasons Why Parents Are Choosing Not To Vaccinate Their Children

This decision has sparked additional controversy, and prompted laws to be implemented against it. Minnesota, for example, requires all students enrolled in grades kindergarten through 12 to show they have received immunizations or an exemption.

But not everyone is complying so easily, and school district officials are fighting back.

In Rochester, 150 families are being threatened by the law, with officials informing them that if they don’t vaccinate their children, they will not be allowed to attend school. Minnesota schools needed to submit an immunization report to the state Department of Health by Dec. 1 unless they request a 60-day extension.

School district officials took the step because 204 students had been revealed to have ignored the law, and so they told families they had until March 1 to meet the requirement, or their children wouldn’t be allowed to attend classes. According to superintendent Michael Muñoz, it was the first time in his six-year tenure that the district had followed through with the action.

And true to their word, on March 1, 80 students who still hadn’t complied were barred from classes, and their families, guardians, and emergency contacts were notified. By the end of the day, 68 students still hadn’t met the requirements.

In the next seven days, 117 students had proved they were vaccinated, and 19 filed exemptions for heath or religious reasons.

School officials said they have worked “diligently” since January to inform families that students must be vaccinated to attend school or provide documentation for an exemption.

“We sent multiple letters, worked with our bilinguals if necessary, and each school made additional efforts to connect with the families impacted to assist them with submitting the proper documentation,” school officials said, claiming the removal of the students was a last resort.

“The procedure utilized by the district in this situation was an attempt to strike a balance between enforcing the requirements of the statute and being mindful of the fact that the right to an education is a fundamental right in Minnesota,” school officials said. “Preventing a student from enrolling in school is a serious issue. The district wanted to make sure it gave families ample opportunity to bring themselves into compliance before it prevented any students from attending school.”