Improved
6112 HealthChanged
3786 LivesSaved
3568 Lives0 lives impacted in the last 24 hrs Learn More
Did you know that cancer rates have doubled in the last 30 years and some cancers have tripled in people under 16 year olds?
For our young children and teenagers, this rise has occurred at a frightening 7% per year. Several causative factors have been implicated in this rise and it is vital that more is done to prevent cancer and halt this growing trend.
Here’s what you can do:
1. Don’t use pesticides on your lawn or garden and eat only organic food. Pesticides can cause cancer. According to the journal Cancer Causes Control, “In animal studies, many pesticides are carcinogenic, (e.g., organochlorines, creosote, and sulfallate) while others (notably, the organochlorines DDT, chlordane, and lindane) are tumor promoters... Human data, however, is limited by the small number of studies that evaluate individual pesticides. Epidemiologic studies, although sometimes contradictory, have linked phenoxy acid herbicides or contaminants in them with soft tissue sarcoma (STS) and malignant lymphoma; organochlorine insecticides are linked with STS, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL), leukemia, and, less consistently, with cancers of the lung and breast; organophosphorous compounds are linked with NHL and leukemia; and triazine herbicides with ovarian cancer.”
2. Cut out toxic cleaners for your home. Many cleaners contain formaldehyde, phenols, ammonia and other harmful products known to cause cancer. Go back to basics and use good old fashioned white vinegar to clean your home!
3. Cut out toxic toiletries – many cosmetics also contain harmful chemicals like formaldehyde, sodium lauryl Sulphate (SLS), which when added to other ingredients like those in shampoo, can form nitrosamines that are carcinogenic. Talc has been known to cause ovarian cancer if it is used on the genital area. Buy only environmentally friendly toiletries.
4. Weigh up the pros and cons carefully before you have a vaccine. All vaccines have never been tested for their carcinogenic affect. For instance, the Gardasil vaccine manufacturer’s data sheet says 'Gardasil has not been evaluated for the potential to cause carcinogenicity'. Vaccines also contain cancer causing agents like formaldehyde, aluminium, thimerosal (a 50% mercury compound) and sodium borate.
5. Reduce the amount on time you spend on your cell phone or at your computer. Too much exposure to electromagnetic fields created by these items are known to trigger cancer. This is because electromagnetic fields suppress the production of melatonin, allowing tumors to grow. Melatonin stops cancer and regulates sleep. Children are more susceptible to the affects of computers and cell phones than adults.
Sources: Cancer Causes Control. 1997 May;8(3):420-43.
Merck and Co. Inc, data sheet for Gardasil, July 2007
Breastcancerfund.org
Canceractive.com
Joanna is a freelance health writer for The Mother magazine and Suite 101 with a column on infertility, http://infertility.suite101.com/
She is author of the book, 'Breast Milk: A Natural Immunisation' and co-author of an educational resource on disabled parenting, in addition to running a charity for people damaged by vaccines or medical mistakes.
Add a Comment51 Comments
It is quite obvious to me that you are incapable of trying to understand what I have written.Your constant mis-characterization of my thoughts shows me that I am wasting my time. Your constant use of illogical arguments, logical fallacies, etc. shows me that your education system failed.
As for playing "nice", not in my book. I consider promotion of quackery and anti-science to be inherently dangerous to our society, and I do not sit idly by. There is NO balance between science and the bilge you have posted. When the body count gets high enough, you might begin to think you were wrong. I doubt it.
I was hoping to stimulate your thought. I failed. Let Darwin run his course.
FreeSpeaker
PS to the person who whined that I am angry. You bet I am. I have witnessed the damage that this altie med crap and anti-vaccination bull has caused first hand. Like I said, I do not remain silent and express myself with all the force I feel is needed.When you visited my blog, did you bother to read about becoming a born again parent?
June 12, 2009 - 5:33pmThis Comment
The site is not 'quackery' at all. They have info on chemotherapy and radiotherapy and everything else conventional. They also have info on alternative therapy.
They weren't saying the cell was a different cell from your body, everyone knows it's your cell. They were saying that it acts in a rogue way.
What I don't understand, freespeaker, is why people in favour of conventional medicine always have to try and turn the situation into a war, as if it's some sort of competition between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. It isn't. I don't see why people can't use both forms of medicine. I know I do.
And how those in favour of conventional medicine always get so defensive when anything alternative is mentioned, as if they themselves personally are being insulted. It is up to each individual person to decide what forms of treatment they have, as it it their body, so primarily it is their decision.
