Wireless Technologies Have An Epigenetic Effect On Children


Source: ActivistPost.com
Catherine Frompovich
May 17, 2017

Cindy Sage and Ernesto Burgio published a new paper “Electromagnetic Fields, Pulsed Radiofrequency Radiation, and Epigenetics: How Wireless Technologies May Affect Childhood Development” on the Bioinitiative 2012 website, which ought to dispel much of the disparity about EMFs not  being harmful, especially to children, and fetuses in particular, I’d like to add.

The authors talk about epigenetics affecting childhood development, something to listen up about very carefully in this day and age of neuro-developmentally-challenged children, something not widespread in former generations.   According to the 2015 “America’s Children and the Environment, Third Edition” [1]:

[A]pproximately 15% of children in the United States ages 3 to 17 years were affected by neurodevelopmental disorders, including ADHD, learning disabilities, intellectual disability, cerebral palsy, autism, seizures, stuttering or stammering, moderate to profound hearing loss, blindness, and other developmental delays, in 2006–2008.

[CJF emphasis added.  It’s now 2017What are current figures?]

Here’s a graph showing the ‘history’ of epigenetics.

graphSource

Note when epigenetics began to appear on scientific and demographic radars—middle to late 1940s when, in my opinion, the Rockefeller cartel introduced the concept of the chemical and pharmaceutical [3-4-5] industries, which they and their cronies managed to control and shepherd into behemoth ‘medicine-killing-chemical, for-profit factories’, in my opinion.

From the 1800s onward into the 1940s, the chart registers no data, even though there were coal and wood-burning stoves keeping homes half-way warm; horse manure in the streets; poor public sanitation services, if any; questionable water sources; some gas lights, but still epigenetics doesn’t seem to appear.  Why?

In my opinion, man-made synthetic chemicals are involved as the key precipitating epigenetics factor or ‘driver’ because they are man-made molecules Nature and the human evolutionary processes have not encountered before nor had to ‘deal with’ before.  Therefore, man-made-chemicals cause interference with the modification of gene expression.  In my studies, I learned it can take up to a few hundred years for human adaptation to occur to a new element by the human species.

Consider all the thousands of man-made toxic chemicals since the 1940s!  Most egregious is the deliberate injection of ethylmercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, anti-freeze and other neurotoxins directly into children less than one year of age! Is there any wonder epigenetics are affecting human biochemistry and heritable traits?

So, what is epigenetics?

The study of the process by which genetic information is translated into the substance and behavior of an organism: specifically, the study of the way in which the expression of heritable traits is modified by environmental influences or other mechanisms without a change to the DNA sequence. [2]

Nothing, in my candid opinion, modifies an environment ecologically, physically or esthetically more than the use of toxic herbicides, pesticides and other man-made chemicals used almost like running water, with no apparent regard for biological, environmental or even legal consequences.

Modern agriculture and animal husbandry are two of the worst offenders, in my opinion.  They are the sources of most of humankind’s food, which provide chemically-contaminated ‘nutrition’, something no one should have to ingest and which apparently provides epigenetic factors.

All the above man-made ‘epigenetics’ pale in comparison to the “newer epigenetic kid on the block.”  You can’t see it; can’t smell it; but consumers are in love with it.  Nevertheless, it has quite a dedicated following, but delivers a nasty ghost-like ‘bite’ science doesn’t want to admit to.  What a conundrum!  Admission would devastate an entire industry: Microwaves, which emit an epigenetic factor, I contend: non-thermal radiation.  Microwave EMFs/RFs certainly precipitate idiopathic symptoms and/or resulting diseases.  There’s even a name for it: electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS).

All microwave-technology-operated gizmos emit non-thermal radiation waves, regardless of what ICNIRP disavows.

Ironically, there are 32% of microwave industry-funded studies finding non-thermal adverse effects and yet that industry and its associations claim there are no such things; further research is needed; and dogmatically set false safety standards based upon thermal effects, e.g., if it heats your skin from a certain distance, then it’s harmful.  Mobile phones, utility AMI Smart Meters, baby monitors, and all smart appliances and gadgets using ZigBee radio chips send out non-thermal waves.  You can take that statement to the bank.

