Global Ban on Cancerous Glyphosate Called for by Portuguese Medical Association President

Glyphosate-Monsanto-Roundup-735-260

Source: NaturalSociety.com
Christina Sarich
February 11, 2016

President of the Portuguese Medical Association, José Manuel Silva, is calling for a worldwide ban on Big Ag’s most used herbicide, glyphosate. With so many health concerns surrounding the chemical, its days are surely numbered. [1]

article-osé-Manuel-Silva-644x363

The announcement follows the World Health Organization’s Cancer research arm, the IARC, called glyphosate ‘probably carcinogenic,’ followed by the State of California’s move to force Monsanto to label Round Up bottles with a carcinogen warning.

The Portuguese Parliament approved the new statutes of the Portuguese Medical Association, which allow for a significant improvement in its management, organization, and response time. Issues of ecological stewardship are among Silva’s concerns. He reminded his peers that even Pope Francis has been emphasizing ecological issues.

Among these is the use of glyphosate. This is the most used herbicide in Portuguese agriculture and urban areas for weed control.

As reported by SustainablePulse:

“In the last decade, glyphosate use has increased about 50%, with 1400 tons applied in 2010 alone. In total, more than 130 million tons a year are used around the world. Because of this glyphosate is routinely detected in food, air, rainwater and rivers, urine, blood and even breast milk.” [1]

Ecowatch states that between 1996 – 2011, the widespread use of Roundup Ready GMO crops sparked an increased herbicide use in the U.S. by 527 million pounds—even though Monsanto claimed its GMO crops would reduce pesticide and herbicide use.

Glyphosate is used so profusely that the legal limits have had to be stretched in many countries for it to be allowed. Numerous studies are now showing that the overwhelming amount of glyphosate used is causing increased risk factors the development of celiac disease, infertility, congenital malformations, kidney disease, autism and other pathologies.

‘Mortality in acute intoxication varies between 3.2 and 29.3%, mostly by pulmonary or kidney disease, or both. The various pathological mechanisms for glyphosate are well-known and include changes in the intestinal micro-biome, disruption of cytochrome P450, vitamin deficiencies, metal chelation, molybdenum and selenium deficiencies, etc.’

These findings are duplicated again and again, even though mouthpieces for the biotech industry swear that glyphosate in breast milk should be of no concern.

Continue Reading At: NaturalSociety.com

‘Cancer Screening Has Never Saved lives’ – BMJ Study Concludes

Source: GreenMedInfo.com
Sayer Ji. Founder
January 12, 2016

Millions have marched for “cancer causes.” Millions more have been diagnosed “early” and now believe screening saved their lives. But a new study confirms something we have been reporting on since our inception: In most cases, screening not only has not “saved lives,” but actually increases your risk of dying.

An extremely important new study published in the British Medical Journal titled, “Why cancer screening has never been shown to “save lives”—and what we can do about it,” confirms something we have been reporting upon at GreenMedInfo.com since our inception, namely, cancer screening has not lived up to its long held promise of “saving lives” because disease-specific reductions in mortality do not equate to reductions in overall mortality. Worse, in some cases overall mortality actually increased because of screening. 

In the new study, Vinay Prasad and colleagues, argue that the real benchmark for the success of any cancer screening program is if the “early stage” cancers being diagnosed and treated actually result in a reduction in the overall mortality.

For instance, we have reported extensively on the widespread misclassification of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) as a bono fide malignant cancer, as well as its epidemic level overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Tens of fhousands of women are diagnosed each year with these so-called “early stage breast cancers,” even though the National Cancer Institute itself acknowledges it should be classified as a benign or indolent lesions of epithelial origin. The New England Journal of Medicine published a study in 2012 shows that approximately 1.3 million women were diagnosed with DCIS in the past 30 years, with most receiving either mastectomy, lumpectomy, radiation, chemotherapy, or some combination thereof. Ironically, many of these women ardently believe that their lives were “saved” by the screening and treatment, succumbing to the biomedical equivalent of Stockholm syndrome where identifying with the ‘aggressor’ becomes palliative. In reality, most suffered irreparable harm not from the “cancer,” but from both the psychological and physical effects of being wrongly diagnosed and treated. If the end point were not breast cancer specific mortality (‘invasive’ breast cancer has not declined but increased with screening, indicating overdiagnosis), but overall mortality, it is likely that these DCIS diagnosed women’s lives were significantly truncated because of screening programs; at the very least, the quality of their lives would have been significantly negatively impacted.

Much of the damage, pain, and suffering associated with over-medicalization could have been avoided if public health advocates and private industry promoters of screening programs had realized that reducing the risk of cancer in one bodily location — the breast, the colon, the lung, the thyroid — does not necessarily translate into a reduction in mortality risk everywhere else. It is this meme-plex of medically-reinforced ignorance which drives the many disease-specific, multi-billion dollar, cause-marketing campaigns, like the heavily pinkwashed “Breast Cancer Awareness” campaign, which increasingly the public is acknowledging to be a highly unethical money-making scheme.

The article summarizes the problem associated with confusing disease specific with overall mortality reduction, succinctly:

Despite growing appreciation of the harms of cancer screening,1 2 3 advocates still claim that it “saves lives.”4 This assertion rests, however, on reductions in disease specific mortality rather than overall mortality.

Using disease specific mortality as a proxy for overall mortality deprives people of information about their chief concern: reducing their risk of dying.5 6 Although some people may have personal reasons for wanting to avoid a specific diagnosis, the burden falls on providers to provide clear information about both disease specific and overall mortality and to ensure that the overall goal of healthcare—to improve quantity and quality of life—is not undermined.7

In this article we argue that overall mortality should be the benchmark against which screening is judged and discuss how to improve the evidence upon which screening rests.”

And so, without the proper benchmark or end point, all the educational and fund-raising efforts going towards “reducing deaths” or “saving lives” from breast, prostate, lung, skin, brain, [insert body part], become misleading, if not overtly propagandist in nature.

Continue Reading At: GreenMedInfo.com