Friday, June 29, 2012

Links to a bunch of studies on vaccine damage

Links to a bunch of studies on vaccine damage
Statistics/claims to National Vaccine Compensation program. Number of claimed, number paid and number dismissed.
Aluminum hydroxide injections lead to motor deficits and motor neuron degeneration
Aluminum Adjuvant in Vaccines: A Smoking Gun Autism Link?
Aluminum vaccine adjuvants: are they safe?
Mechanisms of aluminum adjuvant toxicity and autoimmunity in pediatric populations
Vaccines and autism: a new scientific review
Abnormal measles-mumps-rubella antibodies and CNS autoimmunity in children with autism.
Hypothesis: conjugate vaccines may predispose children to autism spectrum disorders.
Hepatitis B vaccination of male neonates and autism diagnosis, NHIS 1997-2002.
Journal of Toxicology and Environmental Health, Part A, 73:1665–1677, 2010
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1528-7394 print / 1087-2620 online
DOI: 10.1080/15287394.2010.519317
NHIS 1997–2002
Administration of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate and aspartate in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate.
How Mercury Destroys the Brain - University of Calgary
Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines.
Maternal Thimerosal Exposure Results in Aberrant Cerebellar Oxidative Stress, Thyroid Hormone Metabolism, and Motor Behavior in Rat Pups; Sex- and Strain-Dependent Effects.
Neonatal administration of thimerosal causes persistent changes in mu opioid receptors in the rat brain.
Persistent behavioral impairments and alterations of brain dopamine system after early postnatal administration of thimerosal in rats.
Thimerosal induces micronuclei in the cytochalasin B block micronucleus test with human lymphocytes

Thimerasol studies
“The present study provides additional epidemiological evidence supporting previous epidemiological, clinical and experimental evidence that administration of thimerosal-containing vaccines in the United States resulted in a significant number of children developing NDs.”
“These data document that exposure to thimerosal during early postnatal life produces lasting alterations in the densities of brain opioid receptors along with other neuropathological changes, which may disturb brain development.”
“These data document that early postnatal THIM administration causes lasting neurobehavioral impairments and neurochemical alterations in the brain, dependent on dose and sex. If similar changes occur in THIM/mercurial-exposed children, they could contribute do neurodevelopmental disorders.”
“Thimerosal at concentrations relevant for infants' exposure (in vaccines) is toxic to cultured human-brain cells and to laboratory animals.” Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines.
Maternal Thimerosal Exposure Results in Aberrant Cerebellar Oxidative Stress, Thyroid Hormone Metabolism, and Motor Behavior in Rat Pups; Sex- and Strain-Dependent Effects.

Administration of thimerosal to infant rats increases overflow of glutamate and aspartate in the prefrontal cortex: protective role of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate. “Thimerosal, a mercury-containing vaccine preservative, is a suspected factor in the etiology of neurodevelopmental disorders. We previously showed that its administration to infant rats causes behavioral, neurochemical and neuropathological abnormalities similar to those present in autism.”
“This period of hypo-responsiveness to carbohydrate antigens coincides with the intense myelination process in infants and young children, and conjugate vaccines may have disrupted evolutionary forces that favored early brain development over the need to protect infants and young children from capsular bacteria.”
“Findings suggest that U.S. male neonates vaccinated with the hepatitis B vaccine prior to 1999 (from vaccination record) had a threefold higher risk for parental report of autism diagnosis compared to boys not vaccinated as neonates during that same time period. Nonwhite boys bore a greater risk.”
“Furthermore, over 90% of MMR antibody-positive autistic sera were also positive for MBP autoantibodies, suggesting a strong association between MMR and CNS autoimmunity in autism. Stemming from this evidence, we suggest that an inappropriate antibody response to MMR, specifically the measles component thereof, might be related to pathogenesis of autism.”
“This study is the first to report an association between virus serology and brain autoantibody in autism; it supports the hypothesis that a virus-induced autoimmune response may play a causal role in autism.”
The history of vaccinations in the light of the autism epidemic.
PubMed comprises more than 21 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full-text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
According to the organization ‘Children & Asthma in America’ there are at least 7 million children in the USA who suffer from the debilitating illness
The Neonates Gallagher Study

And this is a compilation of studies:

Or if you like to go straight to a .PDF with 600 citations from many different studies (I honestly never read the whole thing)

If you like, you can also read what Chuck Norris wrote about it, and it kinda just speaks for itself:
Hello friends – I’ve gotten into a lot of discussions online about the vaccines and autism; generally with very poor, if not nonexistent, evidence of having changed any opinions, but relatively...

