Dewayne Johnson (center), former groundskeeper for the Benicia Unified School District, leaves Department 504 with his wife Araceli Johnson (right) behind attorney Brent Wisner (left) at Superior Court of California during the Monsanto trial on Monday, July 23, 2018 in San Francisco, Calif.
Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle
A former school groundskeeper, diagnosed with terminal cancer, told a San Francisco jury Monday that he called a Monsanto Co. hotline twice — once before his diagnosis, once after — and asked whether the herbicide he was spraying on the job, the most widely used weed killer in the world, could cause harm to humans.
Both times, Dewayne “Lee” Johnson said, the person at the other end of the line listened to his account of being accidentally doused with the herbicide glyphosate, and said someone would call him back. No one ever did.
“I would never have sprayed the product around school grounds or around people if I thought it would cause them harm,” Johnson told a Superior Court jury hearing his suit against Monsanto. “They deserve better.”
Johnson, 46, of Vallejo, was a groundskeeper and pest-control manager for the Benicia Unified School District from 2012 until May 2016. He was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in October 2014 and with what his lawyers described as a more aggressive form of the cancer in March 2015.
Even after the latter diagnosis, Johnson said he continued to spray Monsanto’s product, a high-concentration brand of glyphosate called Ranger Pro, until he became convinced that it was dangerous and refused to use it in his final months on the job.
His damage suit, now into its third week, is the first of about 4,000 nationwide to go to trial against Monsanto, now a subsidiary of Bayer. The company markets glyphosate, the world’s leading herbicide, as Roundup, and in higher concentrations, as Ranger Pro. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen.
Monsanto disputes the assessment, noting that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has never classified glyphosate as a carcinogen or restricted its use. The company’s lawyers also said Johnson’s primary treating physicians have not determined the cause of his cancer.
Earlier Monday, his wife and a physician described Johnson’s deteriorating condition, although he did not appear frail on the witness stand, speaking calmly in a deep, resonant voice. But jurors saw photos of the painful welts and lesions — on his legs, arms, face, and even his eyelids — that have arisen while he undergoes radiation treatment and chemotherapy. Johnson is scheduled for another round of chemotherapy next month and said he would next turn to a bone-marrow transplant.
He has self-published two books and is working on a third — “about people and how they’re judged by their faces” — and hopes he’ll get to finish it. He tries to shield the couple’s two sons, aged 13 and 10, from his bouts of depression and tears, and said that despite a grim prognosis, “I’ll keep fighting till my last breath.”
Araceli Johnson, his wife of 13 years and a nurse practitioner, said she now works 14 hours a day at two jobs to support them. “My world shut down” when her husband told her he had cancer, she told the jury.
Attorney Brent Wisner answers questions from the media at Superior Court of California on Monday, July 23, 2018, in San Francisco, Calif.
Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle
Johnson started working for the Benicia schools as a delivery driver but then applied to become the district’s first pest-control manager and passed a licensing exam. “I liked the job a lot,” he said, recalling how some students gave him a poster for ridding their school of a skunk.
He said the district told him to use the Ranger Pro form of glyphosate because Roundup wasn’t strong enough to remove all the weeds from hillsides on district-owned property. A supervisor told him the product was safe as long as he wore long-sleeved shirts, pants, shoes and socks.
In addition, Johnson said, he wore a sturdy jacket, rubber gloves, goggles and a face mask while he mixed the herbicide with water in 50-gallon drums and sprayed it 20 to 30 times a year for two to three hours a day, mostly during summer months. But he said he couldn’t fully protect his face from wind-blown spray. And twice, he said, he got drenched with herbicide, once when a spray hose became detached from a truck that was hauling it, and another time when the chemical somehow leaked onto his back. He said he had no access to a shower until much later in the day.
It was after the first exposure, Johnson said, that he started noticing rashes on his skin and called the company hotline.
“I had this uncontrollable situation on my skin, which used to be as perfect as this table,” he said, pointing to the brown witness stand. “It was a very scary, confusing time.”
During cross-examination, Monsanto lawyer Sandra Edwards asked Johnson about his past statement to his doctors that he had first developed a skin rash in the autumn of 2013, before he was accidentally doused with glyphosate. The company has contended that the sequence of events suggests other causes for Johnson’s illness.
“It’s hard to remember all that way back,” said Johnson, whose wife testified that her husband has sometimes suffered memory lapses since his diagnosis. That appeared to be on display early in his testimony Monday, when he said he had stopped working for the school district about five years ago, then was shown a document noting that he had worked there until May 2016.
Jurors also heard from Dr. Ope Ofodile, a dermatologist who coordinated Johnson’s medical treatment at Kaiser Health Care in Vallejo from 2014 through mid-2016. She said she saw him more than 25 times, removed one of his lesions, administered radiation, and wrote a letter in 2015 asking the school board not to expose Johnson to airborne chemicals.
“He was not responding (to treatment). He was heading in the wrong direction,” she said. But “he was very much motivated to get better.”
Can cancer be cured? Can it be cured with holistic medicine? The answer to both of these questions is yes. Many people have done so and many continue to do so. Unfortunately, in the United States and elsewhere, we are taught from a very young age that pharmaceutical medicine is all there. We are taught that the pharmaceutical industry is still “searching for a cure.” We are taught that vitamins, minerals, amino acids, fatty acids and phytonutrients play little or no role in cellular health (which contradicts basic biochemistry).
The pharmaceutical industry has compromised the health of our world. It relies on false assertions under claims of “hard science,” when in fact, all of the big “scientific studies” being conducted is backed and paid for by the pharmaceutical industry itself. Of course they aren’t going to promote natural cures. It would bankrupt them within months and would end their false charade.
As Dr. Sunil Pai M.D. states in an interview, “Follow the money. What is the biggest industry right now? It’s the cancer care industry. So the average cancer care for a person from Stage I to Stage IV will range anywhere from $350,000- $1,400,000 by the end of stage IV.” Revealing the truth about cancer and the pharmaceutical industry would immediately put an end to numerous jobs in the Food and Drug Administration, the American Cancer Society, the Rockefeller Institute, the American Medical Association and many others. Sadly, the truth has been covered up in the name of greed and profit.
Additionally, taking information on how to live a healthy life from the pharmaceutical-backed western medical doctors is quite ironic. As Dr. Leonard Coldwell states in an interview:
“The medical doctors, statistically, has the shortest lifespan of 56 years of age on average, the highest abuse of alcohol and drugs, the highest suicide rate (only the psychiatrists are higher), and so you go to somebody that has the lowest life span, highest suicide rate, highest drug abuse rate, to ask them how to have a healthy, happy, long life? I think we should rethink our way of thinking.”
Dr. Coldwell is someone who has cured over 35,000 patients of different cancers. His cure rate also sits at 92.3%, which means that for every 100 people who have come to him for help to cure their cancer, he has successfully cured 92 of them. Quite impressive. Dr. Coldwell’s tips for right diet when treating or trying to prevent cancer can be seen here.
Another doctor who is helping those with cancer is Dr. Daniel Nuzum. Dr. Nuzum is the foremost proponent of a healing substance and health supplement know as fulvic acid. Dr. Nuzum has treated over 8,000 patients with fulvic acid, and all of them had a varying level of success, while no negative side effects were ever reported.
