Photo courtesy of Kim Horsevad, teacher at Hjallerup Skole in Denmark.Five ninth-grade young women from Denmark recently created a science experiment that is causing a stir in the scientific community.It started with an observation and a question. The girls noticed that if they slept with their mobile phones near their heads at night, they often had difficulty concentrating at school the next day. They wanted to test the effect of a cellphone’s radiation on humans, but their school, Hjallerup School in Denmark, did not have the equipment to handle such an experiment. So the girls designed an experiment that would test the effect of cellphone radiation on a plant instead.The students placed six trays filled with Lepidium sativum, a type of garden cress, into a room without radiation, and six trays of the seeds into another room next to two routers that according to the girls’ calculations, emitted about the same type of radiation as an ordinary cellphone.Over the next 12 days, the girls observed, measured, weighed and photographed their results. By the end of the experiment the results were blatantly obvious — the cress seeds placed near the router had not grown. Many of them were completely dead. Meanwhile, the cress seeds planted in the other room, away from the routers, thrived.The experiment earned the girls (pictured below) top honors in a regional science competition and the interest of scientists around the world.According to Kim Horsevad, a teacher at Hjallerup Skole in Denmark where the cress experiment took place, a neuroscience professor at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, is interested in repeating the experiment in a controlled professional scientific environment.
Tag Archives: health news
Student science experiment finds plants won’t grow near Wi-Fi router. Ninth-graders design science experiment to test the effect of cellphone radiation on plants. The results may surprise you!
Resonance: Beings of Frequency
Directed by James Russell and John K. Webster
Patient Zero Productions
(Tim Boyd, April 2013) When you have a sphere within a sphere and an electromagnetic field, that arrangement creates a frequency. For at least a few centuries most of us have known that Earth is a sphere and it is surrounded by a larger sphere we call the ionosphere. Using that information, Winfried Otto Schumann calculated the resonant frequency of the earth as 7.83 Hz. I know what you’re thinking. Why would anyone care? It turns out that alpha waves generated by the human brain resonate at about that same frequency. It also turns out that when researchers constructed an underground bunker completely shielded from those waves and put test subjects in that bunker, they discovered that was bad for human health.
Other experiments with DNA in water showed that DNA strands communicate with each other at about the same frequency. Life in general seems to be tuned to 7.83 Hz. In our current era we are now adding an unprecedented amount of other electronic frequencies and noise to the environment. Between radio transmissions, cell phones and other wireless transmissions, it is becoming almost impossible to detect the Schumann resonance around big cities.
There is reason to believe this is having adverse effects on human and animal life. When cordless phones are put in a beehive, the bees don’t return. When natural electromagnetic fields are disrupted by things like cell phones or cell towers, birds and bees are no longer able to navigate. There may be other factors involved but this appears to be a significant factor in the decline of many species of birds and insects. In human populations, cancer clusters have been noted around cell phone towers.
Melatonin is a powerful antioxidant that regulates the immune system. It is produced by the pineal gland when it is dark. That is why you need to sleep in complete darkness to get the benefits of any melatonin. There is now evidence that melatonin production is disrupted by other forms of radiation besides visible light, particularly from wireless devices.
There have been a number of studies showing problems with cell phone radiation. There have also been many studies claiming that there is no problem. When you look at who carried out (or paid for) the studies showing no problem, it is obvious that the sponsor of the study had a vested interest in finding nothing. This video also points out that there is no effective government oversight or regulation of all the new phone technology. It is almost amusing when people are shocked by this fact. Large corporations control the governments of the western world. How much genuine regulation do you expect? All of this is more bad news for cell phone lovers. This one gets a thumbs UP.
This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Spring 2013.
Pesticides are harmful to the health and intelligence of America’s children, according to an October 2012 report released by the Pesticide Action Network of North America. Titled, “A Generation in Jeopardy,” the study notes how chemicals from pest control products are one key cause of a range of disorders such as ADHD, autism, cancer, disrupted metabolism, and even low IQs.
The report notes that since 1975 childhood cancer has risen 25% while autism is up 78% from 2002. The study shows that organophosphate pesticides block enzymes that control neurotransmitters. As a result, neurons misfire, inhibiting nervous system function and proper brain development.
The Pesticide Action Network of North America is an organization dedicated to replacing “the use of hazardous pesticides with ecologically sound and socially just alternatives.” While PANNA and others continue to speak up about the dangers of pesticides, corporate media routinely dismisses the issue.