Vaccine Schedules, Autism Rates, and Under 5 Mortality
Generation Rescue, Inc. April 2009

Vaccination: Antibody titres don't mean a thing!

Study Disproves CDC's Primary Justification for Vaccination

Sayer Ji, Contributor
Activist Post 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person’s system."[i] This, in fact, is the main justification for using vaccines to "boost" immunity, and a primary focus of vaccine research and development.

And yet, newly publish research has revealed that in some cases no antibodies are required for immunity against some viruses.

Published in the journal Immunity in March, 2011, and titled, "B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity," researchers found that mice infected with vesicular stomatitis virus (VSV) can suffer fatal invasion of their central nervous system even in the presence of high concentrations of "neutralizing" antibodies against VSV.[ii]

The researchers found that while B-cells were essential for surviving a systemic VSV infection through the modulation of innate immunity, specifically macrophage behavior, the antibodies they produce as part of the adaptive immune response were "neither needed nor sufficient for protection." These findings, according to the study authors, "…contradict the current view that B cell-derived neutralizing antibodies are absolutely required to survive a primary cytopathic viral infection, such as that caused by VSV."

The discovery that antibodies are not required for protection against infection, while counterintuitive, is not novel. In fact, not only are antibodies not required for immunity, in some cases high levels are found in the presence of active, even lethal infections. For example, high serum levels of antibodies against tetanus have been observed failing to confer protection against the disease. A report from 1992 published in the journal Neurology found severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers, one of whom died as a result of the infection.[iii]

These research findings run diametrically opposed to currently held beliefs regarding the process by which we develop immunity against infectious challenges. Presently, it is a commonly held view that during viral infections, innate immunity must activate adaptive responses in order to achieve effective immunity. It is believed that this is why the immune system has developed a series of innate defenses, including complement, type I interferon, and other "stopgap measures," which work immediately to lower pathogen burden and "buy time" for the much slower adaptive immune response to develop.

This view, however, has been called into question by the new study: "Although this concept may apply to other viral infections, our findings with VSV turn this view upside down, indicating that during a primary infection with this cytopathic virus, innate immunity can be sterilizing without adaptive immune contributions."

Does this strike a mortal blow to the antibody theory which underlies vaccinology, and constitutes the primary justification for the CDC's focus on using vaccines to "boost" immunity?

Indeed, in vaccinology, which is the science or method of vaccine development, vaccine effectiveness is often determined by the ability of a vaccine to increase antibody titers, even if this does not translate into real-world effectiveness, i.e. antibody-antigen matching. In fact, regulatory agencies, such as the FDA, often approve vaccines based on their ability to raise antibody titers, also known as "vaccine efficacy," without requiring proof of vaccine effectiveness, as would seem logical.

The obvious problem with these criteria is that the use of vaccine adjuvants like mercury, aluminum hydroxide, mineral oil, etc. – all of which are intrinsically toxic substances -- will increase antibody titers, without guaranteeing they will neutralize the targeted antigen, i.e. antibody-antigen affinity. To the contrary, many of these antibodies lack selectivity, and target self-structures, resulting in the loss of self-tolerance, i.e. autoimmunity.

Here is another way of understanding vaccine-induced antibody elevations….

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a beehive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the "efficacy" (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern is in no way ensured; to the contrary, the immune response is likely to become misdirected, or disproportionate to the threat.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating "false flag" responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A,* so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection - and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune responsethrough vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not. One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the body, especially that of the developing infant and child, by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