Fulvic acids are created by soil-based microorganisms and is the end-product of decomposed organic matter. Fulvic acid has numerous benefits for the body, including being the most potent anti-oxidant known, an extremely rich source of electrolytes, catalyzes enzyme reactions, helps to chelate heavy metals, restores electrochemical balance and increases the synthesis rate of RNA and DNA.
Since it supplies so many electrons, electrochemical balance returns and allows the body to function optimally. According to Dr. Jerry Tennant, having enough electrical activity within the body is necessary for not only wellness, but life itself:
“Chronic disease is always defined by having low body voltage. One cannot cure chronic disease without inserting enough electrons to achieve -50mV (millivolts). One must have the raw materials necessary to make new cells and to eliminate the toxins or infections present that will damage the new cells. You can take all the medications you like and do as much surgery as you like, but you will not heal unless you have -50mV, raw materials (nutrients) and lack of toxins.”
In addition to supplying sufficient electrical activity, according to Supreme Fulvic, fulvic acid is also able to increase nutrient assimilation into the cells, transport any nutrient possible (due to its extremely low molecular weight) and detoxify cellular waste. It can also chemically convert toxins into usable nutrients for cells. In essence, that means it converts metabolic waste into food and energy for the cell.
According to Optimally Organic, their fulvic acid is best because it comes from lush vegetation, as compared to dried rock bed (like most companies).
Lastly, there exists numerous studies showing how the cannabis plant can and does cure cancer. For the sake of convenience, here is an article that has compiled and cited 20 studies that show this information. In fact, the U.S. Government has known this information since at least 1974, when a study done at the Medical College of Virginia proved cannabis effectively treated a range of cancers and was published the next year in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Unfortunately, this study was swept under the rug and remained silent for nearly three decades, until the study became publicly accessible.
There are numerous other doctors around the world who are curing cancer with holistic medicine, which incorporates using foods, lots of sunshine and fresh air, medicinal herbs and spices and a variety of different treatment methods to reduce physical and emotional stress. As Dr. Leonard Coldwell states on his website, 86% of diseases occur because of excessive stress, while only 14% occurs because of physical elements.
There also exists plenty of other good information out there on how to help cure and prevent cancer, including an 11 part documentary series called The Quest For the Cures Continues, which interviews 28 medical doctors, 11 scientists and 9 cancer survivors, who “break the code of silence” on the truth about cancer. Part 1 can be seen here.
The solutions already exist. As Dr. Coldwell has said, “If nature creates a problem, nature always offers a solution.”
More than 3 million Americans receive acupuncture each year, and its use is increasing.1 While there are a variety of acupuncture techniques, those typically used in the U.S. incorporate traditions from China, Japan and Korea and involve penetrating your skin with a thin needle at certain points on your body.
The needle is then stimulated by hand or electrically.2 Acupuncture has been in use for thousands of years around the globe, and it has withstood the test of time because it works to safely relieve many common health complaints.
How it works has remained largely a mystery, but last year researchers revealed a biochemical reaction that may be responsible for some of acupuncture’s beneficial effects.
Scientists Reveal How Acupuncture Reduces Inflammation and Pain
An animal study looking into the effects of acupuncture on muscle inflammation revealed that manual acupuncture downregulates (or turns off) pro-inflammatory cells known as M1 macrophages. At the same time, it upregulates (or activates) anti-inflammatory M2 macrophages, thereby reducing pain and swelling.3
This is an effective strategy because M2 macrophages are a source of anti-inflammatory interleukin-10 (IL-10), a cytokine involved in immune response. It’s thought that upregulating M2 macrophages leads to an increase in IL-10, which subsequently helps relieve pain and inflammation. The Epoch Times reported:4
“Acupuncture literally flips a switch wherein initial inflammatory responses are reduced and the secondary healing responses are promoted.
M1 macrophage downregulation and M2 macrophage upregulation triggered by acupuncture was positively associated with reductions in muscle pain and inflammation.”
It’s likely that acupuncture works via a variety of mechanisms. In 2010, for instance, it was found that acupuncture activates pain-suppressing receptors and increased the concentration of the neurotransmitter adenosine in local tissues.5
Adenosine slows down your brain’s activity and induces sleepiness. According to a Nature Neuroscience press release:6
“ … [T]he authors propose a model whereby the minor tissue injury caused by rotated needles triggers adenosine release, which, if close enough to pain-transmitting nerves, can lead to the suppression of local pain.”
Acupuncture Influences Your Body on Multiple Levels
With documented use dating back more than 2,500 years, acupuncture is based on the premise that there are more than 2,000 acupuncture points in the human body, which are connected by bioenergetic pathways known as meridians.
According to traditional medicine, it is through these pathways that Qi, or energy, flows, and when the pathway is blocked the disruptions can lead to imbalances and chronic disease.
Acupuncture is proven to impact a number of chronic health conditions, and it may work, in part, by stimulating your central nervous system to release natural chemicals that alter bodily systems, pain and other biological processes. Evidence suggests that acupuncture may also work by:7
Stimulating the conduction of electromagnetic signals, which may release immune system cells or pain-killing chemicals
Activation of your body’s natural opioid system, which may help reduce pain or induce sleep
Stimulation of your hypothalamus and pituitary gland, which impact numerous body systems
Change in the secretion of neurotransmitters and neurohormones, which may positively influence brain chemistry
Acupuncture May Relieve Pain From Knee Osteoarthritis
Acupuncture is often used for the treatment of chronic pain, and it may be particularly useful for pain from knee osteoarthritis.
In a study by researchers from the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, acupuncture received five times a week for four weeks significantly reduced pain and improved stiffness in patients with knee osteoarthritis.8
In this study, the improvements increased even more when acupuncture was combined with Chinese massage called Tui Na. Other research has also shown benefits, including one of the longest and largest studies on the topic to date.
More than 550 patients diagnosed with knee osteoarthritis took part in the 26-week trial. The participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or self-help strategies recommended by the Arthritis Foundation (the latter served as a control group).
Significant differences in response were seen by week eight and 14, and at the end of the trial, the group receiving real acupuncture had a 40 percent decrease in pain and a nearly 40 percent improvement in function compared to baseline assessments — a 33 percent difference in improvement over the sham group.9
Acupuncture for Relief of High Blood Pressure
There is some evidence that acupuncture may help lower high blood pressure while also relieving associated anxiety, headaches, dizziness, palpitations and tinnitus.
It’s known that high blood pressure leads to elevated concentrations of inflammation-causing tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and TNF-α-stimulated endothelin (ET), peptides involved in constricting blood vessels and raising blood pressure.10,11
It’s thought that acupuncture may downregulate TNF-α and ET, thereby reducing blood pressure. In another study of patients with high blood pressure, 30 minutes of electroacupuncture (in which the needles are stimulated with electricity) a week led to slight declines in blood pressure.12
Study co-author Dr. John Longhurst, a cardiologist at the University of California, Irvine, told WebMD, “Potentially, blood pressure can be kept low with a monthly follow-up treatment.” He continued:13
“A noticeable drop in blood pressure was observed in 70 percent of the patients treated at the effective points, an average of 6 to 8 mm Hg for systolic blood pressure [the top number] and 4 mm Hg for diastolic blood pressure [the lower number].”
Acupuncture Even Works for Fibromyalgia Pain and Pain in Children
One of the most common uses for acupuncture is in treating chronic pain. One analysis of the most robust studies available concluded that acupuncture has a clear effect in reducing chronic pain, more so than standard pain treatment.14
Study participants receiving acupuncture reported an average 50 percent reduction in pain, compared to a 28 percent pain reduction for standard pain treatment without acupuncture.
