Damage @ MindSay 
[ Damage Slideshow | Browse Tags ]
Drugs for HIV Infection and AIDS Might Prematurely Age Brains
(NaturalNews) In a report just published online in The Journal of Infectious Diseases, scientists at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and the University of California at San Diego say they've found a reduction of blood flow in the brains of people who are infected with HIV, the virus believed to cause AIDS. What makes this so concerning is that it indicates something is rapidly aging the brains of these patients. In fact, the blood flow in the brains of the HIV-infected research subjects was reduced to levels normally seen in uninfected persons who are 15 to 20 years older.
Does this mean HIV is causing premature brain aging? Maybe. However there's another possibility: according to the researchers, the drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS might play a role in this super fast brain aging.
When it comes to the brain, HIV patients are sometimes known to develop dementia. And HIV infected people often complain of thinking problems.
"The graying of the AIDS patient community makes this infection's effects on the brain a significant source of concern," Beau Ances, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of neurology at Washington University and first author of the new study, said in a statement to the media. "Patients are surviving into their senior years, and a number of them are coming forward to express concerns about problems they're having with memory and other cognitive functions."
To investigate possible premature brain aging in HIV patients, Dr. Ances and his research team used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners and a new technique known as arterial spin labeling that allows precise, non-invasive blood flow measurement to check the brain blood flow in 26 subjects with HIV. The scientists also looked at the brains of 25 uninfected controls. Both groups were about the same age and had the same education.
When the study participants were resting in the scanner, the brain blood flow was found to be significantly reduced in those who tested positive for HIV compared to those in the uninfected control group. Significantly, the scientists found that having HIV was associated with reduced brain blood flow even among the younger, most recently infected patients.
The research team asked the research subjects to perform a visual task which normally triggers blood flow to increase in specific regions of the brain involved in the task. The MRIs revealed the HIV group had greater blood flow increases, suggesting their brains had to work harder in order to accomplish the task.
"Brain blood flow levels decline naturally as we age, but HIV, the medications we use to control it or some combination of the two appear to be accelerating this process independent of aging. Could we reduce the harmful effects of the virus if we started treatment earlier, or does treatment significantly contribute to the harm that's being done?" Dr. Ances said in a press statement. "These are the kinds of issues we urgently need to start examining as the AIDS patient population ages."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/HIV.html
http://www.aids.org/factSheets/550-...
Does this mean HIV is causing premature brain aging? Maybe. However there's another possibility: according to the researchers, the drugs used to treat HIV/AIDS might play a role in this super fast brain aging.
AIDS drugs may damage the brain
Previous studies have found the HIV virus may adversely affect many parts of the body, including the heart, liver, kidneys, endocrine system and skeleton. Although a strong "cocktail" of antiviral medications has been credited with extending the life span of those with HIV, these drugs are known to come with a host of side effects -- many of which are health problems often associated with aging. For example, the drugs can cause anemia, digestive problems, peripheral neuropathy and osteoporosis. So it can be difficult to distinguish between any signs of rapid aging that are due to HIV or to the drugs used to treat it.When it comes to the brain, HIV patients are sometimes known to develop dementia. And HIV infected people often complain of thinking problems.
"The graying of the AIDS patient community makes this infection's effects on the brain a significant source of concern," Beau Ances, M.D., Ph.D., an assistant professor of neurology at Washington University and first author of the new study, said in a statement to the media. "Patients are surviving into their senior years, and a number of them are coming forward to express concerns about problems they're having with memory and other cognitive functions."
To investigate possible premature brain aging in HIV patients, Dr. Ances and his research team used magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners and a new technique known as arterial spin labeling that allows precise, non-invasive blood flow measurement to check the brain blood flow in 26 subjects with HIV. The scientists also looked at the brains of 25 uninfected controls. Both groups were about the same age and had the same education.
When the study participants were resting in the scanner, the brain blood flow was found to be significantly reduced in those who tested positive for HIV compared to those in the uninfected control group. Significantly, the scientists found that having HIV was associated with reduced brain blood flow even among the younger, most recently infected patients.
The research team asked the research subjects to perform a visual task which normally triggers blood flow to increase in specific regions of the brain involved in the task. The MRIs revealed the HIV group had greater blood flow increases, suggesting their brains had to work harder in order to accomplish the task.