We leave the reader with a series of quotes addressing the inherent weaknesses of the antibody theory of immunity:
Just because you give somebody a vaccine, and perhaps get an antibody reaction, doesn’t mean a thing. The only true antibodies, of course, are those you get naturally. What we’re doing [when we inject vaccines] is interfering with a very delicate mechanism that does its own thing. If nutrition is correct, it does it in the right way. Now if you insult a person in this way and try to trigger off something that nature looks after, you’re asking for all sorts of trouble, and we don’t believe it works."- Glen Dettman Ph.D, interviewed by Jay Patrick, and quoted in "The Great American Deception," Let’s Live, December 1976, p. 57. 
The fallacy of this (antibody theory) was exposed nearly 50 years ago, which is hardly recent. A report published by the Medical Research Council entitled 'A study of diphtheria in two areas of Gt. Britain, Special report series 272, HMSO 1950 demonstrated that many of the diphtheria patients had high levels of circulating antibodies, whereas many of the contacts who remained perfectly well had low antibody. - Magda Taylor, Informed Parent 
Human trials generally correlate 'antibody' responses with protection - that is if the body produces antibodies (proteins) which bind to vaccine components, then it must be working and safe. Yet Dr March says antibody response is generally a poor measure of protection and no indicator at all of safety. 'Particularly for viral diseases, the 'cellular' immune response is all important, and antibody levels and protection are totally unconnected.' - Private Eye 24/1/2002 
Whenever we read vaccine papers the MD researchers always assume that if there are high antibody levels after vaccination, then there is immunity (immunogencity). But are antibody levels and immunity the same? No! Antibody levels are not the same as IMMUNITY. The recent MUMPS vaccine fiasco in Switzerland has re-emphasized this point. Three mumps vaccines-Rubini, Jeryl-Lynn and Urabe (the one withdrawn because it caused encephalitis) all produced excellent antibody levels but those vaccinated with the Rubini strain had the same attack rate as those not vaccinated at all, there were some who said that it actually caused outbreaks. Ref: Schegal M et al Comparative efficacy of three mumps vaccines during disease outbreak in Switzerland: cohort study. BMJ, 1999; 319:352-3.- Ted Koren DC
*PubMed Health

Notes:[i], Basics and Common Questions: Immunity Types
[ii] B cell maintenance of subcapsular sinus macrophages protects against a fatal viral infection independent of adaptive immunity. Immunity. 2012 Mar 23 ;36(3):415-26. Epub 2012 Mar 1. PMID:22386268
[iii] Severe tetanus in immunized patients with high anti-tetanus titers. Neurology. 1992 Apr ;42(4):761-4. PMID: 1565228

This article first appeared at GreenMedInfo.  Please visit to access their vast database of articles and the latest information in natural health. 

NYT: Treating the Cause, Not the Illness

In 1965, in an impoverished rural county in the Mississippi Delta, the pioneering physician Jack Geiger helped found one of the nation’s first community health centers. Many of the children Geiger treated were seriously malnourished, so he began writing “prescriptions” for food — stipulating quantities of milk, vegetables, meat, and fruit that could be “filled” at grocery stores, which were instructed to send the bills to the health center, where they were paid out of the pharmacy budget. When word of this reached the Office of Economic Opportunity in Washington, which financed the center, an official was dispatched to Mississippi to reprimand Geiger and make sure he understood that the center’s money could be used only for medical purposes. Geiger replied: “The last time I looked in my textbooks, the specific therapy for malnutrition was food.” The official had nothing to say and returned to Washington.

