Connect with us

Awareness

Studies Link DNA Damage from Synthetic Antibiotics To Autism

Published

on

antibioticsBayer, the maker of the world’s most unsafe brands of birth control – the Yasmin line and the Mirena/Skyla IUDs, as well as a maker of neocontinid pesticides killing the bees – can now be held responsible for the rise in Autism rates over the last 30 years, as they are the makers and manufacturers of Cipro and Avelox, two of the world’s most popular fluoroquinolone antibiotics, which have recently been shown to alter DNA in ways that encourage expression of Autism related genes. Johnson & Johnson, the maker of Levaquin, also a popular fluoroquinolone antibiotic, can also be held responsible for the atrocity of one in eighty-eight children being autistic, as Levaquin is also a fluoroquinolone antibiotic that does the same thing.

advertisement - learn more

Cipro (ciprofloxacin) is a second generation fluoroquinolone patented in 1983 by Bayer, Levaquin (levofloxacin) is a third generation fluroquinolone patented in 1987 by Ortho-McNeil-Janssen (a division of Johnson & Johnson), and Avelox (moxifloxacin) is a fourth generation fluoroquinolone patented in 1991 by Bayer. In the 1980s the incidence of Autism was 1 per 1,000 children, today it is 1 per 88 children. The incidence of Autism has gone up hand in hand with the use of fluoroquinolone antibiotics.

Of course, this correlation between the introduction of fluoroquinolone antibiotics to the market and increasing rates of Autism, proves nothing. For proof, studies, experimentation and scientific exploration are needed. In September, 2013 the studies of topoisomerase inhibitors like fluoroquinolones as they relate to Autism commenced with an article in Nature entitled “Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long genes linked to autism.”

Fluoroquinolone Antibiotics Lead to Autism Gene Expression

Fluoroquinolone antibiotics are eukaryotic DNA gyrase (also known as topoisomerase II) and topoisomerase IV inhibitors. Topoisomerases “are integral to gene expression, as they resolve DNA supercoiling that is generated during transcription.” Here is a video describing what that means and how fluoroquinolones work –


advertisement - learn more

A 1999 study in Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis showed that fluoroquinolone antibiotics damage and destroy mitochondrial DNA. It makes sense that they would do so because mitochondria are the parts of our cells that are most closely related to bacteria.  Bacteria are destroyed by fluoroquinolone antibiotics through the unraveling of bacterial DNA and resulting apoptosis (programmed cell death). Sadly, mitochondria also suffer the same fate.

An article published in September, 2013 in Nature entitled “Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long genes linked to autism” noted that topoisomerase inhibitors can adversely affect gene expression and, “topoisomerases facilitate the expression of a large number of ASD (Autism Spectrum Disorder) candidate genes, including many that are long and that are thought to have large effects on ASD pathology.” Basically, drugs that effect topoisomerases, chemotherapy drugs and fluoroquinolone antibiotics (which are chemotherapy drugs) can cause Autism genes to be expressed.

The article concludes by stating that:

“Our data suggest that chemicals or genetic mutations that impair topoisomerases, and possibly other components of the transcription elongation machinery that interface with topoisomerases, have the potential to profoundly affect the expression of long ASD candidate genes. Length-dependent impairment of gene transcription, particularly in neurons and during critical periods of brain development, may thus represent a unifying cause of pathology in in many individuals with ASD and other neurodevelopmental disorders.”

THIS IS HUGE. It is an environmental factor, topoisomerase inhibiting chemotherapy drugs including fluoroquinolone antibiotics, that cause the expression of Autism genes.

It should be noted that the specific drug studied in “Topoisomerases facilitate transcription of long genes linked to autism” is Topotecan, not fluoroquinolones. Topotecan is a topoisomerase I inhibitor whereas fluoroquinolone atibiotics are topoisomerase II (also known as DNA gyrase) and topoisomerase IV inhibitors. Further studies need to be done to definitively show whether or not fluoroquinolones have the same adverse effects as Topotecan.

HOWEVER, the Researchers note that:

TOP2 (topoisomerase II) enzymes, (particularly TOP2B) also participate in gene transcription. We next tested whether genetic or pharmacological inhibition of TOP2 enzymes could reduce the expression of long genes. Indeed, with new experiments and by re-analyzing data from others, we found that the TOP2A/TOP2B inhibitor ICRF-193 reduced gene expression in a length-dependent manner in cultured mouse cortical neurons, embryonic stem (ES) cells and ES-cell-derived neurons. There was extensive overlap between genes affected by ICRF-193 and topotecan in cortical neurons, particularly for long genes, and the magnitudes of these effects were highly correlated. Thus, TOP1 (topoisomerase I) and TOP2 (topoisomerase II) enzymes regulate the expression of many of the same genes.

This means that topoisomerase II inhibitors, also known as DNA gyrase inhibitors, such as fluoroquinolones do the SAME THING as the topoisomerase I inhibitors studied. Fluoroquinolone antibiotics – Cipro, Levaquin, Avelox and a few more – “profoundly affect the expression of long ASD candidate genes.”