Even fibromyalgia pain, which can be difficult to treat and is associated with sleep problems, fatigue and depression, may be improved.
In one study, 10 weeks of acupuncture decreased pain scores in fibromyalgia patients by an average of 41 percent, compared with 27 percent in those who received a sham procedure.15
The pain relief lasted for at least 1 year, leading researchers to conclude, “ … [T]he use of individualized acupuncture in patients with fibromyalgia is recommended.” Acupuncture also appears to be a safe and effective treatment for relieving chronic pain in children.
In a study of 55 children with chronic pain, those who received eight acupuncture sessions (each lasting about 30 minutes) reported significant reductions in pain and improved quality of life.16
Acupuncture for Depression, Cancer Patients and More
Acupuncture’s benefits extend to a myriad of other health conditions as well. Research suggests acupuncture works as well as counseling for treating depression, for instance.17 It may also improve fatigue, anxiety and depression in cancer patients in as little as eight weeks — and much more.18
The World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an extensive review and analysis of clinical trials related to acupuncture and reported the procedure has been proven effective for the following diseases:19
Adverse reactions to radiotherapy and/or chemotherapy
Allergic rhinitis (including hay fever)
Depression (including depressive neurosis and depression following stroke)
Acute bacillary dysentery
Acute epigastralgia (in peptic ulcer, acute and chronic gastritis, and gastrospasm)
Additionally, acupuncture has also shown a therapeutic effect for treating the following diseases and conditions, which range from premenstrual syndrome (PMS) and addictions to whooping cough, although further research is needed:
Abdominal pain (in acute gastroenteritis or due to gastrointestinal spasm)
Are Certain Types of Acupuncture Better Than Others?
Similar benefits have been found for different types of acupuncture treatment. For instance, sometimes the stimulation of acupuncture points is done using electricity, lasers or acupressure (the use of pressure to stimulate acupuncture points).
The term acupuncture is often used to describe all of these modalities, as each has shown similar benefits. This means that if you like the idea of trying a natural, ancient technique like acupuncture, but don’t like the idea of having needles inserted into your body, there are needle-free alternatives, such as the Emotional Freedom Techniques, or EFT, you can try that may offer many of the same benefits.
If you decide to try out traditional acupuncture, be aware that the success of your treatment depends on the expertise of your practitioner. While there are acupuncturists that have general specialties, there are also those that specialize in different health conditions, such as pain relief, depression, infertility or neurological disorders. Choose an acupuncturist that is experienced in your area of need who will work with you to develop a plan for healing.
In his article, Horgan rightly points out that today’s so-called “science skeptics” are little more than dogmatic tribal cultists (my words, not Horgan’s) who celebrate “skeptical” thinking concerning their selected philosophical targets while vehemently denying anyone’s right to question their own beliefs on things like breast cancer screening, vaccine safety, global warming and genetically engineered foods.
As Horgan eloquently explains in his piece, real skeptics are skeptical of everything, not just selected topics that are targeted by the madness of status quo science crowds (i.e. the “cult of scientism”).
Real skepticism means questioning everything… especially the status quo
A real skeptic, in other words, would bring critical thinking to all of our science narratives and cultural beliefs, including those that cover the origin of the universe (cosmology), the origin of the human species, the nature of consciousness, the long history of indigenous botanical medicine, the cancer industry and mammography, homeopathy, antidepressant drugs, water filters, the existence of God and everything else imaginable. But far too many of today’s infamous “skeptics” (such as Richard Dawkins) are really just cultists who labor under the false banner of “science.” And they’re offensive to real critical thinkers, it turns out.
“I don’t hang out with people who self-identify as capital-S Skeptics. Or Atheists. Or Rationalists,” explains Horgan. “When people like this get together, they become tribal. They pat each other on the back and tell each other how smart they are compared to those outside the tribe. But belonging to a tribe often makes you dumber.”
I’ve seen this myself, on both ends of the medicine spectrum. I’ve seen insanely stupid pharmacology experts swear that statin drugs are such miraculous chemicals that they should be dripped into the public water supply. But I’ve also seen “raw foodies” at festivals swearing that their “water vortexer machines” could levitate water in defiance of the laws of gravity.
In both cases, my critical thinking alarms go haywire, and I shake my head in disbelief that so many people are so gullible, regardless of their level of academic education or technical mastery of certain subjects. A highly trained doctor with an IQ of 200 can be just as functionally stupid as a high school dropout, I’ve observed. In fact, when it comes to medicine and health, many so-called “experts” are so ignorant of reality that they almost seem cognitively retarded.
My experience as a food research scientist has taught me to distrust everything by default
As a food scientist and lab science director of CWC Labs where I conduct food analysis via ICP-MS, LC/MS-TOF and other instruments, I’ve become even more skeptical of the mainstream natural products industry over the last few years.
Take note of the massive scam of commercial almond milk sold in grocery stores. Such products contain almost no almonds at all. Instead, they’re thickened with carageenan and made to look milky white by the addition of an inorganic mineral compound called calcium carbonate — ground up rocks! This calcium carbonate, when consumed in large quantities, can cause extreme bone pain, kidney calcification and may even contribute to the calcification of arteries. Yet it’s added to a so-called “natural” health product that people are drinking in huge quantities while thinking they’re being smart about their health. Truth be told, you’d be far better off drinking raw, unpasteurized cow’s milk than commercial almond milk.
I’ve also seen so much pollution in “natural” products — including toxic heavy metals and alarming quantities of pesticides and herbicides in supposedly “clean” products — that I’ve reached the point where my own food manufacturing operation now rejects 80% of the raw material lots we test. (See my upcoming book Food Forensics for detailed ICP-MS analysis revealing the heavy metals concentrations in over 800 foods, supplements and spices.)
Similarly, I find myself rejecting 80% of the total B.S. science nonsense reported by the scientifically illiterate mainstream media… (and sometimes even the “science” media). I’ve literally seen seemingly credible reports in the mainstream media that claim the most ludicrous science nonsense, including claims that cars can be “powered” by air and that cell phones can be “powered” by water. The air powered cars stories always neglect to mention that the air must be pressurized by some other energy source; usually coal-generated electricity that’s used to power the compressors in the first place.
I’ve also seen the Associated Press falsely report that all mercury has been removed from all vaccines in America (blatantly false), and I’ve seen the obedient Monsanto-puppet media (i.e. Forbes.com, a propaganda rag steeped in utterly false journalism) report ridiculous claims such as asserting that glyphosate disintegrates quickly in the food supply. In truth, this cancer-causing weed killer survives food processing and human digestion, showing up in both urine and breast milk, fully intact in its original molecular form.
So why is there no skepticism among “skeptics” about the food chain persistence of pesticides? The false diagnosis hoax of mammography? The lunatic quack medicine diagnosis of “psychiatric disorders” that are treated with mind-bending psychiatric drugs? Or even the scientifically proven fact that some children are seriously harmed by certain vaccines, most notably HPV vaccines?
As Horgan writes in Scientific American:
“The Science Delusion” is common among Capital-S Skeptics. You don’t apply your skepticism equally. You are extremely critical of belief in God, ghosts, heaven, ESP, astrology, homeopathy and Bigfoot. You also attack disbelief in global warming, vaccines and genetically modified food… Meanwhile, you neglect what I call hard targets. These are dubious and even harmful claims promoted by major scientists and institutions. In the rest of this talk, I’ll give you examples of hard targets from physics, medicine and biology. I’ll wrap up with a rant about war, the hardest target of all.