Enter the Sage-Burgio paper.

In the Discussion section of their paper, we find this:

The wide array of pathophysiological effects of EMF and RFR exposures from wireless sources do not require “the breaking of molecular bonds” as done by ionizing radiation in order for physiologically damaging effects to occur. Epigenetic mechanisms alone can change fetal development in profound ways, disrupting health by causing changes in gene activation and expression without change in gene sequences. Environmental epigenetic influences in the fetal and neonatal development (i.e., epigenetic regulation of genes rather than direct genetic effects by gene mutation) have been plausibly established to cause pathophysiological changes that can result in altered neurological development. Symptoms of neurodevelopmental problems in children like retarded memory, impaired learning, cognition, attention, and behavioral aberrations that are similarly expressed in autism and ADHD have been reported in numerous scientific studies to occur as a result of EMF and RFR exposures. Epigenetic drivers are the most likely causes, and persistent exposures contribute to chronic dysfunction and addiction that can overwhelm adaptive biological responses.  [CJF emphasis added]

[….]

Global saturation by wireless device emissions is our largest modifiable and preventable childhood contaminant. It may exacerbate health harm from chemical toxins such as environmental tobacco, mercury, lead and pthalate  [ sic—s/b phthalate] toxicity that already burden the developing child.

[….]

Public health experts, educators and psychologists have gained a strong new tool to argue against pulsed radiofrequency radiation saturation by wireless devices and infrastructure. Wireless exposures are modifiable and largely avoidable by choosing wired for technology access. This may hold the largest potential for global preventative health action we have.[1]

Wi-Fi, cell and smart phones, smart TVs and any smart appliances with ZigBee chips emit epigenetic factors or ‘drivers’, I offer. Consumers ought to take seriously warnings about the microwave industry’s misleading “tobacco science,” which pontificates there are only thermal waves.  The moon is made of Swiss cheese too!  There are a lot of holes in the moon theory as there are in microwave ‘science’.

 We hear media reports encouraging children to interact with peers rather than send text messages.

Isn’t it time to rethink what epigenetic effects lurk around us from the technology we have become addicted to?  And, it is an addiction.  Try leaving your cell phone home for the day.

Read more At: ActivistPost.com

References:

[1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/ace3_neurodevelopmental.pdf Pg. 1
[2] www.dictionary.com/browse/epigenetics
[3] http://www4.dr-rath-foundation.org/THE_FOUNDATION/history_of_the_pharma_cartel.html
[4] http://freedom-articles.toolsforfreedom.com/western-medicine-rockefeller-medicine/
[5] https://worldaffairs.blog/2015/10/20/how-rockefeller-founded-modern-medicine-and-killed-natural-cures/

Catherine J Frompovich (website) is a retired natural nutritionist who earned advanced degrees in Nutrition and Holistic Health Sciences, Certification in Orthomolecular Theory and Practice plus Paralegal Studies. Her work has been published in national and airline magazines since the early 1980s. Catherine authored numerous books on health issues along with co-authoring papers and monographs with physicians, nurses, and holistic healthcare professionals. She has been a consumer healthcare researcher 35 years and counting.

Catherine’s latest book, published October 4, 2013, is Vaccination Voodoo, What YOU Don’t Know About Vaccines, available on Amazon.com.

Her 2012 book A Cancer Answer, Holistic BREAST Cancer Management, A Guide to Effective & Non-Toxic Treatments, is available on Amazon.com and as a Kindle eBook.

