September 03 2009
A collaborative team of international EMF activists has released a report detailing eleven design flaws of the 13-country, Telecom-funded Interphone study.
The exposé discusses research on cell phones and brain tumors, concluding that:
- There is a risk of brain tumors from cell phone use
- Telecom funded studies underestimate the risk of brain tumors
- Children have larger risks than adults for brain tumors
The Interphone study, begun in 1999, was intended to determine the risks of brain tumors, but its full publication has been held up for years. Components of this study published to date reveal what the authors call a 'systemic-skew', greatly underestimating brain tumor risk.
The design flaws include categorizing subjects who used portable phones (which emit the same microwave radiation as cell phones,) as 'unexposed'; exclusion of many types of brain tumors; exclusion of people who had died, or were too ill to be interviewed as a consequence of their brain tumor; and exclusion of children and young adults, who are more vulnerable.
Ronald B. Herberman, MD, Director Emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute has stated,
"Based on substantial evidence, especially from industry-independent studies that long term exposure to radiofrequency radiation may lead to increased risk for brain tumors, I issued a precautionary advisory last year to faculty and staff of the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute.
Since then, my particular concern about exposure of children to radiofrequency has been supported by a report from Dr. Lennart Hardell. Some of my scientific colleagues have expressed skepticism about the reported biological effects, especially DNA0A damage by radiofequency radiation, because of the absence of a demonstrated underlying molecular mechanism.
However, based on the precautionary principle, I believe it is more prudent to take seriously the reports by multiple investigators that radiofrequency can damage DNA and increase the risk for brain tumors, and for industry-independent agencies to provide needed funding for detailed research to ascertain the molecular basis for such effects."
Lloyd Morgan, lead author 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."
Sources:
RadiationResearch.org August 25, 2009 [Free Full-Text Report]
Dr. Mercola's Comments: After a break in the media about the dangers of cell phones, the issue will likely regain momentum with the release of this brand new report.
An International Expert Conference on Cell Phones and Health is scheduled to take place on September 13-15 in Washington D.C., and a yet to be formally announced Senate hearing on cell phone safety is also in the works by Senator Arlen Specter, according to Microwave News.
With the ever-increasing, widespread use of wireless communications, it is imperative to understand the risks inherent in the use of the technology, yet the government has been very slow to respond, no doubt in large part due to industry pressure. (In fact, the cell phone industry is expected to boycott the upcoming conference.)
Ever growing scientific research corroborates the suspicion that information-carrying radio waves transmitted by cell phones and other wireless devices can:
A quote from Chris Woollams, one of the endorsers of the new report, sums up the issue well:
"In a world where a drug cannot be launched without proof that it is safe, where the use of herbs and natural compounds available to all since early Egyptian times are now questioned, their safety subjected to the deepest scrutiny, where a new food cannot be launched without prior approval, the idea that we use mobile telephony, including masts, and introduce WiFi and mobile phones without restrictions around our 5 year olds is double-standards gone mad.
I speak, not just as an editor and scientist that has looked in depth at all the research, but as a father that lost his beloved daughter to a brain tumor."
Researchers Keep Finding Links Between Cell Phone Use, Brain Damage and Cancer
Last year, a well-circulated Swedish study found that people using cell phones doubled their risk of developing brain cancer and acoustic neuroma (a tumor that damages your hearing nerve).
The study also showed that people who started using cell phones before the age of 20 were more than five times as likely to develop brain cancer.
The European Parliament responded by voting 522 to 16 to urge ministers across Europe to impose stricter limits for exposure to radiation from mobile and cordless phones, wi-fi and other radiation-generating devices -- in part because children are particularly vulnerable to the risk.
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, M.D., the Speaker for Environmental Medicine for the Austrian Medical Association in Vienna, Austria says:
"The scientific data show, with a high degree of confidence, that mobile phone exposure is associated with an increased brain tumor risk.
The age group below 20 years is facing the greatest risk, which for malignant (deadly) brain tumors is about 400 percent, compared to non-exposed.
When we take the long latency period of up to some decades into account, and the fact that large parts of our society, and especially more and more teenagers and even children are using mobile phones on a daily basis, we may well expect a brain tumor epidemic.