Real scientists reject the cult of scientism
What Horgan is doing is, dare we say, exercising REAL scientific skepticism. He’s refusing to sign up for the “cult of scientism” that all the other closed-minded skeptics obediently follow as their dogmatic mental prison.
Horgan understands that legitimate science is a process, not a belief system. “Science” isn’t belief in vaccines, GMOs, chemotherapy and global warming. Those are conclusions, not processes. Real science is a process of discovery; and that process must be subjected to questioning and criticism, or it isn’t science at all.
Let me repeat that for emphasis: Real science is a PROCESS, not a set of conclusions. Any “scientific” belief system which rejects critical questioning isn’t based in real science at all. It’s just dogma.
This explains why the entire vaccine industry — as it is fraudulently promoted today — isn’t scientific at all. Vaccine propaganda is founded in a dogmatic belief system that demands absolute obedience to political vaccine narratives while rejecting even the slightest questions or criticisms about vaccine ingredients, vaccine safety, vaccine adverse events or vaccine efficacy.
For example, merely asking the question of why flu shots still contain over 50,000 ppb mercury — that’s over 25,000 times the EPA limit of mercury in drinking water — earns you widespread ridicule and condemnation. And yet the mercury is still being injected into children. Yet the entire vaccine propaganda establishment rejects even the hint of discussion of mercury in vaccines, pretending it doesn’t exist.
The vaccine establishment, as Natural News readers well know, is practicing delusional thinking masquerading as science. It’s just as delusional as so-called “psychic surgeons” who claim to pull diseased liver parts out of a patient’s body (which later turn out to be chicken livers, go figure…). Any real skeptic, upon observing the quackery, propaganda and blatant deception of the vaccine industry, would have to conclude that the way vaccines are formulated, approved and promoted today makes a mockery of science.
More “science” B.S. is readily found in the fields of physics and medicine, too
Speaking on the subject of computing and AI systems, Horgan explains, “The Singularity is an apocalyptic cult, with science substituted for God. When high-status scientists promote flaky ideas like the Singularity and multiverse, they hurt science. They undermine its credibility on issues like global warming.”
Of course, Horgan may not yet understand that belief in man-made global warming as the primary cause for rising CO2 levels is also based on a politicized science cult. But that’s not even the point. I don’t expect other scientists to arrive at the same conclusions I’ve reached. What I do expect, however, is that scientists should honor the process of critical scientific thinking. If they honor the process, they will eventually reach the correct conclusions on subjects such as man-made global warming, vaccine safety problems, the total con job of statin drugs and so on.
On medicine, Horgan nails it. He gets the fact that today’s medical screening system is largely a fraud:
Over the past half-century, physicians and hospitals have introduced increasingly sophisticated, expensive tests. They assure us that early detection of disease will lead to better health.
But tests often do more harm than good. For every woman whose life is extended because a mammogram detected a tumor, up to 33 receive unnecessary treatment, including biopsies, surgery, radiation and chemotherapy. For men diagnosed with prostate cancer after a PSA test, the ratio is 47 to one. Similar data are emerging on colonoscopies and other tests.
He’s also right on the mark when it comes to psychiatric drugs and their fraudulent marketing:
Over the last few decades, American psychiatry has morphed into a marketing branch of Big Pharma. I started critiquing medications for mental illness more than 20 years ago, pointing out that antidepressants like Prozac are scarcely more effective than placebos.
In retrospect, my criticism was too mild. Psychiatric drugs help some people in the short term, but over time, in the aggregate, they make people sicker.
He also exposes the total fraud of so-called “gene discoveries” that ridiculously claim genes have been discovered for things like gay-ness or intelligence:
Another hard target that needs your attention is behavioral genetics, which seeks the genes that make us tick. I call it gene-whiz science, because the media and the public love it.
Over the past several decades, geneticists have announced the discovery of “genes for” virtually every trait or disorder. We’ve had the God gene, gay gene, alcoholism gene, warrior gene, liberal gene, intelligence gene, schizophrenia gene, and on and on.
None of these linkages of single genes to complex traits or disorders has been confirmed. None!
Much of what you’re told today under the banner of “science” is complete bulls–t
Horgan has come to the same conclusion that I’ve reached through a different path: Much of what we are taught today under the banner of “science” is complete bunk. Some of it is sheer hucksterism, and a lot of it qualifies as criminal fraud.
At the top of that list of science frauds is, of course, vaccines. As I’ve exhaustively documented here on Natural News, many popular vaccines (flu shots, measles, mumps) simply don’t work at all. Shockingly, outright admissions of a complete lack of scientific testing of the efficacy of such vaccines is admitted on their insert sheets. The Flulaval vaccine insert sheet, for example, admits there are “No controlled trials demonstrating a decrease in influenza” among people being injected with the vaccine.
Yet despite these extraordinary admissions of lack of efficacy, vaccine research fraud and the known toxicity of vaccine ingredients (which still include formaldehyde, mercury, aluminum and MSG), the systematic rejection of such evidence by vaccine promoting “science skeptics” borders on the fringe of mental illness. These are not scientists at all… they are con artists and criminals — like Poul Thorsen, a fugitive from justice who was once a CDC researcher — pretending to be scientists.
As a real scientist, I’ve dared to ask 21 questions we’re never allowed to ask about vaccines. Such questions are based on reason and rationality. They include commonsense questions such as, “If measles vaccines confer measles immunity, then why do already-vaccinated children have anything to fear from a measles outbreak?”
It is notable that the entire vaccine establishment not only refuses to answer such questions; they consider the mere act of questioning vaccine dogma to be blasphemy. The demand for absolute obedience to the false narratives surrounding vaccines has reached such a fever pitch that anyone can now see it’s no longer based in science at all. It is a kind of religious fervor put on by deranged zealots who claim an intellectual monopoly over all things related to vaccines. This phenomenon is, in a very real way, a “scientific dictatorship” — an apt oxymoron to describe today’s juxtaposition of conformist demands and so-called “scientific evidence.”
Hint: If you aren’t allowed to ask questions about the evidence, it isn’t evidence at all. It’s dogma, plain and simple. Vaccine proponents, as they operate today, are faith-based dogmatists who don’t need any legitimate evidence because they BELIEVE in vaccines. Their belief is so strong that it outweighs all evidence contrary to their current beliefs. And in case you didn’t notice, what I’ve just described here is a cult, not a science.
Vaccine “science” is a massive con job
The other huge con job found in vaccines is described thusly: Vaccines only “work” on those who don’t need them. In other words, when vaccines do work, they do so by initiating an immune response to a weakened virus that’s introduced into the body. This response requires an active and complex immune system that’s functioning well… the same kind of immune system, in other words, that could ward off an infection of a live virus encountered in the wild.
Meanwhile, people who have suppressed immune systems and are therefore extremely vulnerable to infections in the wild also happen to have extremely poor (and sometimes completely nullified) responses to vaccines. They don’t build antibodies, in other words, so the vaccines don’t work for them (they are non-efficacious).
