Dogs detect breast cancer from bandage: researchers

Dogs - Dogs Wallpaper (16762029) - Fanpop
Source: Yahoo.com
Mariëtte Le Roux
March 24, 2017

Paris (AFP) – Dogs can sniff out cancer from a piece of cloth which had touched the breast of a woman with a tumour, researchers said Friday, announcing the results of an unusual, but promising, diagnostic trial.

With just six months of training, a pair of German Shepherds became 100-percent accurate in their new role as breast cancer spotters, the team said.

The technique is simple, non-invasive and cheap, and may revolutionise cancer detection in countries where mammograms are hard to come by.

“In these countries, there are oncologists, there are surgeons, but in rural areas often there is limited access to diagnostics,” Isabelle Fromantin, who leads project Kdog, told journalists in Paris.

This means that “people arrive too late,” to receive life-saving treatment, she added. “If this works, we can roll it out rapidly.”

Working on the assumption that breast cancer cells have a distinguishing smell which sensitive dog noses will pick up, the team collected samples from 31 cancer patients.

These were pieces of bandage that patients had held against their affected breast.

With the help of canine specialist Jacky Experton, the team trained German Shepherds Thor and Nykios to recognise cancerous rags from non-cancerous ones.

“It is all based on game-playing” and reward, he explained.

After six months, the dogs were put to the test over several days in January and February this year.

This time, the researchers used 31 bandages from different cancer patients than those the dogs had been trained on.

One bandage was used per experiment, along with three samples from women with no cancer.

– Saving lives –

Each bandage was placed in a box with a large cone which the dogs could stick their noses into, sniffing at each in turn — four boxes per test.

The exercise was repeated once with each sample, meaning there were 62 individual responses from the dogs in all.

In the first round, the dogs detected 28 out of the 31 cancerous bandages — a 90-percent pass rate, the researchers announced.

On the second try, they scored 100 percent — sitting down in front of the box containing the cancerous sample with their muzzle pressed deep into the cone.

“There is technology that works very well, but sometimes simpler things, more obvious things, can also help,” said Amaury Martin of the Curie Institute, citing the many untested stories of dogs having detected cancer in their owners.

“Our aim was see if we can move from conventional wisdom to… real science, with all the clinical and research validation that this entails.”

This was the proof-of-concept phase of Kdog.

The next step will be a clinical trial with more patients and another two dogs, but the team is still in need of project funding.

Read More At: Yahoo.com

Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Image: Thousands of people now have non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma due to glyphosate (Roundup) exposure, warns legal firm that’s suing Monsanto

Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Will Monsanto finally get what they deserve for their crimes against humanity? The Miller Firm hopes to bring the corporate giant to their knees by pursuing a lawsuit that shows Roundup can cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma and multiple myeloma.

And perhaps, in their pursuance of this litigation, the EPA will be taken down, too.

Email evidence indicates that not only did Monsanto help write the so-called cancer studies on Roundup, but that EPA officials colluded to keep reports on glyphosate’s carcinogenic status in favor of the industry. Former EPA scientist Marion Copley’s heartbreaking email not only illustrates the cancer-causing capacity, but that the EPA is riddled with corruption and greed.

Copley’s letter describes a host of ways in which glyphosate can cause cancer:

  • Endocrine disruption
  • Free radical formation and inhibition of free radical-scavenging enzymes
  • Genotoxicity — which is key in cancer onset
  • Inhibition of certain DNA repairing enzymes
  • Inhibiting the absorption of essential nutrients
  • Renal and pancreatic damage that may lead to cancer
  • Destruction of gut bacteria and suppression of the immune system

“Any one of these mechanisms alone listed can cause tumors, but glyphosate causes all of them simultaneously. It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer. With all of the evidence listed above, the CARC category should be changed to ‘probable human carcinogen,’” Copley states. Copley passed away in 2014, before the IARC finally did come to reach this conclusion.

And as The Miller Firm notes, recent independent studies have shown that farm workers exposed to glyphosate or Roundup are at least twice as likely to develop lymphoma. Monsanto is, at the very least, guilty of engaging in deceptive marketing tactics by making claims that their deadly herbicide is “safer than table salt” and “practically non-toxic.” Worse still, several scientists have gone to federal prisons for falsifying data on the toxicity of glyphosate. According to The Miller Firm, the issues with Roundup’s safety testing date back to 1976. In spite of this, Monsanto has spent the last few decades convincing the public that glyphosate is totally safe.

