Ivermectin — Another Benefit !!!

Cancer Surgeon Reveals the Surprising Potential of Ivermectin Against Cancer

Dr. Kathleen Ruddy is a member of Front Line Covid19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCCA) and a retired cancer surgeon trained at the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. She is conducting her own observational study on the effect on late-stage cancer patients who use Ivermectin. Dr. Ruddy explained that Ivermectin comes from a single cell organism discovered in soil in Japan. She said that Ivermectin can kill parasites and it can dismantle viruses. She believes that the majority of cancers are caused by tumor viruses yet to be discovered. She discussed three patients who had astonishing reversals of cancers and metastatic spread after using Ivermectin.

Disclaimer:  NeedToKnow.News is a media outlet. We do not give medical advice, but instead report the news. Please contact your own doctor or medical expert for any health issues.

Watch the full video with Dr. Kathleen Ruddy here:      https://www.theepochtimes.com/epochtv/the-surprising-potential-of-ivermectin-against-cancer-dr-kathleen-ruddy-5649306?src_src=partner&src_cmp=vigilantf

Link for video:      https://www.bitchute.com/video/u9Zh9gYKLHgw/

Epoch Times transcript excerpt:

Dr. Ruddy: The opening act in this story is that I began to do the scientific research that was in peer-reviewed papers, and I read them chronologically. I wanted to understand what everyone was thinking, as they made their discoveries and what questions they asked. Here was all this research that showed that ivermectin had great potential as an anti-cancer agent. Having seen for myself and being very well persuaded by the work of Doctors Kory and Marick and others, plus the data coming out of South Africa and India that ivermectin was safe and effective in treating patients with Covid, I began to wonder to what extent it might it be effective in treating patients with cancer.
I understood that the pharmaceutical industries were not going to invest in a $0.10 pill. If the pharmaceutical industries were not willing to do that, no one else was going to do it, because pharma funds everyone that is doing research. I was introduced to a patient with stage 4 prostate cancer. He had received two vaccines. He was perfectly healthy and a marathoner, and had no history of cancer in the family.
He worked for the government, and he was going to lose his job and his pension if he wasn’t vaccinated. Two months after his second Pfizer shot, he was diagnosed all at once with stage 4 prostate cancer. He tells a very compelling, melodramatic story about that 24-hour period of time in his life.
He went through the traditional protocols; radiation, chemotherapy, pharmacologic, castration, all of it, over a period of nine months. His name is Paul Mann. His doctor said, “There’s really nothing else we can do. He said, “Can’t you give me more radiation? Can’t you give me more chemo? Aren’t there any other drugs? Are there any clinical trials? The answer was, “No, there’s nothing. There is only hospice. Send for the priest.”
A friend of his knew me and said, “Would you give Paul a call? He just needs some moral support.” I began calling him and we spoke about once a week for three weeks. The poor guy was suffering and had cancer in 11 bones in his body. His right leg was completely swollen and obstructed with a tumor. He was miserable.
I said, “Paul, I don’t know if this is going to help you, but I know it’s not going to hurt you. I just can’t imagine based on my judgment and understanding of the scientific literature and all of the work that Doctors Kory and Marik have done that ivermectin would hurt you. It might help, but I can’t say.”
He said, “I’ll give it a try.” He drove to Tennessee where you could get it without a prescription. He drove from where he lives in New York to Tennessee and paid cash for his ivermectin. He didn’t submit it to an insurance company. He didn’t tell his oncologist back in Missouri.
His ivermectin prescriptions were listed in his medical chart. How did that information get from the pharmacy in Tennessee to his chart in Missouri? They don’t know. But actually, somebody does know, and I’d like to know myself.
Anyway, he starts taking ivermectin. He doesn’t have any problems with it. I talk to him every week, “How are you feeling? How’s your leg? How’s the pain? He says, “No change. But I don’t know. It’s not quite as swollen. There’s pain everywhere. Maybe it’s getting a little bit better. It’s not necessarily getting worse.”
Fast forward to a two-month follow-up appointment at the clinic. They didn’t expect to see him. He’s feeling a little bit better. They do a PSA [Prostrate-Specific Antigen Test], which in the beginning was off the charts, maybe 700 or 800. At the time, they recommended him to hospice.
Mr. Jekielek: What exactly do those numbers mean, for the layperson?
Dr. Ruddy: Over four would be abnormal. What are we talking about here? Prostate cells normally secrete a protein, a prostate-specific antigen. It’s one of the things that they do. Cancer cells that originate in the prostate that are dividing rapidly and growing fast are spitting out PSA. It’s not that they’re contributing to the body economy in any way. It’s just they just want to multiply and divide. That’s the end of the story.
Your PSA levels start to rise, which is a screening marker. They will say, “Your PSA was four, and now it’s eight. Let’s do a prostate ultrasound.” The PSA can be a screen for the emergence of a tumor, but it can also be used, particularly at high levels, as evidence for cancer, response to cancer, or recurrence of cancer. His was supposed to be four, but it’s in the hundreds.
He goes back for a two-month appointment and it’s 1.3. They said, “You’re in biochemical remission.” He was not in complete remission, because he still had the bone metastasis, but this was good news. Slowly, he begins to improve. There is less pain and the swelling is down. He has a lot of other vaccine injuries, but he’s getting better.
They are giving him nutritional support and other supplements. He was sometimes having a TIA [Transient Ischemic Attack], which is a little mini-stroke. But he didn’t tell me about that because we were talking about cancer. But over a period of time, I was asking him, “Are you having TIAs?” His wife said, “Yes, he’s having TIAs.”
I asked, “What do the cancer doctors tell you? She said, “They say it’s not related to my cancer.” I got a call from his wife one evening and he was in the emergency room. He had this catastrophic TIA. I said, “Paul, what are they doing for you?” He said, “They did a CAT scan of my head, but they didn’t see anything specific. It’s a TIA and not related to my cancer.” Then they send him home.
I asked, “Did they do anything? He replied, “No.” I said, “You need to see a cardiologist. There are things they can do.” I looked it up really quickly. and of course, there are things they can do. They get him to the cardiologist, get him on blood thinners, and then no more problems with TIAs. That’s an indictment of the healthcare system.
Then he is getting better. Nine months later, he’s out dancing for four hours, three nights a week. He gets a head-to-toe rescanning and three of the bone mets are gone. There’s no growth of the mets that are there, and no new lesions. There’s only one hot spot and that’s where he received radiation therapy. The radiologist really could not distinguish whether that was a tumor hotspot or a radiation hotspot.
He is doing very well. The vaccine injury is a problem, but the cancer is no longer a problem, except for the fact that it’s still there and we want to get rid of it completely. He called me from a hockey game and said, “If I didn’t already know I have cancer, I would not know I have cancer. That was patient number one. I said, “Now, that’s interesting.”
A second patient crossed my path, a guy in his seventies who lost 40 pounds over a year-and-a-half, was not vaccinated, was a smoker and drinker, and all he did was fish. He could no longer swallow and he could hardly talk. I got on the phone with him and said, “Eddie, tell me a little bit about your history.” He knew someone with prostate cancer who had taken ivermectin and cured himself from prostate cancer with it.
Eddie began taking ivermectin. I have no idea what the dosing was. He was just taking it. I gave him some advice about diet and how to get the weight back on. In a couple of weeks, he sounded stronger. He could swallow, his voice was better, and he had gained six pounds. I followed him for another month or so.
I said, “Eddie, we need to get a scan.” He doesn’t have insurance. He doesn’t like doctors. He had been diagnosed in that interval with two unresectable esophageal tumors. The surgeons wouldn’t go near it. The doctor said, “We’ll give you chemo and radiation.” He said, “No, you’re not.” He just takes his ivermectin.
About six weeks later, I said, “Eddie, you need to get a scan.” I had to argue with Eddie to get a scan. We got the scan. No tumors. Gone. The biggest problem was that he had sold his fishing boat. He was getting better and his tumor was gone. Now, he needed to go out and buy another fishing boat. That was the second patient. Again, I said, “Now, that’s interesting.”
The third patient was a woman who was referred to me. Her husband called me. He said, “Could you talk to my wife? I think she’s got a problem.” She could feel a lump in her lower pelvis. She had had that for a while. I asked her, “Do you have any vaginal bleeding?” She replied, “Yes, a little bit, but not much.”
I said that the best thing to do would be to go to the doctor and get a CAT scan. She doesn’t like doctors. She doesn’t have insurance. She’s not getting a CAT scan. I was able to convince her to at least get an ultrasound. She gets an ultrasound. She has a 6-centimeter tumor in her pelvis. It’s close to the colon, it’s close to the ovary, it might be near the uterus, who knows? It’s just wedged down there.
from: https://needtoknow.news/2024/05/cancer-surgeon-reveals-the-surprising-potential-of-ivermectin-against-cancer/

COVID – Looking Down the Line

The Biggest COVID Question: What Will Happen in 10 years?