In order to make vaccines “work” better on those with weakened immune systems, vaccine manufacturers add adjuvant chemicals that are irritants which cause excessive inflammation in the hope of eliciting a stronger immune response. While this may help some people, it also carries a very real risk of causing inflammatory damage to the neurology of some children who receive these vaccines. The results, as borne out by the vaccine adverse events databases and Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, is a growing number of children who are maimed, neurological damaged, put into comas or even killed by vaccines.
The entire “skeptics” cult of modern medicine denies any of this is happening, and that’s one reason why the skeptics are increasingly seen as high-functioning idiots who are possibly vaccine damaged themselves. Zealotous hate-bloggers like Doctor David Gorski — a psychopathic, mentally ill vaccine promoter who also carries out cancer surgery on African-American victims in Detroit — now characterize the skeptics cult, a cabal of mentally deranged lunatics and gay sex fetish seekers like James Randi who was caught on tape soliciting sex from a young man.
Richard Dawkins, for his part, is also an anti-consciousness cultist who believes in the irrational dualism that no other humans on this planet are conscious beings other than himself. Everybody else, he claims, is an unconscious biological robot suffering under the illusion of self awareness.
Meet three real scientists we need to empower to ask more questions of the scientific establishment
What kind of people do we really need to see more of in the realm of scientific skepticism? People like Rupert Sheldrake, author of Science Set Free. Sheldrake’s work is transformative, as it challenges the underlying non-scientific assumptions of modern science.
We also need more people like Gilbert Welch, author of Less Medicine, More Health. This book challenges the seven false assumptions of modern medicine.
The other thing we need, quite frankly, is independent scientists like myself who are conducting cutting edge, truly independent science, without any financial ties to governments, corporations or academia. My science lab, which has now passed our ISO 17025 accreditation audit, is free to pursue precisely the kind of scientific analysis of food and medicine that is blackballed or censored in the government-funded scientific community. Other scientists would lose their jobs if they pursued the kind of science I’m pursuing on a daily basis with absolute freedom.
Notably, this makes me a rare practitioner of real, independent science and a protector of the very kind of independent skepticism and scientific analysis that should be embraced by any system of knowledge that’s based on legitimate science. Yet the science I’m conducting is widely considered a threat to the scientific establishment, precisely because I’m willing to analyze vaccines for heavy metals and organic chemicals, for example. Such research is simply not allowed by the cult of scientism (the vaccine zealots) because they depend on widespread ignorance of vaccine composition to continue parlaying their fraudulent lies about vaccine safety.
I honor scientists who pursue a rigorous process of critical thinking… and I despise obedient status quo cultists
John Horgan might not yet be aware of the full story on vaccines, so he might disagree with me on such conclusions. But that’s not the point. I honor Horgan’s commitment to asking big questions. In fact, I honor those who vehemently disagree with me as long as they are following a process of authentic inquiry and open-minded skepticism.
What I despise is science cultists, dogmatic science propagandists and the worship of the “high priests” of science such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who can only be described as a “sciency” sleight-of-mind huckster who has more in common with stage illusionist David Copperfield than, say, Richard Feynman.
Tyson, like Dawkins, is a cultist. He has zero intellectual integrity and has sold out to the tribal dogmatists who spin tall tales of irrational mysticism that currently pass for “accepted science.”
For my part, I don’t claim to have all the answers — no human mind can possibly dare to claim a full understanding of the mysteries of nature (or the mind of God, for that matter). But as a real scientist, I’m willing to skeptically explore the evidence on just about anything. I don’t reject entire fields of scientific inquiry merely because they are taboo. It doesn’t mean I’m a sucker for silly claims, just that I’m intelligent and humble enough to realize that nature is far more mysterious than any human mind can possibly grasp. And we have much more to learn… many more scientific discoveries to make in the years ahead.
For example, psychic phenomena are often called “paranormal.” But what if they are so commonplace that they’re actually normal? Why can’t we study things like pets somehow anticipating the random arrivals of their owners many minutes in advance? Or mothers having a seemingly intuitive emotional connection to their children even when separated by distance? Why can’t we study dream premonition? Consciousness after biological death? Or even the possibility that the brain is a “quantum antenna” that can receive information transmitted from other conscious sources, transmitted by a quantum entanglement mechanism that Einstein described as “spooky action at a distance?”
If we are true scientists, we must at least BE CURIOUS about the nature of the universe and the apparent consciousness we seem to experience inside that universe. The minute we lose curiosity and decide we have all the answers, we cease being scientists at all. At that point, we just become mentally incapacitated dogmatic fools… like Dawkins and Randi, two people whom history will judge as being not just unwise hucksters, but even for slowing the progress of human knowledge into realms of understanding that are viciously attacked by “skeptics” today.
I often wonder just how many people have died needlessly due to the malicious “skepticism” of info-terrorist David Gorski or the Quackwatch propagandist Stephen Barrett. How many cases of cancer could have been prevented or reversed by natural and complementary medicine? How many studies might have been conducted in the pursuit of natural cures if not for the vicious, aggressive assaults on scientific curiosity being waged by “cult of scientism” intellectual bigots?
We’ll never know the answer to that question, but at least a few people like John Horgan are willing to start asking some legitimate questions about the false assumptions of “skeptics.” Have no doubt that Horgan himself will be maliciously slandered, attacked, defamed, censored and lied about for daring to ask such questions. The one thing today’s bulls–t scientific establishment cannot tolerate is actual skepticism. It threatens the cultist beliefs of the faithful “scientism” worshippers, you see…
How Dermatologists Fuel Chronic Disease Rates With Their Flawed Sun Exposure Guidelines
The U.S. Surgeon General, the American Academy of Dermatology, and The Skin Cancer Foundation all view sunlight irrationally as a dangerous skin cancer risk
Sun avoidance fuels health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, including hypertension, cardiovascular disease, cancer, depression, and poses special health risks to pregnant mothers and their children
The evidence supporting sensible sun exposure is strong and clear, while there’s little evidence that sunscreen use protects against skin cancer, or that vitamin D supplements are bioequivalent to sunshine
By Dr. Mercola
In July 2014, the interim U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Boris Lushniak, who is also a dermatologist, issued a “Call to Action to Prevent Skin Cancer,”1,2 in which he declared UV radiation harmful and said sun exposure should be avoided altogether.
The American Academy of Dermatology and The Skin Cancer Foundation also advocate avoiding all sun exposure — regardless of the color of your skin — saying vitamin D supplementation can address any deficiencies.
This is an irrational and shortsighted position that lacks any credibility. The scientific evidence, now running in excess of 34,000 studies, detail that UV exposure is essential, both for vitamin D production and other benefits unrelated to vitamin D.
The color of your skin is a significant factor to determine appropriate exposure times and any advice that does not take this into consideration is illogical. We are not nocturnal beings, avoiding the sun entirely is horrible advice that should not be followed.
Dermatologists’ Position on Sun Exposure Riddled With Fatal Flaws
Let’s remember that, because of their irrational concern, they were able to convince public health officials and media to convince people to use sunscreens.
What happened as a result of the public adopting this proactive “preventive” approach? Skin cancers actually increased.
Why? Because the dermatologists did not do their homework. Most sunscreens blocked UVB, which causes vitamin D levels to increase and lower cancer rates, but they let UVA, which can cause skin cancer when excessively exposed, to shine right through like a hot knife through butter.
What’s worse, they never admitted to their egregious mistake. Ironically, the only location dermatologists approve of UV light treatment is in their office under costly supervision.