"Brain blood flow levels decline naturally as we age, but HIV, the medications we use to control it or some combination of the two appear to be accelerating this process independent of aging. Could we reduce the harmful effects of the virus if we started treatment earlier, or does treatment significantly contribute to the harm that's being done?" Dr. Ances said in a press statement. "These are the kinds of issues we urgently need to start examining as the AIDS patient population ages."
For more information:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...
http://www.naturalnews.com/HIV.html
http://www.aids.org/factSheets/550-...
Cell Phones Cause Brain Cancer, Scientists Warn
(NaturalNews) A report issued by the International Electromagnetic Field Collaborative and endorsed by 43 scientists from 13 countries has reviewed the evidence linking cell phone use to brain tumors, and refuting the methodology of a forthcoming industry-funded study expected to give the phones a clean bill of health.
"I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumors, although it is too early to see that now since the tumors have a 30-year latency," study author Lloyd Morgan said. "I pray I'm wrong, but brace yourself."
Among the research cited in the study was a recent study by a Swedish team of scientists that found a 420 percent higher risk of brain cancer among people who had started using cellular or cordless phones as teenagers. Older analog phones, which are now mostly off the market, had been found to increase cancer risk by 700 percent.
Because children are especially vulnerable to radiation, the report recommends that parents not allow their children under the age of 18 to use mobile phones except in emergencies, or to sleep with cellular phones under their pillows. It recommends using corded land lines whenever possible, and using cellular phones mostly as answering machines, turning them on only to check messages and return calls. Use of cell phones inside buildings or in cars increases cancer risk, as it increases the radiation a phone must emit to function. Use of text messages and non-wireless headsets can reduce cancer risk. The report also advises against carrying cell phones against the body, even in pockets.
"Some countries are already banning cell phones over health concerns, with France saying children in elementary schools can only use them for texting," Morgan said.
The report also sets out 11 flaws in the forthcoming Interphone study, a study on cell phones and health being prepared by the wireless industry in 13 different countries. These flaws include the exclusion of non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), children and young adults (the most vulnerable demographics) from the study, the exclusion of certain types of tumors, and the exclusion of participants who died or were too sick to answer questions.
Sources for this story include: www.pcworld.com.
"I fear we will see a tsunami of brain tumors, although it is too early to see that now since the tumors have a 30-year latency," study author Lloyd Morgan said. "I pray I'm wrong, but brace yourself."
Among the research cited in the study was a recent study by a Swedish team of scientists that found a 420 percent higher risk of brain cancer among people who had started using cellular or cordless phones as teenagers. Older analog phones, which are now mostly off the market, had been found to increase cancer risk by 700 percent.
Because children are especially vulnerable to radiation, the report recommends that parents not allow their children under the age of 18 to use mobile phones except in emergencies, or to sleep with cellular phones under their pillows. It recommends using corded land lines whenever possible, and using cellular phones mostly as answering machines, turning them on only to check messages and return calls. Use of cell phones inside buildings or in cars increases cancer risk, as it increases the radiation a phone must emit to function. Use of text messages and non-wireless headsets can reduce cancer risk. The report also advises against carrying cell phones against the body, even in pockets.
"Some countries are already banning cell phones over health concerns, with France saying children in elementary schools can only use them for texting," Morgan said.
The report also sets out 11 flaws in the forthcoming Interphone study, a study on cell phones and health being prepared by the wireless industry in 13 different countries. These flaws include the exclusion of non-cellular cordless phones (which also emit radiation), children and young adults (the most vulnerable demographics) from the study, the exclusion of certain types of tumors, and the exclusion of participants who died or were too sick to answer questions.
Sources for this story include: www.pcworld.com.