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • So far, children have been largely unfazed by COVID-19 because their interferon pathway works really well. Interferon is an immune molecule that protects cells against invading pathogens
  • The COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway, so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed
  • Aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots, even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout
  • Analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021
  • We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?

What will the future hold for people whose exposure to COVID-19 occurs during the first years of life? That question was recently asked by Katherine J. Wu, a staff writer at The Atlantic.1

“To be a newborn in the year 2023 — and, almost certainly, every year that follows — means emerging into a world where the coronavirus is ubiquitous … Beyond a shadow of a doubt, this virus will be one of the very first serious pathogens that today’s infants — and all future infants — meet,” she writes.

“Eventually, the expectation is that the illness will reach a stable nadir, at which point it may truly be ‘another common cold,’ says Rustom Antia, an infectious-disease modeler at Emory.

The full outcome of this living experiment, though, won’t be clear for decades — well after the billions of people who encountered the coronavirus for the first time in adulthood are long gone.

The experiences that today’s youngest children have with the virus are only just beginning to shape what it will mean to have COVID throughout a lifetime, when we all coexist with it from birth to death as a matter of course.”

COVID Jab Prevents Natural Herd Immunity

Wu praises the COVID jab as being part of why we can be hopeful for future generations that have to live with this new virus, but is that really realistic? Right now, everything points to the COVID shot being a disaster, and no one actually knows what the long-term effect will be on children who get it.

Wu highlights the fact that children’s immune systems have the advantage of “marshaling hordes of interferon — an immune molecule that armors cells against viruses.” This is thought to be a primary reason why COVID-19 isn’t nearly as lethal in young children as in older adults.

The problem that Wu completely misses is that the COVID jab inhibits the type-1 interferon pathway,2 so mass injecting young children may actually erase the natural herd immunity against COVID-19 that would develop if all children remained unjabbed. The shots will NOT, as Wu suggests, help us achieve herd immunity at all.

Cancer Rates in Young People Will Likely Rise

Mass injecting children with a drug that impairs their immune system may also (rather predictably) result in exploding cancer rates. Already, aggressive cancers have exploded among adults who got the shots,3 even though it’s only been a little over two years since their rollout.

For example, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED)4 — historically one of the most well-kept and most heavily relied-upon medical databases in the world — showed that, compared to the previous five-year averages, cancer among Department of Defense (DOD) personnel in 2021 skyrocketed.

Overall, cancers tripled among servicemen and their family members after the rollout of the COVID shots. Breast cancer went up 487%. Exploding cancer rates are also seen elsewhere. Indeed, the explosion of cases is so bad that cancer is now one of the top three leading causes of premature death among young working-age adults — a trend that in turn has driven down U.S. life expectancy by three years.

Cancer Relapses and Metastasis Rates Are Exploding

November 26, 2022, The Daily Sceptic published a letter5,6 to the editor of The BMJ, written by Dr. Angus Dalgleish, professor of oncology at St. George’s University of London, warning that COVID boosters may be causing aggressive metastatic cancers:

“COVID no longer needs a vaccine programme given the average age of death of COVID in the U.K. is 82 and from all other causes is 81 and falling,” Dalgleish wrote. “The link with clots, myocarditis, heart attacks and strokes is now well accepted, as is the link with myelitis and neuropathy …

However, there is now another reason to halt all vaccine programmes. As a practicing oncologist I am seeing people with stable disease rapidly progress after being forced to have a booster, usually so they can travel. Even within my own personal contacts I am seeing B cell-based disease after the boosters.

They describe being distinctly unwell a few days to weeks after the booster — one developing leukemia, two work colleagues Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and an old friend who has felt like he has had Long COVID since receiving his booster and who, after getting severe bone pain, has been diagnosed as having multiple metastases from a rare B cell disorder.

I am experienced enough to know that these are not coincidental anecdotes … The reports of innate immune suppression after mRNA for several weeks would fit, as all these patients to date have melanoma or B cell-based cancers, which are very susceptible to immune control — and that is before the reports of suppressor gene suppression by mRNA in laboratory experiments. This must be aired and debated immediately.”

In a December 19, 2022, article7 in Conservative Woman, Dalgleish continued discussing the phenomenon of rapidly spreading cancers in patients who were in stable remission for years before receiving their COVID boosters. He noted that after his letter to The BMJ was published, several oncologists contacted him to say they’re seeing the same thing in their own practices.

“Seeing the recurrence of these cancers after all this time naturally makes me wonder if there is a common cause?” he wrote.8 “I had previously noted that relapse in stable cancer is often associated with severe long-term stress, such as bankruptcy, divorce, etc.

However, I found that none of my patients had any such extra stress during this time, but they had all had booster vaccines and, indeed, a couple of them noted that they had a very bad reaction to the booster which they did not have to the first two injections.

I then noted that some of these patients were not having a normal pattern of relapse but rather an explosive relapse, with metastases occurring at the same time in several sites … Scientifically, I was reading reports that the booster was leading to a big excess of antibodies at the expense of the T-cell response and that this T-cell suppression could last for three weeks, if not more.

To me, this could be causal as the immune system is being asked to make an excessive response through the humoral inflammatory part of the immune response against a virus (the alpha-delta variant) which is no longer in existence in the community.

This exertion leads to immune exhaustion, which is why these patients are reporting up to a 50% greater increase in Omicron, or other variations, than the non-vaccinated.”

Swedish pathologist, researcher and senior physician at Lund’s University, Dr. Ute Krueger, has also observed an explosion in rapidly advancing cancers in the wake of the COVID shots, with the largest increase occurring among 30- to 50-year-olds.9,10 According to Krueger, tumor sizes are also dramatically larger, multiple tumors in multiple organs are becoming more common, and cancer recurrence and metastasis are both increasing.

Cancer Deaths Are Being Intentionally Hidden

Disturbingly, as detailed in “How Cancer Deaths From the COVID Jabs Are Being Hidden,” analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is filtering out and redesignating cancer deaths as COVID deaths to eliminate the cancer signal, and has been doing so since April 2021.

The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with main cause of death. As many as 20% of the weekly so-called COVID deaths are actually cancer deaths.

An Unconscionable Experiment on Humanity

Absolutely no one knows what the long-term ramifications of giving these injections to infants and young children will be. It’s a public health experiment unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. So far, we’ve not seen cancer rates among children skyrocket, but the uptake among young children has also been low.

Since their immune systems are also more robust, children may be protected from cancer for a time even if they do get the jab. The question is how long? The U.S. childhood vaccination schedule now includes the initial series plus an annual COVID booster. How many boosters will it take before a child’s immune system breaks and cancer starts to proliferate?

Excess Mortality Skyrocketing

We’ve also seen massive increases in excess mortality from abnormal clotting issues and heart problems since the COVID shots rolled out. If side effects such as cancer, heart disease and stroke are killing working age adults in unprecedented numbers already, what will the excess mortality be, say, 10 years from now if children and teens keep getting mRNA boosters every year?

I shudder to even think about it. Making matters even worse, drug makers are working overtime to deliver other mRNA-based “vaccines” as well, including one against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has already fast-tracked it. This, despite the fact that previous attempts to create an RSV vaccine failed because they caused antibody dependent enhancement (ADE).

No Benefit, Massive Cost

Now that we’re more than two years into the COVID injection campaign, the cost-benefit analysis is clearer than ever. The benefit is so small as to be inconsequential, while the costs are enormous. Here’s a quick summary breakdown, based on available evidence:

Benefit — Short-term (four to six months) protection from severe COVID illness and death.

Cost — Negative effectiveness after a few months (meaning the risk of infection, hospitalization and death from COVID is higher than before the injection). It also doesn’t prevent infection or spread of the virus, so vaccine-induced herd immunity can never be achieved.