Farm workers are particularly susceptible to the adverse health effects of glyphosate exposure. The Miller Firm has launched their lawsuit against Monsanto and taken aim at the EPA as well, citing that farmers were intentionally led to believe the cancer-causing chemical was safe — and if they had known the product was toxic, they’d have at least have known of the risks and been able to better protect themselves and further minimize contact with the herbicide.

The legal team also notes that Marion Copley’s letter points to corruption and collusion occurring between Monsanto and the EPA to protect glyphosate from being exposed as toxic.

“For once in your life, listen to me and don’t play your political conniving games with the science to favor the registrants. For once do the right thing and don’t make decisions based on how it affects your bonus. You and Anna Lowit intimidated staff on CARC and changed MI ARC and IIASPOC final reports to favor industry. The CARC category should be changed to “probable human carcinogen,” Copley writes in her email to fellow EPA scientist Jess Roland.

Court documents have continued to point to a not-so-innocent relationship between Roland and Monsanto. UPI reports that emails between Roland and Monsanto scientist Dr. William Heydens reveal that Heydens offered to write a 2013 report on glyphosate for the EPA. Roland purportedly then used the reports to conclude glyphosate should not be classified as carcinogenic.

Emails have also shown that Monsanto sought Roland out to stop the Agency of Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) — another federal agency — from investigating glyphosate further. A conversation relayed to coworkers by Monsanto regulatory affairs manager, Dan Jenkins shows that Rowland said,”If I can kill this I should get a medal.”

Bloomberg reports that the ATDSR never did publish a toxicological profile on the substance.

All signs point to one thing: both the EPA and Monsanto know glyphosate is toxic and carcinogenic, but they’re doing whatever they can to keep that fact under wraps.

Will The Miller Firm be able to convince the courts to mete out the appropriate punishment in the face of such corruption?  One can only hope.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

Glyphosate.news

MillerFirmLLC.com

UPI.com

Bloomberg.com

Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up

Image: Monsanto caught colluding with EPA in Roundup cancer cover-up
Source: NaturalNews.com
Vicki Batts
March 24, 2017

Is the day we’ve all been waiting for finally on the horizon? Monsanto and the EPA have been caught red-handed in the midst of a legal controversy. Unsealed court documents have shown that not only is the EPA severely lacking in the standards department, but that the federal agency colluded with one of the nation’s most menacing companies, Monsanto. And in doing so, the EPA helped to keep Monsanto’s star product, Roundup, on store shelves and safe from being reviewed for its cancer-causing effects.

Court documents show that the EPA declared that Roundup was safe for use without ever testing the entire formulation’s effects, and instead relied on the industry testing done on just the key active ingredient, glyphosate.

As you can see in the graphic below, not only does the EPA not require testing of the actual product in its entirety, Monsanto itself as not conducted any studies on the chronic carcinogenic studies related to Roundup’s formulation. While this alone is certainly more than enough cause for concern — both about Roundup’s safety and the EPA’s apparent lack of integrity — this revelation is just the tip of the iceberg, so to speak.

(source: Zerohedge)

Recently, former EPA official Jess Rowland has come under fire for his collusion with Monsanto. The industry giant even reached out to Rowland to garner his assistance in putting the brakes on an investigation of glyphosate that was being pioneered by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

“If I can kill this I should get a medal,” Rowland said to a Monsanto employee, who then relayed the conversation to coworkers via email.

Another damning email shows that Monsanto executive William Heydens even conspired to “ghostwrite” a paper on glyphosate’s safety. Heydens claimed that having the company write their own research on key areas of the product’s safety would be “less expensive” and “more palatable.” It also appears that they were preparing for what may come of the IARC’s report on glyphosate, and how they would go about defending themselves.  See below:

(source: ZeroHedge)

Heydens also noted that this same practice of ghostwriting and getting “independent” researchers to “sign their names” on studies is how they’d handled research on glyphosate’s safety in the past. And as NPR explains, while that earlier paper that is mentioned in the email did note that Monsanto helped to “assemble” the information, no Monsanto employees are noted as co-authors.

While the EPA contends that glyphosate is safe, the World Health Organization and numerous independent studies on the chemical’s safety seem to disagree. The WHO made tremendous waves when they declared that glyphosate was a probable carcinogen, and several independent investigations of the product’s safety have shown that it’s linked to liver damage, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease, digestive disorders and other ailments.

Monsanto, of course, has wasted no time defending their product and themselves. Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of global strategy, has reportedly said that it would be “remarkable” if the corporate giant was capable of manipulating the EPA under the Obama administration.