From a public health perspective there is an urgent need not only for a wake-up call for our society, but for measures that are able to combat this public health threat effectively, now."
The cell phone industry's standard comment has been that "the peer-reviewed scientific evidence has overwhelmingly indicated that wireless devices do not pose a public health risk."
This report exposes that statement for the lie that it is.
In fact, there's no shortage of evidence showing that cell phone use (and other wireless devices) can be dangerous to your health, and to your child in particular.
As this new report points out, even some of the industry's own research found that cell phones caused brain tumors, and subsequent industry-funded studies from 2000 to 2002 also showed an elevated risk of brain cancer.
One such study reportedly found a 20 percent increased risk of brain tumor for every year of cell phone use!
And, if you remove the Telecom industry funded research, then the weight of the evidence overwhelmingly shows that cell phones cause health problems, including, but not limited to:
Fortunately more and more people are beginning to take the warning signs seriously.
In 2005, the British-based National Radiological Protection Board suggested children younger than age 8 should not be given a cell phone as it risks exposing their young bodies to harmful radiation. Last year Toronto's department of public health followed suit, warning that because of possible side effects from radio frequency radiation, children under 8 should only use a cell phone in emergencies, and teenagers should limit calls to less than 10 minutes.
The U.K., Belgium, Germany, France and Russia have also introduced precautionary policies regarding cell phone usage due to potential health risks.Few people realize this, but brain cancer has surpassed leukemia as the number one cancer killer in children, and many scientists believe this is directly linked to the exponential increase in cell phone use and other wireless devices.
Australia has seen an increase in pediatric brain cancers of 21 percent in just one decade. This is consistent with studies showing a 40 percent brain tumor increase across the board in Europe and the U.K. over the last 20 years.
These statistics are consistent with many of the scientific research findings.
Another example is the 2003 study published in Environmental Health Perspectives (the journal of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). They found that rats exhibited serious neuronal brain damage following exposure to radiation from a cell phone, at levels comparable to what you would experience during normal use.
The nerve cell damage was observed in several places within the rats' brains, including the cortex, hippocampus and basal ganglia.
The authors concluded,
"Intense use of mobile phones by youngsters is a serious consideration. A neuronal damage of the kind described here may not have immediate, demonstrable consequences, even if repeated. In the long run, however, it may result in reduced brain reserve capacity that might be unveiled by other later neuronal disease or even the wear and tear of aging."
What Can You Do?
Remember, the damage from cell phone exposure can take many years to surface. There are rarely any initial symptoms, just like smoking and lung cancer. Are you really willing to risk the chance of developing brain cancer because you don't want to sacrifice the minor inconvenience of using your cell's speaker phone, or using a safe headset?
This should be of particular concern if you have children, since, just like smoking, WiFi does not discriminate between user and bystander.
I have written more in-depth about how to reduce the risk to your child before, and as a refresher, I strongly urge you to review some of that information now.
For a review of HOW cell phones and other wireless technology can cause the type of damage just discussed, I recommend reading this previous article.
In addition, the eye-opening DVD Public Exposure covers this serious health issue in even greater depth. But for immediate recommendations on how to protect yourself and your family from the dangers of cell phone radiation, please review the guidelines included in my previous article, Now Half the World Has a Cell Phone - - Why That is a Brain Tumor Epidemic Waiting to Happen.
Related Links:-------------------------------------------------------------------------WHO Admits to Releasing Pandemic Virus into Population via 'Mock-Up' VaccinesPosted by: Dr. Mercola
September 03 2009The document on the WHO website linked below states that it is common procedure to release pandemic viruses into the population in order to get a jump ahead of the real pandemic, so as to fast track the vaccine for when it is needed.In Europe, some manufacturers have conducted advance studies using a so-called "mock-up" vaccine. Mock-up vaccines contain an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations and thus mimics the novelty of a pandemic virus.
According to the website, "Such advance studies can greatly expedite regulatory approval."
Sources:
Dr. Mercola's Comments: On June 11 the World Health Organization (WHO) raised its swine flu pandemic alert from a 5 to a 6. Phase 6 is the highest level alert, and reflects the speed with which a virus is spreading -- not its severity.
This classification also allows for a vaccine to qualify for a "fast-track" procedure for licensing and approval, and this process is now ongoing for the swine flu vaccine.
