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

At What Cost – Wireless Tech?

Moxibustion for Cancer

Moxibustion is an effective alternative cancer treatment, according to study

When people think of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), one of the things that come to mind is acupuncture and herbs. However, a study published in the African Journal of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicines looked at the benefits of moxibustion and its potential to prevent cell death and decrease the likelihood of gastric dysplasia — a condition wherein lesions form in the gastric mucosa that will ultimately develop into cancer.

Researchers used in vivo tests to investigate how moxibustion protects the gastric mucosa from developing cancer. In the test, Sprague-Dawley rats were given a solution that contained N-methyl-N`-nitro-N-nitrosoguanidine (MNNG) to induce gastric precancerous lesions, an indicator that the cells in the stomach are turning abnormal.

Aside from the control group, the experimental groups were divided to those that received drug treatment, those that received a “sham” moxibustion treatment, and those that received a standard moxibustion treatment. Rats in both moxibustion groups were treated for 15 minutes every other day for the duration of the study, which ran for 20 weeks. At the end of the study, the samples’ gastric mucosa were extracted and analyzed for any morphologic changes.

The researchers found that rats under standard moxibustion treatment had a decreased expression of lesions, which indicated that the treatment was able to suppress the development of gastric precancerous lesions. Moreover, it also inhibited B-cell lymphoma 2 (bcl-2), tumor protein P53, and cellular Myc (C-MYC), which are all associated with cell death and the production of cancer cells.

Fast facts on moxibustion

Moxibustion is a technique that uses heat to promote healing of the body. The process involves burning mugwort, a small herb that has been used in both Western medicine and TCM, at the acupuncture point to stimulate qi flow, strengthen the blood, and maintain overall health.

There are two forms of moxibustion — direct and indirect. In a direct moxibustion procedure, a small amount moxa (a dried mugwort stick) is burned above an acupuncture point and is left there until it burns out completely. While this form was the favorite of ancient practitioners, it may lead to some localized blisters in some cases. Indirect moxibustion involves burning the moxa at the acupuncture point and removing it just before it gets to the skin.

Patients who undergo moxibustion report a “pleasurable, heating sensation,” at no risk of pain. However, people with existing respiratory conditions should notify their health practitioner before the procedure as the smoke may hurt them.

Studies have pointed out that both acupuncture and moxibustion operate in a similar field, as they both make use of meridians and acupoints. In particular, moxibustion uses both the meridian system and the role of moxa and fire.

During a moxibustion procedure, the skin regions where the acupoints are located serve as “terminals” of the meridian system, where stimulation from the procedure is transferred into the body. This allows the body to recover from a diseased state or activate the self-recovering properties of the meridian. However, moxibustion is different from acupuncture, which cures a distinct set of diseases.

Moreover, in the book Elementary Medicine, it states that when a condition cannot be treated with medicine and acupuncture, it should be addressed by moxibustion, as it uses the unique properties of moxa and fire. The fire used in moxibustion is defined to be “hot and rapid” which allows moxibustion to remove the shadow in a soft body, with the Yang fire removing the Yin cold and phlegm quickly. This speed allows the fire to flood the channels, remove pain and numbness, and activate blood and qi.

Moxibustion also takes into consideration the types of materials that will be burned with the moxa, depending on the nature of the condition. Moxa is used for its pharmacological properties, as well as its availability.

Learn more about TCM and how it can further help you by heading to ChineseMedicine.news.

from:    https://cancer.news/2019-02-05-moxibustion-is-an-effective-alternative-cancer-treatment.html

Cancer Cure on the Horizon…

Israeli scientists claim they’ve made a breakthrough in devising a cure for cancer that could be proven within the year.

Known as MuTaTo, or multi-targit toxin, the new anti-cancer drug is being touted as “a disruption technology of the highest order,” according to The Jerusalem Post.

Dan Aridor, the head of Accelerated Evolution Biotechnologies Ltd (AEBi), told the paper that his small team of scientists had developed an all-around treatment or “complete cure for cancer,” explaining:

“Our cancer cure will be effective from day one, will last a duration of a few weeks and will have no or minimal side-effects at a much lower cost than most other treatments on the market… Our solution will be both generic and personal.”

The cure is expected to render the disease manageable in the same way that the “triple drug cocktail” made AIDS a survivable disease.

The treatment is based on SoAP technology, a platform designed by AEBi, which the paper describes as providing “functional leads to very different targets.”

The MuTaTo treatment will act as a cancer antibiotic that uses a web of cancer-targeting peptides to attack cancer cells simultaneously, wrapping around them in an octopus-like manner and attacking them from multiple angles, while using a strong peptide toxin to eliminate them.

Because the peptides are so small, they would go undetected by the immune system and avoid counter-attacks that commonly lead to side effects like nausea.

AEBi CEO Dr. Ilan Morad touted the potential treatment as more advantageous than antibodies and also small, cheap, and easy to produce and regulate.

Morad explained:

“We made sure that the treatment will not be affected by mutations; cancer cells can mutate in such a way that targeted receptors are dropped by the cancer. The probability of having multiple mutations that would modify all targeted receptors simultaneously decreases dramatically with the number of targets used.

Instead of attacking receptors one at a time, we attack receptors three at a time — not even cancer can mutate three receptors at the same time.”

Given that an estimated 18.1 million new cancer cases were diagnosed worldwide in 2018 alone – making every sixth death in the world a result of cancer and ranking it as the world’s second leading cause of death – the news is very exciting.

Critics, however, remain skeptical about the cure, especially because the only study done so far was performed on mice. Even the inventors themselves concede that human trials will take a while to begin and complete.

In a blog post, Dr. Leonard Lichtenfield, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer for the American Cancer Society (ACS), has urged the public to remain “aware that this is far from proven as an effective treatment for people with cancer, let alone a cure,” noting that while the Israeli team has devised an “interesting approach,” one must bear in mind that “the process to get this treatment from mouse to man is not always a simple and uncomplicated journey.

In his blog on the ACS site, Dr. Lichtenfield adds:

“It will likely take some time to prove the benefit of this new approach to the treatment of cancer. And unfortunately–based on other similar claims of breakthrough technologies for the treatment of cancer–the odds are that it won’t be successful.”

from:    https://themindunleashed.com/2019/01/israeli-scientists-complete-cure-cancer.html