The cell phone cancer controversy will never be the same again.
The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) is expected to issue a public announcement that cell phone radiation presents a cancer risk for humans. The move comes soon after its recently completed study showed statistically significant increases in cancer among rats that had been exposed to GSM or CDMA signals for two-years.
Discussions are currently underway among federal agencies on how to inform the public about the new findings. NTP senior managers believe that these results should be released as soon as possible because just about everyone is exposed to wireless radiation all the time and therefore everyone is potentially at risk.
The new results contradict the conventional wisdom, advanced by doctors, biologists, physicists, epidemiologists, engineers, journalists and government officials, among other pundits, that such effects are impossible. This view is based, in part, on the lack of an established mechanism for RF radiation from cell phones to induce cancer. For instance, earlier this week (May 22), a medical doctor in Michigan wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal stating that, “There is no known mechanism by which mobile phones might cause brain tumors.” He went on to argue that there is no need to warn the public about health risks.
Scientists have known for 100 years that cancer cells metabolize nutrients in a unique way, though they haven’t understood why. In a new paper, MSK researchers reconsider the evidence and offer an unorthodox explanation, turning some commonsense wisdom on its head.
Long before Louis Pasteur became famous for proving that diseases were caused by germs, he worked in a beer factory. His job: finding a way to make beer from sugar, hops, and yeast without having the yeast take over the vat, gunking up the beer.
Turns out yeast are very good at converting sugar into more yeast, and nothing Pasteur did could change that — which is why today, most beer is filtered.
This long-familiar fact about beer making is inspiring some unconventional thinking about cancer. In a paper published today in Cell Metabolism, Memorial Sloan Kettering President and CEO Craig Thompson and postdoctoral fellow Natasha Pavlova argue that cancer cells take up and use nutrients much like yeast in a vat of sugar, reproducing with wild abandon. Further, they claim that it’s this altered metabolism of nutrients — rather than any quirk of a disordered cell cycle — that lies at the heart of cancer.
“All of the information that drives the cell cycle — drives cell growth — comes from cells recognizing that they have adequate nutrients,” says Dr. Thompson.
If he’s right, then much of what we think we know about cancer is wrong.
To date there were two known forms of transmissible cancers in nature, and this included forms of tumor spreadable between Tasmanian devils, as well as between dogs and soft-shell clams.
This lead to scientists believing that such a transfer of living cancer cells was rare. The discovery of a third form, however, indicates that such cancers may arise more frequently than previously thought.
A team of researchers from the University of Tasmania, Australia, and the University of Cambridge in the UK found this new form of transmissible cancer in the Tasmanian devil in Australia, the second such cancer in the dog-like marsupial, which can only be found in the wild on the Australian island.
Known as Devil Facial Tumor Disease (DFTD), it was first discovered in the animal in 1996 but this new discovery has identified a second form of the disease which looks similar but has a genetic makeup with a distinct chromosomal arrangement from the first form of DFTD.
F. William Engdahl (NEO) :
A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.
Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”
The Food and Drug Administration warned last week that the risk of heart attack and stroke from widely used painkillers that include Motrin IB, Aleve and Celebrex but not aspirin was greater than it previously had said. But what does that mean for people who take them?
Experts said that the warning reflected the gathering evidence that there was risk even in small amounts of the drug, so-called nonaspirin, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or Nsaids, and that everyone taking them should use them sparingly for brief periods. Millions of Americans take them.
“One of the underlying messages for this warning has to be there are no completely safe pain relievers, period,” said Bruce Lambert, director of the Center for Communication and Health at Northwestern University, who specializes in drug safety communication.
By Dr. Mercola
Most of us appreciate science in helping us understand the truth about health and disease. Unfortunately, much of the science we rely on today is colored and confounded by massive conflicts of interest.
Award winning associate profession Gayle Delong has an interesting perspective of this topic. While working in the Finance Department of the Baruch College in New York City, she has studied the influence of conflicts of interest as it pertains to vaccine safety and research.
“I have two daughters with autism,” she admits. “When they were first diagnosed—my older daughter was diagnosed in 2000, and my younger in 2003—there was this idea kicking around that vaccines might have some kind of association with autism.
When I first heard this I thought, ‘That’s crazy. That couldn’t possibly be the case.’ It was only in 2005, when the book Evidence of Harm: Mercury in Vaccines and the Autism Epidemic: A Medical Controversy came out, that the association between vaccines and autism really made sense to me and my husband.
We were shocked by the idea that government regulators could allow vaccines that could have such devastating side effects. But it began to make sense after we read Evidence of Harm.”
Researchers from California University in Berkeley say studies show great nature and art boost the immune system.
The healing power of art and nature could be real after scientists discovered they boost your immune system.
Great nature and art boost the immune system by lowering levels of chemicals that cause inflammation that can trigger diabetes, heart attacks and other illnesses.
Read More: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11403404/Art-does-heal-scientists-say-appreciating-creative-works-can-fight-off-disease.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_content=11-22&utm_campaign=telegraph-art-heals