Some additional Links With Coping & Beating Cancer At Heart …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Some additional Links With Coping & Beating Cancer At Heart …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:

Greg Lance – Watkins

Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,
.

Hello there,

My sister’s breast cancer diagnosis came when she was only 23 and shook my entire family to its core. I’m endlessly grateful that my sister was able to conquer her disease, but I think a lot about how lucky she was. Not everyone is as fortunate, and many don’t realize how real the risk of cancer is. This has been something I’ve been thinking about a lot lately, since our family’s annual summer vacation is on the horizon.

In her honor, I wanted to pass along some really important cancer and terminal illness resources that would fit great here: https://greglw.com/cancer-links/ . I hope they’ll ease the minds of anyone going through a difficult time due to a cancer diagnosis.

 

9 Proven Ways to Reduce Your Cancer Risk

 

Asbestos: What You Need to Know When Buying, Selling or Remodeling

 

Creative play: Helping children cope with cancer

 

A Sobering Diagnosis: Coping With a Terminal Illness Diagnosis as a Recovering Addict

 

17 Simple Ways to Prevent Air Pollution in Your Home

 

Asbestos, Mold and Other Toxins

 

The health hazards of sitting

 

I appreciate your time and all you do to promote awareness and offer support.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Katybeth

 

Katybeth Dee

http://selfexam.org/

340 S Lemon Ave #5780 | Walnut, CA | 91789

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

 

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

 

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

IF You, Like I, Have A Garden – Its Odds On You Have Used Glyphosate …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
IF You, Like I, Have A Garden – Its Odds On You Have Used Glyphosate  …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:

Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Cancer agency left in the dark over glyphosate evidence

The World Health Organization’s cancer agency says a common weedkiller is “probably carcinogenic.” The scientist leading that review knew of fresh data showing no cancer link – but he never mentioned it and the agency did not take it into account.

Filed June 14, 2017, 1:05 p.m. GMT

LONDON – When Aaron Blair sat down to chair a week-long meeting of 17 specialists at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in France in March 2015, there was something he wasn’t telling them.

The epidemiologist from the U.S. National Cancer Institute had seen important unpublished scientific data relating directly to a key question the IARC specialists were about to consider: Whether research shows that the weedkiller glyphosate, a key ingredient in Monsanto’s best-selling RoundUp brand, causes cancer.

Previously unreported court documents reviewed by Reuters from an ongoing U.S. legal case against Monsanto show that Blair knew the unpublished research found no evidence of a link between glyphosate and cancer. In a sworn deposition given in March this year in connection with the case, Blair also said the data would have altered IARC’s analysis. He said it would have made it less likely that glyphosate would meet the agency’s criteria for being classed as “probably carcinogenic.”

But IARC, a semi-autonomous part of the World Health Organization, never got to consider the data. The agency’s rules on assessing substances for carcinogenicity say it can consider only published research – and this new data, which came from a large American study on which Blair was a senior researcher, had not been published.

The lack of publication has sparked debate and contention. A leading U.S. epidemiologist and a leading UK statistician – both independent of Monsanto – told Reuters the data was strong and relevant and they could see no reason why it had not surfaced.

Monsanto told Reuters that the fresh data on glyphosate could and should have been published in time to be considered by IARC, and that the failure to publish it undermined IARC’s classification of glyphosate. The legal case against Monsanto, taking place in California, involves 184 individual plaintiffs who cite the IARC assessment and claim exposure to RoundUp gave them cancer. They allege Monsanto failed to warn consumers of the risks. Monsanto denies the allegations.

The company also goes beyond saying the fresh data should have been published. It told Reuters the data was deliberately concealed by Blair, but provided no specific evidence of it being hidden.

Blair told Reuters the data, which was available two years before IARC assessed glyphosate, was not published in time because there was too much to fit into one scientific paper. Asked whether he deliberately did not publish it to avoid it being considered by IARC, he said that was “absolutely incorrect.” He said a decision not to publish the glyphosate data had been taken “several months” before IARC chose to conduct a review of the chemical.