Just because some people choose alternative therapies or vitamins or diet to treat their cancer, doesn't make them quacks. It's their cancer and they have a right to go down whatever path they like. Likewise, the person who chooses chemotherapy and surgery should not be shot down in flames either, because he has weighed up the situation and decided that is his best course of action based on his experience.
Why does everything have to be a 'them' and 'us' situation?
Science is not foolproof, it is not God. Science is a collection of ideas - hypotheses - which may or may not be proven over time and there have been many other things proven not to be right over time, like thalidomide, the theory that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that it's good for you, blood-letting (that went on for 3,000 years), vioxx causing all those heart attacks, single measles vaccine protects against measles (that is what they told my mother before I had mine, now they say it can make you get measles in an altered form and isn't effective - so were they lying to my mother? No. They were just going with what science they thought at the time). Babies should sleep in the recovery position, now they say they should sleep on their back.
I think it can be helpful, but it isn't always right and it's certainly not something I would follow religiously.
If you can't find anything on smallpox vaccine and cancer, you aren't looking very hard. Here are some citation links:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ijdm/abstract.00004342-200606000-00011.htm;jsessionid=KycV8BpLzqmh45TD3VqBd1pjqrmgGpTN5kP1n2tKsPMVyNz1BSH1!713060492!181195629!8091!-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3722811
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2256321
There are more, but there's no point putting loads on here.
June 12, 2009 - 2:23amThis Comment
Joanna:
The site is not 'quackery' at all. They have info on chemotherapy and radiotherapy and everything else conventional. They also have info on alternative therapy.
FreeSpeaker:
While they have information on conventional, i.e. well tested with demonstrated effectiveness, treatments, their phraseology is designed to make the casual, non-critically thinking, sometimes desperate, reader question the efficacy of those treatments. As for the alternatives, there are NONE when it comes to cancer. No "alternative" treatment has been demonstrated to be effective in treating any form of cancer. Period.
Joanna:
They weren't saying the cell was a different cell from your body, everyone knows it's your cell. They were saying that it acts in a rogue way.
FreeSpeaker:
Once again, you misunderstand. Since the cell is no different than the rest of the cells in your body, your immune system skips right by them, as they are not recognized as foreign. IOW, your immune system plays no part in preventing cancer.
Joanna:
What I don't understand, freespeaker, is why people in favour of conventional medicine always have to try and turn the situation into a war, as if it's some sort of competition between conventional medicine and alternative medicine. It isn't. I don't see why people can't use both forms of medicine. I know I do.
FreeSpeaker:
We are talking about medical problems where inadequate or improper treatment results in death. When one promotes "alternatives" that do not have the side effects of conventional medicine, some people will stay away from effective, i.e. conventional, and use "alternative" treatments to their own detriment. It happens all the time.
Joanna:
And how those in favour of conventional medicine always get so defensive when anything alternative is mentioned, as if they themselves personally are being insulted. It is up to each individual person to decide what forms of treatment they have, as it it their body, so primarily it is their decision.
FreeSpeaker:
It is not a question of being insulted. That is a red herring. When people are dealing with a life threatening medical problem, they should be given all of the best information possible, and the fact that "alternative" treatments are useless is part of that. If they want to kill themselves after that, there is nothing one can do, except hope they will change their mind.
Joanna:
Just because some people choose alternative therapies or vitamins or diet to treat their cancer, doesn't make them quacks.
FreeSpeaker:
The patient is never a quack. It is the snake-oil charlatan who is promoting the bogus treatment that is the quack. I refer to their *customers* as victims.
Joanna:
It's their cancer and they have a right to go down whatever path they like. Likewise, the person who chooses chemotherapy and surgery should not be shot down in flames either, because he has weighed up the situation and decided that is his best course of action based on his experience.
FreeSpeaker:
Of course, when the patient is an adult. However, when the patient is a child, another set of rules apply.
Joanna:
Why does everything have to be a 'them' and 'us' situation?
FreeSpeaker:
It is effective treatment vs. bogus treatment. As for us vs. them, when someone is selling something that will result in a person's death, it moast assuredly becomes us vs. them, and I do not take prisoners.
Joanna:
Science is not foolproof, it is not God.
FreeSpeaker:
No one has ever said that science is foolproof. However, one is far more likely to receive valid treatment by using science. As for G-d, it has always struck me that "alternative" advocate treat that as one treats their religion.
Joanna:
Science is a collection of ideas - hypotheses - which may or may not be proven over time and there have been many other things proven not to be right over time, like thalidomide,
FreeSpeaker:
Thalidomide was never allowed into the US because of the FDA. One of their major wins. However, it is now being used in treating Hansen's Disease and multiple myeloma, and is quite effective for both. Science has shown that.