In some ways, the United States has come a long way since Lyndon Johnson declared the “war on poverty.” But in others, we’re still at square one. We now have a variety of federally-supported nutrition programs, but the health care system remains senselessly disconnected from the “social determinants of health.” In this regard, the United States has fallen behind the rest of the world. If a politician in India announced a public health plan that neglected malnutrition, he would be ridiculed. Here, leaders make this kind of omission all the time. Almost all of the debate about the 2010 Affordable Care Act was consumed with questions about health care access and quality. But if we really want to improve the health of millions of people, we have to address the conditions that make them sick.
A program allows doctors to “prescribe” basic resources like food assistance, housing improvements, or heating fuel subsidies.
One of the most impressive organizations in the country that is developing an approach to do this isHealth Leads, which mobilizes and trains about 1000 volunteers each year who staff resource desks located in the waiting rooms of 23 hospital clinics or health centers in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New York, Providence, R.I., and Washington. At these sites, doctors now regularly “prescribe” a wide range of basic resources — like food assistance, housing improvements, or heating fuel subsidies — which Health Leads’ volunteers “fill” — applying their problem solving skills (and tenacity) to identify resources anywhere they may be available.
Health Leads was co-founded by Rebecca Onie in 1996, while she was an undergraduate student at Harvard University. Onie had first witnessed the intimate relationship between poverty and health while volunteering at Greater Boston Legal Services, where she assisted low-income clients who had housing problems. Many lived in dilapidated apartments with leaky pipes, broken windows, rooms full of mold, and walls infested with cockroaches and rats. Often families couldn’t afford to pay for heat. Towards the end of the month, some ran out of food. Onie found herself interviewing mothers whose children came to the office wheezing and coughing from asthma and lung infections — health problems caused or triggered by bad housing. Often, the children had been in and out of hospitals for years; many had fallen far behind in school.
One day, she read a magazine story about Barry Zuckerman, chairman of pediatrics at Boston Medical Center (B.M.C.), who had established the Medical-Legal Partnership for Children, a program that connected doctors with lawyers to assist patients (it has since spread to more than 235 health institutions nationally). Close to 70 percent of the patients at B.M.C. are poor and Zuckerman, like Geiger, had grown tired of treating children, only to see them readmitted to the hospital because nothing was done to address the causes of their illnesses. In some cases — as when a child has chronic asthma attacks because the landlord refuses to clean up mold — a lawyer could be more effective than a doctor.
Doctors are reluctant to inquire about issues in which they feel powerless to intervene.
“I thought bringing lawyers into the hospital was brilliant,” recalled Onie. She called Zuckerman to see how she could help and he invited her to spend six months talking to people in the unit. There Onie found doctors who were “smart, passionate and totally committed to their patients” and yet “stymied in terms of their ability to bring about the health outcomes they wanted.” Some physicians told her they knew they should be asking more about food, housing or social issues, but they were afraid of opening a “pandora’s box.” “I have no idea where to begin to address the problems,” one physician told Onie. “I have 13 minutes with each patient.” (Studies reveal that doctors are reluctant to inquire about issues — domestic violence, for example — when they feel powerless to intervene.)
Onie thought that students could help. With Zuckerman, she founded Health Leads (formerly Project Health) to recruit and train students to provide patients with connections to resources deemed necessary by doctors and other health care providers. “What are college students built to do?” asks Onie. “Track down information!” She adds: “Say your client is a Latina mother working two jobs. She needs food supplements. She has no transportation. Your job is to locate a food pantry within walking distance of her home that’s open after 8:00 p.m. and has a Spanish speaker on staff. That’s a perfect problem for a college student. It’s like a really fancy Google search.”
From the outset, Onie made the decision to work only with students who demonstrated high levels of motivation and commitment. In some of Health Lead’s sites today, as few as 10 percent of students who apply get selected. This has had the effect of attracting serious volunteers. In 2010, the organization reported that in 57 percent of cases its volunteers secured a needed resource within 90 days. This year, Health Leads will serve 9,300 patients and families — not a huge number given the scope of the problem it seeks to address — but the approach is gaining momentum.
One indication is that, where Health Leads works, doctors are changing their behavior. In the Children’s National Medical Center, in Washington, for example, over the past year, there has been a 300 percent increase in doctors “prescribing” Health Leads through the hospital’s Electronic Medical Record. The resources they request for patients include things like exercise or summer meal programs for children or subsidized child care for mothers, so they can find work and afford better food and housing.
Health Leads is also demonstrating that it can improve the efficiency of social workers. In some of the large urban hospitals where the program operates, the ratio of patient visits to social workers is close to 25,000 to 1. Because students can handle basic — but time consuming — cases, social workers can concentrate on what they’re trained for. At The Dimock Center, in Roxbury, Mass., initial data suggests that the program has doubled the time social workers can devote to therapeutic work.
Health Leads is also preparing a pipeline of new health care leaders. Two thirds of its students are either in pre-med tracks or pursuing careers in health, and the exposures they are getting are likely to shape the way they think about health care. As one volunteer said: “When I’m a doctor, I will never prescribe antibiotics that say ‘take with food’ without making sure that the family actually has food in the house.”
More From Fixes
Read previous contributions to this series.
Many health care professionals know that social conditions impact health more than medical care. In a survey conducted by Health Leads at Bellevue Hospital in New York, almost every pediatric primary care provider said the failure to address social and psychological needs “impairs” their ability to treat patients effectively. The vast majority said that the hospital needed a standardized system to screen for these needs on routine well-child visits. But 80 percent said it lacked the capacity to do it.
There is very little money available for this work. Medicaid doesn’t generally reimburse social workers for non-therapeutic tasks. Most of the time, this kind of assistance falls through the cracks. Society then spends oodles of money treating the crises that follow. “There is a tension between what we all know, and agree, needs to be done, and what we are doing,” says Onie. “As a society, we haven’t yet decided that we actually want less emergency room visits.”
Just a year ago, Onie thought that Health Leads’ biggest obstacle would be getting doctors to pay attention to patients’ social needs — given all the demands on their time. Today, the organization is getting so many referrals from doctors, for the first time in its history it has long waiting lists. Five decades after the war on poverty, a work force that can systematically address the social causes of illness is still to be built. Health Leads offers a model of how it might work. A broader system could incorporate students, community health workers, and lay workers. It need not be a perfect solution, nor an expensive one. But something has to be done. And the big challenge is getting health care decision makers to prioritize and pay for it. As Onie says: “How would we ever think that we’re going to secure a return on our health care dollar until we start dealing with these social factors?”