Avoiding Sun Exposure Radically Worsens Disease Rates
Advocating abstinence from UV light is undoubtedly fueling many health problems associated with vitamin D deficiency, including cancer, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune diseases and depression.
UVB exposure is essential for optimal health, and any risks of exposure are related to over exposure and burning. Research shows vitamin D is involved in the biochemical regulation of nearly every cell in your body, including your immune system.
Vitamin D deficiency can deteriorate your health in a number of different ways, as your cells need the active form of vitamin D to optimally regulate genetic expression.
As noted by William Grant, Ph.D., head of the Sunlight, Nutrition and Health Research Center (SUNARC), staying indoors to avoid sun exposure is “not particularly good advice,” adding that:3
“There are several papers indicating that occupational exposure to sunlight reduces the risk of melanoma. It is having fair skin, a high-fat, low fruit and vegetable diet, sunburning, etc., that are more linked to melanoma than total UV exposure.”
Vitamin D Is Crucial for Pregnant Women
Vitamin D is particularly important for pregnant women, as deficiency affects both the mother and her child in the short and long term, including raising the child’s long-term risk for diabetes, allergic rhinitis,4 arthritis, stroke, and cardiovascular disease.Recent research shows that raising maternal vitamin D levels helps children born in winter months develop stronger, healthier bones.5 Lead researcher Professor Nicholas Harvey, Ph.D., of the University of Southampton, also notes that sun exposure is the most important source of vitamin D.
Health initiatives such as GrassrootsHealth D*Action study,6 and the Protect Our Children NOW! campaign are both based on these fundamental and scientifically proven facts.
Dermatologists Ignore Skin Color
The fact that the American Academy of Dermatology issues the same recommendations for everyone, without regard for skin type, is telling. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they view sun exposure as nothing but a dangerous cancer risk to be avoided at all costs.
This is a really nonsensical, and most definitively nonscientific, stance. According to their advice, even if you have the darkest skin, you should always seek shade and wear protective clothing and/or sunscreen when outdoors.
The notion that supplements are bioequivalent to sunshine is lacking. While I recommend supplements if UVB exposure is not available, to suggest that vitamin D can replace all the benefits of sun exposure is ridiculous.
In fact, each of us responds quite differently to vitamin D supplementation – there is a 6 to 10 times difference in dosage response between individuals. If you are supplementing with vitamin D, you should have your levels checked twice per year to ensure you stay above 40ng/ml.
Because of this, vitamin D experts such as Grant and Dr. Michael F. Holick note that sensible sun exposure is far preferable to vitamin D supplementation.
Oversimplifying the Issue Is Not a Good Public Health Policy
The Skin Cancer Foundation echoes the American Academy of Dermatology’s recommendations.
When questioned about this philosophy and asked why the recommendations fail to take into account skin type and color, Dr. Henry Lim, who sits on The Skin Cancer Foundation’s photobiology committee, replied that such information is irrelevant because vitamin D supplements can address deficiency.
“We want to make it simple as a public health message — as to what the public should reasonably be able to absorb and understand. To fine tune it is just too complicated we feel.”
But by oversimplifying the matter, dermatologists place a great number of people at grave risk for vitamin D deficiency, which may not be identified until health problems have already set in. Moreover, the advice to use sunscreen is also on shaky scientific ground.
According to an analysis by epidemiologist Marianne Berwick, Ph.D., there’s very little evidence to suggest that sunscreen use will prevent skin cancer.
After analyzing a dozen studies on basal cell carcinoma, which is typically non-lethal, and the more deadly melanoma, Berwick found that people who use sunscreen tend to be more likely to develop both of these conditions.
Only 2 of 10 melanoma studies found that sunscreen was protective against this condition; three found no association either way. None found sunscreen use protected against basal cell carcinoma.8
Your Body Is Designed to Optimize Health Effects of Sun Exposure
Darker-skinned people not only need more sun exposure to produce sufficient amounts of vitamin D, they’re also more protected from skin cancer due to their skin pigmentation. Yet this important reality is simply ignored by dermatologists, resulting in most African Americans being at a radically increased risk of cancers and heart disease from vitamin D deficiency.
“How the sun affects you depends on your complexion, the shade of which is determined by melanin … The anti-oxidizing molecule is so versatile at protecting and repairing DNA from UV solar radiation that creatures from humans to fungi deploy it … [T]he melanin sits atop cellular DNA like tiny umbrellas pointed … out to shield from incoming rays …
[T]he same ultraviolet wavelengths in the 290 to 400 nanometers range that trigger melanin production also spark vitamin D creation. You cannot make one without the other.
Humans evolved to produce two kinds of melanin … The MC1R gene determines the type of melanin the body produces. In the mid-zone such as the Mediterranean region, people … produce eumelanin, the pigment responsible for brown or black hair and for dark skin that tans easily …
[I]n far northern Europe, humans paled, adapting to lower light … with a different type of melanin, called pheomelanin, associated with fair skin and blonde and red hair with minimal protective value, but allowing more UV to penetrate to make vitamin D. ”
Sun Avoidance Raises Risk of Internal Cancers
Dermatology is focused on one primary outcome — avoiding skin damage and skin cancer. But by focusing on just one side of the UV exposure issue, they’re actually promoting a lifestyle that may raise your risk of other lethal cancers and chronic diseases. Not only have higher vitamin D levels been shown to offer significant protection against a number of internal cancers, there’s also evidence showing higher levels offer protection against melanoma.
In fact, higher rates of melanoma are found among those who have low vitamin D levels; among indoor occupations; and in areas of the body that rarely or never see the light of day. In short, the vitamin D your body produces in response to UVB radiation is protective against skin cancer. As noted in The Lancet:10
“Paradoxically, outdoor workers have a decreased risk of melanoma compared with indoor workers, suggesting that chronic sunlight exposure can have a protective effect.”
Even more importantly, vitamin D has been shown to significantly reduce internal cancers, along with chronic diseases such as heart disease, which kill far more people than melanoma does. Breast11 and prostate12,13 cancers are just two examples where low vitamin D renders you more vulnerable to more aggressive forms of the disease. Recent research14 has also found that low vitamin D levels are associated with more severe peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients.
Reporting on recent research linking low vitamin D levels to an increased risk for aggressive breast cancer, Medical Daily writes:15
“The researchers linked vitamin D levels to the ID1 gene, which at high levels of expression is associated with breast cancer tumor growth. Past studies have shown that vitamin D is linked to inhibiting the expression of this gene, and that low vitamin D levels have been associated with more aggressive tumors. ”
Public Health Messages Should Be Based on All-Cause Mortality Reduction
TO READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE & VIEW THE VIDEOS< GO TO: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2016/03/14/vitamin-d-sun-exposure-guidelines
False claim 1 – The idea that cancer is a disease of the modern Western world is overplayed
Cancer has been known since ancient times. However, it has gone from a rare disease, as it was during the turn of the 1900s, to a rising global epidemic in modern times. The cancer establishment gives the impression that its true causes are unknown and plays down the idea that it is a disease of the modern Western world.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Well-documented evidence has been produced to show that cancer causes have been known for years. In recent decades, there have been a growing onslaught of DNA-changing carcinogenic circumstances.
Examples include rising numbers of: food chemicals; water and air pollutants; vaccinations; GMOs and medications.
It practically ignores the findings that isolated indigenous tribes such as the Hunsas, Karakorum or Azerbaijanis had been virtually cancer free, with evidence strongly suggesting that this was because the spoils of the Western world had been absent.