26.9 MILLION prescriptions for fluoroquinolone antibiotics were given to people in 2011 alone. Quantities of prescriptions of these DNA altering drugs have been in the millions since their rise in popularity in the 1980s.

These popular antibiotics, prescribed for sinus infections, urinary tract infections, strep throat, traveler’s diarrhea, prostate infections, etc. ALTER DNA AND NEGATIVELY INFLUENCE GENE EXPRESSION (EPI-GENETICS) AND LEAD TO THE EXPRESSION OF AUTISM GENES. Genes. DNA. Epi-genetics. The bits of information that our cells pass from one generation to the next. The damaged DNA is passed from parent to child and from that child down to their children, and so on and so on.

Gene expression, epi-genetics, is tricky because so many factors influence how genes are expressed, and it is only recently that ways of measuring and describing epi-genetics have been discovered. Neil deGrasse Tyson is probably better at explaining epi-genetics than I am, so please check out this video –

One of the research scientists who Dr. deGrasse Tyson interviews notes that, “you’re not only what you eat, (you are) potentially what your mother ate and even what your grandparents ate” to show the power of the heritability of epi-genetic markers. Dr. deGrasse Tyson and the research scientist are discussing how food can effect epi-genetic markers and influence obesity throughout generations of mice. If food can effect epi-genetics that dramatically, just imagine how dramatically a drug that is intentionally designed to interfere with and unravel mitochondrial DNA can effect human heredity. Not only can a drug that a parent (not just mothers, the DNA of fathers contributes to 50% of everyone’s genes) took influence the epi-genetics of their child, but the epi-genetics of their grandchildren and great-grandchildren can be adversely effected as well.

So, children are inheriting damaged genes, the genes that control whether or not a person is Autistic, because their parent (or even grandparent – for future generations – fluoroquinolones haven’t been around long enough to mess up multiple generations of people – yet) took an ANTIBIOTIC that messed up their mitochondrial DNA. This is absurd. Generations of humans will continue to be plagued by high autism rates, possibly indefinitely, because a certain class of antibiotics that has dangerous and severe side-effects even to those who take them directly, has damaged their mitochondrial DNA. This entire horrifying situation is Bayer’s and Johnson & Johnson’s fault and they should be held accountable to humanity in every way possible.

Let me just back-pedal a little bit and say that many women who have been severely adversely effected by fluoroquinolone antibiotics have had healthy, happy, beautiful, smart babies. Many factors go into how genes are expressed. What you eat, music, positive thoughts and words, etc. can influence how your genes are expressed. If you have taken a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, you are not doomed to have an autistic child. But it really seems shameful, horrifying actually, to increase someone’s odds of having an autistic child by encouraging the expression of autism related genes synthetically, through an unneeded and destructive antibiotic, when other, safer, non-DNA-damaging antibiotics are available.

If I can figure out that fluoroquinolones have the same effects as Topotecan, and that damaged DNA and gene expression / epi-genetics markers can be passed on from generation to generation, with my Cipro frazzled brain, you can bet that Dr. Zylka and his team of undoubtedly brilliant Scientists also realize that topoisomerase II / DNA gyrase (and topoisomerase IV) inhibitors like fluoroquinolones are leading to the expression of autism genes. I thank these Scientists for what they have uncovered and published from the bottom of my heart, and I beg of them, please have enough courage and moral fortitude to stand up for what you know to be true – that fluoroquinolone antibiotics made by Bayer and Johnson & Johnson have severely, and possibly irreversibly, damaged the human gene pool in a way that is causing children, innocent children, to be hurt. Though there is little that can be done to stop the damage from being passed down through the generations, the people who have already been hurt by Bayer and J&J deserve compensation. The children who are living with Autism deserve compensation. Bayer and J&J hurt them, they hurt humanity, and they should pay for their sins. Without the word of Scientists to back up these assertions, no justice will ever come to the families. Dr. Zylka and others… please, do what’s right.

The Dangers of Fluoroquinolones Shouldn’t be a Surprise

This coalmine is littered with dead canaries. The Scientists who designed fluoroquinolones always knew that they were topoisomerase inhibitors that unraveled bacterial DNA. They may not have known that fluoroquinolones caused the expression of Autism related genes, that’s a recent discovery, but any claims not to know that these drugs are dangerous involves a huge amount of willful ignorance. In 1998 Stephen Fried published Bitter Pills: Inside the Hazardous World of Legal Drugs, describing his wife Diane’s severe adverse reaction to Floxin (a fluoroquinolone that is no longer popular, but is still available) that included severe CNS issues. Before and since publication of Bitter Pills, article after article, research paper after research paper has been published noting one danger of fluoroquinolones after another. Here is just a small sample of the information about the immediate dangers of fluoroquinolone antibiotics – http://floxiehope.com/links-resources/. So many people have been needlessly hurt by these drugs. Many of those who have been hurt have been screaming about their pain, trying to get people to listen, trying to save others from their sad fate – and their warnings have been unheeded. It is to be determined whether or not this article in Nature will change anything, whether or not people will pay attention to the canaries in the coalmine. I hope so. Regardless of whether or not the harm that has been done to human DNA is reversible, people deserve to know the truth. They deserve to know why autism rates have gone from 1 in 1,000 children in 1980 to 1 in 88 children in 2013. They deserve to be compensated for their losses. They deserve to be able to make appropriate and informed decisions regarding the drugs they take and, sadly, the reproduction choices they make.