The shots destroy immune function, making people more prone to all types of infections and chronic diseases, which in turn puts pressure on the health care system, raises disability rates and excess mortality, and lowers life expectancy. On top of all that, there’s evidence suggesting the shots have adverse effects on fertility, which could potentially result in a population collapse.

Evidence mRNA Jabs Cause Fertility Problems

By December 2021, at which time the COVID jabs had only been out for one year, reports of surges in menstrual changes and stillbirths were already proliferating. And, while health officials were, and still are, adamant that the COVID shot is safe for pregnant women, the data tell a very different story.

The study11 most widely used to support the U.S. recommendation for pregnant women to get injected was sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in April 2021. According to this study, the miscarriage rate among COVID jab recipients was 13.9%.

However, there was a MAJOR mistake made in this study, which was highlighted in a rapid communication12 from the Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge (IPAK). The authors are Aleisha Brock, Ph.D. of New Zealand, and Simon Thornley, Ph.D., a senior lecturer in the section of epidemiology and biostatistics at the University of Auckland.

They explained that the NEJM study “presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).”13

When the risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was recalculated based on the cohort that was injected prior to 20 weeks’ gestation, the incidence of miscarriage was seven to eight times higher than the original study indicated, with a cumulative incidence of miscarriage ranging from 81.9% to 91.2%!

What’s more, 12.6% women who received the jab in the third trimester reported Grade 3 adverse events, which are severe or medically significant but not immediately life-threatening.

Another 8% also reported a fever of 38 degrees C (100.4 degrees F), which can lead to miscarriage or premature labor.14 Another problem with the NEJM study is that follow-up only continued for 28 days after birth, meaning the long-term effects of prenatal exposure to babies is still unknown.

A Pfizer-BioNTech rat study also showed the injection more than doubled the incidence of preimplantation loss. Birth defects, specifically mouth/jaw malformations, gastroschisis (a birth defect of the abdominal wall) and abnormalities in the right-sided aortic arch and cervical vertebrae, were also observed.15

Transhumanist Cabal Intend to Change Humanity

It’s become quite clear that the technocratic, transhumanist cabal that it trying to seize worldwide control is aggressively trying to genetically alter humanity. But to what end? Considering all the negative effects we’re seeing in adults, just two years in, what will happen to the infants and children who have been jabbed over the next decade or two? Especially if they start getting mRNA boosters every year?

Transhumanism is “sold” as the way of the future — a future in which everyone is in perfect health and can live as long as they want. We already see how the COVID shots are advertised as a simple “software update” for your immune system. The idea is that, eventually, any health issue will be solved this way.

The problem with this utopia is manifold, however. First of all, considering how disastrous this first mRNA injection is, it seems clear the reengineering of an already perfect biological system isn’t as easy as they make it out to be, and I for one doubt they’ll ever perfect it.

Secondly, while they say this transhumanist utopia is for everyone, it’s absolutely not. Do you really believe they want 8 billion people to be in perfect health and live for hundreds of years?

Perfect health means perfect reproductive capacity, so the number of offspring would be staggering. Clearly, they don’t want this, seeing how these same individuals are already complaining that the world is overpopulated. So, perfect health for everyone is a pipedream.

Extreme life extension for the masses also isn’t in the cards. Already, they want people to die as close to retirement age as possible, to minimize payouts. Do you really think they’d be willing to pay billions of people to spend 100 years in retirement?

Even if the retirement age was pushed way back to, say, 150, and the average life span is 175, who’s going to employ all these people? Remember, robots and artificial intelligence are already slated to take over most jobs, making most humans obsolete. There’s simply no incentive to extend the health span and life span of billions of people.

No, the transhumanist utopia is intended to be reserved for a select few, and this is something to keep in mind as they continue these genetic experiments on humanity. They’re not for our benefit.

What Are They Turning Us Into?

In closing, here’s a snippet from a November 22, 2022, Truth Talk article, in which blogger Katrina Wicks ponders the reasons behind the transhumanist push:16

“They make no secret of it, it’s not some wild conspiracy theory and is in fact being implemented in front of us and around us. Changing humans from what we are, into something else. Augmented humans seem to be on the horizon, as well as disrupted, corrupted and spliced humans too …

‘The Island of Dr. Moreau’ … by H.G. Wells … highlights an obsession with making animals more human through ‘medical intervention’ … I wonder if they are trying to do the opposite … to make humans more animal like? …

A certain international organization seems to have a nominated mascot who is the mouthpiece of how they want us to be bio-mechanical beings essentially, being constantly monitored, tested, observed and upgraded. Weird huh? Yet they gleefully put these plans forward and explain how and when. Just not really covering the why, or at least the real reasons for it.

But you can make up your own mind on what their purpose really is … what is out there for everyone to see is that they do want control.

Of your daily activities, thoughts, fears, aspirations … and generally of your future. So that is where you do get to take an active role, unless you already consider your life forfeit and have already accepted their new regime and landscape. But if you do not … and you have chosen to live, then now is the time.”

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2023/03/20/covid-question-what-will-happen-in-10-years.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art1HL&cid=20230320&cid=DM1366943&bid=1750595981

Looks Like ‘Immortalized Cells’ Can Kill You

Are They Trying To Kill Us? Lab Grown Meat Backed By Bill Gates Has CANCER CELLS And Could Cause Other Scary Health Issues

Sometimes you have to wonder what the globalists are up to. A bombshell report from Bloomberg earlier this month revealed the lab-grown meat strongly supported by Bill Gates has cancer cells.

You are reading this correctly. You are devouring glorified cancer tumors when consuming fake meat.

Joe Fassler, the author of the piece, revealed that in order for lab-grown meat companies to produce what they “cultured meat,” they utilize what are called “immortalized cells.” These cells, in some cases ,are fully cancerous.

The big honking asterisk is that normal meat cells don’t just keep dividing forever. To get the cell cultures to grow at rates big enough to power a business, several companies, including the Big Three, are quietly using what are called immortalized cells, something most people have never eaten intentionally. Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.

Despite this, leading scientists claim you cannot get cancer when you eat fake meat.

If we wanted to, we could eat malignant chicken tumors by the bucketload. “It’s essentially impossible for a cell from one species to gain a foothold in the tissues of another species,” says Dr. Robert Weinberg. “So even if one were to take highly malignant cells from a cow and drink them, I don’t see what the problem would be.”

The FDA, as previously reported by the Gateway Pundit, also asserted lab meat was safe to eat back in November.

The problem with this assumption according to National Pulse, is that these “immortalized cell lines” reproduce forever, just like cancer. This means they are effectively cancer.

These cell lines have been used in scientific research but never to produce food before. So the assertions by scientists that cancer cells in lab grown meat cannot cause cancer are not exactly based on factual information.

We also cannot forget what happened during the COVID-19 pandemic when the experts lied at multiple turns and cost millions of workers their jobs and even their lives. Trusting them on health matters can be questionable.

Cancer is not the only potential danger from eating fake meat. The Children’s Health Defense Fund reported on a study by Impossible Foods in September which demonstrated that rats had serious complications such as unexplained weight gain and anemia.

In 2019 the manufacturing company, Impossible Foods, applied for permission to market the burger in the EU and the U.K.

However, the results of a rat feeding study commissioned by Impossible Foods and carried out with SLH suggest that the burger may not be safe to eat.

SLH is the substance that gives the burger its meaty taste and makes it appear to bleed like meat when cut. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initially refused to sign off on the safety of SLH when first approached by the company.

The rat-feeding study results suggest that the agency’s concerns were justified. Rats fed the GM yeast-derived SLH developed unexplained changes in weight gain, changes in the blood that can indicate the onset of inflammation or kidney disease, and possible signs of anemia.

From:    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/02/are-they-trying-to-kill-us-lab-grown-meat-backed-by-bill-gates-has-cancer-cells-and-could-cause-other-scary-health-issues/

And Now, Genetically Engineering Fruit Flies

Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly

Future Fields’ EntoEngine insects have serious environmental and ethical downsides. Report by Claire Robinson; technical advice by Dr Michael Antoniou

The biotech company Future Fields has notified the Canadian authorities of its intention to commercialise EntoEngine, a genetically modified fly. The flies are engineered to produce foreign proteins – in this case, growth factors, which are cell signalling molecules that play important roles in cell proliferation and development, for use in what Future Fields calls “cellular agriculture” – what we call lab-grown or fake meat.