This comment surely must have been in jest, as the EPA’s corruption runs deep; impervious to the rules of reality, the EPA has continuously proven itself to either be an agency of sheer ineptitude or great deception — look no further than the Gold King Mine spill for proof of that.

Regardless, Partridge — like any corporate talking head — maintains that glyphosate is completely safe, and cites the EPA’s assessment as proof. But as the emails show, the EPA’s assessment is little more than a regurgitated form of Monsanto’s data. So, who’s really calling the shots here?

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

ZeroHedge.com

Bloomberg.com

NPR.org

OrganicAuthority.com

Vitamin C breakthrough: Low-cost nutrient HALTS cancer stem cell growth

Image: Vitamin C breakthrough discovery: Low-cost nutrient halts growth of cancer stem cells… 1000% more effective than cancer drug… peer-reviewed science confirms powerful effects
Source: NaturalNews.com
Mike Adams
March 23, 2017

An exciting medical breakthrough published in the science journal Oncotarget has discovered the astonishing ability of concentrated vitamin C to halt the growth of cancer tumor stem cells.

The study, conducted at the University of Salford in Manchester — (see full text of the study at this link) — tested the impact on cancer stem cell metabolism for seven substances:

  • Three natural substances, including vitamin C
  • Three experimental pharmaceuticals
  • One clinical drug currently in widespread use

The study’s astonishing results reveal “the first evidence that Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) can be used to target and kill cancer stem cells (CSCs), the cells responsible for fuelling fatal tumours,” reports the flagship science publisher Alpha Galileo.

Vitamin C found to work up to 10 times better than a cancer pharmaceutical

Led by Michael P. Lisanti and Gloria Bonuccelli, the study results astonished researchers when it found that vitamin C worked up to 10 times better than a pharmaceutical cancer drug at interfering with cancer stem cell metabolism, effectively shutting down cancer tumors’ ability to process cellular energy for survival and growth.

“Vitamin C is cheap, natural, non-toxic and readily available so to have it as a potential weapon in the fight against cancer would be a significant step,” said Dr. Michael P. Lisanti, Professor of Translational Medicine at the University of Salford, in the Alpha Galileo summary of his research. It goes on to report:

Vitamin C has previously been shown to be effective as a non-toxic anti-cancer agent in studies by Nobel Prize winner Linus Pauling and was recently shown to reduce mortality by 25% on breast cancer patients in Japan. However, its effects on CSC activity have not been previously evaluated and in this context, it behaves as an inhibitor of glycolysis, which fuels energy production in mitochondria, the “powerhouse” of the cell.

Great promise for IV vitamin C therapy as a complementary or alternative cancer treatment

Don’t believe doctors who smugly claim vitamin C has no ability to treat cancer. While the potency of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) used in the study is more than what could be achieved by eating oranges or other vitamin C-rich foods, the high concentration of the powerful nutrient could be achieved through intravenous (IV) therapy.

IV vitamin C therapy is readily available in some “alternative” cancer clinics throughout the world, and this research breakthrough could lead to more clinical trials that might one day see vitamin C used more widely throughout complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

If these results had been attributed to a patented Big Pharma chemical, it would be heralded as a “miracle cancer drug” breakthrough. But don’t hold your breath waiting for the medical establishment to celebrate this discovery… vitamin C can’t be patented, and it’s incredibly inexpensive, meaning there’s no financial incentive for any cancer clinic to promote vitamin C when they can make far more money off the profits of chemotherapy.

The original study, published in Oncotarget at this link, concludes that “Vitamin C was ~10 times more potent than 2-DG for the targeting of CSCs.” (2-DG refers to an experimental cancer pharmaceutical, and CSC refers to Cancer Stem Cells.)

Read the full HTML text of the study at this link.

New science once again proves “skeptics” are hopelessly ignorant when it comes to advanced medicine

Not surprisingly, to this day, drug-pushing science “skeptics” continue to ridiculously claim that vitamin C has no medicinal use whatsoever and that only chemotherapy can treat cancer, not nutritional therapies. Even the science writers in the fake science media — NYT, CNN, Washington Post, etc. — seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of nutritional therapies for cancer, diabetes, heart disease or other chronic conditions.

It just goes to show you how incredibly ignorant and even nutritionally illiterate the medical “status quo” remains in our pharma-dominated world where profits are far more important to medicine than actually helping people overcome cancer.