Nalidixic Acid, the foundation of all quinolone and fluoroquinolone antibiotics was discovered in 1962 by George Lesher.  It took 51 years and indescribable damage to the human gene pool for the dangers of this DNA altering substance to be revealed.  May this be a lesson for all people intentionally altering the genes of humans, animals or plants.

Other Factors

Of course, there are some factors other than gene expression that contribute to Autism Spectrum Disorders. Sadly, many of those can also be explained by fluoroquinolone use. Direct application of fluoroquinolones (ear and eye drops that are fluoroquinolone based are commonly prescribed to children as young as 1 to treat their ear and eye infections, as opposed to the inherited exposure described above, has been shown to cause disruption of tubulin assembly, mitochondrial damage, and a cascade of interrelated brain and nervous system damage stemming from the ability of certain drugs and substances to inhibit deacetylation of histone.  All of these things have also been linked to Autism.

A Note About Vaccines

Studies have shown that, “certain individuals with a mild mitochondrial defect may be highly susceptible to mitochondrial specific toxins like the vaccine preservative thimerosal.”  Drugs that damage mitochondria, fluoroquinolones are not the only drugs that do so, combined with vaccines, can be toxic and can lead to a marked increase in oxidative stress, production of reactive oxygen species, cell death and possibly Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Adverse reactions to direct application of fluoroquinolones (again, as opposed to inherited exposure and direct application can come in the form of orally administered fluoroquinolones, ie pills, intravenously administered fluoroquinolones or topically administered fluoroquinolones, ie ear and eye drops) are often both delayed and triggered by exposure to another toxin. The 2008 lawsuit that got the Black Box Warning of tendon ruptures added to the warning label of orally and intravenously administered fluoroquinolones accepted drug reaction times of up to four months after the fluoroquinolone was taken as a reasonable time frame. Also, the warning labels for fluoroquinolones note that adverse reactions can occur several months after administration of the drug has stopped. Unfortunately, the evidence that I have for adverse reactions to fluoroquinolones being triggered by another toxin are anecdotal. However, I think that the anecdotes are illustrative. In my personal case, my adverse reaction to Cipro started a full two weeks after I had FINISHED taking the Cipro, when I started taking ibuprofen, a NSAID. Enough other people who are also suffering from fluoroquinolone toxicity also have reported adverse reactions to NSAIDs (and the warning label says, “Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (but not acetyl salicylic acid) in combination of very high doses of quinolones have been shown to provoke convulsions in pre-clinical studies.” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/019537s082,020780s040lbl.pdf though I did not take NSAIDs in combination with the quinolone/fluoroquinolone nor have I suffered through convulsions – yet) for me to think that the ibuprofen triggered my severe adverse reaction. The CAUSE of my adverse reaction was the Cipro that I had taken two weeks earlier. The ibuprofen was simply the trigger. It would not have been dangerous on its own. However, since Cipro had started a cellular adverse reaction in my body, the ibuprofen became dangerous to me. (It should also be noted that my adverse reaction began when I started my period and that hormones may be related to fluoroquinolone toxicity as well – again, sorry for the anecdotally based assertion.) It should be explored whether or not vaccines can TRIGGER adverse reactions to other drugs – especially drugs that damage mitochondria. If this is the case, the earlier administered drugs are the cause of the problem and the vaccines are simply the trigger – but they’re not exactly innocent either. All of these assertions should be explored further than I have the resources or expertise to do.

Tragedy

As someone who has personally been severely adversely effected by a fluoroquinolone antibiotic, Cipro, which caused central, peripheral and autonomic nervous system problems as well as damage to the connective tissue throughout my body, I always suspected that the dangerous and tragic effects of fluoroquinolones were going to explode into common consciousness at some point. I hoped that it would blow up because of advocacy efforts and that it wouldn’t require a tragedy for the screams of the victims of fluoroquinolones to be noticed. I suspected that my hope was ill-founded though. I thought that a difficult to treat major infection would make its rounds and that everyone would take a fluoroquinolone – and that a large number of people would get sick so that it became undeniable what these drugs did. I imagined a scenario where a foreign leader got sick from a fluoroquinolone and had a fit over it – causing an international relations snafu. Though either of these scenarios would have involved a huge amount of sadness for the victims, they also would have involved some vindication and righteousness on my part over the fact that I KNEW and I tried to warn everyone. Not in my wildest dreams did I imagine that the tragedy caused by fluoroquinolones would be a slow-moving one and that it had been happening over my lifetime. Never would I have imagined that something as insidious and tragic as Autism was the tragedy caused by fluoroquinolones and that one in eighty-eight children would be effected. Never would I have imagined that our DNA would be so profoundly affected by these dangerous drugs that even if everything that I wished for – that their use be severely restricted and that victims of these drugs be compensated – came true, that the havoc that these drugs caused would not be stopped. I am profoundly and deeply saddened by this situation. I cannot express how much my soul aches over the fact that the victims of these drugs are children, the innocent among us, those who need our protection, the babies. They have been let down. Humanity has been let down and I cannot quit sobbing for all of our souls.

