Patrick Swayze’s death came as a shock to many people. But not to his own cancer doctor: they know that the five-year survival rates of people being treated with chemotherapy for pancreatic cancer are virtually zero. And Swayze was only the latest in a long list of celebrities dying after being treated with chemotherapy and other toxic forms of western medicine…
… The reason so many celebrities are harmed or killed by the cancer industry is quite simple: the cancer industry is a for-profit business. It makes money by treating cancer, not by curing or preventing cancer…
At low doses, such as those considered safe for humans, rats exposed to bisphenol A in utero showed sex-specific changes in their brains
Bisphenol-A (BPA) is an estrogenic endocrine disruptor widely used in the production of plastics. Increasing evidence indicates that in utero BPA exposure affects sexual differentiation and behavior; however, the mechanisms underlying these effects are unknown. We hypothesized that BPA may disrupt epigenetic programming of gene expression in the brain. Here, we provide evidence that maternal exposure during pregnancy to environmentally relevant doses of BPA (2, 20, and 200 µg/kg/d) in mice induces sex-specific, dose-dependent (linear and curvilinear), and brain region-specific changes in expression of genes encoding estrogen receptors (ERs; ERα and ERβ) and estrogen-related receptor-γ in juvenile offspring. Concomitantly, BPA altered mRNA levels of epigenetic regulators DNA methyltransferase (DNMT) 1 and DNMT3A in the juvenile cortex and hypothalamus, paralleling changes in estrogen-related receptors. Importantly, changes in ERα and DNMT expression in the cortex (males) and hypothalamus (females) were associated with DNA methylation changes in the ERα gene. BPA exposure induced persistent, largely sex-specific effects on social and anxiety-like behavior, leading to disruption of sexually dimorphic behaviors. Although postnatal maternal care was altered in mothers treated with BPA during pregnancy, the effects of in utero BPA were not found to be mediated by maternal care. However, our data suggest that increased maternal care may partially attenuate the effects of in utero BPA on DNA methylation. Overall, we demonstrate that low-dose prenatal BPA exposure induces lasting epigenetic disruption in the brain that possibly underlie enduring effects of BPA on brain function and behavior, especially regarding sexually dimorphic phenotypes.
NCBI, PMID: 2371669 PubMed doi: 10.1073/pnas.1214056110. Epub 2013 May 28
The Full Study, Sex-specific epigenetic disruption and behavioral changes following low-dose in utero bisphenol A exposure, PMCID: PMC3683772 2013 June 9956–9961.
A Small Dose of Toxicology The Health Effects of Common Chemicals by Steven G. Gilbert explores the principles of toxicology by examining the health effects of common chemical agents. Every day, we come into contact with many relatively harmless substances that could, at certain concentrations, be toxic. This applies not only to obvious candidates such as asbestos, lead, mercury, and gasoline, but also to such common compounds as caffeine, alcohol, nicotine, and headache tablets. While the field of toxicology has numerous technical books devoted to aspects of biology, chemistry, and mechanisms of action, A Small Dose of Toxicology places toxicology within the framework of our daily lives.
Could More Women Be Harmed than Helped with Mammography?
” The FDA secretly monitored the personal e-mail of a group of agency whistleblowers for two years. All of the monitored employees worked in the office responsible for reviewing medical devices, including those for cancer screenings and were expressing concerns over several devices. Some of the employees were harassed and/or terminated, and six of them are now suing the agency.
There’s a lot of compelling evidence that the dangers of mammography are being covered up, and that a Congressional hearing is well overdue.
While roughly 15 percent of women in their 40’s detect breast cancer through mammography, many other women experience false positives, anxiety, and unnecessary biopsies as a result of the test, according to the data. In fact, a full decade ago, a Danish study published in The Lancet concluded that previous research showing a benefit of mammograms was flawed and that widespread mammogram screening is unjustified.
