Friday, January 2, 2015

Cancer Lies

Cancer fundamentally involves mutations in DNA. Cancer rates are growing globally. Cancer rates are growing because our environment is becoming more genotoxic.

For years our medical authorities have blamed cancer on hereditary and lifestyle choices, such as smoking. These factors do indeed help predict the likelihood of an individual getting cancer, particularly smoking. Smoking is an environmental cause of cancer over which we have some control.

However, most environmental causes of cancer are hard to control because they derive from genotoxins in our air, food, water, cosmetics, etc.

However, our health authorities want us to concentrate only on those environmental factors we do have control over and they attempt to deflect our attention from ubiquitous and growing levels of genotoxins in our environment.

The Wall Street Journal illustrates this type of subterfuge in an article describing a study that blamed "stochastic mutations" for the majority of cancer cases while describing those stochastic mutations as purely random:
Whalen, Jeanne (2015, January 1) Besides Lifestyle and Inherited Genes, Cancer Risk Also Tied to Bad Luck: Researchers Point to Mutations That Crop Up When Cells Divide Over Lifetime. The Wall Street Journal,

Poor lifestyle choices and inherited genes are known to raise a person’s risk of developing cancer. But new research concludes that the majority of our risk across cancer types is due to another factor: bad luck when our cells divide.

The analysis, published in the journal Science, says genetic mutations that randomly crop up as our stem cells divide are “the major contributors to cancer overall, often more important than either hereditary or external environmental factors.”

The researchers, from the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, analyzed published scientific papers to identify the number of stem cells, and the rate of stem-cell division, among 31 tissue types, though not for breast and prostate tissue, which they excluded from the analysis. Then they compared the total number of lifetime stem-cell divisions in each tissue against a person’s lifetime risk of developing cancer in that tissue in the U.S.

The correlation between these parameters suggests that two-thirds of the difference in cancer risk among various tissue types can be blamed on random, or “stochastic,” mutations in DNA occurring during stem-cell division, and only one-third on hereditary or environmental factors like smoking, the researchers conclude. “Thus, the stochastic effects of DNA replication appear to be the major contributor to cancer in humans,” they wrote.
The researchers have represented stochastic mutations as purely RANDOM, but that is NOT TRUE.

Indeed, exposure to IONIZING RADIATION is a MAJOR cause of stochastic mutations, among other genotoxins, as illustrated by this account produced by the US EPA:
EPA Stochastic Health Effects  
Stochastic effects are associated with long-term, low-level (chronic) exposure to radiation. ("Stochastic" refers to the likelihood that something will happen.) Increased levels of exposure make these health effects more likely to occur, but do not influence the type or severity of the effect.

Cancer is considered by most people the primary health effect from radiation exposure. Simply put, cancer is the uncontrolled growth of cells. Ordinarily, natural processes control the rate at which cells grow and replace themselves. They also control the body's processes for repairing or replacing damaged tissue. Damage occurring at the cellular or molecular level, can disrupt the control processes, permitting the uncontrolled growth of cells cancer This is why ionizing radiation's ability to break chemical bonds in atoms and molecules makes it such a potent carcinogen.

Other stochastic effects also occur. Radiation can cause changes in DNA, the "blueprints" that ensure cell repair and replacement produces a perfect copy of the original cell. Changes in DNA are called mutations.

Sometimes the body fails to repair these mutations or even creates mutations during repair. The mutations can be teratogenic or genetic. Teratogenic mutations are caused by exposure of the fetus in the uterus and affect only the individual who was exposed. Genetic mutations are passed on to offspring.
Non-Stochastic Health Effects
Non-stochastic effects appear in cases of exposure to high levels of radiation, and become more severe as the exposure increases. Short-term, high-level exposure is referred to as 'acute' exposure.
Majia here: The EPA account clearly explains that radiation CAUSES stochastic effects, as do other mutagens.  Yet, the Wall Street Journal account would have us believe that cancer is caused only by RANDOM health effects.

However, in truth radiation and other ENVIRONMENTAL GENOTOXINS cause, or perhaps I should say, increase probability of [stochastic] mutations.

I need to investigate the original study to see who funded the study and how they represented their results. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that the Wall Street Journal article is a propaganda piece.

Individual monitoring data and EPA Radnet data demonstrate that radiation levels in the US have increased since Fukushima. Our environment is becoming much more radioactive and genotoxic because of our disregard for protecting biological life.

Our so called leaders would prefer to obscure our understanding rather than confront the human-engineered toxins and polluters that threaten our genomic integrity.

READERS of The Wall Street Journal article came to the same conclusion I did, as demonstrated by this comment:

The conclusion; that mutations are the result of statistical chance,
is illogical.

All events in the universe are caused, and therefore, not a matter
of chance.

  This is the fundamental presumption of all science.

People who do not eat meat have less chance of ALL CANCERS.
   This simple fact invalidates the statistical argument for the
cause of mutations  being "chance."

    The concept of "chance" or "probability" is primitive and goes
back to the days when scientists who did not the cause of an
event,  ascribed the cause to "Chance," in effect, admitting their

This is terrible science.  Just because an equation includes a large stochastic variable does not mean it's "bad luck".  It simply means the other variables don't do a great job of predicting the outcome and that more investigation needs to be done to find factors with higher correlations.

I cannot believe Johns Hopkins would publish such an abomination.  Perhaps the authors no longer desire research funds?


  1. "Catastrophe at Ukraine’s Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant?"

    "Torbayevsky- Vacheslav Alexaivich! Do you understand we can no longer keep silent? This is a catastrophe! Here in a 100 kilometer radius, nothing will be left alive! Fucking sky is already glowing! (inside joke about radiation)."

    If true then the next Chernobyl has arrived or several perhaps. And the USA can take a good deal of the blame.

  2. Most AMA doctors go by the "GOD only knows" what causes cancer. So they try to kill tumors and such and if in remmision for a period of time they declare you cured. Also the average doctor makes around 5 thousand dollars for a round of chemo and radiation treatments and that is just the payment from the drug supplyers . Got cancer, get hemp oil, it truly works! Check out rick simpsons youtube vids on hemp oil !!!!