Read more from the author at www.floxiehope.com

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

Awareness

Studies Show What A Whole Foods Vegan Diet Does For People With Diabetes

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    Multiple studies have shown that a whole foods, plant-based diet can help manage, prevent, and, in some cases, even reverse diabetes.

  • Reflect On:

    Why is dietary intervention not a priority of conventional doctors? Especially when it can be much more beneficial to the patient than medication?

Food truly is medicine, and nutrition is a great way to combat multiple diseases. What’s extremely confusing is why so many doctors still choose to prescribe medication first, without considering the power of nutrition. Many doctors are not even aware of the power of nutrition and its ability to heal diseases, and this is probably because they know next to nothing about it given that they learn nothing about it in medical school.

However, things are changing. There are an abundance of doctors who are not prescribing medication when it’s not needed, and instead prescribing a proper diet. Many of them are starting to educate themselves using the literature and science surrounding nutrition. It’s not only doctors, but patients are choosing to self educate themselves now as well.

When it comes to the medical industry, self education is important, given the fact that “The medical profession is being bought by the pharmaceutical industry, not only in terms of the practice of medicine, but also in terms of teaching and research. The academic institutions of this country are allowing themselves to be the paid agents of the pharmaceutical industry.”   Arnold Seymour Relman (1923-2014), Harvard Professor of Medicine and Former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Medical Journal (source)

Not long ago, Dr. Asseem Malhotra, a well-known Doctor in Britain, had some choice words to say in front of the European Parliament about modern-day medical education and the overall knowledge doctors possess. He’s one of many who continues to emerge and speak out. You can read more about that here.

When it comes to type 2 diabetes, it’s one of the diseases that can easily be managed with a proper diet. The undue influence the pharmaceutical industry has on the medical industry and doctors’ lack of understanding of nutrition is why, I believe, more than 370 million people around the world suffer from diabetes, and approximately 100 million Americans have it or are likely to get it.

It’s firmly established in scientific literature and quite clear now that moving to a whole-food, plant-based diet can drastically reduce the symptoms of type 1 diabetes and can even help manage, or in many cases completely reverse, type 2 diabetes and pre-diabetes. Giving up animal products and processed foods helps as well, and there is an abundance of research that shows this.

advertisement - learn more

Perhaps one of the most important pieces of evidence is the fact that there are real life success stories. Forks over Knives has a plethora of examples and real-life case studies that support the notion that eliminating animal products and following a healthy, whole-foods diet can make it easier to live with diabetes.

In 2016, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health published a study that showed plant-based diets can lower the risk of type 2 diabetes by a third. This involves simply switching out animal products for plant-based alternatives. A whole-foods, plant-based diet is rich in beneficial dietary fiber, antioxidants, and micronutrients, and low in saturated fats. This is excellent for overall health outcomes, whether they’re related to diabetes or not.

Multiple studies have shown that red and processed meats (also recently linked to cancer by the WHO), as well as animal protein in general, increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. In omnivore populations, the risk of diabetes is doubled compared with vegans. Another study found that eating meat once a week or more over a 17-year period increased the risk of diabetes by a startling 74%. A follow up study was conducted and found that increasing red meat intake by more than just half a serving per day was closely associated with an almost 50% increased risk of contracting diabetes over four years.

Removing animal products and shifting to a diet consisting of whole and minimally processed plant foods can reduce the problems created by type 1 and type 1.5 autoimmune diabetes big time. Although there’s no cure for this type of diabetes, the right diet has plenty of benefits. Cyrus Khambatta, PhDwrites that following a low-fat, whole-foods plant-based lifestyle can:

  • Boost insulin sensitivity and reduce insulin use by more than 40 percent after six months.
  • Lead to more predictable blood glucose, making it easier to manage diabetes.
  • Increase blood flow to tissues in the body and reduce the likelihood of diabetes-related nerve damage.
  • Reduce the burden on the kidneys, decreasing the chances of getting kidney disease.

People have also reversed type 2 diabetes with a plant-based diet and fasting.

For more on that you can refer to the article linked below:

The Complete Guide To Fasting & Reversing Type 2 Diabetes: A Special Interview With Dr. Jason Fung.