Viji Sundaram, “Pesticides Harm Kids Health and Intelligence, Study Finds,” Truth-out.org, October 11, 2012, http://truth-out.org/news/item/12057-pesticides-harm-kids-health-and-intelligence-study-finds
“Mission,” The Pesticide Action Network of North America, last modified February 5, 2013, http://www.panna.org/about/mission
Student Researcher: Joe Raspolich, Florida Atlantic University
Faculty Advisor: James Tracy, Ph.D., Florida Atlantic University
Preventable medical errors and prescription drugs kill and seriously injure hundreds of thousands of Americans every year. Any discussion of medical negligence that does not involve these preventable medical errors ignores this fundamental problem. Adding to this, the new scourge of antidepressants and violence are synonymous in the days of ‘active shooters’, manic and psychotic. How do they get away with all this?
Oil? Financials? Aerospace? When someone asks who the biggest sources of lobby dollars for DC’s politicians-for-purchase are, these are the three usual suspects that come to mind. Some may, therefore, be surprised to learn according to the database kept by OpenSecrets between Pharmaceutical and health product industry, hospital and nursing homes, health professionals and health services, HMOs, or more broadly Pharma/Healthcare/HMO, the total lobby dollars spent between 1998 and 2012 was a staggering $5.3 billion, or nearly three times greater than the second most generous industry: insurance, and well above Oil and Gas at $1.4 billion, and Securities and Investment at $1.0 billion. Is it becoming clearer why the US government has few qualms about unsustainable taxpayer funded healthcare spending, especially when there are so many current benefits accruing to the politicians who see so many billions in benefits from passing lobby-friendly laws now (by which we mean generous taxpayer funding, the bulk of which benefits the healthcare industry’s bottom line)?
As for the costs: who cares – just dump them on future generations. It’s not like anyone expects the $16.7 trillion in US debt to be ever repaid.
Why is this important? Because as we showed nearly a year ago, the IRR on lobbying is by and far the highest of any investment return under the sun.
From: Presenting The Greatest ROI Opportunity Ever
The dream of virtually anyone who has ever traded even one share of stock has always been to generate above market returns, also known as alpha, preferably in a long-term horizon. Why? Because those who manage to return 30%, 20% even 10% above the S&P over the long run, become, all else equal (expert networks and collocated flow-frontrunning HFT boxes aside), legendary investors in the eyes of the general public, which brings the ancillary benefits of fame and fortune (usually in the form of 2 and 20). This is the ultimate goal of everyone who works on Wall Street. Yet, ironically, what most don’t realize, is that these returns, or Returns On Investment (ROI), are absolutely meaningless when put side by side next to something few think about when considering investment returns.
Because it is the ROIs for various forms of lobbying the put the compounded long-term returns of the market to absolute shame. As the following infographic demonstrates, ROIs on various lobbying efforts range from a whopping 5,900% (oil subsidies) to a gargantuan 77,500% (pharmaceuticals).
How are these mingboggling returns possible? Simple – because they appeal to the weakest link: the most corrupt, bribable, and infinitely greedy unit of modern society known as ‘the politician‘.
Yet who benefits from these tremendous arbitrage opportunities? Not you and I, that is for certain.
No – it is the faceless corporations – the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks – which are truly in the control nexus of modern society, and which, precisely courtesy of these lobbying “efforts”, in which modest investments generate fantastic returns allowing the status quo to further entrench itself, take advantage of this biggest weakness of modern “developed” society to make the rich much richer (a/k/a that increasingly thinner sliver of society known as investors), who are the sole beneficiaries of this “Amazing ROI” – the stock market is merely one grand (and lately broken, and very much manipulated) distraction, to give everyone the impression the playing field is level.
Sitting in a refrigerator in a Swedish laboratory is what promises to be a cheap and effective cancer treatment. So why are the trials to bring it to market not going ahead?
On the snow-clotted plains of central Sweden where Wotan and Thor, the clamorous gods of magic and death, once held sway, a young, self-deprecating gene therapist has invented a virus that eliminates the type of cancer that killed Steve Jobs.
‘Not “eliminates”! Not “invented”, no!’ interrupts Professor Magnus Essand, panicked, when I Skype him to ask about this explosive achievement.
‘Our results are only in the lab so far, not in humans, and many treatments that work in the lab can turn out to be not so effective in humans. However, adenovirus serotype 5 is a common virus in which we have achieved transcriptional targeting by replacing an endogenous viral promoter sequence by…’
It sounds too kindly of the gods to be true: a virus that eats cancer.