Neurotoxic Chemical Common in Foods
(NaturalNews) A neurotoxic flame retardant resists environmental breakdown and builds up in the food chain, a new study conducted by researchers from the Boston University School of Public Health and published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has found. "They are persistent in the environment. They don't get broken down," lead researcher Alicia Fraser said. "Therefore, it takes a really long time for the contamination to leave our environment and our bodies. Even though we don't know the health effects at this point, most people would want policies that would stop us from being exposed to them." The chemicals, known as polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), are closely related to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), which were banned in the 1970s after evidence emerged that they produced birth defects and neurological damage. Flame-retardant PBDEs were introduced at roughly the same time and soon became popular in a wide variety of household and consumer products. Since the 1990s, evidence has increasingly emerged linking PBDEs to neurological damage in animals. Furthermore, study after study has shown that the chemicals can build up in the human body, particularly in breast milk. Every human population on Earth currently carries PBDEs in their bodies. In the new study, researchers tested 2,000 people for PBDEs, finding that meat eaters had body burdens 25 percent higher than vegetarians. This provided still more evidence that the chemicals build up in animal fat, resisting degradation. "The more meat you eat, the more PBDEs you have in your serum," Fraser said. Many PBDEs have already been banned by the European Union, as well as the states of California, Maine and Washington. The new findings suggest that even if the chemicals are banned worldwide, they will continue to plague us for decades to come -- just like PCBs. "The industry is finding new products to use as flame retardants, and we don't know the health and safety implications of those products either," Fraser said. "We need to test the health and safety implications of products before they go into use, not after." Sources for this story include: www.wired.com.
Full-body scanners used on air passengers may damage human DNA
(NaturalNews) In researching the biological effects of the millimeter wave scanners used for whole body imaging at airports, NaturalNews has learned that the energy emitted by the machines may damage human DNA.
Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)
In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.
The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.
And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."
(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)
The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.
(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)
How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?
Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.
What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.
Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?
What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?
As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."
Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.
Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.
When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!
As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)
"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.
'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."
The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."
NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...
Millimeter wave machines represent one of two primary technologies currently being used for the "digital strip searches" being conducted at airports around the world. "The Transportation Security Administration utilizes two technologies to capture naked images of air travelers - backscatter x-ray technology and millimeter wave technology," reports the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a non-profit currently suing the U.S. government to stop these electronic strip searches. (http://epic.org/privacy/airtravel/b...)
In order to generate the nude image of the human body, these machines emit terahertz photons -- high-frequency energy "particles" that can pass through clothing and body tissue.
The manufacturers of such machines claim they are perfectly safe and present no health risks, but a study conducted by Boian S. Alexandrov (and colleagues) at the Center for Nonlinear Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico showed that these terahertz waves could "...unzip double-stranded DNA, creating bubbles in the double strand that could significantly interfere with processes such as gene expression and DNA replication."
In layman's terms, any time you're talking about interfering with "gene expression" and "DNA replication," you're essentially talking about something that could be a risk to human health.
Never approved as safe for humans
"At first glance, it's easy to dismiss any notion that they can be damaging," reports TechnologyReview.com (http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...). "But a new generation of cameras are set to appear that not only record terahertz waves but also bombard us with them. And if our exposure is set to increase, the question that urgently needs answering is what level of terahertz exposure is safe."And yet no such long-term safety testing has ever been conducted by a third party. There have been no clinical trials indicating that multiple exposures to such terahertz waves, accumulated over a long period of time, are safe for humans. The FDA, in particular, has never granted its approval for any such devices even though these devices clearly qualify as "medical devices."
(If you try to sell an X-ray imaging device yourself, without FDA approval, you'll be arrested. So why do these TSA suppliers get away with selling human body imaging equipment that has never been adequately safety tested or approved by the FDA?)
The study cited in the TechnologyReview article mentioned above is visible at: http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
There, study authors conclude: "Based on our results we argue that a specific terahertz radiation exposure may significantly affect the natural dynamics of DNA, and thereby influence intricate molecular processes involved in gene expression and DNA replication."
In other words, millimeter wave scanning devices may damage your DNA.
(These images depict what the TSA sees when air passengers are subjected to full-body scans using millimeter wave technology and / or backscatter X-rays.)
Could these scans cause cancer and birth defects?
Could these scans cause infertility? Cancer? Shortened lifespan? We don't yet know the answers to these questions, but then again neither does the TSA. This technology is being recklessly rolled out without adequate safety testing that would prove it safe for long-term use.How many times in the past have the "experts" told us technologies were perfectly safe and then later we found out they were dangerous? X-Rays were once used in shoe stores to see if new shoes would fit the bone structure of your feet. High-voltage power lines are perfectly safe, we're told -- but then why do children who live closer to those lines have higher rates of cancer?