The public can comment on the application until 28 January 2023 and we encourage them to do so. In our view, EntoEngine flies poses serious environmental risks in the likely event that they will escape contained conditions.

The details

The company says, “The EntoEngine fly line has been genetically engineered to express a growth factor isolated from cows…. The gene sequence poses no known risks to either humans or animals. Expression of the gene encoding the growth factor is under the control of a gene expression regulator isolated from yeast.”

Future Fields argues that the GM fly is needed to replace the usual way of producing growth factors – in bioreactors. The company confirms what GMWatch has long said – that bioreactor technology is expensive, resource and energy hungry and produces vast quantities of problematic waste. The company concludes, reasonably, that growth factors cannot be produced cost-effectively using bioreactor technology – so they aim to produce them in GM drosophila, or fruit flies.

The company makes grand claims for the fly’s sustainability and environmental friendliness, compared with bioreactor protein production, based on lower input use and less greenhouse emissions. Drosophila, Future Fields says, “do not have these large operation costs and require only modest environmental controls to ensure optimal rearing… Drosophila can feed on organic side streams and byproducts from other processes (i.e. organic waste). In fact, insects are some of the most efficient organisms at converting nutrients into biomass.”

However, the problem with this “solution” is that even with a cheaper source of cell growth factors in the shape of the flies, lab grown meat will still need to be produced in huge bioreactors, with the consequent vast running costs and environmental impacts.

Patent

Future Fields describes the status of the patent on EntoEngine as “pending”. Our patent search on the Espacenet and USPTO databases only found one patent on a GM insect with Future Fields as an applicant. The patent, titled “Method for producing recombinant proteins in insects”, describes the general concept patent but lacks the experimental data to prove that the system actually works. It’s unclear whether other patents exist, but the details of this patent illustrate the types of process that would be used for EntoEngine protein production.

The patent focuses on heat stress (taking the temperature up to 35-40 degrees C) as the trigger that will activate expression of the transgenes in the flies to produce the desired growth factors.

The expression of the transgenes encoding for the desired protein (in this case, mammalian cell growth factors) is under the control of a “gene expression regulator” derived from yeast. So these flies would appear to contain two foreign transgenes: One encoding the desired protein to be expressed and isolated from the flies; and the other encoding the yeast gene expression regulator.

In all likelihood, the yeast-derived gene expression regulator is a member of the heat shock factor family of proteins. The function of these proteins is elevated upon heat stress and their role is to increase expression of genes that will help the organism protect itself from external stresses (e.g. heat, cold, UV light).

Torturing fruit flies

Regarding the heat stress trigger, the patent describes a gruesome and torturous process of gradually getting the flies used to the higher temperature of the heat stressor so that they don’t die from the shock of a sudden rise, by applying the stressor interspersed with “rest” periods.

When the insects have exhausted their ability to produce growth factor, they are killed and “harvested”, in the words of the Future Fields patent, then ground up into a mass, and the desired protein is extracted and purified out. It is unclear how well the purification process will work and GMWatch warns that native fly proteins could end up contaminating the final product.

Doubtful ethics

The company’s patent and publicity make a big deal out of the supposedly superior ethics of using fruit flies to manufacture growth factors for “cellular agriculture”, as opposed to extracting them from fetal bovine serum (FBS) taken “from fetuses of pregnant cows prior to slaughter”. The patent says that cattle-derived FBS gives rise to “ethical concerns regarding the production of cultured meat products”.

But the point on ethics is disingenuous and contradictory, as Future Fields itself justifies its GM flies approach as replacing growth factors produced in bioreactors and not as replacing FBS, because FBS is not used by the lab grown meat industry.

Along the same lines, Future Fields’ use of language in its patent seems manipulative. While the cattle from which FBS is derived are subject to “slaughter”, the GM fruit flies are merely “harvested”, just like the crop plants that even vegans would be happy to eat.

But anyone concerned with the ethics around animal use in agriculture is unlikely to be impressed by Future Fields’ description of its GM fly as “a standalone biofactory” – the ultimate reduction of a living creature to a machine.

At a time when prominent environmentalists, from Sussex University’s Prof Dave Goulson to TV’s David Attenborough, are trying to persuade the public to give insects the respect they deserve as key regulators of ecosystems, genetically engineering fruit flies and then characterising them as “biofactories” or as non-sentient beings on a par with a wheat or maize crop seems distasteful in the extreme.

By timely coincidence, recently published EU-funded research shows that fruit flies, though “tiny”, are ” amazingly smart”. They are capable of attention, working memory and conscious awareness – abilities we usually only associate with mammals.

Environmental risks

The main risk posed by the GM flies is environmental. Containment facilities for GM animals are notoriously insecure – GM glofish have escaped from tanks and are breeding in the wild in Brazil and a whistleblower report paints a damning picture of lax attitudes and neglect of protocols at AquaBounty’s GM salmon-producing facilities. The risk with GM flies is that they could escape and breed in the environment or cross-breed with natural flies, leading to the escape of growth factor-producing genes into wild populations.

This wouldn’t pose a human health risk, as most of us don’t eat living fruit flies and the proteins in dead flies would quickly degrade. But plenty of animals, including mammals, fish, amphibians, and birds, do eat living flies. Because the growth factors in the GM flies are mammalian, they will to some degree be active in any animal that ingests them. This could cause uncontrolled cell division in the animal consumer – potentially leading to cancer.

In evaluating environmental risk in the case of an escape, much depends on what triggers are used to make the growth factor-producing genes express. The heat stress triggers discussed in the patent are worrying because they are designed to spring into action at 35-40 degrees C – temperatures regularly reached in the climate conditions of many parts of the world. And this raises the question: What happens at 31 or 32 degrees? Nothing, or something? And if something, then what?

Conclusion

Future Fields’ GM fly appears to be an invention of dubious utility that will do little to improve the sustainability of the environmental catastrophe-in-the-making that is lab grown meat. It poses unacceptable environmental risks in the event of an escape and the ethics around the GM fly’s grim life and grimmer death are dubious, to say the least.

from:    https://gmwatch.org/en/106-news/latest-news/20155-company-genetically-engineers-fruit-flies-to-be-biofactories-for-fake-meat-production

What’s In Your Head?

How Wireless Headphones Could Lead to Neurological Disorders

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

Story at a glance:

  • Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.
  • The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance takes aim at nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation (RFR).
  • The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, communicate with one another by sending a magnetic field through your brain.
  • One scientist who signed the petition believes the use of earbuds is akin to a giant experiment and could increase your risk of neurological disorders.

Wireless headphones, like Apple’s popular AirPods, could be dangerous to human health, according to a petition signed by 250 scientists.

The devices, which include not only AirPods but also other wireless Bluetooth headphones, bring a new level of function and convenience to those looking to listen to music, podcasts, audiobooks and more while on the go.

Since their introduction, more than 44 million AirPods have been sold, with another 55 million predicted to be sold in 2019 alone. Forecasts were that 80 million would be sold in 2020, but when the final tally came in, they actually hit over 100 million.

It’s an undeniably alluring bit of technology — one that was further made into a “necessity” of sorts when Apple removed the headphone jack from its iPhone 7 — but it’s one that may come at a steep price.

The petition to the United Nations (U.N.), led by the International Electromagnetic Field Alliance, takes aim at both nonionizing electromagnetic fields (EMFs), which are used by AirPods and other Bluetooth devices, as well as cellphones and Wi-Fi, which emit radiofrequency radiation.

Scientists warn of danger from EMFs

The petition, which was originally released in 2015 and updated in 2019, is an international appeal from scientists who work closely in the study of the health effects of nonionizing EMF.

For decades, the industry has claimed that nonionizing radiation is harmless and the only radiation worth worrying about is ionizing radiation.

On the contrary, the scientists state:

“Based upon peer-reviewed, published research, we have serious concerns regarding the ubiquitous and increasing exposure to EMF generated by electric and wireless devices.

“These include — but are not limited to — radiofrequency radiation (RFR) emitting devices, such as cellular and cordless phones and their base stations, Wi-Fi, broadcast antennas, smart meters and baby monitors as well as electric devices and infrastructures used in the delivery of electricity that generate extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (ELF EMF).”