‘I sometimes use the phrase “an assassin who kills all the bad guys”,’ Prof Essand agrees contentedly.
Cheap to produce, the virus is exquisitely precise, with only mild, flu-like side-effects in humans. Photographs in research reports show tumours in test mice melting away.
‘It is amazing,’ Prof Essand gleams in wonder. ‘It’s better than anything else. Tumour cell lines that are resistant to every other drug, it kills them in these animals.’
Yet as things stand, Ad5[CgA-E1A-miR122]PTD – to give it the full gush of its most up-to-date scientific name – is never going to be tested to see if it might also save humans. Since 2010 it has been kept in a bedsit-sized mini freezer in a busy lobby outside Prof Essand’s office, gathering frost. (‘Would you like to see?’ He raises his laptop computer and turns, so its camera picks out a table-top Electrolux next to the lab’s main corridor.)
Two hundred metres away is the Uppsala University Hospital, a European Centre of Excellence in Neuroendocrine Tumours. Patients fly in from all over the world to be seen here, especially from America, where treatment for certain types of cancer lags five years behind Europe. Yet even when these sufferers have nothing else to hope for, have only months left to live, wave platinum credit cards and are prepared to sign papers agreeing to try anything, to hell with the side-effects, the oncologists are not permitted – would find themselves behind bars if they tried – to race down the corridors and snatch the solution out of Prof Essand’s freezer.
I found out about Prof Magnus Essand by stalking him. Two and a half years ago the friend who edits all my work – the biographer and genius transformer of rotten sentences and misdirected ideas, Dido Davies – was diagnosed with neuroendocrine tumours, the exact type of cancer that Steve Jobs had. Every three weeks she would emerge from the hospital after eight hours of chemotherapy infusion, as pale as ice but nevertheless chortling and optimistic, whereas I (having spent the day battling Dido’s brutal edits to my work, among drip tubes) would stumble back home, crack open whisky and cigarettes, and slump by the computer. Although chemotherapy shrank the tumour, it did not cure it. There had to be something better.
It was on one of those evenings that I came across a blog about a quack in Mexico who had an idea about using sub-molecular particles – nanotechnology. Quacks provide a very useful service to medical tyros such as myself, because they read all the best journals the day they appear and by the end of the week have turned the results into potions and tinctures. It’s like Tommy Lee Jones in Men in Black reading theNational Enquirer to find out what aliens are up to, because that’s the only paper trashy enough to print the truth. Keep an eye on what the quacks are saying, and you have an idea of what might be promising at the Wild West frontier of medicine. This particular quack was in prison awaiting trial for the manslaughter (by quackery) of one of his patients, but his nanotechnology website led, via a chain of links, to a YouTube lecture about an astounding new therapy for neuroendocrine cancer based on pig microbes, which is currently being put through a variety of clinical trials in America.
I stopped the video and took a snapshot of the poster behind the lecturer’s podium listing useful research company addresses; on the website of one of these organisations was a reference to a scholarly article that, when I checked through the footnotes, led, via a doctoral thesis, to a Skype address – which I dialled.
‘Hey! Hey!’ Prof Magnus Essand answered.
To geneticists, the science makes perfect sense. It is a fact of human biology that healthy cells are programmed to die when they become infected by a virus, because this prevents the virus spreading to other parts of the body. But a cancerous cell is immortal; through its mutations it has somehow managed to turn off the bits of its genetic programme that enforce cell suicide. This means that, if a suitable virus infects a cancer cell, it could continue to replicate inside it uncontrollably, and causes the cell to ‘lyse’ – or, in non-technical language, tear apart. The progeny viruses then spread to cancer cells nearby and repeat the process. A virus becomes, in effect, a cancer of cancer. In Prof Essand’s laboratory studies his virus surges through the bloodstreams of test animals, rupturing cancerous cells with Viking rapacity.
The Uppsala virus isn’t unique. Since the 1880s, doctors have known that viral infections can cause dramatic reductions in tumours. In 1890 an Italian clinician discovered that prostitutes with cervical cancer went into remission when they were vaccinated against rabies, and for several years he wandered the Tuscan countryside injecting women with dog saliva. In another, 20th-century, case, a 14-year-old boy with lymphatic leukaemia caught chickenpox: within a few days his grotesquely enlarged liver and spleen had returned to ordinary size; his explosive white blood cell count had shrunk nearly 50-fold, back to normal.
