Cell Phones and Brain Cancer

Shocking U.S. Senate Hearing Confirms Dangers of Cell Phones

Witnesses before a Senate Committee testified about research into cell phone use and its potential impact on human health, as well as the potential side effects such as brain and salivary gland tumors.

In 2008, cell phones were identified as a contributor to salivary gland tumors. Dr. Siegal Sadetzki, who testified in September 2009 at the U.S. Senate Hearing, is the principle investigator of the study that made this finding.

The report states that your risk of getting a parotid tumor on the same side of your head that you use for listening to the mobile phone increases by:

*  34 percent if you are a regular cell phone user and have used a mobile phone for 5 years.

*  58 percent if you had more than about 5,500 calls in your lifetime.

*  49 percent if you have spoken on the phone for more than 266.3 hours during your lifetime

       3D view of radiation from cell phones on the human head

Alarming new research indicates that children and teenagers are five times more likely to get brain cancer if they use cell phones. The study is raising fears that today's young people may suffer an epidemic of the disease in later life.

The Swedish research was reported this month at the first international conference on cell phones and health. It came from a further analysis of data from one of the biggest studies carried out on the cell phone/cancer link, headed by Professor Lennart Hardell. Professor Hardell told the conference that "people who started mobile phone use before the age of 20" had more than five-fold increase in glioma, a cancer of the glial cells that support the central nervous system.

The risk to young people from household cordless phones was almost as great. Cordless phones caused a fourfold increase in risk.

Young cell phone users were also five times more likely to get acoustic neuromas, disabling tumors of the auditory nerve that often cause deafness.

About 4 billion people are now using cell phones around the world, despite the fact that their safety is being increasingly called into question. In fact, there are no safety standards for testing cell phones before they are released to the market.

Meanwhile, government agencies, similar to their stance on tobacco before the evidence became overwhelming, have essentially ignored all the danger warnings.

Just like smoking tobacco, they fail to realize that it can take anywhere from 10 to 30 years for brain tumors to develop from cell phone exposure, so we are just now beginning to see some of the tragic effects of heavy cell phone use. The truth is, we are on the verge of a brain cancer epidemic. It could grow to 500,000 cases worldwide in 2010, and there may be over a million cases in the U.S. alone by 2015.

Sadly, children and teens are at an even higher risk, as their thinner skull bones allow for greater penetration of cell phone radiation. The radiation can enter all the way into their midbrain, where tumors are more deadly. In addition, children's cells reproduce more quickly, so they're more susceptible to aggressive cell growth. Their immune systems are also not as well developed as adults. Lastly, children face a far greater lifetime exposure.

Professor Lennart Hardell of Sweden has found that those who begin using cell phones heavily as teenagers have 4 to 5 times more brain cancer as young adults!

Increasing evidence is pouring in that cell phones are not only a risk factor for brain tumors, but also salivary gland tumors, eye damage, Alzheimer’s disease and more.

You may be wondering why, if there is so much data showing the risks of cell phone use, no warnings are being made. First, the telecommunication industry is even BIGGER than drug industry, and they have far more influence in Washington.

This is compounded by the fact that a large percentage of retirement funds from several powerful lobbying organizations are invested in telecommunications.

Second, institutions like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Commission have cautioned that conclusions about possible cancer risks from cell phones cannot be drawn until the INTERPHONE study is published.

The INTERPHONE Project -- a massive 13-country epidemiological study of tumors among users of mobile phones -- is already lagging years behind its scheduled completion date.

Part of the delay in putting together the final report now appears to be internal strife, as scientists are reported to differ in their interpretation of the results.

The GSM Association, a global trade organization of mobile operators, and the forum, which includes Nokia and about a dozen other manufacturers, contributed more than $3.5 million to the $30-plus million project. The European Commission also helped fund it with contributions passed through the International Union Against Cancer in an effort to create a barrier between the mobile phone industry and the scientists.