Two of Catherine’s more recent books on Amazon.com are Our Chemical Lives And The Hijacking Of Our DNA, A Probe Into What’s Probably Making Us Sick (2009) and Lord, How Can I Make It Through Grieving My Loss, An Inspirational Guide Through the Grieving Process (2008)

Catherine’s NEW book: Eat To Beat Disease, Foods Medicinal Qualities ©2016 Catherine J Frompovich is now available

Advertisements

Human Embryos “Edited” In China

Source: GizaDeathStar.com
Dr. Joseph P. Farrell Ph.D.
May 14, 2017

It has finally happened: human embryos have been genetically modified in China, by utilizing the CRISPR technique of genetic modification. Indeed, while the development is not surprising, as one might imagine, I have a few high octane speculations about it(and I would also like to thank all the readers here who sent me these two stories):

Engineering the Perfect Baby

Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos

Frankly, I found the second article so disturbing that it is difficult for me to write about, particularly in connection with my habit of high octane speculation. Nonetheless, I want to draw your attention to the following paragraphs from the second article:

The technique used by Huang’s team involves injecting embryos with the enzyme complex CRISPR/Cas9, which binds and splices DNA at specific locations. The complex can be programmed to target a problematic gene, which is then replaced or repaired by another molecule introduced at the same time. The system is well studied in human adult cells and in animal embryos. But there had been no published reports of its use in human embryos.

Huang and his colleagues set out to see if the procedure could replace a gene in a single-cell fertilized human embryo; in principle, all cells produced as the embryo developed would then have the repaired gene. The embryos they obtained from the fertility clinics had been created for use in in vitro fertilization but had an extra set of chromosomes, following fertilization by two sperm. This prevents the embryos from resulting in a live birth, though they do undergo the first stages of development.

The team injected 86 embryos and then waited 48 hours, enough time for the CRISPR/Cas9 system and the molecules that replace the missing DNA to act — and for the embryos to grow to about eight cells each. Of the 71 embryos that survived, 54 were genetically tested. This revealed that just 28 were successfully spliced, and that only a fraction of those contained the replacement genetic material. “If you want to do it in normal embryos, you need to be close to 100%,” Huang says. “That’s why we stopped. We still think it’s too immature.”

His team also found a surprising number of ‘off-target’ mutations assumed to be introduced by the CRISPR/Cas9 complex acting on other parts of the genome. This effect is one of the main safety concerns surrounding germline gene editing because these unintended mutations could be harmful. The rates of such mutations were much higher than those observed in gene-editing studies of mouse embryos or human adult cells. And Huang notes that his team likely only detected a subset of the unintended mutations because their study looked only at a portion of the genome, known as the exome. “If we did the whole genome sequence, we would get many more,” he says.

He adds that critics of the paper have noted that the low efficiencies and high number of off-target mutations could be specific to the abnormal embryos used in the study. Huang acknowledges the critique, but because there are no examples of gene editing in normal embryos he says that there is no way to know if the technique operates differently in them. (Emphasis added)

There you have it: using the latest CRISPR technique, embryos were successfully modified, and those modifications would have been hereditary had the embryos been viable. But note what I can only hazard was probably a completely unexpected (and hence, ‘played down’) result: there were “off target mutations,” in other words, DNA mutations that were not planned and not expected, and might also have been passed down. Notably, we’re not informed what those “off-target mutations” actually consisted of; would they have resulted in entirely new congenital diseases or, alternatively, special “uniquenesses”? Might they have resulted – to exaggerate my point here – in people born with three eyes or six digits or truncated brains, or conversely, with expanded intellect or physical strength and endurance? We simply don’t know; the article does not say, and in that silence, I strongly suspect lies a tale.

Of course, as the article points out, critics of the study pointed out that these “off target mutations” may simply have been the result of the unusual embryos – fertilized by sperm from two different donors and hence of non-normal genetic derivation – that were used in the study.

Herewith my high octane speculation: what if they were not the result of the unusual embryos, but rather, in innate – perhaps epigenetic – response to the whole process of this type of genetic editing altogether? what if we are looking at a kind of “programmed-in defense mechanism” against tinkering in a fundamental fashion with DNA in general, or human DNA in particular? Many geneticists are in fact already questioning the standard genetic explanations for the development of individual life and its characteristics, suggesting there is another mechanism “beyond the genes” – hence the term “epi- (beyond) genetics” (genes) – that we do not yet understand.