Dentists still claim that mercury fillings are perfectly safe for your health -- a preposterous notion -- and cell phone companies continue to insist that cell phone radiation isn't hazardous to your health at all. Time and time again, the public has been lied to by the authorities during the roll-out of some new technology. Why should we believe that full-body scanners are safe when they've never been proven safe? Furthermore, there is now reason to believe they may damage human DNA.
What if the experts are wrong about their safety and ten years later we find out that there is cumulative DNA damage that causes infertility and cancer? What if air travelers who subject themselves to this radiation wind up suffering some currently-unknown health condition as a result? At no time in the history of human civilization have large numbers of humans ever been subjected to terahertz bombardment of this type and frequency.
Sure, you can argue that you get more radiation sitting in an airplane at high altitude than you get from a full-body scanner, or you can explain that cell phones emit far more radiation on the whole (which they do, when you're talking on them anyway). But if there's one thing we all should have learned about radiation by now it's that frequencies matter. The terahertz frequencies have never been rolled out en masse in a scanning technology. Who's to say they're going to be safe?
What about pregnant women? Can the TSA absolutely guarantee that these full-body scanners won't damage the DNA of the unborn babies? What if this technology becomes the next Thalidomide and ten months from now women start giving birth to mutant babies who were damaged by terahertz radiation?
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but wouldn't it be wise to determine the safety of this technology in advance of its global rollout?
As the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements admitted in a 2002 report that studied these security devices: (http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...)
"[We] cannot exclude the possibility of a fatal cancer attributable to radiation in a very large population of people exposed to very low doses of radiation."
Barring solid evidence of the safety of this terahertz-emitting technology, the TSA would be wise to follow the Precautionary Principle which states that we should err on the side of caution when it comes to the roll out of new technologies. Unfortunately, the TSA appears to be erring on the side of stupidity by subjecting the public to an unproven, "experimental" technology with unknown long-term effects on human DNA.
And here's the real kicker: These full-body scanners do nothing to stop terrorists because they can't detect powder explosives in the first place. A determined terrorist can hide all sorts of powder in a shoe, or a sleeping pillow, or a plastic bag sewn into the side of his carry-on luggage. There are a thousand places for terrorists to hide explosives that won't be caught on full-body scanners, no matter how detailed the images are.
Besides, in order to avoid engaging in child pornography (because these machines offer very detailed depictions of body parts), the rules will allow people under 18 years of age to bypass them. So all you need then, if you're a terrorist, is a 17-year-old terrorist assistant who can pack explosives in his own underwear.
Radiology experts claim full-body scanners are safe
Radiology experts are claiming that the radiation emitted from these full-body scanners is perfectly safe for you. Then again, they also claim mammograms are safe, and recent science has now proven that mammograms cause cancer.When it comes to radiation safety, you can't trust radiologists. They say all that radiation is safe for YOU, but then they flee the room when the X-rays are turned on, ever notice that? They really have zero credibility when talking about the long-term safety of medical imaging devices. Most doctors, similarly, don't have any real clue how much radiation is emitted by a CT scan!
As BusinessWeek reports: (http://www.businessweek.com/lifesty...)
"The health effects of the more common millimeter-wave scanners are largely unknown, and at least one expert believes a safety study is warranted.
'I am very interested in performing a National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements study on the use of millimeter-wave security screening systems,' said Thomas S. Tenforde, council president."
The New York Times adds: (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...)
"Collectively, the radiation doses from the scanners incrementally increase the risk of fatal cancers among the thousands or millions of travelers who will be exposed, some radiation experts believe."
NYT goes on to state that the TSA has entered into a contract under which it could purchase 900 full-body scanners to be deployed in airport all across the country.
Resources:
Physics Letters, January 8, 2010http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.5294
Technology Review:
http://www.technologyreview.com/blo...
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millim...
New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/h...
Chemotherapy for testicular cancer causes long-term neurological damage
(NaturalNews) The November 25 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute contains a report about the long-term side effects experienced by men who received cisplatin-based chemotherapy for testicular cancer. Severe neurological side effects, discoloration of the hands and feet when exposed to the cold (Raynaud-like phenomena), tinnitus, and impaired hearing were found to be common in men who received chemotherapy as opposed to those who did not.