Further, a team of international EMF activists -- the International EMF Collaborative -- has released a report detailing 11 serious design flaws of the INTERPHONE study. They say a ‘systemic-skew’ in the study is greatly underestimating brain tumor risk, and they pointed out the following flaws, among others:

*  Categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones) as ‘unexposed’

*  Excluding many types of brain tumors

*  Excluding people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor

*  Excluding children and young adults, who are more vulnerable

As Lloyd Morgan, lead author of the report and member of the Bioelectromagnetics Society says:

“Exposure to cell phone radiation is the largest human health experiment ever undertaken, without informed consent, and has some 4 billion participants enrolled.

Science has shown increased risk of brain tumors from use of cell phones, as well as increased risk of eye cancer, salivary gland tumors, testicular cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and leukemia.

The public must be informed."

Print Page

Say No to the Flu Vaccine

Saying no to vaccines in the face of the gale wind of propaganda and governmentally supported vaccine campaigns is high treason punishable to the point of having your kids taken away if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

True medicine cries out against vaccines and all the harm they are doing to children and people around the globe but we have medical authorities claiming them to offer deliverance when in reality they offer little of anything but further toxic attacks on the body and immune system.

Medical truth is obviously against deliberately poisoning people, but don’t tell that to anyone at the FDA whose staff falls all over itself to promote the most dangerous drugs ever known to mankind. Vaccines are loaded with crude materials  that will never make anyone well. Poisons usually have the habit of poisoning people and the amount of mercury in the influenza vaccine is dangerous no matter what these un-trustable medical officials say.

Mercury is much more toxic then lead but there is not a doctor in the world stupid or crazy enough to inject lead into children’s veins, yet there are plenty who will gladly with a smile inject mercury.

In this crazy world of ours, medicine has turned against the people’s wellbeing, meaning they have committed high treason against the sacred medical oath to do no harm to their patients. A flu vaccine with mercury-based thimerosal  used as a preservative is an insult to the public’s intelligence but unfortunately that intelligence has been buried under a thick wall of medical lies and propaganda meant to sell vaccines.

“Chronic mercury exposure is also a threat to our health and makes us especially vulnerable to flu infections.  It has been shown that “prolonged exposure of mammals (white mice) to low mercury concentrations (0.008-0.02mg/m3) leads to a significant increase in the susceptibility of mice to pathological influenza virus strains. This is shown by a more severe course of infection. In the experimental group more mice died (86-90.3%) than in the unexposed animals (60.2-68%), additionally the experimental group died more quickly. The significant difference was in the appearance and degree of pneumonia in the effected animals,” wrote Dr. I. M. Trakhtenberg in “Chronic Effects of Mercury on Organisms.”

The CDC recommends that everyone over six months of age get a flu shot, especially people in high-risk groups, such as those under five or over 65 and people with chronic medical conditions, such as asthma or heart disease.

Any competent biochemist would look at the structure of thimerosal and identify it as a potent enzyme inhibitor. What is surprising is that the appropriate animal and laboratory testing was not done on the vaccines containing thimerosal (and aluminum) before the government embarked on a mandated vaccine program that exposed infants to the levels of thimerosal that occurred. - Dr. Boyd E. Haley

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. published in the Huffington Post a few years ago devastating evidence that implicated the CDC in a terrible scandal in regards to the unnecessary injection of millions of children with thimerosal a few years back, and this is important because again the CDC is going to allow mercury-containing thimerosal to be used in the swine flu shots as well as the regular flu shots in the fall of 2009.

Doctors like to educate parents about what influenza is and to emphasize that influenza is different from having a cold. They think that it is really important for parents to understand when we are in flu season that, if their child is exhibiting signs of an influenza-like illness, they need to seek care from their pediatric provider and begin antiviral drug treatment if indicated.

There are many ways to approach and treat the complications of influenza in Natural Allopathic Medicine, whose basic protocol is made from rock-solid emergency room medicinals of non-pharmaceutical origin.

Print Page

Why Do Women Get More Migraines?

Migraines are a battle of the sexes that women might prefer not winning. Each year, roughly three times more women than men—up to 18% of all women—suffer from the debilitating headaches, as tallied by epidemiological surveys in Europe and the United States. A new brain imaging study may explain the divide: The brains of women with migraines appear to be built differently than those of their male counterparts.