Vaccination has never eradicated any disease

Vaccination has never eradicated any disease
- Dr Suzanne
(Comment in a Forum)
No vaccine has ever eradicated any disease on this earth…ever. Not mumps even though it’s been heavily used since 1967, not measles, not polio, and that’s right not even smallpox. Do vaccines suppress disease in some cases? Yes they do, like measles, but eradication is truly a fairy tale. Smallpox is not dead, but has been hiding under the witness protection program with dark glasses and a hat, and renamed monkeypox. No way the smallpox vaccine with all the damaging history and lack of efficacy it had and has been clearly demonstrated, and only given to a minority of the earth’s inhabitants eradicated smallpox. It’s still here. And in fact smallpox declined when vaccination stopped and living conditions and nutrition improved. The reason smallpox was declared eradicated was because many people in the information age were realizing that the vaccine was causing more problems than it could ever solve. Nobody has ever come up with anything remotely scientific about what titer is protective or about how often it was supposed to be given. But now that is all in the past now isnt’ it?
Enter the upcoming eradication of polio. Again, polio is still here and never went anywhere. It hides under many other names. Since you are fan of my writing please do visit IMCV and read up on the facts of polio. The plan to eradicate polio simply entails replacing the wild strains with vaccine strains that are and always will be completely capable of causing poliovirus outbreaks with concomitant paralysis in vaccinated communities. Isn’t the purpose of polio eradication to decrease the rate of paralysis? Well in the face of numerous polio vaccines in India, the rate of AFP is directly associated with those kids who get the most vaccines. So you tell me where polio has gone. And please while you are considering that, let us know what you learn about the change of diagnostic criteria that occurred after the vaccination came to be in 1954.
OK, measles not eradicated and never will be, mumps same. How can you eradicate a disease when the very vaccine you use can lead to outbreaks of the disease you are trying to eradicate? Mumps vaccine is associated with mumps outbreaks. It’s well documented in medical literature.
Chicken pox, not eradicated and never will be. Shingles only on the rise. Pertussis, don’t even try to defend that dud of a vaccine that leaves pertussis victims in the 86% vaccinated category.
Please tell us of any vaccine that has eradicated the disease you think it has and I will tell you exactly how it hasn’t.
The blind faith that people hold in vaccines is being eroded by stories like this Merck story because many parents know vaccines are not safe- but they think the diseases are terrible enough to take the chance. Now they know that there is no guarantee that the government that supports the vaccines is not hiding out with the crooked scientists that are cooking the books in order to pump dud vaccines into their children.
And the more their doubts are verified by issues like this, the more they will find out that the bogeymen diseases they have been told are so deadly – are not, and they will learn where to go and how to get their children through the illnesses. And then their kids will be all the stronger, less likely to be Merck’s customers for life long illnesses that occur as a result of their vaccines. Ask any autism parent what the cost of raising an autistic child is. Ask a parent of a dead gardasil vaccianted child what the emotional cost is. Autoimmune diseases very expensive, allergies and on and on – $$$ will be taken from Merck and put back in the pockets of the parents who blindly trusted and now know better. That has to hurt – Merck and friends.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Radiation "Therapy" Makes Cancers More Malignant!