Here are some other related articles you might be interested in as well:

9 Things That Happen When You Stop Eating Meat

Internal Medicine Physician Shares What Happens To Your Body When You Stop Eating Meat 

Plant-Based Protein VS. Protein From Meat: Which One Is Better For Your Body

Scientist: Milk From Cows Has “The Most Relevant Carcinogen Ever Identified” & “Turns on Cancer”

Scientist Explains How Cow’s Milk Leeches Calcium From Your Bones & Makes Them Weaker

Studies Show What Happens To Your Heart When You Go Vegan or Vegetarian

The Takeaway

The takeaway here is to recognize that a whole foods, plant-based diet can be life changing. There are a number of studies that have emerged and continue to emerge showing this, while many more show a strong connection between various diseases and eating meat. It makes one ponder, are humans even designed/supposed to eat meat, or has this simply been the tactic of clever marketing by the big food industry? Something to think about.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Awareness

Research Reveals How Sugar CAUSES Cancer

Published

on

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    This article was written by Sayer Ji, Founder of Greenmedinfo.com where it first originally appeared. Posted here with permission.

  • Reflect On:

    The average American consumes their body weight annually in this cancer-causing substance, and yet hospitals freely feed it to their cancer patients, seemingly oblivious to the harm it does.

Hospitals feed cancer patients sugar and high carbohydrate diets for a simple reason: they are abysmally ignorant of the role of nutrition in health and disease — hence their burgeoning growth, packed rooms, and ‘return customers.’

Even though the science itself shows – at least since the mid-20’s with Otto Warburg’s cancer hypothesis — that tumors prefer to utilize sugar fermentation to produce energy rather than the much more efficient oxygen-based phosphorylation* – hospitals have actually invited corporations like McDonald’s to move into their facilities  to ‘enhance’ their patient’s gustatory experience, presumably to provide comfort and take the edge off of the painful surgery, radiation and chemo treatments erroneously proffered to them as the only reasonable ‘standard of care.’

But the times are changing, with new research requiring these medical institutions to reform their dietary strategies, at least if they wish to claim that their interventions are in fact ‘evidence-based,’ as they so often claim.

Study Reveals Sugar Doesn’t Just Feed But Causes Cancer

A groundbreaking study, uncovered by one of our volunteer researchers at Greenmedinfo, is the first of its kind to identify sugar, not only as fuel source for an already existing cancer, but as a primary driver in oncogenesis – i.e. the initiation of cancerous characteristics (phenotype) within previously healthy cells.

Published in the Journal of Clinical Investigation and titled, Increased sugar uptake promotes oncogenesis via EPAC/RAP1 and O-GlcNAc pathways, researchers addressed a common perception (or misperception) in the cancer research community regarding sugar’s relationship to cancer: namely, “increased glycolysis [sugar based metabolism] is frequently viewed as a consequence of oncogenic events that drive malignant cell growth and survival.”

advertisement - learn more

Contrary to this conventional view, the new study “provide[s] evidence that increased glycolytic activation itself can be an oncogenic event.”  That is to say, the activation of sugar-based metabolism in a cell – driven by both the presence of increased quantities of glucose and the increase glucose receptors on the cell membrane surface (i.e. “overexpression of a glucose transporter”) – drives cancer initiation.

Moreover, the study found that “Conversely, forced reduction of glucose uptake by breast cancer cells led to phenotypic reversion.” In other words, interfering with sugar availability and uptake to the cell causes the cancer cell to REGRESS towards its pre-cancer structure-function (phenotype).

What Are The Implications of This Research to the Diet?

What this new research indicates is that sugar – of which Americans consume an astounding 160 lbs annually (imagine: 31 five-pound bags for each of us!) – is one of the primary causes of metabolic cell changes in the body consistent with the initiation and promotion of cancer. And, the research indicates that removing it from the diet, and depriving the cells of it, could REVERSE cancer. Why is this so surprising? It’s because Americans have been lead like lambs to the slaughter to think of “prevention” as “early detection,” focusing not on identifying and removing the well known nutritional and environmental causes of cancer, rather, to spend their time, energy, and money on cause-marketing campaigns focused on “finding a cure” — as if one didn’t already exist right in front of our noses, or more aptly, on the end of our forks.

Hidden Sugar, Crouching Cancer

It has been estimated by the USDA that the average American consumes 200 lbs of grain products annually. Why is this relevant to the question of sugar in the diet? Because refined carbohydrate products – e.g. crackers, bread, pasta, cereal – are actually ‘hidden’ forms of sugar. In fact, puffed rice causes your blood to become sweeter (and presumably feeds more cancer cells sugar) than white sugar, as it is higher on the glycemic index. Adding the two figures together – annual per capita consumption of sugar and grain-based products – we get a jaw dropping 360 lbs of sugar (both overt (table sugar/high fructose corn syrup) and covert (grain carbs) annually – all of which may contribute to promoting the ideal metabolic situation of cancer cells: aerobic glycolysis.