False claim 2 – The medical/pharmaceutical approach is the only real way to treat cancer
In line with the “mechanistic approach to medicine” the cancer establishment generally ignores anything outside of this health model: Little or not enough attention is given to the highly effective roles of diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity…
False claim 3 – There are no natural health-based successful cures for cancer
Following on from 2, it beggars belief to me how anyone could not seriously look into the factors that address the very fabric of our being: diet, the mind-body influence, exercise and environmental toxicity … and how they influence our health. This blatant ignorance has made the cancer establishment blind to the evidence suggesting the contrary and how the natural health-based model with its principles has been highly successful.
False claim 4 – Natural health based innovators/pioneers are just quacks
Those innovators / pioneers who have taken on natural health approaches related to the above 4 factors have had quite a hard time from the cancer establishment. While there is no 100% cure for cancer, the overwhelming evidence shows that their approaches can be successful. At times, more successful than the cancer establishment; credit should, therefore, be given to these individuals where it’s due.
Anyone can Google a number of innovators/pioneers with their natural health approaches and see that they have had their equipment seized by the medical/pharmaceutical establishment and have been taken to court for illegal practices in spite of the fact that they had records and case testimonies to show high cure rates! The innovators/pioneers had won many court cases because cancer-cured individuals stood up and testified.
Examples of this include: Stanislaw Burzynski Antineoplaston Therapy, Harry Hoxey Herbs, Max Gerson Therapy (now headed by daughter Charlotte Gerson), Royal Rife’s cancer machine… it is indeed up to you the reader to research this then decide for yourself.
False claim 6 – The acid/alkaline dietary choice plays no major role in cancer prevention/reversal
The human body’s blood pH lies somewhere in between 7.3 – 7.45. Anything outside this range and we’d be dead. Remember, the lower the pH the more acid the blood, which in effect means less oxygen content (read Dr Otto Warburg 1920s) and has the effect of cell degeneration on an individual. Energy is sapped by the body trying to raise the blood pH back to mid-range. This is caused by eating acid junk foods… which also creates a favourable environment for disease such as cancer to set in.
The answer is to eat alkaline foods such as raw greens (spinach, broccoli and asparagus) to get the pH towards the higher figure in the range, allowing more energy available for enzyme efficiency, metabolic functioning and an environment unfavourable for disease.
False claim 7 – Survival rate and prevention claims … winning the battle
As a reaction to the rising cancer deaths Richard Nixon, US president at the time in the early 1970s, introduced a “war on cancer” and funding increased hugely. However, the illusory war that followed, in spite of the increased funding for research into cancer, the death rates continually increased over several decades! Chemotherapy, radiation and surgery have not been that effective. Much has been done to cover up or twist data interpretation related to this to make results look better. For instance, chemotherapy goes down as successful if results produce tumour shrinkage; even if it’s only for a limited time period and the tumour returns stronger (rebound phenomenon) to eventually kill the patient.
The early detection improvement claim is a myth. That’s because no one really knows if the cancer detected will turn out to be malignant or benign … a classic example of this is in mammograms. The only absolute that can be said about a mammogram is that it detects cancer.
All in all
A holistic approach would be a step in the right direction, incorporating natural health approache,s but I can’t see the cancer establishment changing their ways from the dogmas of mechanistic medicine. There’s too much money to be made from the status quo…
An important breakthrough may prevent people from suffering from cancer or the aggressive radiation and chemotherapy treatments used to kill cancer cells.
Anthony Holland, an Associate Professor and Director of Music Technology at Skidmore College in New York, U.S., and his fellow researchers discovered that, by creating custom digital electronic signals, they can destroy cancer cells and Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MSRA). In their laboratory experiments, the team used Oscillating Pulsed Electric Fields (OPEF) to induce sympathetic resonant vibrations which in a short amount of time shattered targeted cells from pancreatic cancer, leukemia, ovarian cancer, and the dangerous antibiotic-resistant bacterium MSRA. Below is an image showing the effect that the resonant frequencies had on leukemia cells.
Just as various sound frequencies can shatter different types of crystal and glass, shattering microscopic organisms is possible because they have many similar properties of liquid crystals.
Holland created a device that uses pulsating plasma lights to emit the right frequency electronic signals to induce sympathetic resonant vibration in targeted microorganisms. Holland’s research showed that not only can one change the vibration of a biological living microorganism with an electronic signal, but also that different frequencies of this electronic signal can be used to target different types of microorganisms.
Below is a TED talk by Anthony Holland during which he reveals his discoveries. Starting midway through his talk, Holland shows stunning videos of how various cancer cells react to eleventh harmonic frequency combinations. It took the researchers over 15 months of trying hundreds of frequency combinations to find the ones with the potential to kill cancer cells. Holland’s goal is to create a treatment that can be used to shatter cancer cells and heal cancer patients painlessly and without toxic methods.
Vitamin D Found To Significantly Reduce Cancer, Yet Almost 90 Percent of The World Has Sub-Optimal Levels
by Mae Chan
There’s no doubting the magnitude of scientific evidence showing that the active form of vitamin D shuts down cancer cells. Higher levels of vitamin D are highly correlated with better chances of cancer survival and a new meta-analysis of existing data shows that increasing vitamin D status is associated with a significantly reduced risk of developing lung cancer.
“Almost every disease decreases in frequency and duration as we move towards equatorial populations, and the data shows that there is a minimum of a 1000 percent increase for many diseases in countries furthest from the equator, however we have obtained the same results based on data through populations and vitamin D supplementation,” said Dr. Anthony Petaku who studies the effects of Vitamin D2 and D3 on mutating cells.
Findings from the study, published in Cancer Causes & Control, suggest that the risk of lung cancer may be reduced by 5% for every 10 nmol/L increase of vitamin D intake.
The international research team, who worked in partnership with scientists at DSM, noted that while previous studies have suggested a link between vitamin D status and a variety of cancers, prospective observational studies examining the association between the circulating form of vitamin D, 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D), and lug have so far provided inconsistent findings.
“This is a significant result, as lung cancer is one of the top five cancers diagnosed among men and women, as well as being among the most common causes of death in the world,” commented ProfessorLi-qiang Qin from Soochow University in China — who led the work.
“More research is needed to determine whether a further increase has positive effects in reducing the risk of cancer, however this outcome helps us raise awareness of vitamin D health benefits.”
In a recent study, author Dr Hui Wang, said: “The results suggest vitamin D may influence the prognosis for people with breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lymphoma, in particular.”
Meanwhile, Dr Weiguo Zhang, corresponding author from DSM Nutritional Products, China, noted that 88% of the world’s population has sub-optimal vitamin D levels — adding that studies like the current meta-analysis help to understand how micronutrients affect the human body and how certain conditions can be prevented with increased and targeted intake.
“The new study adds to a larger body of evidence which demonstrates the emerging roles of vitamin D in protecting populations from developing other cancer risks, for instance, colon and breast cancer,” added Dr Manfred Eggersdorfer, Senior Vice President, Nutrition, Science & Advocacy at DSM.
Li-qiang and his colleagues performed a dose–response meta-analysis assess whether different levels of vitamin D status were related to an altered risk of lung cancer.
The team analysed data from 13 reports in ten prospective studies, totalling 2,227 lung cancer events.