Learn more about natural remedies for cancer at Remedies.news, and stay informed about scientifically validated cancer solutions at CancerSolutions.news

Read More at: NaturalNews.com

Monsanto & The EPA: Your Tax Dollars (Not) At Work

MON(STER)SANTO AND THE EPA: YOUR TAX DOLLARS (NOT) AT WORK
Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
March 22, 2017

Well, now it’s official, or rather, even more official than it was before, for new documents are revealing what appears to be massive collusion between agribusiness giant Mon(ster)santo and the goobernment, in this case, the Environmental Protection Agency,  according to this article shared by Mr. B:

Monsanto Colluded With EPA, Was Unable To Prove Roundup Does Not Cause Cancer, Unsealed Court Docs Reveal

Predictably, documents have been “unsealed” that reveal that the government agency charged with protecting the environment … er… for greedy megacorporations did little independent scientific investigation of its own into the safety of said greedy megacorporation’s Roundup pesticide, but (surprise surprise) relied on said greedy megacorporation’s own science to clear approval for its use:

That said, newly unsealed court documents released earlier today seemingly reveal a startling effort on the part of both Monsanto and the EPA to work in concert to kill and/or discredit independent, albeit inconvenient, cancer research conducted by the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)….more on this later.

But, before we get into the competing studies, here is a brief look at the ‘extensive’ work that Monsanto and the EPA did prior to originally declaring Roundup safe for use (hint: not much).  As the excerpt below reveals, the EPA effectively declared Roundup safe for use without even conducting tests on the actual formulation, but instead relying on industry research on just one of the product’s active ingredients.

“EPA’s minimal standards do not require human health data submissions related to the formulated product – here, Roundup.  Instead, EPA regulations require only studies and data that relate to the active ingredient, which in the case of Roundup is glyphosate.  As a result, the body of scientific literature EPA has reviewed is not only primarily provided by the industry, but it also only considers one part of the chemical ingredients that make up Roundup.” (All emphases in the original)

The whopper immediately follows:

Meanwhile, if that’s not enough for you, Donna Farmer, Monsanto’s lead toxicologist, even admitted in her deposition that she “cannot say that Roundup does not cause cancer” because “[w]e [Monsanto] have not done the carcinogenicity studies with Roundup.”

Following this little revelation, the article goes on to give an actual screen capture of an internal memo, in which  a process of “doctoring” the independent World Health Organization study is clearly outlined:

That said, Monsanto, the $60 billion behemoth, couldn’t possibly afford the $250,000 bill that would come with conducting a legitimate scientific study led by accredited scientists.  Instead, they decided to “ghost-write” key sections of their report themselves and plotted to then have the independent scientists just “sign their names so to speak.”

“A less expensive/more palatable approach might be to involve experts only for the areas of contention, epidemiology and possibly MOA (depending on what comes out of the IARC meeting), and we ghost-write the Exposure Tox & Genetox sections…but we would be keeping the cost down by us doing the writing and they would just edit & sign their names so to speak.”
(Emphases in the original)

Of course, such tactics only ultimately serve corporations like Mon(ster)santo, which like to wallow in the muck of immorality, poorly. All the sneaking around, buying off this scientist or that scientist, padding the wallets of a politician or two, fighting this GMO or that GMO labeling law, hauling farmers into court, does not do anything positive for what little image they have left.

To this end, we have a modest proposal for Mon(ster)santo, I.G. Farbensanto, DuPontsanto, and all the other agribusiness giants: why not take a page out of Big Pharma’s playbook, and simply throw aside all pretense? Why not buy off enough politicians to pass laws mandating that people eat nothing but GMOs: people would have to save their labels and grocery receipts, and present them to the public schools in order for their children to be allowed to attend. Getting together with Big Pharma on this could do you a lot of good, for you could combine your GMO crud with vaccine crud, and have the “food-like substances” you purvey become the vaccine, and that way, you could never be sued by anyone under current laws. Or, you could just buy off enough politicians and pass laws making it impossible for anyone to sue you who comes down with something due to eating GMOs, no matter what independent science studies say.

Our advice is: Start in the one-party socialist republic of Nuttyfornia, buy off a few very corrupt and kookoo politicians in the San Franfreakshow-Bay area (they have lots of them there) and the Hell-A area (they have lots there too), send some donations to Senator McInsane’s and Senator Graham Cracker’s next campaigns by way of Saudi Arabia, and that will get the job done. It would be a bi-partisan effort. And don’t forget to blame Vladimir Putin for all the anti-GMO hysteria and for hacking the contradictory science.