This is one reason why the ketogenic diet – that is, a fat- and protein-focused diet devoid of carbohydrate, both in simple (sugar) and complex (grain product) form – has been found so useful in the most aggressive of cancers: including brain cancer. Once you ‘pull the rug out’ from under the sugar/carb-craving cancer cells, they are forced to either undergo programmed cell death (apoptosis) or re-differentiate back into non-cancerous phenotypes.

If It’s So Bad For Us, Why Do We Eat So Much?

One of the primary reasons why we eat sugar and carbohydrate rich diets is because they are addictive. Within minutes of consuming sugar/carbs our body goes through a neuroendocrine roller coaster. Your brain can not survive very long without glucose, the fundamental energy unit of the cell, and will ‘freak out’ if deprived of a steady stream of this ‘nutrient’ within only 2-3 minutes. The endocrine system, on the other hand, perceives the danger of high sugar – namely, glycation associated damage to protein and lipid structures within the cells of our body; think: blood caramelizing, getting sticky, and gumming up the finely tuned works – and will release hormones such as insulin, adrenaline and cortisol, in order to try to get the elevated sugar in the blood and tissues under control. Insulin forces the sugar into storage within the cell, both as glycogen and as fat, but often does its job too well, causing available glucose levels in the brain to be depleted – setting off a vicious cycle of ’emergency signals’ telling the body to release more cortisol and adrenaline to increase the levels of glucose in the blood. This, of course, will result in additional insulin production and release, causing the same cycle to be repeated over and over again.

This seemingly endless vicious cycle is responsible for the insatiable cravings a high carb/sugar diet generates – not to mention the fructose-based hedonic effects generated in the brain that modulate both opioid and dopamine receptors in the nervous system (not unlike alcohol), and the pharmacologically active peptides in many gluten-containing grains, which also drive addictive behaviors and an almost psychotic fixation on getting carbs at each meal.

No wonder we have an epidemic of cancer in a world where the Westernized diet prevails. Certainly, we do not mean to indicate that a sugar/carb-rich diet is the only cause of cancer. There are many other factors that contribute to cancer initiation and promotion, such as:

  • Chemical exposure
  • Radiation exposure
  • Chronic stress that suppresses the immune system
  • Vaccines containing hidden retroviruses and cancer causing viruses
  • Natural infection with bacteria and viruses that are cancer causing
  • Lack of sleep
  • Insufficient nutrients (lack of methyl donors such as B12, folate, and B6 will prevent the body from ‘turning off’ (methylating) cancer-promoting genes

Even though cancer is a complex, multi-factorial phenomena, with variables we can not always control, one thing we can do is control what goes into our mouth. Sugar, for instance, does not belong there if we truly want to prevent and/or treat cancer.  And don’t forget, carbohydrates that don’t taste sweet on the front end – bread, crackers, cereal – certainly convert to sugar in the body within minutes post-consumption.

In a nutshell, if you are concerned about cancer, have cancer, or would like to prevent recurrence, removing sugar and excess carbohydrates is a must. Not only is it common sense, but it is now validated by experimental research.

Additional Research

Note: another recent study found that Candida albicans (yeast) also contributes to cancer initiation and promotion. C. albicans thrives on sugar, lending additional support to the notion that sugar (consumed excessively) may be a primary driver of the cancer epidemic in those consuming the modern Western diet. For information on sugar alternatives that are not synthetic toxicants like Splenda (sucralose), read my latest article on the topic:  4 Sugar Alternatives That Won’t Poison You.


 *Note: Cancer cells prefer to ferment sugar as a form of energy even when there is sufficient oxygen available to the cells to do so; hence Warburg’s description of cancer metabolism as ‘aerobic glycolysis’ or the so-called ‘Warburg effect’

Originally published: 2017-12-04

Article udpated: 2019-07-19


Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here.


Link to the original article

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading

Alternative News

The Medical Journals’ Sell-Out—Getting Paid to Play

Published

on

[Note: This is Part IX in a series of articles adapted from the second Children’s Health Defense eBook: Conflicts of Interest Undermine Children’s Health. The first eBook, The Sickest Generation: The Facts Behind the Children’s Health Crisis and Why It Needs to End, described how children’s health began to worsen dramatically in the late 1980s following fateful changes in the childhood vaccine schedule.]

The vaccine industry and its government and scientific partners routinely block meaningful science and fabricate misleading studies about vaccines. They could not do so, however, without having enticed medical journals into a mutually beneficial bargain. Pharmaceutical companies supply journals with needed income, and in return, journals play a key role in suppressing studies that raise critical questions about vaccine risks—which would endanger profits.

Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.

An exclusive and dependent relationship

Advertising is one of the most obviously beneficial ways that medical journals’ “exclusive and dependent relationship” with the pharmaceutical industry plays out. According to a 2006 analysis in PLOS Medicinedrugs and medical devices are the only products for which medical journals accept advertisements. Studies show that journal advertising generates “the highest return on investment of all promotional strategies employed by pharmaceutical companies.” The pharmaceutical industry puts a particularly “high value on advertising its products in print journals” because journals reach doctors—the “gatekeeper between drug companies and patients.” Almost nine in ten drug advertising dollars are directed at physicians.