In short, I think humanity was just served a timely warning with the appearance of “off target mutations,” the warning being: tread with great care, and great caution, and perhaps even, “Don’t tread here at all.”

See you on the flip side…

Read More At: GizaDeathStar.com
________________________________________________

About Dr. 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”.

The placebo effect may actually be the most powerful healing medicine known to modern science

Image: The placebo effect may actually be the most powerful healing medicine known to modern science
Source: NaturaNews.com
Robert Jonathan
December 12, 2016

Hypochondriacs who tend to be worried sick could become sick for real, according to a new study from Norway that suggests the possibility of a mind-body connection between so-called health anxiety and heart disease.

As defined by the American Psychological Association, hypochondria is “the conviction that one is ill, despite all evidence to the contrary.” About five percent of the U.S. population may be suffering from what some experts also classify as an anxiety disorder, causing them to show up in their doctor’s waiting room perhaps more often than the ongoing visits from Big Pharma salesmen and women.

The Norwegian study followed about 7000 respondents now in their 60s for 12 years. Researchers found that those who were diagnosed with health anxiety were 70 percent more likely to develop heart disease then their less-anxious counterparts.

According to the study published in the BMJ Open medical journal, “Health anxiety is a specific type of anxiety characterized by preoccupation of having, acquiring or possibly avoiding illness, yet little is known about lifestyle and risk of disease development in this group.”

Panic attack = heart attack?

An obsession with phantom symptoms is a risk factor for heart disease, the study underscored. “The persistent and exaggerated attention to symptoms may rather contribute to continuous and high activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis, placing strain on bodily systems and, in turn, increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases.”

In this kind of scenario, a nervous Nellie may not actually be suffering from a medical condition but getting stressed out about it over time could be the source of ill health.

The study also noted that the findings take on great import since heart disease is one of the primary causes of illness and death around the world.

“The results suggest it’s better, instead of worrying about what’s going on with your body and running to the doctor of any physical health problem, to seek a proper diagnosis and help for the anxiety disorder,” Dr. Line Iden Berge of Sandviken University, the lead author, remarked.

Separately on the mind-body link when it comes to medicine, Suggestible You author Erik Vance claims in a Washington Post article that government-required clinical trial evidence supporting a pharmaceutical drug’s effectiveness has become more challenging to gather. “For certain ailments, so many people respond so strongly to placebos that it’s impossible to tell if the drug being tested is working or not. And this can be disastrous for people desperate for new therapies.”

Similarly, a 2013 Harvard Magazine article asserted that “researchers have found that placebo treatments—interventions with no active drug ingredients—can stimulate real physiological responses, from changes in heart rate and blood pressure to chemical activity in the brain, in cases involving pain, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and even some symptoms of Parkinson’s.”

In addition to the healing aspects of placebos, in June, Mike Adams outlined a negative placebo phenomenon which renders many double-blind drug trials invalid. This occurs when patients start suffering side effects from the legit pill, prompting them to buy in to the efficacy of the drug.

Those patients who suffer no side effects, meanwhile, decide they’re not on the “real” drug, and they mentally shut down any possibility of the drug actually working. This is a “negative placebo” effect.

It sounds bizarre, but it’s the truth: Patients in America now believe that drugs don’t work unless they generate toxic side effects. This belief system drives their mind-body reactions in drug trials, causing a gross distortion of drug trial data in so-called “double-blind” clinical trials, making it appear as if the more toxic drugs work better than they actually do.

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

BMJ.com

WashingtonPost.com

HarvardMagazine.com

Stop Blaming Your Genes – You Are In Control of You


Source: PreventDisease.com
Mae Chan
September 1, 2016

There is a chronic anxiety among populations who focus on the diseases acquired by their genetic line. Many define the potential of their own health based on what happened to their father and mother. Although a great deal of who we are appears to have been written in our genes, our actual health potential is more determined by our lifestyle, what we consume, our environment but more than anything else, what we think.