To conduct the study, researchers headed by David Borsook, a neurologist and neurobiologist of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, recruited 44 men and women, half of whom were migraine sufferers. The women who had migraines rated them as being as intense as the men did, but they tended to find them more unpleasant. Borsook says the distinction is analogous to the loudness of fingernails scratching on a chalkboard versus the torment of hearing the sound.

The team then scanned the brains of the volunteers. The researchers gathered two kinds of data sets, one that captured brain shapes and features, and one that measured brain activity.
Female migraine sufferers showed slightly thicker gray matter in two regions:  one, the posterior insula, is well-known in pain processing; the other, the precuneus, has been recently linked to migraines but is more widely known as a fundamental brain hub that may house a person's consciousness or sense of self. The other volunteers, including the male migraine sufferers, did not show this thickening. All of the scans were done when people did not have a migraine.

To figure out what those structural changes meant, lead author Nasim Maleki, a medical physicist at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, returned to the MRI scans of only those men and women with episodic migraines. The team compared brain activity while the volunteers experienced pain—in this case, three 15-second bursts of heat to the hand, spaced 30 seconds apart, generated through a small metal cube, akin to touching a too-hot cup of coffee. In women with migraines, "these thicker areas talk to each other and work together to respond to pain" in a pattern not seen in the men, Maleki says.

When Maleki checked for sex differences in well-defined pain networks, most of the structures that responded stronger in women were part of the emotional network. "In men, the pain comes in, and the brain says 'ouch,' " Maleki says. "In women, the brain says 'OUCHHHHH!' " Overall, the results suggest that "it's not just one area that underlies the sex differences in migraines, but a network of areas, a system that leads to the problem or progression,” she says.

In only men, those with migraines had a stronger reaction to the heat pain in a specific area—the nucleus accumbens—that is part of the reward circuitry and is extensively studied in the addiction research, Maleki says. "Interestingly, as much as pain syndromes are more prevalent in women and disproportionate relative to men, in addiction it is the opposite,” she says. “Men are more likely to develop addictions, and the prevalence is higher in men. So, is the reward circuitry somehow involved in migraine pathophysiology in men? Are there overlaps between pain pathways and reward pathways? The answer is that we don't know. But I think these results just help us ask more targeted questions in understanding how migraine works." The study is published this month in the journal Brain.

The findings reveal a clearly different brain pattern that may explain why so many more women than men have migraines, says neurologist Peter Goadsby of the University of California, San Francisco, who was not involved in the study. "Migraines have traditionally not been appreciated as a significant brain disorder," adds Andrew Charles, a neurologist at the University of California, Los Angeles. "Studies like this take migraines out of the realm of the subjective and show fundamental brain changes responsible for these differences. It's quite validating for people with migraines who understand something quite significant is happening in their heads."

Most interesting to Andrew Ahn, a neuroscientist at the University of Florida College of Medicine in Gainesville, are the findings that emphasize the emotional processing of pain. "Pain is an experience, a product of processing by the brain of a stimulus plus the way your brain interprets that stimulus," he says. "It's exciting that the pain field has come to recognize changes that occur in brains of people with chronic pain."

The greater activation of emotional pain processing regions in women "could correlate with the greater sense of unpleasantness that is experienced by women with migraine and the higher prevalence of depression and anxiety in women with migraine," speculates Todd Schwedt, a neurologist at the Mayo Clinic in Phoenix.

For Schwedt and others, the study provokes many new questions. Are the brain differences a cause or effect of migraines? Are they permanent or transient? And are they a response to pain in general or migraines in particular?

The study also highlights therapeutic issues for both men and women. Even with the best medical management, medication reportedly works in about only half of all people and then in about only half of all migraine attacks. More attention may need to be paid to gender in research, Maleki says. Most of the animal studies have involved male rodents, she says, and women are disproportionately represented in clinical studies by an 8:1 margin.

Still, Goadsby cautions that there are no immediate clinical implications. "It's fair to say that these are subtle changes in a research study and not ones that we would expect to see in ordinary imaging," he says. "There is no reason to go out and have your brain imaged."

Print Page
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...