Joanna:
the theory that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or that it's good for you,
FreeSpeaker:
Who do you think showed that smoking causes cancer? Scientists. Only the manufacturers claimed otherwise.
Joanna:
blood-letting (that went on for 3,000 years),
FreeSpeaker:
Look up polycythemia vera.
Joanna:
vioxx causing all those heart attacks,
FreeSpeaker:
Science did not fail. It was the criminal manufacturers that did. Unfortunately, no one was prosecuted, as they should have been.
Joanna:
single measles vaccine protects against measles (that is what they told my mother before I had mine, now they say it can make you get measles in an altered form and isn't effective - so were they lying to my mother?
FreeSpeaker:
First, that was years ago. Second, there are people, you may be one of them, that do not develop an adequate immune response to a vaccine. This is why maintaining a high level of herd immunity is so important.
Joanna:
Babies should sleep in the recovery position, now they say they should sleep on their back.
FreeSpeaker:
Just who found that out? Scientists.
Joanna:
If you can't find anything on smallpox vaccine and cancer, you aren't looking very hard. Here are some citation links:
http://pt.wkhealth.com/pt/re/ijdm/abstract.00004342-200606000-00011.htm;jsessionid=KycV8BpLzqmh45TD3VqBd1pjqrmgGpTN5kP1n2tKsPMVyNz1BSH1!713060492!181195629!8091!-
FreeSpeaker:
Here is a hint: www.tinyurl.com.
As for the blurb, it does not prove anything. What I would like to see are some epidemiological studies. I have looked, and have asked two epidemiologist and an oncological surgeon, and they shrugged. Nothing in the professional literature.
Joanna:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3722811
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2256321
FreeSpeaker:
The first URL is irrelevant to smallpox vaccine causing cancer. The second discusses Vaccinia virus stimulation of oncogenesis in C57Bl mice. There is NO abstract, and you are merely relying on the title of the article, which is in Russian from 1990. In other words, you cannot possibly have a clue as to whether the article supports your claims or not.
Did you know that the use of the smallpox vaccine as an oncolytic agent is being studied? Do you know what that is? I am sure you do not. Go look it up.
Joanna:
There are more, but there's no point putting loads on here.
FreeSpeaker:
June 12, 2009 - 9:09amIf they are as useless as what you posted, feel free.
This Comment
Hello anon
I would love to speak with you more but don't know how to contact you.
I am glad you liked the article.
June 11, 2009 - 11:57amThis Comment
The 7% a year is a true figure which I got from the cancer organisation Canceractive. This is what their website said:
Possible Contributory Factors in the cancer process
But what we do know is that a weakened immune system is more likely to allow a 'rogue' cell to take hold in the body. And there are plenty of factors known to weaken the immune system. Can you say that any of these is a ‘cause’ of cancer. No, of course not. But they may well be described as possible contributory factors even if they are merely third party factors, weakening the defence rather than strengthening the attackers.
If we wait around while scientists try and prove beyond all doubt that something is a 'cause' of cancer we will wait a long time. Meanwhile cancer rates are growing exponentially – a doubling in the last 30 years, a forecast doubling in the next 20. A rise of over 7 per cent per year in our young with some cancers having tripled in the last 25 years amongst the under-16's.
1.3 million people live with cancer today while the forecast is three million in 2020. We can't wait – we need a step change in the way we think.
Notice they said 7% per year in our young and a tripling in the past 25 years in under 16's. Look here:
http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1223
This is a recognised and respected cancer organisation and I know I can trust their statistics.
We have only had pesticides for a short amount of time - I think the 1940's - and before that, for centuries, people were eating organic food as nature intended, i.e. normal food. To be eating stuff covered in pesticide is not normal. So I think the argument about fungicides etc is nonsensical. In my opinion we need a little bit of that anyway. If we never encountered any bugs at all, our immune systems would not have chance to work so that may be why we have so much cancer and allergies. Medical journals are packed full of articles on the dangers of pesticides and even doctors speak about the benefits of eating fresh organic fruit and vegetables. It's not a new idea.
As for vaccines, they have been known to cause cancer sometimes. Here is a citation for SV40 cancer from polio vaccine, found in donated blood from blood donors:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920474?dopt=Abstract
There are many others. Even the smallpox one from years ago was known to cause cancer at the injection site. I'm not saying all vaccines would do that, but I think it's possible. Lots of people smoke and never get cancer. But some people do. I think it depends on your constitution and how you react to it.
June 11, 2009 - 9:29amThis Comment
Joanna:
As for vaccines, they have been known to cause cancer sometimes. Here is a citation for SV40 cancer from polio vaccine, found in donated blood from blood donors:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11920474?dopt=Abstract
FreeSpeaker:
Your demonstrated lack of scientific knowledge leads me to conclude that you merely regurgitated that comment, as you have never demonstrated the ability tounderstand this.