But it wasn’t until the 1990s, and the boom in understanding of genetics, that scientists finally learnt how to harness and enhance this effect. Two decades later, the first results are starting to be discussed in cancer journals.
So why is Magnus – did he mind if I called him ‘Magnus’? – about to stop his work?
A reticent, gently doleful-looking man, he has a Swedish chirrup that makes him sound jolly whatever his actual mood. On the web, the first links to him proclaim the Essand Band, his rock group. ‘Money,’ he said. ‘Lack of.’
‘Lack of how much money? Give me a figure,’ I pressed. ‘What sort of price are we talking about to get this virus out of your freezer and give these people a chance of life?’
Magnus has light brown hair that, like his voice, refuses to cooperate. No matter how much he ruffles it, it looks politely combed. He wriggled his fingers through it now, raised his eyes and squinted in calculation, then looked back into his laptop camera. ‘About a million pounds?’
More people have full-blown neuroendocrine tumours (known as NETs or carcinoids) than stomach, pancreas, oesophagus or liver cancer. And the incidence is growing: there has been a five-fold increase in the number of people diagnosed in the last 30 years.
In medical school, students are taught ‘when you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras’ – don’t diagnose a rare disease when there’s a more prob-able explanation. It leads to frequent misdiagnoses: until the death of Steve Jobs, NETs were considered the zebras of cancer, and dismissed as irritable bowel syndrome, flu or the patient getting in a tizz. But doctors are now realising that NETs are much more prevalent than previously thought. In a recent set of post-mortem investigations, scientists cut open more than 30,000 bodies, and ran their hands down the intestines of the dead as if they were squeezing out sausage skins. One in every 100 of them had the distinctive gritty bumps of NETs. That’s two people in every rush-hour tube carriage on your way home from work, or scaled up, 700,000 people in Britain, or roughly twice the population of the city of Manchester. The majority of these tumours are benign; but a small percentage of them, for reasons that no one understands, burst into malignancy.
Many other cancers, if they spread, acquire certain features of neuroendocrine tumours. The first person to own a successful anti-neuroendocrine cancer drug – it doesn’t even have to cure the disease, just slow its progress as anti-retrovirals have done with Aids – will be not only healthy but also Steve Jobs-rich. Last year the pharmaceuticals giant Amgen bought a cancer-assassinating version of the herpes virus for $1 billion. That Magnus’s virus could be held up by a minuscule £1 million dumbfounded me.
‘That’s a banker’s bonus,’ I said. ‘Less than a rock star’s gold toilet seat. It’s the best bargain going. If I found someone to give you this money, would you start the clinical trials?’
‘Of course,’ replied Magnus. ‘Shall I ask the Swedish Cancer Board how soon we can begin?’
I do not have a million pounds. But for £68 I flew to Uppsala. I wanted to pester Prof Essand about his work, face to face, and see this virus, face to petri dish. I wanted to slip some into my mittens, smuggle it back to England in an ice pack and jab it into Dido.
Magnus’s work is already funded by the Swedish Cancer Society and the Swedish Children Cancer Society (neuroblastoma, the most common cancer in infants, is a type of neuroendocrine tumour). A virus that he previously developed (against prostate cancer) is about to enter human trials in Rotterdam, supported by a European Union grant.
The difficulty with Magnus’s virus is not that it is outré, but that it is not outré enough. It is a modified version of an adenovirus, which is known to be safe in humans. It originates from humans, occurring naturally in the adenoids. The disadvantage is that it is too safe: the immune system has had thousands of years to learn how to dispatch such viruses the moment they stray out of the adenoids. It is not the fact that Magnus is using a virus to deal with cancer that makes his investigation potentially so valuable, but the novel way he has devised to get round this problem of instant elimination by the immune system, and enable the virus to spread through tumours in other parts of the body.
The closer you get to manipulating the cellular forces of human existence, the more you sound like a schoolboy babbling about his model aeroplane. Everything in the modern genetics lab is done with kits. There are no fizzing computer lights or fractionating columns dribbling out coagulations of genetic soup in Magnus’s lab; not a single Bunsen burner. Each narrow laboratory room has pale, uncluttered melamine worktops running down both sides, wall units above and small blue cardboard cartons dotted everywhere. Even in their genetics labs, Swedes enjoy an air of flatpack-ness. The most advanced medical lab in the world, and it looks like a half-fitted kitchen.