Men who received cancer treatment between 1980 and 1994 were given follow-up surveys between 1998 and 2002 to assess their conditions after treatment. Researchers found that in the decades following treatment, those men who received any form of chemotherapy were significantly more likely to be experiencing long-term negative side-effects as a result.
In the chemotherapy group, 39 percent of men reported Raynaud-like phenomena, 29 percent reported paresthesias in the hands or feet, 21 percent reported hearing impairment, and 22 percent reported tinnitus symptoms.
Marianne Brydoy, M.D., from Haukeland University's Department of Oncology in Norway, conducted the study with the help of her colleagues to verify the correlation between high rates of long-term neurological damage and chemotherapy. Since the control groups who did not receive any form of chemotherapy experienced far fewer neurological damage incidents than did those who received chemotherapy, the results are indicative of an underlying problem with chemotherapy treatment.
Experts aim to reassess proper treatments for testicular cancer. They hope to minimize the toxic side effects of chemotherapy by reformulating the levels of cisplatin used in chemotherapy treatment. According to their research, 20 mg/m2 a day is the maximum safe dosage of the drug.
The only way to protect yourself from these devastating effects of chemotherapy is to take protective nutritional supplements before undergoing chemo treatments. But oncologists sternly warn patients against consuming such nutritional supplements by citing one of the most oft-repeated myths of the cancer industry: "Nutritional supplements block the chemotherapy" they say!
It's a lie, of course, but it's been repeated so frequently by the cancer establishment that they can't even remember who uttered it first... or why. Truth be told, there is absolutely no science backing up such a false belief. No credible scientific study has ever found that antioxidants or other immune-boosting supplements impede chemotherapy treatments at all. In fact, many supplements potentiate the chemo for cancer cells while simultaneously reducing its toxic effects on healthy cells.
Then again, if cancer doctors knew anything at all about nutrition, they probably wouldn't be in the business of poisoning people with chemo in the first place.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...
Men who received cancer treatment between 1980 and 1994 were given follow-up surveys between 1998 and 2002 to assess their conditions after treatment. Researchers found that in the decades following treatment, those men who received any form of chemotherapy were significantly more likely to be experiencing long-term negative side-effects as a result.
In the chemotherapy group, 39 percent of men reported Raynaud-like phenomena, 29 percent reported paresthesias in the hands or feet, 21 percent reported hearing impairment, and 22 percent reported tinnitus symptoms.
Marianne Brydoy, M.D., from Haukeland University's Department of Oncology in Norway, conducted the study with the help of her colleagues to verify the correlation between high rates of long-term neurological damage and chemotherapy. Since the control groups who did not receive any form of chemotherapy experienced far fewer neurological damage incidents than did those who received chemotherapy, the results are indicative of an underlying problem with chemotherapy treatment.
Experts aim to reassess proper treatments for testicular cancer. They hope to minimize the toxic side effects of chemotherapy by reformulating the levels of cisplatin used in chemotherapy treatment. According to their research, 20 mg/m2 a day is the maximum safe dosage of the drug.
Comments by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
As this study goes to show, chemotherapy is poison. While chemo may at first appear to be working by shrinking a tumor, it is in fact a systemic poison that will inevitably destroy cells throughout the body, most notably in the brain, heart, liver and kidneys.The only way to protect yourself from these devastating effects of chemotherapy is to take protective nutritional supplements before undergoing chemo treatments. But oncologists sternly warn patients against consuming such nutritional supplements by citing one of the most oft-repeated myths of the cancer industry: "Nutritional supplements block the chemotherapy" they say!
It's a lie, of course, but it's been repeated so frequently by the cancer establishment that they can't even remember who uttered it first... or why. Truth be told, there is absolutely no science backing up such a false belief. No credible scientific study has ever found that antioxidants or other immune-boosting supplements impede chemotherapy treatments at all. In fact, many supplements potentiate the chemo for cancer cells while simultaneously reducing its toxic effects on healthy cells.
Then again, if cancer doctors knew anything at all about nutrition, they probably wouldn't be in the business of poisoning people with chemo in the first place.
Sources for this story include:
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_relea...
http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...
Showing 1 - 5. [ Next ]
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Lets talk - I may be out of line here TW, and I'm sorry if I am... I'm very glad that you have been...
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