Every thought creates a physiological response in the body, or in other words, every thought we think produces a physical reality. Esoteric and spiritual teachers have known for ages that our body is programmable by language, words and thought. This has now been scientifically proven and explained.

Studies at the world-leading Minnesota Center for Twin and Family suggest that many of our traits are more than 50% inherited, including obedience to authority, vulnerability to stress, and risk-seeking. Researchers have even suggested that when it comes to issues such as religion and politics, our choices are much more determined by our genes than we think.

Many find this disturbing. The idea that unconscious biological forces drive our beliefs and actions would seem to pose a real threat to our free will. We like to think that we make choices on the basis of our own conscious deliberations. But isn’t all that thinking things over irrelevant if our final decision was already written in our genetic code? And doesn’t the whole edifice of personal responsibility collapse if we accept that “my genes made me do it”?

Genes are only part of our health story, explains Jeffrey S. Bland, PhD, FACN, FACB, author of the book, Genetic Nutritioneering: How You Can Modify Inherited Traits and Live a Longer, Healthier Life. The propensity for certain health conditions that you inherit from your family is not, by a long shot, the sole determinant of whether or not most folks will get sick. Your lifestyle choices have a significant impact, especially when it comes to chronic illnesses such as heart disease.

Epigenetic Switch

In the fields of infant nutrition, diabetes, obesity, and the metabolic syndrome, the term “metabolic programming” has been coined to give a name to the observation that environmental experiences early in life may be “genomically” remembered and give rise to health outcomes manifesting later in life. Epigenetics emerges as an important mechanism underlying this phenomenon.

Epigenetics is the phenomena whereby genetically identical cells express their genes differently, resulting in different physical traits. Researchers from the Boston University Cancer Center published two articles about this in Anticancer Research and Epigenomics.

Cancer progression is extremely complex, however. It also is well known that new mutations and the activation of more cancer causing genes occur throughout the development and progression of cancer.

“If we believe that everything in nature occurs in an organized fashion, then it is logical to assume that cancer development cannot be as disorganized as it may seem,” said Sibaji Sarkar, PhD, instructor of medicine at BUSM and the articles corresponding author. “There should be a general mechanism that initiates cancer progression from predisposed progenitor cells, which likely involves epigenetic changes.”

Increasingly, biologists are finding that non-genetic variation acquired during the life of an organism can sometimes be passed on to offspring–a phenomenon known as epigenetic inheritance.

The majority of epigenetic changes occur at specific times in an individual’s life, from their time in the womb, to the development as newborns, then in puberty, and again in old age.

Environmental factors that influence epigenetic patterns — e.g., diet, epigenetic disruptors in the environment such as chemicals, etc. – may also have long term, multigenerational effects.

In recent years, faith in the explanatory power of genes has waned. Today, few scientists believe that there is a simple “gene for” anything. Almost all inherited features or traits are the products of complex interactions of numerous genes combined with processes we have no concept of. However, the fact that there is no one genetic trigger has not by itself undermined the claim that many of our deepest character traits, dispositions and even opinions are genetically determined. This worry is only slightly tempered by what we are learning about epigenetics, which shows how many inherited traits only get “switched on” in certain environments.

The common mistake people make is to assume that if, for example, a disease is 90% heritable, then 90% of people with that disease inherited the condition from their parents. But heritability is not about “chance or risk of passing it on”, said Tim Spector, Professor of Genetics and Author. “It simply means how much of the variation within a given population is down to genes. Crucially, this will be different according to the environment of that population.

Cellular Inheritance

Biologists have suspected for years that some kind of epigenetic inheritance occurs at the cellular level. The different kinds of cells in our bodies provide an example. Skin cells and brain cells have different forms and functions, despite having exactly the same DNA. There must be mechanisms–other than DNA–that make sure skin cells stay skin cells when they divide.