Joanna:
There are many others. Even the smallpox one from years ago was known to cause cancer at the injection site.
FreeSpeaker:
I did an extensive search, and could not find one word of support for that claim. However, I did find:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/31/health/main547075.shtml
Most interesting...just the opposite of what you claim.
June 11, 2009 - 6:35pmThis Comment
Joanna:
"But what we do know is that a weakened immune system is more likely to allow a 'rogue' cell to take hold in the body."
FreeSpeaker:
"We" do not know that, simply because "we" know it is absurd. A cancer cell is YOUR cell, not a foreign cell, and your immune system recognizes it as such. Thus, your immune system does NOTHING to prevent cancer.
What I find most curious is your propensity to state things without any support. And, that website is pure quackery.
June 11, 2009 - 6:12pmThis Comment
I really enjoyed the article posted regarding harmful ingredients in personal care products. It was very informative, and I believe you are absolutely correct about the negative impact that these chemicals can have on our bodies. I have discovered several amazing reports to validate your position, and I think you would find the information fascinating. I would love to discuss this further with you. Please email me at your earliest convenience. One report in particular is very serious in nature and was documented on CNN. I’ll send you a link.
June 11, 2009 - 8:42amThis Comment
"aluminium, thimerosal (a 50% mercury compound) and sodium borate"
Let's make this completely straight, these are not know carcinogens.
"7% per year rise"
And sorry, that is a BS statement. I'll ground it completely baseless and made up until I see proof. Simply due to two things, first, has no scale, and just giving 10 years would make 70% all young with cancer. We know that isn't true. If just meant by numbers, I can easily throw that out just based upon population growth. In any case, it's bad statistics, and quite frankly, I judged the article as trash as soon as I read it, but I continued anyways.
"eat only organic food"
This is bad advice. Especially in this case. Organic foods may contain less pesticide residue (which is nearly infinitesimally small in the first place), but it comes with risk. Due to mycotoxins not being treated by fungicides, organic food risks having mycotoxins. And mycotoxins, contain some of the most potent mycotoxins known. Let's not even go into environmental impacts and others.
Cleaning with vinegar is good advice, and checking the problems with vaccines before giving them to your kids is good as well... except your stating it for the completely wrong reasons. Vaccines can have numerous problems with them... but cancer, cancer is not one of them. The low one time dosage will never be enough to cause cancer. Again, there are many dangers, cancer IS NOT one of them.
June 10, 2009 - 3:43amThis Comment
I am fully aware of other side-effects. The 1 in 15 according to 'the green book' that I've read (doctors vaccine bible) says 1 in 15 get ear infection. So what? Ear infection is not serious. They are being alarmist by classing that as a serious side-effect.
The 1 in 1000 figure you quote is false. It comes from this study by a guy called Perry. Perry took incidences of measles from all over the world including third world and they used that to come up with encephalitis incidence and then said incidence was 1 in 1000, just based on this one study. I know because I asked the department of health and then read the study. I'll dig it out if you're interested.
The figure in their 1996 version of the 'green book' said 1 in 5000 which is think is nearer to the actual figure. They're just trying to hype it up as a PR stint to help MMR's reputation. Also, doctors are well aware that if you give anti-pyretics during measles, then you risk measles side-effects, but they don't tell parents that. A fever is the child's friend - it's an immune response to sweat out the toxins. If you stop that, you stop the body's means of expelling the illness and it goes inward and can cause an encephalitis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6973542
The study is outline but I have the paper copy and it says that paracetamol/acetomenophen causes encephalitis in measles.
Also, you rightly mentioned vitamin A deficiency as a cause of measles deaths. That WHO link I showed you states on it that measles deaths in the third world are reduced by 50% when they give vitamin A supplements. They give it out with vaccines, maybe to make the shot look more effective than it is? I don't know.
My daughter had measles at 15 months (she's now 13 years). I think she got it from an MMR vaccinated boy as he'd just had his shot and his mum brought him straight from the clinic and sat him next to my daughter and he was crying so the playgroup leader asked why and she said he's just had the MMR shot. It's live so 2 weeks later after the incubation period, my daughter came out with it. She got the text book sticky eyes, fever, rash etc. I didn't use antipyretics and I didn't give food. Just loads of water and an electric fan. She recovered fine, no side-effects and didn't get ill again - not even with a cold - for nearly a year.
And you're forgetting that vaccines can cause encephalitis - all of them can. They use the pertussis one to induce brain swelling in lab animals.
June 10, 2009 - 3:31amThis Comment