According to the Cochrane Collaboration, for every 2,000 women getting mammography screening over the course of 10 years, just ONE woman will have her life prolonged. Meanwhile, 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed with cancer had it not been for the mammography screening, will be misdiagnosed as having breast cancer, and will be treated unnecessarily. “
It’s impossible to have a drug with no side effects
Most medical research aims to discover more about health and to find new ways to treat or prevent diseases. Within this, the science of how to make drugs safer has received relatively little research funding and attention. This is despite the fact that side effects (known as adverse drug reactions) are both a big public health concern and a major barrier to the development of new medicines.
” You’re feeling fine when you go for your annual physical. But your mammogram looks a little funny, or your PSA test is a little high, or you get a CT lung scan and a nodule shows up. You get a biopsy, and the doctor delivers the bad news: You have cancer. Because you don’t want to die, you agree to be sliced up and irradiated.
Then, fortunately, you’re pronounced a -cancer survivor-.
You’re glad they caught it early.
But maybe you went through all that pain for nothing. “…
More than 10 years after Open Access publishing became widely available, lack of awareness persists concerning its potential to reduce waste, as does confusion over the difference between Open and Free Access
Among the important topics that Paul Glasziou and colleagues address in the Waste in Research Lancet Series:
the key issue of access to published knowledge receives little mention.
Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research
Research publication can both communicate and miscommunicate. Unless research is adequately reported, the time and resources invested in the conduct of research is wasted. Reporting guidelines such as CONSORT, STARD, PRISMA, and ARRIVE aim to improve the quality of research reports, but all are much less adopted and adhered to than they should be. Adequate reports of research should clearly describe which questions were addressed and why, what was done, what was shown, and what the findings mean. However, substantial failures occur in each of these elements. For example, studies of published trial reports showed that the poor description of interventions meant that 40-89% were non-replicable; comparisons of protocols with publications showed that most studies had at least one primary outcome changed, introduced, or omitted; and investigators of new trials rarely set their findings in the context of a systematic review, and cited a very small and biased selection of previous relevant trials. Although best documented in reports of controlled trials, inadequate reporting occurs in all types of studies-animal and other preclinical studies, diagnostic studies, epidemiological studies, clinical prediction research, surveys, and qualitative studies. In this report, and in the Series more generally, we point to a waste at all stages in medical research. Although a more nuanced understanding of the complex systems involved in the conduct, writing, and publication of research is desirable, some immediate action can be taken to improve the reporting of research. Evidence for some recommendations is clear: change the current system of research rewards and regulations to encourage better and more complete reporting, and fund the development and maintenance of infrastructure to support better reporting, linkage, and archiving of all elements of research. However, the high amount of waste also warrants future investment in the monitoring of and research into reporting of research, and active implementation of the findings to ensure that research reports better address the needs of the range of research users.
The Important Differences between Free Access Publications and Open Access Publications
” More than 10 years after Open Access publishing became widely available, lack of awareness persists concerning its potential to reduce waste, as does confusion over the difference between open and free access. Sir Iain Chalmers inadvertently highlighted this in his tweet about the series. We thought it would be useful to clarify the differences illustrated by this example.
Free access means: the article is free to read; it may not be reused (including translated) without permission; authors and readers may be charged for copying the article, and authors may be prohibited from posting their article on an institutional server. “Free” rights may be withdrawn at any time by the publisher, as occurred with the QUOROM paper on reporting of meta-analyses Moher D, 1999. This was published in the Lancet in 1999, was originally made free but was subsequently placed behind a paywall (but which since the time of the writing and submission – and rejection – of this comment to the Lancet has become freely available again, with no indication if it is a permanent state).
Open Access is defined as: free, immediate access online; unrestricted distribution and re-use rights in perpetuity for humans and technological applications; author(s) retains rights to attribution; papers are immediately deposited in a public online archive, such as PubMed Central. These principles, backed up by internationally accepted licenses from Creative Commons, means in practice that anything published Open Access can be read and reused in perpetuity by both humans and machines.