Study: Radiation Therapy May Make Cancers 30x More Malignant
Following on the heels of recent revelations that x-ray mammography may be contributing to an epidemic of future radiation-induced breast cancers, in a new article titled, "Radiation Treatment Generates Therapy Resistant Cancer Stem Cells From Aggressive Breast Cancer Cells," published in the journal Cancer July 1st, 2012, researchers from the Department of Radiation Oncology at the UCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center report that radiation treatment actually drives breast cancer cells into greater malignancy.
The researchers found that even when radiation kills half of the tumor cells treated, the surviving cells which are resistant to treatment, known as induced breast cancer stem cells (iBCSCs), were up to 30 times more likely to form tumors than the nonirradiated breast cancer cells. In other words, the radiation treatment regresses the total population of cancer cells, generating the false appearance that the treatment is working, but actually increases the ratio of highly malignant to benign cells within that tumor, eventually leading to the iatrogenic (treatment-induced) death of the patient.
Last month, a related study published in the journal Stem Cells titled, "Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cells," found that ionizing radiation reprogrammed less malignant (more differentiated) breast cancer cells into iBCSCs, helping to explain why conventional treatment actually enriches the tumor population with higher levels of treatment-resistant cells[i]
A growing body of research now indicts conventional cancer treatment with chemotherapy and radiation as a major contributing cause of cancer patient mortality.  The primary reason for this is the fact that cancer stem cells, which are almost exclusively resistant to conventional treatment, are not being targeted, but to the contrary, are encouraged to thrive when exposed to chemotherapy and radiotherapy.
In order to understand how conventional treatment drives the cancer into greater malignancy, we must first understand what cancer is….
cancer lymphocyte

What Are Cancer Stem Cells, And Why Are They Resistant To Treatment?

Tumors are actually highly organized assemblages of cells, which are surprisingly well-coordinated for cells that are supposed to be the result of strictly random mutation. They are capable of building their own blood supply (angiogenesis), are able to defend themselves by silencing cancer-suppression genes, secreting corrosive enzymes to move freely throughout the body, alter their metabolism to live in low oxygen and acidic environments, and know how to remove their own surface-receptor proteins to escape detection by white blood cells. In a previous article titled "Is Cancer An Ancient Survival Program Unmasked?" we delved deeper into this emerging view of cancer as an evolutionary throw-back and not a byproduct of strictly random mutation.
Because tumors are not simply the result of one or more mutated cells "going rogue" and producing exact clones of itself (multi-mutational and clonal hypotheses), but are a diverse group of cells having radically different phenotypal characteristics, chemotherapy and radiation will affect each cell type differently.
Tumors are composed of a wide range of cells, many of which are entirely benign.
The most deadly cell type within a tumor or blood cancer, known as cancer stem cells (CSCs), has the ability to give rise to all the cell types found within that cancer.
They are capable of dividing by mitosis to form either two stem cells (increasing the size of the stem population), or one daughter cell that goes on to differentiate into a variety of cell types, and one daughter cell that retains stem-cell properties.
This means CSCs are tumorigenic (tumor-forming) and should be the primary target of cancer treatment because they are capable of both initiating and sustaining cancer.  They are also increasingly recognized to be the cause of relapse and metastasis following conventional treatment.
CSCs are exceptionally resistant to conventional treatment for the following reasons
  1. CSCs account for less than 1 in 10,000 cells within a particular cancer, making them difficult to destroy without destroying the vast majority of other cells comprising the tumor.[ii]
  1. CSCs are slow to replicate, making them less likely to be destroyed by chemotherapy and radiation treatments that target cells which are more rapidly dividing.
  1. Conventional chemotherapies target differentiated and differentiating cells, which form the bulk of the tumor, but these are unable to generate new cells like the CSCs which are undifferentiated.
The existence of CSCs explains why conventional cancer treatment has completely missed the boat when it comes to targeting the root cause of tumors. One reason for this is because existing cancer treatments have mostly been developed in animal models where the goal is to shrink a tumor. Because mice are most often used and their life spans do not exceed two years, tumor relapse is very difficult, if not impossible to study.
The first round of chemotherapy never kills the entire tumor, but only a percentage. This phenomenon is called the fractional kill. The goal is to use repeated treatment cycles (usually six) to regress the tumor population down to zero, without killing the patient.
What normally occurs is that the treatment selectively kills the less harmful populations of cells (daughter cells), increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign and/or less malignant cells.  This is not unlike what happens when antibiotics are used to treat certain infections. The drug may wipe out 99.9% of the target bacteria, but .1% have or develop resistance to the agent, enabling the .1% to come back even stronger with time.
The antibiotic, also, kills the other beneficial bacteria that help the body fight infection naturally, in the same way that chemotherapy kills the patient’s immune system (white blood cells and bone marrow), ultimately supporting the underlying conditions making disease recurrence more likely.
The reality is that the chemotherapy, even though it has reduced the tumor volume, by increasing the ratio of CSCs to benign daughter cells, has actually made the cancer more malignant.
Radiotherapy has also been shown to increase cancer stem cells in the prostate, ultimately resulting in cancer recurrence and worsened prognosis.[iii] Cancer stem cells may also explain why castration therapy often fails in prostate cancer treatment.[iv]

