Melanoma, newly diagnosed in more than 76,000 Americans in 2011, is the most common and dangerous form of skin cancer. Melanoma is rare in children, accounting for 1 to 4 percent of all melanoma cases and just 3 percent of pediatric cancers. Just as adult cases of melanoma are increasing, pediatric melanoma is rising at the rate of 1 to 4 percent per year.
The physicians and staff at Moffitt Cancer Center have a special interest in melanoma and related conditions occurring in childhood, and recently published results of their experience with cases of pathologically confirmed childhood melanoma. They found evidence that the disease manifests differently in children than in adults, particularly with regard to the likelihood and significance of lymph node metastases. Metastases to the lymph nodes, particularly the sentinel nodes, were found more frequently in children with melanoma than would be expected in adults with the same stage of disease, yet with aggressive surgical and medical treatment, stage-for-stage the survival in children was better than expected for adults.
The study is published in the August issue of the Annals of Surgical Oncology.
Health & Wellness
© Ellen Weinstein
But instead of a learning from a broad national inquiry into a troubling trend, scientists said they were stymied by a lack of the most basic element of research: solid data.
Eighty percent of the antibiotics sold in the United States goes to chicken, pigs, cows and other animals that people eat, yet producers of meat and poultry are not required to report how they use the drugs - which ones, on what types of animal, and in what quantities. This dearth of information makes it difficult to document the precise relationship between routine antibiotic use in animals and antibiotic-resistant infections in people, scientists say.
© grist.com
The natural label's takeover is not just anecdotal. In 2008, Mintel's Global New Products Database found that "all-natural" was the second most used claim on new American food products. And a recent study by the Shelton Group [PDF], an advertising company focusing on sustainability, found that it's also the most popular. When asked, "Which is the best description to read on a food label?" 25 percent of consumers answered, "100 percent natural."
So what does natural mean? Well, that depends on who you're asking. A salesperson in the meat department at Shoprite in Chester, N.Y., told me that Tyson's all natural chicken is "basically the same thing" as organic. At General Mills, 100 percent natural means "that all ingredients used are from a natural source and a natural process," though when I asked for clarification on what counts as a "natural process," the customer service agent was out of answers.
© Prevent Disease.com
Since the introduction of GM crops, the US has seen herbicide use increase by over 300 million pounds. Big Biotech originally claimed that weeds would not develop resistance to glyphosate (RoundUp), but they have and these new "superweeds" have become the driving force behind new crops engineered for stacked, or multiple, herbicide tolerances. Adoption of these new crops will lead to dramatic increases in the use of higher risk herbicides perpetuating the herbicide treadmill that is already in place.
1. Glyphosate (herbicide) Tolerant Soybeans
- Bayer's petition to force its new controversial herbicide (isoxaflutole) tolerant soy on the market conceals crucial information on potential allergenicity and toxicity that came to light when EU experts examined the GMO soybean.
- BASF's petition
- Dow AgroSciences' petition
2. Glyphosate (herbicide) Tolerant Canola
- Monsanto's petition
- Pioneer's petition
3. Glyphosate (herbicide) Tolerant Corn
- Genective's petition
4. Hybrid Corn
- Monsanto's petition
- Four of the nine are genetically engineered with a soil bacteria that keeps them alive even when they're sprayed with massive doses of the herbicide glyphosate (Monsanto's RoundUp). More of these so-called "RoundUp Ready" crops mean more RoundUp sprayed on our food. This is horrible because Monsanto's RoundUp causes birth defects. Instead of "RoundUp Ready" we should call these GMOs "Birth-Defect Ready"!
According to a report published by Earth Open Source, industry's own studies -- including one commissioned by Monsanto -- showed as long ago as the 1980's that RoundUp's active ingredient, glyphosate, causes birth defects in laboratory animals.
© Sharon DeWitte
Skeletal marker: Linear enamel hypoplasia.
Skeletal marker: Linear enamel hypoplasia.
"Heavy means you know you have a relatively complete skeleton," said DeWitte, an anthropologist at the University of South Carolina who has spent summers examining hundreds of Medieval skeletons, each time shedding new light on the dark subject of the Black Death.
Since 2003, DeWitte has been studying the medieval mass killer that wiped out 30 percent of Europeans and nearly half of Londoners from 1347-1351. She is among a small group of scientists devoted to decoding the ancient plague and the person researchers turn to for providing evidence from skeletal remains.
Her findings may provide clues about the effects of disease on human evolution.