Noting the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification of EMF as a possible human carcinogen, they also stated numerous scientific publications show EMF affects organisms at levels “well below” most international and national guidelines.

Among the potential risks of exposure include:

  • Cancer.
  • Cellular stress.
  • Increase in harmful free radicals.
  • Genetic damages.
  • Structural and functional changes in the reproductive system.
  • Learning and memory deficits.
  • Neurological disorders.
  • Negative impacts on general well-being.

By failing to take action, the petition states, the World Health Organization is “failing to fulfill its role as the pre-eminent international public health agency,” adding that damage from EMF “goes well beyond the human race, as there is growing evidence of harmful effects to both plant and animal life.”

Why wireless earbuds could be particularly problematic

Joel Moskowitz, Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley and one of the petition’s signers, explained that earbud technology is so new that research hasn’t yet been done to detail what effects it could have on the brain.

However, he stated in a news release, “I couldn’t imagine it’s all that great for you,” noting that AirPods “communicate with one another using a magnetic induction field, a variable magnetic field [one] sends through your brain to communicate with the other.”

Bluetooth technology like that used by AirPods is typically low intensity, but it’s the close proximity to your brain that could make earbuds particularly dangerous, especially since they tend to be used for longer periods.

Moskowitz said the technology could “open the blood-brain barrier, which evolved to keep large molecules out of the brain.”

He believes that with earbuds, exposure leading to neurological disorders and diseases may be more likely than cancer.

“From a precautionary standpoint, I would argue you shouldn’t experiment with your brain like this by keeping these kinds of wireless headphones on your head or in your ears,” Moskowitz said in a news release.

“You’re conducting a health experiment on yourself, and current regulations are completely oblivious to these kinds of exposures.”

EMFs may damage your cells by causing excessive free radicals

Martin Pall, Ph.D., professor emeritus at Washington State University, is another one of the scientists who signed the petition.

He discovered more than two dozen bodies of research asserting that EMFs work by activating voltage-gated calcium channels (VGCCs), which are located in the outer membrane of your cells.

Once activated, they allow a tremendous influx of calcium into the cell — about 1 million calcium ions per second per VGCC. When there’s excess calcium in the cell, it increases levels of both nitric oxide (NO) and superoxide.

While NO has many beneficial health effects, massively excessive amounts of it react with superoxide, forming peroxynitrite, which is an extremely potent oxidant stressor.

Peroxynitrites, in turn, break down to form reactive free radicals, both reactive nitrogen species and reactive oxygen species, including hydroxyl radicals, carbonate radicals and NO2 radicals — all three of which do damage. Peroxynitrites also do their own damage.

EMFs are not, therefore, causing damage by having a thermal influence or heating your tissues; they are not “cooking” your cells as some suggest.

Rather, EMF radiation activates the VGCCs in the outer cell membrane, triggering a chain reaction of devastating events that, ultimately:

  • Decimates your mitochondrial function, cell membranes and cellular proteins
  • Causes severe cellular damage
  • Results in DNA breaks
  • Dramatically accelerates your aging process
  • Puts you at higher risk for chronic disease

Like Moskowitz, Pall believes consequences of chronic EMF exposure to the brain can include neurological changes leading to anxiety, depression, autism and Alzheimer’s disease.

Further, it’s known that elevated VGCC activity in certain parts of the brain produces a variety of neuropsychiatric effects.

According to Pall:

“I reviewed a [large number] of studies on various kinds of EMF exposures, each of them showing neuropsychiatric effects. What you find is that these effects have been repeated many times in these epidemiological studies.

“It’s the same thing that everybody’s complaining about, ‘I’m tired all the time,’ ‘I can’t sleep,’ ‘I can’t concentrate,’ ‘I’m depressed,’ ‘I’m anxious all the time,’ ‘My memory doesn’t work well anymore.’ All the things everybody’s complaining about.

“We know all those things are caused by EMF exposures. There’s no doubt about that. Because we know their effects on the brain, we know that the VGCCs’ excessive activity can produce various neuropsychiatric problems.”

Download the interview transcript

Nine measures to protect human health from EMFs requested

In their petition to the U.N., the scientists state there are inadequate nonionizing EMF guidelines on an international level, and the agencies responsible have failed to create and impose sufficient guidelines and safety standards to protect public health and populations that may be especially vulnerable to EMF, such as children.

They’re calling for the United Nations Environmental Programme to fund an independent multidisciplinary committee to figure out ways to lower human exposure to RFR and ELF, noting that while industry should cooperate in this process, they should not be allowed to bias the findings.

They also made the following nine requests regarding EMF:

  1. Children and pregnant women be protected.
  2. Guidelines and regulatory standards be strengthened.
  3. Manufacturers be encouraged to develop safer technology.
  4. Utilities responsible for the generation, transmission, distribution and monitoring of electricity maintain adequate power quality and ensure proper electrical wiring to minimize harmful ground current.
  5. The public be fully informed about the potential health risks from electromagnetic energy and taught harm-reduction strategies.
  6. Medical professionals be educated about the biological effects of electromagnetic energy and be provided training on treatment of patients with electromagnetic sensitivity.
  7. Governments fund training and research on electromagnetic fields and health that are independent of industry, and mandate industry cooperation with researchers.
  8. Media disclose experts’ financial relationships with industry when citing their opinions regarding health and safety aspects of EMF-emitting technologies.
  9. White-zones (radiation-free areas) be established.

Protections needed before 5G technology becomes widespread

The scientists’ petition is a somber warning as 5G, or “5th Generation,” networks continue to roll out. Unlike the “4th Generation” (4G) technology currently in use, which relies on huge 90-foot cell towers with about a dozen antenna ports on each, the 5G system uses “small cell” facilities or bases, each with about 100 antenna ports each.

Expected to be 10 to 100 times faster than 4G technology and capable of supporting at least 100 billion devices, 5G relies primarily on the bandwidth of the millimeter wave (MMW), which is between 30GHz and 300GHz, according to EMF coach and author Lloyd Burrell.

MMWs have not been widely used before, but there are some concerning findings to date, including that sweat ducts in human skin act as antennae when they come in contact with MMWs.

In addition, there is a possibility the technology could worsen the problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria already plaguing the world, as they cause changes in E. coli and many other bacteria, depressing their growth and changing properties and activity.

This also raises concerns that the technology could lead to similar changes in human cells.

According to researchers in the journal Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology:

“MMW … or electromagnetic fields of extremely high frequencies at low intensity is a new environmental factor, the level of which is increased as technology advances. It is of interest that bacteria and other cells might communicate with each other by electromagnetic field of sub-extremely high-frequency range …

“[T]he combined action of MMW and antibiotics resulted with more strong effects. These effects are of significance for understanding changed metabolic pathways and distinguish [sic] role of bacteria in environment; they might be leading to antibiotic resistance in bacteria.

Studies have even shown that MMWs may invoke stress protein changes in plants such as wheat shoots, while low levels of nonionizing radiation have been linked to disturbances and health problems in birds and bees.

Skip the earbuds — and other tips to lower your EMF exposure

It’s clear that when it comes to the use of earbuds, the use of the precautionary principle is warranted. Don’t become part of the experiment — skip earbuds and listen to your media content the “old-fashioned” way instead.

Apart from that, here are 18 more suggestions that will help reduce your EMF exposure and help mitigate damage from unavoidable exposures.

1. Identify major sources of EMF, such as your cellphone, cordless phones, Wi-Fi routers, Bluetooth headsets and other Bluetooth-equipped items, wireless mice, keyboards, smart thermostats, baby monitors, smart meters and the microwave in your kitchen.

Ideally, address each source and determine how you can best limit their use. Barring a life-threatening emergency, children should not use a cellphone or a wireless device of any type. Children are far more vulnerable to cellphone radiation than adults due to having thinner skull bones, and developing immune systems and brains.

2. Connect your desktop computer to the internet via a wired Ethernet connection and be sure to put your desktop in airplane mode. Also avoid wireless keyboards, trackballs, mice, game systems, printers and portable house phones. Opt for the wired versions.

3. If you must use Wi-Fi, shut it off when not in use, especially at night when you are sleeping. Ideally, work toward hardwiring your house so you can eliminate Wi-Fi altogether. If you have a notebook without any Ethernet ports, a USB Ethernet adapter will allow you to connect to the internet with a wired connection.