Non-Toxic Natural Substances Which Target and Kill CSCs

Natural compounds have been shown to exhibit three properties which make them suitable alternatives to conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy:
  1. High margin of safety: Relative to chemotherapy agents such as 5-fluorouracil natural compounds are two orders of magnitude safer
  2. Selective Cytotoxicity: The ability to target only those cells that are cancerous and not healthy cells
  3. CSCs Targeting: The ability to target the cancer stem cells within a tumor population.
The primary reason why these substances are not used in conventional treatment is because they are not patentable, nor profitable. Sadly, the criteria for drug selection are not safety, effectiveness, accessibility and affordability. If this were so, natural compounds would form an integral part of the standard of care in modern cancer treatment.
Research indicates that the following compounds (along with common dietary sources) have the ability to target CSCs:
  1. Curcumin (Turmeric)
  1. Resveratrol (Red Wine; Japanese Knotweed)
  1. Quercetin (Onion)
  1. Sulforaphane (Brocolli sprouts)
  1. Parthenolide (Butterbur)
  1. Andrographalide (Andrographis)
  1. Genistein (Cultured Soy; Coffee)
  1. Piperine (Black Pepper)
Additional research found on the Multidrug Resistance page indicate over 50 compounds inhibit multidrug resistance cancers in experimental models.

[i] Radiation-induced reprogramming of breast cancer cells. Stem Cells. 2012 May ;30(5):833-44. PMID: 22489015
[ii] Human acute myeloid leukemia is organized as a hierarchy that originates from a primitive hematopoietic cell. Nat Med. 1997 Jul ;3(7):730-7. PMID: 9212098
[iii] Long-term recovery of irradiated prostate cancer increases cancer stem cells. Prostate. 2012 Apr 18. Epub 2012 Apr 18. PMID: 22513891
[iv] Stem-Like Cells with Luminal Progenitor Phenotype Survive Castration in Human Prostate Cancer. Stem Cells. 2012 Mar 21. Epub 2012 Mar 21. PMID: 22438320

Disclaimer: This article is not intended to provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. Views expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of GreenMedInfo or its staff.

Supreme Madness: Medicine factories within the body

A Step Toward Minute Factories That Produce Medicine Inside the Body

ScienceDaily (June 27, 2012) — Scientists are reporting an advance toward treating disease with minute capsules containing not drugs -- but the DNA and other biological machinery for making the drug. In an article in ACS' journal Nano Letters, they describe engineering micro- and nano-sized capsules that contain the genetically coded instructions, plus the read-out gear and assembly line for protein synthesis that can be switched on with an external signal.

Daniel Anderson and colleagues explain that development of nanoscale production units for protein-based drugs in the human body may provide a new approach for treating disease. These production units could be turned on when needed, producing medicines that cannot be taken orally or are toxic and would harm other parts of the body. Until now, researchers have only done this with live bacteria that were designed to make proteins at disease sites. But unlike bacterial systems, artificial ones are modular, and it is easier to modify them. That's why Anderson's group developed an artificial, remotely activated nanoparticle system containing DNA and the other "parts" necessary to make proteins, which are the workhorses of the human cell and are often used as drugs.
They describe the nanoscale production units, which are tiny spheres encapsulating protein-making machinery like that found in living cells. The resulting nanoparticles produced active proteins on demand when the researchers shined a laser light on them. The nanoparticles even worked when they were injected into mice, which are stand-ins for humans in the laboratory, producing proteins when a laser was shone onto the animals. This innovation "may find utility in the localized delivery of therapeutics," say the researchers.
The authors acknowledge funding from the Misrock Foundation, the Life Sciences Research Foundation, the National Cancer Institute, the National Institutes of Health and the Marie D. & Pierre Casimir-Lambert Fund.