"It can tell us something about the nature of human variation today and whether there is an artifact of diseases we have faced in the past. Knowing how strongly these diseases can actually shape human biology can give us tools to work with in the future to understand disease and how it might affect us," she said.
Having previously analyzed more than 600 skeletons of people who died during and after the Black Death, DeWitte turned her attention this summer to studying the remains of some 300 people who lived in the 11th and 12th centuries before the Black Death. Comparing the life span of people who lived before and after the blight, she expected to see a post-Black Death population that lived longer. The more complete the skeletons she studies, the more information she has about the people and their health at the time they died.
© Unknown
Paul Offit believes that exempting your child from vaccination is morally reprehensible. He considers himself an authority on autism, all infectious diseases, morality, history, every religious system, and infant immunology. You may also recognize Dr Offit as the one who says that all vaccines are perfectly safe and infants can tolerate theoretically 10,000 of them at once:
"A more practical way to determine the diversity of the immune response would be to estimate the number of vaccines to which a child could respond at one time... each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10, 000 vaccines at any one time." [1]The status accorded to him by the pharmaceutical and medical fields permits him to influence the opinions and practice of lower rung physicians regarding vaccine exemptions. Unfortunately, even doctors will simply believe the "expert"[2] without bothering to go and check their own medical literature, to see if the self-proclaimed expertise has a solid scientific foundation. Research shows that when people listen to the expert, the part of their brains that is capable of independent thought goes to sleep.[3]
Anti-organic "study" is not news, rather, coordinated propaganda campaign.
Harry Wallop of the London Telegraph ends his anti-organic food editorial with the following sentence: "Tomorrow, the baby is going to get an extra dollop of pesticide-sprayed carrots."
Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph's readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford "study" regarding organic food.
Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.
The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.
A Flawed "Study"
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
© Unknown
Whether or not Wallop is as brain-addled as he leads on to being, the point of his editorial is to encourage similar attitudes amongst the Telegraph's readership, attempting to manipulate public perception in the wake of a recent Stanford "study" regarding organic food.
Whether or not readers of the Telegraph will put their own health and that of their children at risk for the sake of protecting big-agri's bottom line and the faltering paradigm that big-agri products are safe for human consumption simply because Harry Wallop thinks its good to feed his baby with pesticide-sprayed carrots remains to be seen.
The London Telegraph, when not fabricating news to support England's latest imperial adventures overseas, is at the forefront of many of the largest corporate-financier funded lobbying campaigns. Recently, someone has splurged, and splurged big on anti-organic food lobbying built atop a suspect Stanford study.
A Flawed "Study"
When entire news cycles are dominated by headlines built on a single university study, with editorials attempting to hammer in big-agri talking points, a lobbying effort is clearly afoot.
© Natural Society
© Indiana Public Media/Flickr
"Stanford Scientists Cast Doubt on Advantages of Organic Meat and Produce," declared a New York Times headline. "Organic food hardly healthier, study suggests," announced CBS News. "Is organic healthier? Study says not so much, but it's key reason consumers buy," the Washington Post grumbled.
In reality, though, the study in some places makes a strong case for organic - though you'd barely know it from the language the authors use. And in places where it finds organic wanting, key information gets left out.
© Natural Society
In a newly-released study conducted at the Örebro Hospita in Sweden, it was revealed that 10 years of cellphone use resulted in an average 290% increased risk of brain tumor development. Interestingly, the tumor development was found on the side of the head in which the cellphone was most used.
It's important to understand that cellphone use has gone up significantly since 10 years ago, meaning that more recent results may show an even higher risk. Statistically, the average person in Britain and many other developed nations will soon have about 2 cellphones each. With the increased number of cellphones on the citizens of the world comes something known as 'second-hand cellphone use'. Just as with smoking, sitting in a bus, airplane, or train will expose you to upwards of several hundred cellphones at one time.
Another key factor is that 10 years ago far less young children were using cellphones - a select few having them as 'emergency' contact devices. Now, it's not uncommon to see children under 10 chatting or texting on their cellphone throughout the day.
It is a well known fact that developing children are more affected by cellphone radiation, with behavioral disorders known to develop from cellphone use at an early age. It is also known that cellphone radiation is actually changing the brain in ways that are not currently understood.
Comment: Read the articles below to learn more about how Many 'All Natural' Foods Are Actually Heavily Processed:
What's Really Behind the Ingredients in 'Natural Flavors?'
Many 'Natural' Foods are Loaded with GMOs
Most "Natural" Cereals Likely to Contain GMOs
The Soy and Other 'Natural' Food Products in Your Cabinet May Contain a Dangerous Neurotoxin