To make and test their virus, Magnus buys cell lines pre-fab (including ‘human foreskin fibro-blast’) for $50-100 from a company in California; DNA and ‘enzyme mix’ arrive in $179 packets from Indiana; protein concentrations are tested ‘according to the manufacturer’s instructions’ with a DIY kit ($117) from Illinois; and for $79, a parcel from Santa Cruz contains (I haven’t made this up) ‘horseradish peroxidase conjugated donkey anti-goat antibody’.
In a room next to Magnus’s office, a chatty woman with a ponytail is putting DNA inside bacteria. This God-like operation of primal delicacy involves taking a test tube with a yellow top from a $146 Qiagen kit, squirting in a bit of liquid with a pipette and putting the result in a box similar to a microwave: ‘turn the dial to 25 kilovolts and oophlah! The bacteria, they get scared, they let the DNA in. All done,’ the woman says. As the bacteria divide, the desirable viral fragments increase.
What costs the £1 million (less than two per cent of the price of Francis Bacon’s Triptych 1976) that Magnus needs to bring this medicine to patients is not the production, but the health-and-safety paperwork to get the trials started. Trials come in three phases. What Magnus was suggesting for his trifling £1 million (two Mont Blanc diamond-encrusted pens) was not just a phase I trial, but also a phase II, which, all being well, would bring the virus right to the point where a big pharmaceuticals company would pay 10 or 100 times as much to take it over and organise the phase III trial required by law to presage full-scale drug development.
‘So, if Calvin Klein or Elton John or… Paris Hilton stumped up a million, could they have the virus named after them?’
‘Why not?’ Magnus nodded, showing me the bacteria incubator, which looks like an industrial clothes washer, only less complicated. ‘We can make an even better one for two million.’
There are reasons to be cautious. A recent investigation by Amgen found that 47 of 53 papers (on all medical subjects, not just viruses) by academics in top peer-reviewed science journals contained results that couldn’t be reproduced, even though company scientists repeated the experiments up to 50 times. ‘That’s why we have to have such a careful peer-review process,’ Dr Tim Meyer, Dido’s energetic, soft-spoken oncologist, warns. ‘Everybody thinks that their new treatment for cancer is worth funding, but everybody is also keen that only good-quality research is funded.’ Similar to Prof Essand in youth but less polite of hair, Dr Meyer is the co-director of the Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre at University College London. Beside his office, banks of white-coated researchers are bent over desks, busy with pipettes and microscopes. His team pursues an exciting brew of new anti-cancer ideas: antibody-targeted therapy, vascular therapy, DNA binding agents and photodynamic therapy. Each of these shows remarkable promise. But even for such a brilliant and innovative team as this, money is not flowing.
Everyone in cancer science is fighting for ever-decreasing small pools of cash, especially now the government has started tiptoeing into charities at night and rifling the collection boxes. It is big news that Dr Meyer and the UCL team won a grant of £2.5 million, spread out over the next five years, to continue his institute’s cutting-edge investigations into cancers that kill off thousands of us every week: leukaemia; melanoma; gynaecological, gastrointestinal and prostate cancers. Without this money, he would have had to sack 13 members of staff. The sum of £2.5 million is roughly what Madonna earns in 10 days.
He peers at Magnus’s pairs of photographs of splayed rodents with glowing tumours in one shot that have vanished in the next. He knows the Uppsala neuroendocrine team well and has great respect for them. ‘It may be good,’ he agrees. But until Magnus’s findings are tested in a clinical trial, nobody knows how good the work is. Astonishing results in animals are often disappointing in humans. ‘We all need to be subject to the same rules of competitive grant funding and peer review in order to use scarce resources in the most effective manner.’
Back at home with whisky and fags, I nursed my entrepreneurialism. There are currently about half a dozen cancer research institutes in Europe developing adenoviruses to treat cancer – all of them pathetically short of cash. Enter the Vanity Virus Initiative. Pop a couple of million over to Uppsala University, and you will go down in medical books as the kind heart who relieved Ad5[CgA-E1A-miR122]PTD of its hideous hump of a moniker, and gave it the glamour of your own name. What’s the worst that can happen? Even if Magnus’s innovations don’t work in clinical trials the negative results will be invaluable for the next generation of viruses. For the rest of time, your name will pop up in the reference sections of medical papers as the (insert your name here) virus that enabled researchers to find the cure for cancer by avoiding Magnus’s error.