In the U.S. in 2012, drug companies spent $24 billion marketing to physicians, with only $3 billion spent on direct-to-consumer advertising. By 2015, however, consumer-targeted advertising had jumped to $5.2 billion, a 60% increase that has reaped bountiful rewards. In 2015, Pfizer’s Prevnar-13 vaccine was the nation’s eighth most heavily advertised drug; after the launch of the intensive advertising campaign, Prevnar “awareness” increased by over 1,500% in eight months, and “44% of targeted consumers were talking to their physicians about getting vaccinated specifically with Prevnar.” Slick ad campaigns have also helped boost uptake of “unpopular” vaccines like Gardasil.

Advertising is such an established part of journals’ modus operandi that high-end journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) boldly invite medical marketers to “make NEJM the cornerstone of their advertising programs,” promising “no greater assurance that your ad will be seen, read, and acted upon.” In addition, medical journals benefit from pharmaceutical companies’ bulk purchases of thousands of journal reprints and industry’s sponsorship of journal subscriptions and journal supplements.

advertisement - learn more

In 2003, an editor at The BMJ wrote about the numerous ways in which drug company advertising can bias medical journals (and the practice of medicine)—all of which still hold true today. For example:

  • Advertising monies enable prestigious journals to get thousands of copies into doctors’ hands for free, which “almost certainly” goes on to affect prescribing.
  • Journals are willing to accept even the most highly misleading advertisements. The FDA has flagged numerous instances of advertising violations, including ads that overstated a drug’s effectiveness or minimized its risks.
  • Journals will guarantee favorable editorial mentions of a product in order to earn a company’s advertising dollars.
  • Journals can earn substantial fees for publishing supplements even when they are written by “paid industry hacks”—and the more favorable the supplement content is to the company that is funding it, the bigger the profit for the journal.

Discussing clinical trials, the BMJ editor added: “Major trials are very good for journals in that doctors around the world want to see them and so are more likely to subscribe to journals that publish them. Such trials also create lots of publicity, and journals like publicity. Finally, companies purchase large numbers of reprints of these trials…and the profit margin to the publisher is huge. These reprints are then used to market the drugs to doctors, and the journal’s name on the reprint is a vital part of that sell.”

… however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry.

Industry-funded bias

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), nearly three-fourths of all funding for clinical trials in the U.S.—presumably including vaccine trials—came from corporate sponsors as of the early 2000s. The pharmaceutical industry’s funding of studies (and investigators) is a factor that helps determine which studies get published, and where. As a Johns Hopkins University researcher has acknowledged, funding can lead to bias—and while the potential exists for governmental or departmental funding to produce bias, “the worst source of bias is industry-funded.”

In 2009, researchers published a systematic review of several hundred influenza vaccine trials. Noting “growing doubts about the validity of the scientific evidence underpinning [influenza vaccine] policy recommendations,” the authors showed that the vaccine-favorable studies were “of significantly lower methodological quality”; however, even these poor-quality studies—when funded by the pharmaceutical industry—got far more attention than equivalent studies not funded by industry. The authors commented:

[Studies] sponsored by industry had greater visibility as they were more likely to be published by high impact factor journals and were likely to be given higher prominence by the international scientific and lay media, despite their apparent equivalent methodological quality and size compared with studies with other funders.

In their discussion, the authors also described how the industry’s vast resources enable lavish and strategic dissemination of favorable results. For example, companies often distribute “expensively bound” abstracts and reprints (translated into various languages) to “decision makers, their advisors, and local researchers,” while also systematically plugging their studies at symposia and conferences.

The World Health Organization’s standards describe reporting of clinical trial results as a “scientific, ethical, and moral responsibility.” However, it appears that as many as half of all clinical trial results go unreported—particularly when their results are negative. A European official involved in drug assessment has described the problem as “widespread,” citing as an example GSK’s suppression of results from four clinical trials for an anti-anxiety drug when those results showed a possible increased risk of suicide in children and adolescents. Experts warn that “unreported studies leave an incomplete and potentially misleading picture of the risks and benefits of treatments.”

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science.

Debased and biased results

The “significant association between funding sources and pro-industry conclusions” can play out in many different ways, notably through methodological bias and debasement of study designs and analytic strategies. Bias may be present in the form of inadequate sample sizes, short follow-up periods, inappropriate placebos or comparisons, use of improper surrogate endpoints, unsuitable statistical analyses or “misleading presentation of data.”

Occasionally, high-level journal insiders blow the whistle on the corruption of published science. In a widely circulated quote, Dr. Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of NEJM, acknowledged that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines.” Dr. Angell added that she “[took] no pleasure in this conclusion, which [she] reached slowly and reluctantly” over two decades at the prestigious journal.