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Joseph P. Farrell

Joseph P. Farrell has a doctorate in patristics from the University of Oxford, and pursues research in physics, alternative history and science, and “strange stuff”. His book The Giza DeathStar, for which the Giza Community is named, was published in the spring of 2002, and was his first venture into “alternative history and science”.

New Bill Allows Genetic Testing of Employees – #NewWorldNextWeek

Source: TheCorbettReport | MediaMonarchy
James Corbett | James Evan Pilatto
March 16, 2017

Welcome to New World Next Week – the video series from Corbett Report and Media Monarchy that covers some of the most important developments in open source intelligence news. This week:

Story #1: To Cut Climate Money, Fake Right Has To Find Where Fake Left Stashed It
http://bit.ly/2n2mJ1q
Judith Curry Explains Climate Modeling to the Layman
http://bit.ly/2n2h4Zr
EPA Deputy Accused Of Working With Monsanto To Kill Cancer Study
http://bit.ly/2nqDh4d
Monsatan On Trial For Roundup Cancer
http://bit.ly/2mvyLNc

Story #2: New Bill Would Let Companies Force Workers To Get Genetic Tests, Share Results
http://bit.ly/2mM7bgf

Story #3: Need a Pothole Fixed? Maybe a Portland Anarchist Can Help!
http://bit.ly/2mRRbuQ

After years of secrecy, cellphone radiation risks are finally being revealed

Image: After years of secrecy, cellphone radiation risks are finally being revealed
Source: NaturalNews.com
Tracey Watson
March 15, 2017

In 2015, New York Times writer Nick Bilton wrote an article entitled “The Health Concerns in Wearable Tech,” warning the public that devices like smartphones and Apple Watches emit a low-level radiation which has been linked to cancer, brain tumors and other problems when worn close to the body for extended periods. His article was based on a press release issued by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) in May of 2011, which warned, “The WHO/International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) has classified radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B), based on an increased risk for glioma, a malignant type of brain cancer1, associated with wireless phone use.”

Bilton was not praised for his public health warning; in fact, the mainstream media attacked him, with many calling for his dismissal from the Times.

The truth is, there is ample evidence that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields emitted by cell phones and other devices could cause brain cancer. This has just been reinforced yet again, in a document released by the California Department of Public Health, entitled simply “Cell Phones and Health.”

The Department has been sitting on the document, which has been revised several times, for the past seven years, refusing to make it public. It was only when Joel Moskowitz, director of the Center for Family and Community Health at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health, sued the Department last year, and the judge indicated that she would order the release of the document, that the Department made it public.

The document states clearly, “Health officials are concerned about possible health effects from cell phone EMFs because some recent studies suggest that long-term cell phone use may increase the risk of brain cancer and other health problems.” [Emphasis added]

It also notes that studies have found that people diagnosed with certain forms of brain cancer are more likely to have used cellphones in the preceding decade and that the cancers usually occurred on the side of the head that their cellphones were most often used on. It adds, “These studies suggest that regular cell phone use increases the risk of developing some kinds of brain cancer.” (RELATED: Read more about how cell phones are a ticking time-bomb when it comes to cancer here.)

The use of cell phones clearly carries serious health risks, but with modern society so dependent on them, it is unrealistic to think that people will be able to totally end their use. It is, therefore, important to know how to utilize this technology in the safest possible way.

An earlier Natural News article provided several tips on how to protect yourself from cell phone radiation, including:

  1. Reduce the amount of time you spend talking on your cell phone, keeping in mind that every 2-minute phone call disrupts brain activity for up to an hour.
  2. Send text messages rather than making phone calls.
  3. Replace your cell phone with one that emits less radiation. A list of suggestions can be found here.
  4. The jury is still out on whether or not they will really be less damaging in the long-term, but it still might be worth using a headset or speaker rather than talking directly on your cell phone.
  5. Avoid using your cell phone in elevators or other metal enclosures, including your car, as more power is needed to connect the call, emitting more radiation in the process.
  6. A similar problem arises when your cell phone’s battery is low, so charge it before you use it.
  7. If you have to use your phone directly without a headset or speaker, wait until the person you’re calling actually answers before putting it to your ear.

So, the reality is that you probably have to use a cell phone, but by limiting its use and applying the suggestions above, you can try to make the process less damaging to your health.

Follow more news on the health risks of EMFs at EMF.news.

Read More At: NaturalNews.com

Sources:

SanFrancisco.CBSLocal.com

Drive.Google.com[PDF]

NaturalNews.com

IARC.fr[PDF]

NaturalNews.com