On my third glass of whisky, I wrote an email to Dr Meyer suggesting that he issue a shopping list each year at the time that bankers receive their bonuses, which could be circulated in the City. The list would itemise the therapies that his Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre have selected for support, and quantify how much would be needed in each case to cover all outstanding funds and ensure that the work is branded with your name.
The corridors connecting the different research departments of the Uppsala medical campus are built underground, in order to protect the staff from death during the Swedish winters. Professors and lab technicians zip back and forth along these enormous rectangular tunnels on scooters, occasionally scratching their heads at the tangled intersections where three or four passageways meet at once, then pushing off again, gowns flying, one leg pounding the concrete floor like a piston, until they find the right door, drop the scooter and rise back upstairs by lift. Suspended from the ceiling of these corridors is a vacuum tube that schluuuuups up tissue samples at top speed, and delivers them to the appropriate investigative team. Magnus led me along these tunnels to the Uppsala University Hospital, to visit the chief oncologist, Kjell (pronounced ‘Shell’) Oberg – the man who will run the trial once the money is in place.
‘The trouble with Magnus’s virus is Magnus is Swedish,’ he says, wincing and clutching the air with frustration.
‘It is so,’ Magnus agrees sorrowfully. Swedishly uninterested in profiteering, devoted only to the purity of science, Magnus and his co-workers on this virus have already published the details of their experiments in leading journals around the world, which means that the modified virus as it stands can no longer be patented. And without a patent to make the virus commercial, no one will invest. Even if I could raise the £2 million (I want only the best version) to get the therapy to the end of phase II trials, no organisation is going to step forward to run the phase III trial that is necessary to make the therapy public.
‘Is that because pharmaceuticals companies are run by ruthless plutocrats who tuck into roast baby with cranberry sauce for lunch and laugh at the sick?’ I ask sneerily.
‘It is because,’ Kjell corrects me, ‘only if there’s a big profit can such companies ensure that everyone involved earns enough to pay their mortgage.’
There is no ready source of public funds, either. For reasons understood only by Wotan and Thor, the Swedish government refuses to finance clinical trials in humans, even when the results could potentially slash the country’s health bill by billions of kronor.
All is not lost, however. Kjell does not have to wait until the end of the trials – which could take as much as 10 years – for the full, three-phase process before being able to inject Magnus’s virus into his patients, because as soon as the test samples are approved and ready for use, he can by European law start offering the medicine, on an individual basis, to patients who sign a waiver confirming that they’re prepared to risk experimental treatments. Within 18 months he could be starting his human case-studies.
At several moments during my research into this cancer-delaying virus from the forests of Scandinavia I have felt as though there were someone schlocky from Hollywood operating behind the scenes. The serendipitous discovery of it on the internet; the appalling frustration of being able to see the new therapy, to stand with my hand against the freezer door knowing that it is three inches away, not well-guarded, and that it might work even in its crude current state, but that I may not use it; the thrill of Kjell Oberg’s powerful
support; the despair over the lack of such a silly, artificial thing as a patent. Now, Dr Leja steps into the narrative: she is the virologist whose brilliant doctoral thesis first put me on to the cancer-eating-virus-left-in-a-freezer, and whose name heads all the subsequent breakthrough research papers about this therapy. She turns out to be 29, to look like Scarlett Johansson and to wear voluptuous red lipstick.
Justyna Leja slinks up from her chair, shakes my hand and immediately sets off into a baffling technical discussion with Magnus about a good way to get the patent back for the virus, by a subtle manipulation that involves something called a ‘new backbone’. She also has in mind a small extra tweak to the new-backboned microbe’s outer coat, which will mean that the virus not only bursts the cancer cells it infects, but also provokes the immune system to attack tumours directly. It will be easy to see if it works in animals – but is it worth lumbering the current virus with it for use in humans, who tend to be less responsive? The extra preparatory work could delay the phase I and II trials for a further year.
Back at his lab, Magnus opened up the infamous freezer. I took a step towards the plastic flasks of virus: he nipped the door shut with an appreciative smile.
‘What would you do,’ I asked bitterly, returning my hand to my pocket, ‘if it were your wife who had the disease, or one of your sons whose photograph I saw on your desk?’
He glanced back at the freezer. Although his lab samples are not made to pharmaceutical grade, they would be only marginally less trustworthy than a fully-sanctioned, health-and-safety certified product that is between 1,000 and 10,000 times more expensive.