4. Avoid using wireless chargers for your cellphone, as they too will increase EMFs throughout your home. Wireless charging is also far less energy efficient than using a dongle attached to a power plug, as it draws continuous power (and emits EMFs) whether you’re using it or not.

According to Venkat Srinivasan, director of Argonne Collaborative Center for Energy Storage Science, keeping your cellphone or tablet fully charged at all times will also reduce the life of the battery, which will necessitate the purchase of a brand-new phone.

As a lithium-ion battery charges and discharges, ions pass between a positive electrode and a negative electrode. The higher the battery is charged the faster the ions degrade, so it’s better to cycle between 45% and 55%.

5. Shut off the electricity to your bedroom at night. This typically works to reduce electrical fields from the wires in your wall unless there is an adjoining room next to your bedroom. If that is the case you will need to use a meter to determine if you also need to turn off power in the adjacent room.

6. Use a battery-powered alarm clock, ideally one without any light. I use a talking clock for the visually impaired.

7. If you still use a microwave oven, consider replacing it with a steam convection oven, which will heat your food as quickly and far more safely.

8. Avoid using “smart” appliances and thermostats that depend on wireless signaling. This would include all new “smart” TVs. They are called smart because they emit a Wi-Fi signal and, unlike your computer, you cannot shut the Wi-Fi signal off. Consider using a large computer monitor as your TV instead, as they don’t emit Wi-Fi.

9. Refuse a smart meter on your home as long as you can, or add a shield to an existing smart meter, some of which have been shown to reduce radiation by 98% to 99%.

10. Consider moving your baby’s bed into your room instead of using a wireless baby monitor. Alternatively, use a hard-wired monitor.

11. Replace CFL bulbs with incandescent bulbs. Ideally, remove all fluorescent lights from your house. Not only do they emit unhealthy light, but more importantly, they will actually transfer current to your body just being close to the bulbs.

12. Avoid carrying your cellphone on your body unless in airplane mode and never sleep with it in your bedroom unless it is in airplane mode. Even in airplane mode it can emit signals, which is why I put my phone in a Faraday bag.

13. When using your cellphone, use the speaker phone and hold the phone at least 3 feet away from you. Seek to radically decrease your time on the cellphone. Instead, use VoIP software phones that you can use while connected to the internet via a wired connection.

14. Avoid using your cellphone and other electronic devices at least an hour (preferably several) before bed, as the blue light from the screen and EMFs both inhibit melatonin production.

15. Since we now know the effects of EMFs are reduced by calcium-channel blockers, make sure you’re getting enough magnesium. Most people are deficient in magnesium, which will worsen the impact of EMFs.

16. Pall has published a paper suggesting that raising your level of Nrf2 may help ameliorate EMF damage. One simple way to activate Nrf2 is to consume Nrf2-boosting food compounds.

Examples include sulforaphane-containing cruciferous vegetables, foods high in phenolic antioxidants, the long-chained omega-3 fats DHA and EPA, carotenoids (especially lycopene), sulfur compounds from allium vegetables, isothiocyanates from the cabbage group and terpenoid-rich foods.

Exercise, calorie restriction (such as intermittent fasting) and activating the nitric oxide signaling pathway (one way of doing that is the Nitric Oxide Dump exercise) will also raise Nrf2.

17. Molecular hydrogen has been shown to target free radicals produced in response to radiation, such as peroxynitrites. Studies have shown molecular hydrogen can mitigate about 80% of this damage.

18. Certain spices may help prevent or repair damage from peroxynitrites. Spices rich in phenolics, specifically cinnamon, cloves, ginger root, rosemary and turmeric, have exhibited some protective effects against peroxynitrite-induced damage.

Originally published by Mercola.

from:    https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/wireless-headphones-apple-airpods-neurological-disorders-cola/?utm_source=salsa&eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=d00ea2b9-61c1-464c-a072-cc7b9e0cdd1a

Rethinking Colonoscopy

Colonoscopies Fail to Reduce Colorectal-Related Deaths

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
October 20, 2022 

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine found the “benefits” of colonoscopies are not as great as they’re made out to be
  • After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group
  • There was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening compared to those who were not screened
  • Colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk similarly to other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing
  • Colonoscopies can cause serious adverse events, including death, bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp and perforation

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends adults between the ages of 45 and 75 be screened for colorectal cancer every 10 years.1 As a result, about 15 million colonoscopies are performed every year in the U.S.2 The procedure, which involves extensive preparation and comes with considerable risks — include the risk of death — is touted as a key way to prevent colorectal cancer deaths.

However, as noted in a landmark study published in The New England Journal of Medicine, “Although colonoscopy is widely used as a screening test to detect colorectal cancer, its effect on the risks of colorectal cancer and related death is unclear.”3 The researchers set out to determine if the benefits of colonoscopies are as great as they’re made out to be — and found that they’re far from it.

Even study author Dr. Michael Bretthauer, a gastroenterologist with the University of Oslo in Norway, stated, “[W]e may have oversold the message for the last 10 years or so, and we have to wind it back a little.”

Study: Colonoscopies Don’t Reduce Cancer Deaths

The Northern-European Initiative on Colon Cancer (NordICC) study — a randomized trial involving 84,585 adults between 55 and 64 years of age — assigned participants in a 1-to-2 ratio to receive an invitation to undergo a colonoscopy or to receive no invitation or screening. None of the participants had gotten a colonoscopy previously.

After 10 years, those who were invited to get colonoscopies had an 18% lower risk of colorectal cancer than the unscreened group.4 However, there was no statistically significant reduction in the risk of death from colorectal cancer in the group invited to screening. The researchers intend to follow the participants for another five years to see if anything changes, but according to the study:5

“The risk of death from colorectal cancer was 0.28% in the invited group and 0.31% in the usual-care group … The number needed to invite to undergo screening to prevent one case of colorectal cancer was 455 … The risk of death from any cause was 11.03% in the invited group and 11.04% in the usual-care group.”

There were some limitations to the study, including a low uptake rate for those invited to get a colonoscopy. Only 42% of those invited to do the procedure actually did so. When the researchers analyzed the results based only on those who received colonoscopies, the procedure reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 31% and reduced the risk of dying from colorectal cancer by 50%.6

Still, speaking with STAT News, Dr. Samir Gupta, a gastroenterologist who was not involved with the study, noted, “This is a landmark study. It’s the first randomized trial showing outcomes of exposing people to colonoscopy screening versus no colonoscopy. And I think we were all expecting colonoscopy to do better. Maybe colonoscopy isn’t as good as we always thought it is.”7

Colonoscopy ‘Not the Magic Bullet We Thought It Was’

According to the American Cancer Society, in 2022 there will be 106,180 new cases of colon cancer diagnosed and 44,850 new cases of rectal cancer.8 The two types are grouped together — collectively known as colorectal cancer — since they have many of the same characteristics.

The rate of people being diagnosed with either colon or rectal cancers has gone down since the 1980s. The American Cancer Society (ACS) attributes this to changes in lifestyle as well as more people getting screened.9 The death rate from colorectal cancer has also decreased over several decades — a decline that ACS again attributes to screening, as well as colorectal cancer treatments.

“One reason is that colorectal polyps are now being found more often by screening and removed before they can develop into cancers,” ACS notes.10 However, the featured study makes it clear that colonoscopies’ benefits may have been overstated. Bretthauer told STAT News:11

“It’s not the magic bullet we thought it was. I think we may have oversold colonoscopy. If you look at what the gastroenterology societies say, and I’m one myself so these are my people, we talked about 70, 80, or even 90% reduction in colon cancer if everyone went for colonoscopy. That’s not what these data show.”

Bretthauer suggested colonoscopy may, in practice, reduce colorectal cancer risk by 20% or 30%, which is close to reductions offered by other less expensive, and less invasive, screenings, including fecal testing. Bretthauer told STAT News:12

“That raises an important point for policymakers … Colonoscopy is more expensive, more time-intensive, and more unpleasant in preparation for patients. Many European countries balked at putting public health dollars towards a large, expensive program, he said, when the fecal testing was cheaper, easier, and had greater uptake in certain studies.