The meta-analysis found evidence of a non-linear relationship between 25(OH)D and lung cancer — finding a significant 5 % reduction in relative risk of developing lung cancer for each 10 nmol/L increment in 25(OH)D concentrations.
They noted that the greatest reduction in risk was found at a vitamin D status of around 53 nmol/L, which remained protective up to 90 nmol/L.
“Further increases showed no significant association with cancer risk, but scanty data were included in the analyses of high-level 25(OH)D,” the team reported.
“This dose–response meta-analysis of prospective studies suggests that 25(OH)D may be associated with reduced risk of lung cancer, in particular among subjects with vitamin D deficiencies,” they concluded.
“Considering that vitamin D deficiency is a widespread issue all over the world, it is important to ensure that everyone has sufficient levels of this important nutrient,” Dr Wang said. “Physicians need to pay close attention to vitamin D levels in people who have been diagnosed with cancer.”
Professional recommendations for supplementation are made for groups at risk of deficiency including pregnant and breastfeeding women, children under the age of five not fed infant formula, people over 65 and those not exposed to much sun.
It said taking too many vitamin D supplements over a long period of time could cause more calcium to be absorbed than can be excreted, which could lead to kidney damage and softened and weakened bones.
For this reason it’s very important to take a high quality calcium and magensium supplement with vitamin D such as Life Choice Opti-Cal/Mag Complex which also contains Vitamin K2 which in itself also has been found to prevent cancer and also improve bone, cardiovascular, skin, brain, and now prostate health.
Thirty years of research reveals 10 of the best food phytonutrients to ingest to protect against and even treat the root cause of most cancers.
A new medical model is fast emerging in line with ancient wisdom: one that aims to strike to the root cause of disease and resolve it permanently, and which some call “functional medicine.” In cancer treatment, this highly rational approach involves targeting the cancer stem cells (CSCs) at the root of cancer malignancy. Because we now know that CSCs are resistant to chemotherapy and radiation treatment, and may even increase in number and invasiveness when exposed to these outdated therapies, it is no longer ethical to continue with the conventional oncologist’s “standard of care.” Clearly, unless a cancer treatment is capable of selectively killing and/or inducing suicide programs (apoptosis) within cancer cells without harming non-cancerous cells, it is not going to produce a cure.
The researchers described the discovery that phytochemicals can selectively target CSCs as “a milestone in the improvement of cancer treatment because the synthetic anticancer drugs that are currently used are often highly toxic for healthy organs and weakens the patient’s immune system.“
They also pointed out that the phytochemicals or extracts identified above, due to their “low levels of toxicity for normal cells,” can be used in combination with other phytochemicals, “yielding powerful synergistic effects.“
They identified several key areas of focus for the future:
Finding a way to combine these compounds into “very active cocktails of phytochemicals” to address the multiple areas of treatment resistance often found in CSCs.
Compare the effects of natural phytochemicals with synthetic drugs, the latter of which they anticipate will be found to be less efficient.
Further research should be performed on CSCs to better understand the signaling pathways that govern their self-renewal and survival.
The authors concluded, “[T]he use of phytochemicals may be a true therapeutic strategy for eradicating cancer through the elimination of CSCs.“
Sayer Ji is an author, educator, Steering Committee Member of the Global GMO-Free Coalition (GGFC), advisory board member of the National Health Federation, and the founder of GreenMedInfo.com – an open access, evidence-based resource supporting natural and integrative modalities. His writings have been published and referenced widely in print and online, including Truthout, Mercola.com, The Journal of Gluten Sensitivity, New York Times and The Well Being Journal.
In a perfect world, science would have unlimited funding, free from corporations or special interest groups, where all studies would be truly objective and unbiased. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Financing by private companies, or those who have a vested interest in the outcome of the research, often leads to biased conclusions which favor the sponsor of the study.
Take for example a pharmaceutical company paying for a new drug to treat depression. When the track record of such research is examined, we find studies backed by the pharmaceutical industry tend to show partiality toward the drug under consideration, whereas research sponsored by government grants or charitable organizations is prone to draw more objective conclusions.¹
In a similar fashion, research financed by the food industry often favors the food under investigation compared to inquiries that are independently sponsored.²
“Everyone should know that most cancer research is largely a fraud, and that the major cancer research organizations are derelict in their duties to the people who support them.”³ ~ Linus Pauling, PhD, and two-time Nobel Prize winner.
Dr. Marcia Angell, physician and longtime editor in chief of the New England Medical Journal, feels that objective research has taken a turn for the worse:
“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.”
And John P.A. loannidis, a professor in disease prevention at Standford University School of Medicine, writes that most published research findings are false, due to several criteria — including “greater financial and other interest and prejudice.” He also states that “for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”
Another critique of our current scientific method is found with Richard Horton, editor in chief of The Lancet, who states, “much of scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue,” in the April 15th, 2015 edition of the journal. He lists a a variety of reasons for this failure: studies with small sample sizes, flagrant conflicts of interest and an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance. Horton adds, “as one participant put it, “poor methods get results.”’
Moreover, ScienceDaily reports that a study at the University of Michigan found that nearly one-third of cancer research published in high-profile journals have conflicts of interest. The research team examined 1,534 cancer studies published in well-respected journals.The most frequent type of conflict is with industry funding (17% of the papers). Twelve percent of the papers were in conflict because the author was an industry employee. And randomized trials were more likely to have positive findings when conflicts of interest were present.
Reshma Jagsi, M.D., D.Phil., and author of the University of Michigan study, feels that “merely disclosing conflicts is probably not enough. It’s becoming increasingly clear that we need to look more at how we can disentangle cancer research from industry ties.”
Jagsi believes that research has become corrupted by designing industry-funded studies in such a manner that’s likely to yield favorable results. Researchers may also be more inclined to publish positive outcomes while overlooking negative results.
“In light of these findings, we as a society may wish to rethink how we want our research efforts to be funded and directed. It has been very hard to secure research funding, especially in recent years, so it’s been only natural for researchers to turn to industry. If we wish to minimize the potential for bias, we need to increase other sources of support. Medical research is ultimately a common endeavor that benefits all of society, so it seems only appropriate that we should be funding it through general revenues rather than expecting the market to provide,” Jagsi says.
When all is said and done, we may question whether privately funded research should be dismissed altogether. Most likely, no. But we can consider the advice presented in Understanding Science by the University of California at Berkeley:
“Ultimately, misleading results will be corrected as science proceeds; however, this process takes time. Meanwhile, it pays to scrutinize studies funded by industry or special interest groups with extra care. So don’t, for example, brush off a study of cell phone safety just because it was funded by a cell phone manufacturer — but do ask some careful questions about the research before jumping on the bandwagon. Are the results consistent with other independently funded studies? Does the study seem fairly designed? What do other scientists have to say about this research? A little scrutiny can go a long way towards identifying bias associated with funding source.”
¹Als-nielson, B., W. Chen, C. Gluud, and L.L. Kjaergard. 2003. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trails: A reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? Journal of the American Medical Association 290:921-928
²This research focused on studies of soft drinks, juice, and milk. Lesser, L.I., C.B. Ebbeling, M. Goozner, D. Wypij, and D.S. Ludwig. 2007. Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles. Public Library of Science Medicine 4:41-46.
Reshma Jagsi, Nathan Sheets, Aleksandra Jankovic, Amy R. Motomura, Sudha Amarnath, and Peter A. Ubel. Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer, Online May 11, 2009; Print Issue Date: June 15, 2009