‘I don’t know,’ he groaned, tugging his hair in despair at the thought. ‘I don’t know.’
To donate money to Professor Magnus Essand’s research on viral treatments for neuroendocrine cancer, send contributions to Uppsala University, The Oncolytic Virus Fund, Box 256, SE-751 05 Uppsala, Sweden, or visit http://www.uu.se/en/support/oncolytic. Contributions will be acknowledged in scientific publications and in association with the clinical trial. A donation of £1 million will ensure the virus is named in your honour
Neurodevelopmental disorders after (gov mandated) vaccines: a brief communication : Med Journal Articles
The Genetic Centers of America, Silver Spring, Maryland 20905, USA. firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12773696
We were initially highly skeptical that differences in the concentrations of thimerosal in vaccines would have any effect on the incidence rate of neurodevelopmental disorders after childhood immunization. This study presents the first epidemiologic evidence, based upon tens of millions of doses of vaccine administered in the United States, that associates increasing thimerosal from vaccines with neurodevelopmental disorders. Specifically, an analysis of the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) database showed statistical increases in the incidence rate of autism (relative risk [RR] = 6.0), mental retardation (RR = 6.1), and speech disorders (RR = 2.2) after thimerosal-containing diphtheria, tetanus, and acellular pertussis (DTaP) vaccines in comparison with thimerosal-free DTaP vaccines. …. An association between neurodevelopmental disorders and thimerosal-containing DTaP vaccines was found, but additional studies should be conducted to confirm and extend this study.
The Danger of Excessive Vaccination During Brain Development: The Case for a Link to Autism Spectrum Disorders
Russell L. Blaylock, M.D.
In 1976, children received 10 vaccines before attending school. Today they will receive over 36 injections. The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Center for Disease Control assured parents that it was safe to not only give these vaccines, but that they could be given at one time with complete safety. Is this true? Or are we being lied to on a grand scale?
via http://www.the3report.com February 26, 2010
An in depth look at school shootings, and the commonly known side effects of SSRIs, reveals the drugs to be a primary factor leading to violence.
Special 3 Report Exclusive
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, or SSRIs, are commonly used to treat depression in children and adolescents. In 2005, the Center for Disease Control reported that 118 million prescriptions had been written for anti-depressants, and that the number of people using anti-depressants had “almost tripled between the periods 1988-1994 and 1999-2000”. One popular SSRI drug called Prozac has been prescribed to more than 38 million people worldwide.
As more and more people are given SSRIs to combat depression, mounting evidence suggests that the side effects of SSRIs can lead to violent behavior and suicide. Many of the high fatality school shootings of the past 10 years have involved shooters who had been prescribed SSRIs. An in depth look at school shootings, and the commonly known side effects of SSRIs, reveals the drugs to be a primary factor leading to violence.
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors work by altering the patient’s brain chemistry. Serotonin is a neurotransmitter that is released by one neuron to make another neuron fire, and is linked to mood and behavior. Serotonin is released into the space between neurons, called the synapse. In the natural course of events, the serotonin is then reabsorbed into the neuron it originally came from. SSRIs block this reuptake of the serotonin into the neuron. The idea is that with more serotonin in the synapse, the activity of the neurons will increase, which theoretically leads to better moods for some patients.
Unfortunately SSRIs can cause many different side effects. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV is the most widely used source of diagnostic information for mental health by health professionals. It has “consistently confirmed that all anti-depressants can cause mania” which is a “potentially psychotic condition of intense mental and emotional excitement”. Mania often involves feelings of invulnerability, extreme power, farfetched and elaborate plans, as well as the urge to commit violence. A recent controlled clinical trial of the SSRI Prozac showed that it caused mania in six percent of the test subjects. Other side effects of Prozac include agitation, anxiety, instability, confusion, hallucinations, hostility and psychosis. Studies have also repeatedly shown an increased risk of suicide for people taking an SSRI.
Research has shown that Prozac and drugs like it could be causing people with no history of mental illness to become suicidal. In 2004, a federal panel of drug experts said antidepressants “could cause children and teenagers to become suicidal.” The drug agency also warned that changes in dosage can increase the risk of suicide. SSRIs are particularly dangerous because they cause both suicidal and violent tendencies in some individuals. It is likely that some of the school shooters may have already been suicidal before they decided to go on killing sprees. Not only does Prozac cause suicide, it often causes especially violent suicide, such as stabbing one’s self to death.