‘Now, the European approach makes much more sense. It’s not only cheaper, but maybe equally effective.’”

Do the Benefits Outweigh the Risks?

In 2019, the BMJ published clinical practice guidelines13 for colorectal cancer screening using a stool test — known as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) — a single colonoscopy or a single sigmoidoscopy. A sigmoidoscopy is similar to a colonoscopy but less extensive and less invasive. During a colonoscopy, your entire large intestine is examined, while a sigmoidoscopy only checks the lower part of your colon.

The practice guidelines recommend physicians use a tool to estimate an individual’s potential risk for developing colorectal cancer in the next 15 years. The team recommends that only those who have a risk of 3% or greater should undergo screening tests, choosing from one of four screening options.

This included a FIT done every year or a FIT done every two years depending on risk factors. Patients may also choose a single sigmoidoscopy or, the weakest recommendation from the team, a single colonoscopy.

However, the team determined that the risks associated with colorectal cancer screening outweighed the benefits in many cases. For instance, the risk of death from a colonoscopy from one source was 1 in 16,318 procedures evaluated.14

In the same analysis, the researchers also found 82 suffered serious complications. Another analysis found a death rate of 3 per 100,000 colonoscopies, along with serious adverse events in 44 per 10,000, “with a number needed to harm of 225.”15

Colonoscopies Carry Significant Risks

For any medical procedure, the benefits must outweigh the risks to the patient. But depending on your risk factors, it’s possible that colonoscopy could cause more harm than good. Aside from the risk of death, additional concerning risks include perforation and bleeding after removal of a precancerous polyp.

A systematic review and meta-analysis found the risk of perforation after colonoscopy was about 6 per 10,000 while the risk of bleeding was about 24 per 10,000 procedures.16 However, the risks can vary significantly depending on where the procedure is performed.

The risk of perforation at Baylor University Medical Center, according to one study, was 0.57 per 1,000 procedures or 1 in 1750 colonoscopies.17 In a report published in Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, it’s explained:18

“The frequency of complications is dependent on the skill of physicians doing the procedure, on safeguards that are in place within the laboratory where the procedure is carried out, and whether colonoscopy is done for screening or for diagnostic or therapeutic indications.

Major complications include adverse sedation or anesthetic events including aspiration pneumonia, post-polypectomy bleeding, diverticulitis, intraperitoneal hemorrhage, and colonic perforation.”

Improper Equipment Sterilization Is Dangerous

Another risk factor that varies from clinic to clinic has to do with how well the equipment is sterilized. David Lewis, Ph.D., and I discuss this in the short video above. One issue is the inability to thoroughly clean the inside of the scope.

One common issue is that, during the examination, the physician may be unable to see through the scope and is unsuccessful in the attempt to flush it using the air/water channel as it is clogged with human tissue from a past exam. The scope must be retracted and another one used. Since endoscopes have sensitive equipment attached, they cannot be heat sterilized.

Unfortunately, manufacturers have not been made to produce a scope with the ability to be heat sterilized. As Lewis points out in the video, “We can put a Rover on Mars, surely we can build a flexible endoscope that we can put in an autoclave.” These expensive tools are not disposable but require sterilization between each patient.

Lewis reports that up to 80% of hospitals are sterilizing the flexible endoscopes with glutaraldehyde (Cidex). On testing, he finds this has complicated the process as it does not dissolve tissue in the endoscope but rather preserves it.

When sharp biopsy tools are run through the tube, patient material from past testing is scraped off and potentially carried into your body. This is why it’s important to find a clinic or hospital that uses peracetic acid to thoroughly sterilize the equipment by dissolving proteins found in the flexible endoscopes. Before scheduling any endoscopic examination call to ask how the equipment is sterilized between patients.

Most Colorectal Cancer Cases Are Related to Diet

Aside from skin cancer, colorectal cancer is the third most common type of cancer in the U.S., as well as the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths.19 It’s wise to take steps to reduce your risk, and lifestyle changes can be quite effective. In fact, lifestyle factors, including dietary choices, play a major role in the occurrence and progression of colorectal cancer,20 with only an estimated 20% of cases caused by genetic factors with the remainder due to environmental factors.

Up to 70% of colorectal cancer (CRC) cases are believed to be related to diet, leading researchers with the University of South Carolina School of Medicine to state:21

“As such, bioactive food components offer exciting possibilities for chemoprevention due to their potential to target many factors associated with the development and progression of CRC. Furthermore, the ability of bioactive food components to elicit tumoricidal effects without displaying the high toxicity exhibited by standard pharmacological interventions may translate to improved quality of life and survival in patients with cancer.”

For instance, emodin, which is found in Chinese rhubarb as well as in aloe vera, giant knotweed, the herb Polygonum multiflorum (tuber fleeceflower) and Polygonum cuspidatum (Japanese knotweed), may help prevent colorectal disease due to impressive therapeutic effects, including anti-inflammatory and antitumor properties.22

Fermented foods are also gaining recognition as an important dietary anticancer adjunct. The beneficial bacteria found in fermented foods have been shown particularly effective for suppressing colon cancer. For example, butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid created when microbes ferment dietary fiber in your gut, has been shown to induce programmed cell death of colon cancer cells.23

Other strategies to help prevent colorectal cancer include eating more fiber, optimizing vitamin D, avoiding processed meat, maintaining a normal weight and controlling belly fat. In a larger sense, researchers have demonstrated that cancer is likely a metabolic disease controlled in part by dysfunctional mitochondria.

You can optimize your mitochondrial health through cyclical nutritional ketosis, calorie restriction, meal timing, exercise and normalizing your iron level. All of these lifestyle factors play a role in keeping your body healthy and disease-free.

from:    https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/10/20/colonoscopies-carry-significant-risks.aspx?ui=f460707c057231d228aac22d51b97f2a8dcffa7b857ec065e5a5bfbcfab498ac&sd=20211017&cid_source=dnl&cid_medium=email&cid_content=art2ReadMore&cid=20221020&cid=DM1269224&bid=1625169157

This is Information Everyone Needs —Take Some Time to Listen

This is really important information for EVERYONE to pay attention to. It is time for everyone to wake up because all of our lives are at stake, and it is not because of some virus .  It is because of the manipulators behind the curtain:

Benefit of Sesame Oil

Sesame Seed Oil Found to Treat One of Chemotherapy’s Nastiest Side Effects

Sayer Ji – Chemotherapy often involves the injection of highly cytotoxic agents. As a result, veins can undergo great damage, inflammation, and pain. But nature has one remedy — sesame seed oil — that has been clinically proven to prevent and treat the condition.

One of the most common and painful side effects of intravenously administered chemotherapy is phlebitis (CIP), or inflammation of veins exposed to the these cytoxic agents. Estimates range, but it is possible that up to 70% of patients receiving conventional chemotherapy experience phlebitis of some degree,which not only causes great suffering but can also lead to thrombo-phlebitis, where the inflammation of the vein causes a blood clot to form and block one or more veins (embolism).

Remarkably, several studies have been published showing that topical sesame oil is effective at preventing CIP as well as for reducing pain severity.

The first clinical study, published in 2012, found that among 60 patients with colon or rectum cancer divided either into an intervention group or control, the group who received 10 drops of sesame oil applied twice daily for 14 days externally experience phlebitis only 10% of the time, versus 80% of the time in the control group. The researches concluded that,

external use of SO is effective, safe and well-tolerated for prophylaxis from Ph [phlebitis]. Therefore, it can be suggested as a selected prevention method for reducing the complication.”

The second study, published in 2019, also involved 60 colorectal cancer patients, but these were already diagnosed with chemotherapy-induced phlebitis (CIP). They were randomized into two groups.

Patients in the control group received, twice a day for seven consecutive days, a 5-min massage. Patients in the intervention group were given the same massage, but with 10 drops of sesame oil within the 10cm radius of the affected site. The pain severity was evaluated by the visual analog scale on the first, third, fifth, and seventh days of the intervention. The results were reported as follows:

Mean changes of the pain severity compared to the baseline were significant on the third (P?=?0.009), fifth (P?<?0.001), and seventh (P?<?0.001) days of the intervention in favor of the experimental group. Also, a significant reduction in the pain severity both in the experimental and control groups was observed during the seven days (F?=?720.66, Ptime?<?0.001); however, the decrease was more significant in the experimental group (F?=?21.46, P group?<?0.001).”