What you may not know, however, is that WHO, together with health officials, regulatory authorities and vaccine manufacturers, have been working since 2007 – long before this new "threat" of swine flu emerged – to "explore a broad range of issues surrounding the regulatory approval of pandemic vaccines."
According to the WHO website:
"Ways were sought to shorten the time between the emergence of a pandemic virus and the availability of safe and effective vaccines."
One such method used in Europe is to conduct advance studies using a "mock-up" vaccine that contains an active ingredient for an influenza virus that has not circulated recently in human populations.
When testing these mock-up vaccines, it is very possible to release the novel influenza virus into the population, as its purpose is to "mimic the novelty of a pandemic virus" and "greatly expedite regulatory approval."
Government officials have other tricks up their sleeves to ensure these new, barely tested vaccines easily make it to market as well, such as:
Labeling the vaccine a "strain change" rather than an entirely "new" vaccine. This method states the new vaccine has built on technology used to produce vaccines for seasonal influenza, and the change for the pandemic vaccine is similar to a strain change used to produce a new seasonal vaccine each flu season.
In the United States, vaccine manufacturers are required to submit fewer data if they already have a licensed flu vaccine and will use the same manufacturing process for the pandemic vaccine.
Using a "rolling review procedure." This allows manufacturers to submit sets of data for regulatory review "as they become available." In other words, they're free to distribute the vaccine and then submit the safety data later on.
Would You Want a Fast-Tracked Vaccine Injected Into Your Body?
By very definition, fast-tracked vaccines are those that have received very little safety testing prior to being used. So any time you agree to get one, you are essentially a guinea pig.
Vaccine manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline has actually stated:
"Clinical trials will be limited, due to the need to provide the vaccine to governments as quickly as possible. Additional studies will therefore be required and conducted after the vaccine is made available."
And WHO likewise says:
"Time constraints mean that clinical data at the time when pandemic vaccines are first administered will inevitably be limited. Further testing of safety and effectiveness will need to take place after administration of the vaccine has begun."
Why would anyone who knows the facts sign up for a vaccine that really needs further safety studies … but won't receive them until AFTER it's already been given out? By then it will be too late.
So please realize that if you or your child receive a swine flu vaccine, you will be acting as a TEST subject.
Remember this vaccine will not be made using the methods of the past. In order to speed up the cultivation of the virus and the manufacturing process, they're using human liver cells instead of chicken eggs. Whether this new procedure is better or worse than the old method, I can't say … but it's never been used before and they have not had time to conduct any human testing.
So, it's a giant game of Russian Roulette that you simply want to avoid.
Nearly all of the vaccines created will also include thimerosal (mercury), and the toxic adjuvant squalene, both of which have been clearly shown to carry significant health risks.
You should know, too, that vaccine makers and federal officials have been rendered immune from lawsuits. Should anything go wrong with this current vaccine they will not have to pay a single cent to anyone!
Who Stands to Benefit From the Swine Flu Pandemic (and Future Pandemics)?
This is the question you need to ask yourself when you hear the media dishing out the latest statistics about the swine flu pandemic.
In the last few days alone, I've seen major news outlets warning that come flu season, the swine flu could kill 90,000 Americans and hospitalize 2 million. This sounds a lot like the fear-mongering that went on during the Bird Flu pandemic (that never materialized) back in 2005.
Back then scientists and governments were congratulating themselves for averting a threat that never was by stockpiling worthless vaccines. Now I'm having déjà vu.
In response to this newest swine flu pandemic, what did the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently suggest?
Swine flu shots for all! Of course, what else would you expect?
As the Washington Post reported, CDC said: "As soon as a vaccine is available, try to get it for everyone in your family."
Well, you might be tempted to do just that if you believe the sensational number of swine flu deaths they're predicting. But, really, these numbers are not based on facts.
WHO continues to define the severity of the H1N1 virus to be moderate, generally defined as an illness requiring neither hospitalization nor even medical care. Most cases are having MILD symptoms that clear up on their own.
Further, no one really knows for sure just how many cases of swine flu there are, because some countries are no longer confirming them by lab.
In the UK, for example, they now appear to be collecting swine flu data online and via the phone, based on nothing but self-assessment.