A person who suffers from agitated depression is especially prone to violence. The individual is both depressed and stimulated. In many cases, agitated depression is often made worse by SSRIs, resulting in suicide, murder or both. Negative side effects often occur when starting the drug treatment or altering the dosage. A condition called Akathisia is a common neurological disorder that affects people taking SSRI medications. Patients suffering from Akathisia complain of “unease, distress, dysphoria, and inner restlessness.” Patients may be unable to stand or sit still. This can manifest as repetitive movements of the legs and feet, and the patient may stand and sit repeatedly. Akathisia can develop into a chronic condition which may be irreversible. Akathisia is described as “virtual inner torture of irritation and anguish” that can cause patients to act out in bizarre and sometimes violent ways.
In 1999, British psychologist David Wilkinson gave a clinical presentation of a case in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. He revealed how a previously nonviolent fifteen year old male overturned store merchandise stands, smashed another student in the mouth, and committed a robbery while on Prozac. Wilkinson believed that “emotional blunting” caused by Prozac had driven the young man to commit violence.
Many doctors are misinformed about the effects of the SSRIs they prescribe patients. Scientific workshops attended by many doctors are often nothing more than drug company sponsored advertisement sessions. It is often times easier for a doctor to blame side effects on the patient’s “mental illness” instead of the drugs they have prescribed the patient.
The Columbine High School massacre took place on April 20, 1999 at Columbine High School in Jefferson County, Colorado. Eric Harris and Dylan Kybold shot and killed 12 students and a teacher before taking their own lives. They injured 21 other students. It was then reported that Eric Harris had been rejected from joining the military because he was being treated with an SSRI medication called Luvox. Harris had been taking Luvox for a year while developing his plans for mass murder. Toxicology reports released by the drug maker showed that Harris had therapeutic levels of Luvox in his system at the time of the shootings. Jeff Wise, a teenager who killed nine people before committing suicide had been taking large dosages of Prozac. A relative of Mr. Weise said that his dosages had been increased in the weeks leading up to the shooting, a reoccurring factor in SSRI induced suicides. In 1989, Joseph Wesbecker shot and killed eight co-workers and himself. He had been taking Prozac. Cho Seung Hui, a 23-year-old Virginia Tech senior killed thirty-two people and wounded many others before committing suicide. It was reported that investigators believed he may have been prescribed medication for depression.
The common factor connecting all of these shooters is the use of SSRIs prior to the shootings. Could it be possible that the SSRI was the catalyzing factor in driving these school shooters over the edge? Could an increase in dosage have triggered Jeff Wise’s shooting spree? Preexisting mental illness in combination with SSRI induced emotional blunting, mania, and suicidal desires could have been the perfect recipe for these high casualty school shootings.
Breggin, M.D., Peter R. The Anti-Depressant Fact Book. Da Capo Press, 2001. 30, 45-48, 56-59, 84, 100-104, 116. Print.
Cohen, Elizabeth. “CDC: Antidepressants most prescribed drugs in U.S..” CNN 9 July 2007: 1-2. Web. 3 Dec 2009.http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/07/09/antidepressants/index.html
Hetrick, Sarah, Magenta Simmons, and Sally Merry. “SSRIs and depression in children and adolescents: the imperative for shared decision-making.” Australasian Psychiatry 16.5 (2008): 1-2. Web. 1 Dec 2009.
“Prozac ‘may encourage suicide’.” BBC News 22 May 2000: 1-3. Web. 9 Dec 2009. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/758763.stm
Salvatore, Steve. “Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant.” CNN 29 April 1999: 1-2. Web. 1 Dec 2009.http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9904/29/luvox.explainer
Haddad, Peter M., and Serdar M. Dursun. “Neurological complications of psychiatric drugs: clinical features and management.” Human Psychopharmacology 23.1 (2008): 16. Web. 10 Dec 2009.
Davey, Monica, and Garndiner Harris. “Family Wonders if Prozac Prompted School Shootings.” New York Times 26 March 2005: 1-2. Web. 1 Dec 2009.http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/26/national/26shoot.html
Huppke, Rex, Aamer Madhani, and Ea Torriero. “As campus grieves, ‘monster’ revealed.” Chicago Tribune 18 April 2007: 1-3. Web. 11 Dec 2009.http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2007-04-18/news/0704170925_1_worst-shooting-rampage-cho-seung-hui-engineering-building