The researchers concluded:

Application of massage with sesame oil as a complementary method is effective in reducing the pain severity of patients with CIP.”

In short, the two clinical studies show that sesame seed oil can be used to both prevent and treat CIP safely and effectively.

To learn more about the broad range of health benefits and applications associated with Sesame Seed Oil use our database on the topic.

Article source

Rahmani R. Effect of Topical TNG to Prevent From Phlebitis through Using Venous Catheter on Patients Who Were Under Chemotherapy Treatment [Dissertation] Iran: Bagiyatallah University of Medical Sciences; 2008. [Google Scholar]

SF Source Wake Up World Jul 2019

from:    https://www.shiftfrequency.com/sesame-seed-oil-found-to-treat-phlebitis/#more-140545

What’s on Your Golf Course?

Roundup, Monsanto, cancer, golf courses, hidden secrets

by Jon Rappoport

April 10, 2019

There are 34,000 golf courses in the world. They make beautiful pictures. But what keeps the grass of the fairways and greens so uniform and undisturbed by weeds?

Chemical herbicides. One of the herbicide is Roundup, manufactured by Monsanto, the giant corporation owned by Bayer.

It’s now common knowledge that a link has been drawn between Roundup and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. “The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer…decided in 2015 that glyphosate is ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’.” (Mother Jones, March 14, 2019)

The research on the Monsanto pesticide Roundup is far from a finished product. Is it possible that Roundup causes other forms of cancer—brain, colon, and blood, for example? It will be hard to prove, in part because Monsanto can produced a hundred studies that contradict each lone study that says Yes.

But where are the golfers who have cancer? Nowhere, correct? Let’s find out.

“After the death of his [golf-playing] father, from the blood cancer Non-Hodgkins Lymphoma, filmmaker Andrew Nisker starts hunting for answers to his many questions about why this particular cancer, and where it came from. His search, to his surprise, takes him into the manicured world of golf. In this world of pearl white bunkers, and putting greens that look and feel like velvet, Andrew discovers that these ‘greenspaces’ are anything but. There’s a lot more than nature at work creating these perfect carpets. At a golf industry trade show he sees the array of chemicals on offer to achieve that championship perfection. To his surprise, he hears at the show that golfers have consistently shown resistance to caring about any health or environmental impacts of their sport.”

“Andrew forms a bond with a sportscaster in Pittsburgh who is blaming golf course pesticides for the cancer death of his own father, a golf course superintendent.”

“As he follows up on his hunt to find out more about pesticide use on golf courses, Andrew asks can golfers themselves learn to kick the chemical habit? He’s convinced that if golfers knew what goes into maintaining the artificial beauty they play on, they’d learn to love dandelions a little more.” (Dad and the Dandelions, CBC TV, March 2, 2017)

A recent lawsuit involved Roundup as a cause of lymphoma: “The groundskeeper who won a massive civil suit against Bayer’s Monsanto claiming that the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer has agreed to accept $78 million, after a judge substantially reduced the jury’s original $289 million award.”

“Dewayne ‘Lee’ Johnson, a Northern Californian groundskeeper and pest-control manager, was 42 when he developed a strange rash that would lead to a diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma in August 2014.”

“His groundskeeper duties included mixing and spraying hundreds of gallons of Roundup, the company’s glyphosate-containing weedkiller product, court records say.” (NPR, November 1, 2018)

Buckle up.

Australian professional golfer Jarrod Lyle has died after a long battle with cancer [leukemia], his wife announced Wednesday. He was 36…Last week, Lyle and his family announced that he had decided to end his treatment for acute myeloid leukemia and would undergo palliative care at his home.” (Fox News, 8/8/18)

“Fifty-one female professional golfers and 142 female amateur golfers were evaluated for skin cancer and skin cancer risk…Four of the professionals had already developed basal cell carcinoma (BCC). Their average age was 25.5 years. Eleven amateurs also developed BCC…” (Skin Cancer in Professional and Amateur Female Golfers, Phys Sportsmed. 1985 Aug) Was the cause sun exposure? Herbicides?

“In 2008, not long after playing in his first Champions Tour tournament, [Seve] Ballesteros fell ill in Spain. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor and eventually underwent four surgeries to try to remove the cancer. Ballesteros died on May 7, 2011, at the age of 54.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

[Heather] Farr was a terrific amateur golfer who never really got the chance to become a great LPGA Tour player. She died of breast cancer (that widely metastasized) at the age of 28 in 1993.” (ThoughtCo, 9/18/18)

“Once dubbed one of the world’s sexiest men by People magazine, Adam Scott looked a bit more garish after a procedure in 2011 to remove a Basil Cell Carcinoma, a form of non-melanoma skin cancer, from his face…A number of players have had varying degrees of battles with skin cancer…Rory Sabbatini, Brian Davis, Aron Price, among others, have all battled the disease…” (PGATour.com, 6/17/14) Sun exposure? Herbicides?

“Professional golfer Tom Lehman understands the importance of detecting cancer early. At 35, he was diagnosed with stage I colon cancer…* (USA Today, 6/26/18)

“Bruce Lietzke, a pro golfer who won 13 Professional Golfer’s Association Tour events, died on Saturday after a year-long battle with brain cancer.” (AJC, 7/28/18)

“[Pro golfer Randy Jones’ 2011] punch biopsy turned out to be melanoma.” (mdanderson.org, 9/13/16)

“A former LPGA Tour member, Shelley Hamlin died on October 15 [2018] at the age of 69 after a long and courageous battle with [breast] cancer.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Phil Rodgers, a five-time PGA Tour winner and noted golf instructor, died on June 26 age 80 after a 15-year battle with leukemia.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“Charismatic Australian golfer Ian Stanley, who was a prolific winner on his home tour before making his mark on the European seniors circuit, died in July at age 69. He had battled cancer for some time.” (golfweek.com, 12/19/18)

“…professional golfer Boo Weekley went public on Thursday in revealing the cause of his prolonged absence from the PGA Tour…discomfort in his right shoulder was revealed to be cancer…” (Pensacola News Journal, 2/15/19)

“Forrest Fezler’s career path in golf included 12 years on the PGA Tour…Fezler, a Californian by birth who settled in Tallahassee, died Friday after battling brain cancer. He was 69.” (Tallahassee Democrat, (12/21/18)

“[In July of 2006], it was discovered that famous pro golfer, Billy Mayfair, “had testicular cancer.” (Coping with Cancer, undated)

A PGA player [Joel Dahmen] who battled [testicular] cancer and lost his mom to the disease is moving into his dream home in Scottsdale…” (azfamily.com, 5/29/18)

Before you jump to the conclusion that exposure to the sun is responsible for the majority of golf-cancers, think about this statistic: “…the New York State Attorney General’s office published a report entitled Toxic Fairways, a widely cited study of pesticide use on 52 Long Island, New York golf courses. The report, which was particularly concerned with the potential for groundwater contamination, concluded that these golf courses applied about 50,000 pounds of pesticides in one year, or four to seven times the average amount of pesticides used in agriculture, on a pound per acre basis.” (beyondpesticides.org)

A variety of products are employed on golf courses. They create virtual lakes of chemical poison.

Or should I say rivers instead of lakes? Underground toxic rivers that affect bordering communities surrounding 34,000 golf courses across the world. If a groundskeeper with cancer can win $78 million in a lawsuit, how many billions of dollars should be awarded in a comprehensive legal action that correctly assigns criminal responsibility to giant chemical corporations?

(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, The Matrix Revealed, click here.)


Jon Rappoport

The author of three explosive collections, THE MATRIX REVEALED, EXIT FROM THE MATRIX, and POWER OUTSIDE THE MATRIX, Jon was a candidate for a US Congressional seat in the 29th District of California. He maintains a consulting practice for private clients, the purpose of which is the expansion of personal creative power. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, he has worked as an investigative reporter for 30 years, writing articles on politics, medicine, and health for CBS Healthwatch, LA Weekly, Spin Magazine, Stern, and other newspapers and magazines in the US and Europe. Jon has delivered lectures and seminars on global politics, health, logic, and creative power to audiences around the world. You can sign up for his free NoMoreFakeNews emails here or his free OutsideTheRealityMachine emails here.

from:    https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/

Adult Stem Cell Therapy & the FDA