Many vaccine studies flagrantly illustrate biases and selective reporting that produce skewed write-ups that are more marketing than science. In formulaic articles that medical journals are only too happy to publish, the conclusion is almost always the same, no matter the vaccine: “We did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns.” As an example of the use of inappropriate statistical techniques to exaggerate vaccine benefits, an influenza vaccine study reported a “69% efficacy rate” even though the vaccine failed “nearly all who [took] it.” As explained by Dr. David Brownstein, the study’s authors used a technique called relative risk analysis to derive their 69% statistic because it can make “a poorly performing drug or therapy look better than it actually is.” However, the absolute risk difference between the vaccine and the placebo group was 2.27%, meaning that the vaccine “was nearly 98% ineffective in preventing the flu.”

… the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had ignored important evidence of bias.

Trusted evidence?

In 2018, the Cochrane Collaboration—which bills its systematic reviews as the international gold standard for high-quality, “trusted” evidence—furnished conclusions about the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine that clearly signaled industry bias. In May of that year, Cochrane’s highly favorable review improbably declared the vaccine to have no increased risk of serious adverse effects and judged deaths observed in HPV studies “not to be related to the vaccine.” Cochrane claims to be free of conflicts of interest, but its roster of funders includes national governmental bodies and international organizations pushing for HPV vaccine mandates as well as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation—both of which are staunch funders and supporters of HPV vaccination. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s president is a former top CDC official who served as acting CDC director during the H1N1 “false pandemic” in 2009 that ensured millions in windfall profits for vaccine manufacturers.

Two months after publication of Cochrane’s HPV review, researchers affiliated with the Nordic Cochrane Centre (one of Cochrane’s member centers) published an exhaustive critique, declaring that the reviewers had done an incomplete job and had “ignored important evidence of bias.” The critics itemized numerous methodological and ethical missteps on the part of the Cochrane reviewers, including failure to count nearly half of the eligible HPV vaccine trials, incomplete assessment of serious and systemic adverse events and failure to note that many of the reviewed studies were industry-funded. They also upbraided the Cochrane reviewers for not paying attention to key design flaws in the original clinical trials, including the failure to use true placebos and the use of surrogate outcomes for cervical cancer.

In response to the criticisms, the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library initially stated that a team of editors would investigate the claims “as a matter of urgency.” Instead, however, Cochrane’s Governing Board quickly expelled one of the critique’s authors, Danish physician-researcher Peter Gøtzsche, who helped found Cochrane and was the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Gøtzsche has been a vocal critic of Cochrane’s “increasingly commercial business model,” which he suggests is resulting in “stronger and stronger resistance to say anything that could bother pharmaceutical industry interests.” Adding insult to injury, Gøtzsche’s direct employer, the Rigshospitalet hospital in Denmark, then fired Gøtzsche. In response, Dr. Gøtzsche stated, “Firing me sends the unfortunate signal that if your research results are inconvenient and cause public turmoil, or threaten the pharmaceutical industry’s earnings, …you will be sacked.” In March 2019, Gøtzsche launched an independent Institute for Scientific Freedom.

In 2019, the editor-in-chief and research editor of BMJ Evidence Based Medicine—the journal that published the critique of Cochrane’s biased review—jointly defended the critique as having “provoke[d] healthy debate and pose[d] important questions,” affirming the value of publishing articles that “hold organisations to account.” They added that “Academic freedom means communicating ideas, facts and criticism without being censored, targeted or reprimanded” and urged publishers not to “shrink from offering criticisms that may be considered inconvenient.”

In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists.

The censorship tsunami

Another favored tactic is to keep vaccine-critical studies out of medical journals altogether, either by refusing to publish them (even if peer reviewers recommend their publication) or by concocting excuses to pull articles after publication. In recent years, a number of journals have invented bogus excuses to withdraw or retract articles critical of risky vaccine ingredients, even when written by top international scientists. To cite just three examples:

  • The journal Vaccine withdrew a study that questioned the safety of the aluminum adjuvantused in Gardasil.
  • The journal Science and Engineering Ethics retracted an article that made a case for greater transparency regarding the link between mercury and autism.
  • Pharmacological Research withdrew a published veterinary article that implicated aluminum-containing vaccines in a mystery illness decimating sheep, citing “concerns” from an anonymous reader.

Elsevier, which publishes two of these journals, has a track record of setting up fake journals to market Merck’s drugs, and Springer, which publishes the third journal as well as influential publications like Nature and Scientific American, has been only too willing to accommodate censorship requests. However, even these forms of censorship may soon seem quaint in comparison to the censorship of vaccine-critical information now being implemented across social media and other platforms. This concerted campaign to prevent dissemination of vaccine content that does not toe the party line will make it harder than ever for American families to do their due diligence with regard to vaccine risks and benefits.


Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.

You Can Help Stop The 5G Infrastructure

We plan to investigate the telecom industry, it’s ties to politics, and expose its efforts to push 5G while ignoring the dangers and without proper safety testing, but we can't do it without your support.

We've launched a funding campaign to fuel our efforts on this matter as we are confident we can make a difference and have a strong plan to get it done.

Check out our plan and join our campaign here.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Pod