The existence of this epigenetic switch is indirectly supported by the fact that tumors develop through different stages. When cells rapidly grow during cancer progression, they become stuck in their current stage of development and their cell characteristics do not change. This is the reason that there are so many types of leukemia — the characteristics that a leukemia cell possesses when it begins to rapidly grow and expand are the characteristics that it will keep until the rapid growth stops.

Dr. Bruce Lipton
refers to the work of Dr. Dean Ornish to extrapolate. “Dr. Ornish has taken conventional cardiovascular patients, provided them with important lifestyle insights (better diet, stress-reduction techniques, and so on), and without drugs, the cardiovascular disease was resolved. Ornish relayed that if he’d gotten the same results with a drug, every doctor would be prescribing it.”

Even the strictest lifestyle changes don’t cure cancer in everyone. What about genetic predispositions to getting the disease? “It used to be that we thought a mutant gene caused cancer,” Lipton admitted, “but with epigenetics, all of that has changed.”

“If we believe that all of the irreversible changes, mutations and effects of carcinogens make cells rapidly grow, then the mechanism that allows cells to stop growing and assume new changes in character must be of great importance,” added Sarkar. “The study of cancer progression is key to understanding how cancer cells continue to differentiate.”During cancer progression, there are different stages of rapid growth and differentiation. The control that allows for this switch between growth and differentiation can only be achieved through reversible mechanisms, such as epigenetic changes.

If we believe that all of the irreversible changes, mutations and effects of carcinogens make cells rapidly grow, then the mechanism that allows cells to stop growing and assume new changes in character must be of great importance,” added Sarkar. “The study of cancer progression is key to understanding how cancer cells continue to differentiate.”During cancer progression, there are different stages of rapid growth and differentiation. The control that allows for this switch between growth and differentiation can only be achieved through reversible mechanisms, such as epigenetic changes.

Sarkar and colleagues have previously proposed that epigenetic changes are involved in cancer progenitor cell formation and cancer progression. They also believe that epigenetic changes have the ability to control rapid growth and change of characteristics (different grades/types of tumors) which may involve physiological processes that the cancer cells are subjected to within the body’s terrain.

Identical twins show us that in the nature-versus-nurture debate, there is no winner. Both have their role to play in shaping who we are. But although we have reason to doubt that our genes determine our lives in some absolute way, this does not solve a bigger worry about whether or not we have free will.

Who we are appears to be a product of both nature, nurture and consciousness itself in whatever proportion they contribute. You are often shaped by forces beyond yourself, and can choose what you become. And so when you go on to make the choices in life that really matter, you do so on the basis of beliefs, values and dispositions that you have chosen whether you are conscious of those choices or not.

It is very possible that our entire reality is define but what we feel and this shapes what we are. We always have free choice and will to make ourselves into something that we believe we are. The question is, do you believe it?

Read More At: PreventDisease.com

Sources:
futuremedicine.com
theguardian.com
brucelipton.com

Think Your Condition is Genetic? Think Again!

Source: iHealthTube.com
August 11, 2016

If our parents or grandparents suffered from high blood pressure or some other chronic condition, does that mean we have a better likelihood to get that condition as well? You might be surprised! Dr. James Chestnut discusses the connection between genetics and chronic conditions. Find out how much of a connection there really is! Think your condition is genetic? Think again!

Think Cancers Are Genetic? Watch This!

Source: iHealthTube.com
July 23, 2016

Some cancers may have a genetic factor to them. But many people think that all cancers have a genetic link to them. In this interview from 2009, Andreas Moritz discusses genetics and whether or not there is a direct link to cancers. Find out what really might be going on and what you can do to protect yourself! Do you think cancers are genetic? Watch this.

Consciousness Researcher & Physicist Tom Campbell: Fireside Chat April 2016 Pt 3

Source: Tom Campbell
June 4, 2016

Physicist, consciousness researcher, author of the My Big TOE trilogy and international lecturer, describes the nature of our larger reality, provides a complete theory of consciousness, and explains our purpose and connection to that larger reality. Along the way, Campbell derives a more fundamental science that directly answers the most pressing problems and paradoxes of modern physics.