Tuesday, 16 October 2012
A study by the Institute of Public Health in Norway banishes the myth that mobile devices and WiFi can cause cancer. According to researchers there is no evidence that low-intensity electromagnetic fields can cause adverse health effects. Waves generated by the antenna of a mobile and other telecommunications equipment, known as radio frequency or electromagnetic fields, are below the limit set by the authorities. This limit was established because the fields above a certain power cause harmful heating of human tissues. But even if the phones will exceed that limit, there would be no risk of brain cancer. The research was commissioned by the Norwegian government, which had seen an increase in public concern about this issue after the publication of studies and unreliable tabloid published previously. The committee of experts to carry out has removed any doubt: no phones, or WiFi, or other similar emitting electromagnetic waves cause cancer, male infertility or other reproductive harm endrocrino disease or immune system. Most previous reports on the relationship between mobile phones and cancer are focused on the head and neck, but the investigation of this Norwegian group found no evidence to associate the phones to brain tumor. Cancer registries have not increased since the mobile phone became popular for these reasons. Nor is it true that such terminals as cause electromagnetic hypersensitivity had wanted to believe. Does this mean that there is no electromagnetic hypersensitivity? The study director, Jan Alexander, does not go as far. "We have no grounds for claiming that the symptoms are imaginary. But a large number of studies suggest that these symptoms must have other causes than the physical effects of low level electromagnetic fields." So do not worry. If you noticed that the ear warms you after using the phone, does not mean you're about to have a meeting with the reaper. What happens is that the phone battery is heated.
Posted by admin at 23:30
I have an American institute has developed a vaccine that could cure various breast cancer. Thus, in general (announcement here). While on the other hand, if one looks Cuban vaccine would be effective to control lung cancer, one of the most lethal. And is that not a week goes by without a news informing us of how close we are to cure cancer. We say that it is, that I'm out of work at the German Cancer Research Center because the cancer is cured, ready in two days ... and so every week. That is the result of bringing together scientists who exaggerate their results (others will say that the twists) with journalists who need to sell news (others will say that they explained it wrong). And it just take a look at the two issues mentioned to realize that behind much perhaps, if that, well, we'll see. In the first case, investigating, you realize that the Roswell Institute presents a Phase I clinical study for a vaccine. What is Phase I? Well, they're going to try to completely healthy people to know what doses are dangerous. Nothing more, nothing less. Could the vaccine be effective? Nobody knows me or who is leading the study. First they have to prove that is not toxic, then it is really effective, it is to a greater extent than other alternatives, and that works cancer symptoms subtypes. It is a complex process and most treatments are wasted during this period. The treatment in question combines Rapamycin dendritic cell. On the future of Rapamycin cancer treatments there is much discussion since it also works as an immunosuppressant. Moreover dendritic cell therapies show promise but is still difficult to assess to what extent will be useful. When you are working in stage III or IV, we talked. In the second study more crumb, and is in Phase III! This is almost a novelty in this kind of news, it is that they did not tell reporters when they entered Phase I. The treatment involves administration of EGF protein for generating antibodies against it and which is involved in the growth of various tumors. Antibodies generated in theory could attack the tumor. The case study is a subtype of lung cancer called "non-small cell" or NSCLC, for its acronym in English. The authors suggest that treatment "is safe and patients have a tendency towards increased immune response and survival" [my translation, bold and capital letters are mine, and if I could make it shine like a sign of Las Vegas]. This means that it is too early to declare victory, we have to see that how ultimately increases survival, effects medium to long term and that such patients works. So far the data point to an improvement in approximately an additional 5% on survival typical to this type of tumor. It may seem little but bear in mind that the current survival is about 8-10%. Pinta? Well? Sure, but it's not enough to put us all to smoke now. As you can see there is science behind the two cases. However, they have graced excess to be sold as panacea. And there are numerous treatments for many subtypes of tumors. The data indicate that the survival increases every day for almost all cases. Generally occurs step by step through many studies and combined treatments. Thousands of new studies each year enter clinical phase, some very promising. It seems likely, however, that the overnight the problem disappears. Not talking about a single disease with a single cause, but many that fall under one name: cancer.
Posted by admin at 23:23