So did they really contract the swine flu?
Or did the vast majority of them simply have a case of the sniffles or a seasonal flu bug? Without laboratory confirmation, no one will ever know, but they sure are using those numbers to scare you!
Going back to my original question though, you must ask yourself who stands to benefit from all of this paranoia and hysteria.
Of course you know the answer to this one.
Big Pharma … which stands to gain up to $49 billion a year on the swine flu vaccine alone plus an infinite amount on top of that for future pandemic vaccines.
The vaccine manufacturers would love for every man, woman, and child to heed the CDC's advice to get vaccinated. But now you know better.
The swine flu is typically a mild illness.
The swine flu vaccine has not been tested for safety or efficacy, but we DO know it will contain harmful additives.
The choice, to me, is obvious. And in the future, anytime a new "pandemic" appears and officials urge you to rush out and get a shot, please remember this article and ask yourself if it's really you who stands to benefit from their advice.
Editors note - Depression is a known symptom of exposure to electro magnetic fields. From my own experience, my health changed dramatically within days of leaving my home which had high electrical and electro magnetic fields. Although I did not realise it at the time, I had been suffering depression. It disappeared when I moved away from the electro magnetic pollution, to an environment that was 'electro clean'.I find it shocking that the World Health Organization recognises that a depression crisis is occurring, knows that electro magnetic radiation causes depression (and so many other illnesses), yet still endorses dangerous wireless use and exposure to strong sources of electro magnetic radiation, by the world population.It makes me wonder whether the WHO should be changing their name to the World Sickness and Death Organization? They certainly do not seem to be looking after the health of the world population!Martin Weatherall-------------------------------------Depression looms as global crisisThe World Health Organization predicts that within 20 years more people will be affected by depression than any other health problem.
According to the WHO, depression will be the biggest health burden on society both economically and sociologically.
Yet, it says most developing countries spend less than 2% of their national budgets on mental healthcare.
The warning comes as the first Global Mental Health Summit starts in Athens, Greece.
" In 2030 this will be the single biggest cause for burden out of all health conditions "
Dr Shekhar Saxena, WHOWHO figures reveal that currently, over 450 million people are directly affected by mental disorders or disabilities, most of whom live in developing countries.
The five-day summit in Athens will provide the opportunity to address what the organisers are calling a crisis in global mental healthcare.
"WHO figures clearly show that the burden because of depression is likely to increase - so much so that in 2030 this will be the single biggest cause for burden out of all health conditions," Dr Shekhar Saxena of the Department of Mental Health at the WHO, told the BBC World Service.
The scientific concept of "burden" is the measure of years lost of life, due to early death or severe disability brought on by a certain illness, in this case depression.
Silent epidemic
Dr Saxena says depression is much more common than some other diseases that are more widely feared such as HIV-Aids or cancer.
"One could call it a silent epidemic because depression is more often being recognised, but it has been there throughout and is likely to increase in terms of proportion when other diseases are actually going down."
The increasing burden will be a particular problem for developing countries because they have fewer resources to allocate to mental health.
THE SILENT EPIDEMICAbout half of mental disorders begin before the age of 14 "We have figures to show that poorer countries have actually more depression compared to richer countries and even poor people in rich countries have a high incidence of depression compared to the richer people in the same countries," says Dr Saxena.
Yet high-income countries allocate 200 times more resources to mental health than low-income ones.
It accounts not only for a significant proportion of government spending in developed countries, it also makes a impact on their GDP as well.
Professor Martin Prince, professor of epidemiological psychiatry at King's College, London has tried to calculate in financial terms how much of a burden a depressed person can become.
"Part of this is through lost productivity because people with serious depression are much less likely to be employed and to stay employed. Then there's the cost to society of providing, for example, incapacity and unemployment benefits, particularly in rich developed countries," he says.
"These costs combined amount in the UK, it's estimated, to about £12bn ($19bn) per year or around 1% of the gross national product, so these are absolutely enormous sums."
With the expectation that the burden from mental illness is going up and will continue to increase in coming years, Dr Saxena says societal attitudes towards mental illness need to change.
"Depression is as much of a disease as any other physical disease that people suffer from and they have a right to get correct advice and treatment with in the same health care settings which look after other health conditions."