The National Cancer Institute also cited “space constraints” as the reasons why the new data on glyphosate was not published.

SENIOR SCIENTIST: Aaron Blair, a retired epidemiologist, led the review of several pesticides, including glyphosate, by the International Agency for Research on Cancer in 2015. CREDIT: National Cancer Institute/Bill Branson/Handout via Reuters

The absence of the data from IARC’s assessment was important. IARC ended its meeting in 2015 by concluding that glyphosate is a “probable human carcinogen.” It based its finding on “limited evidence” of carcinogenicity in humans and “sufficient evidence” in experimental animals. It said, among other things, that there was a “positive association” between glyphosate and blood cancers called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. IARC told Reuters that, despite the existence of fresh data about glyphosate, it was sticking with its findings.

The agency’s assessment is at odds with other international regulators who have said the weedkiller is not a carcinogenic risk to humans. It led to a delay in Europe on a decision on whether to re-license or ban EU-wide sales of pesticides containing glyphosate. That decision is still pending. In the meantime, some countries have tightened restrictions on the weedkiller’s use in private gardens and public spaces and on crops before harvest.

In the United States, a California judge took the IARC assessment into account in a separate legal case in March when ruling that the state can require RoundUp to carry a warning label that it may cause cancer. Monsanto is now facing further litigation from hundreds of plaintiffs across the United States who say glyphosate gave them or their loved ones non-Hodgkin lymphoma, citing the IARC assessment as part of their claims.

Yet if the IARC panel experts had been in a position to take into account Blair’s fresh data, IARC’s analysis of the evidence on glyphosate would have been different, Blair acknowledged in the court documents reviewed by Reuters.

The unpublished research came from the Agricultural Health Study, a large and significant study, led by scientists at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, of agricultural workers and their families in the United States. Asked by Monsanto lawyers in March whether the unpublished data showed “no evidence of an association” between exposure to glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, Blair replied: “Correct.”

Asked in the same deposition whether IARC’s review of glyphosate would have been different if the missing data had been included, Blair again said: “Correct.”  Lawyers had put to him that the addition of the missing data would have “driven the meta-relative risk downward,” and Blair agreed.

Scott Partridge, Monsanto’s vice president of strategy, told Reuters the IARC glyphosate review “ignored multiple years of additional data from the largest and most comprehensive study on farmer exposure to pesticides and cancer.”  

“We decided to remove it because … you couldn’t put it all in one paper.”

Aaron Blair, former epidemiologist at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, explaining why new data on glyphosate and cancer was not published

The Agricultural Health Study was particularly pertinent, he said, because it examined real-life human exposure to glyphosate, whereas much of the scientific research IARC analysed involved laboratory tests on rodents.

IARC told Reuters that its evaluations follow strict scientific criteria and that its carcinogen classification system “is recognised and used as a reference all around the world.” It reiterated that in the interests of transparency it considers only published data.

Reuters asked two independent statistical experts to review the data, which has still not been published, though the National Cancer Institute told Reuters researchers are currently working on an updated analysis of it. Neither of the two experts had seen the data before and both said they had no conflict of interest over glyphosate.

David Spiegelhalter, a professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at Britain’s University of Cambridge, said there was “no apparent scientific reason” for not publishing the data. Bob Tarone, a retired statistician who worked alongside Blair and others at the National Cancer Institute for 28 years before moving to the for-profit International Epidemiology Institute, said he could find “no ready explanation in terms of the available scientific evidence” for the data not to have been published.

Tarone had already raised the issue in a little-noticed paper in the European Journal of Cancer Prevention last year. He wrote that IARC’s classification of glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans was the result of “a flawed and incomplete summary” of the evidence.

In an email to Reuters, IARC declined to say whether Blair informed IARC staff about the unpublished data, whether he should have, and whether that data might have changed IARC’s evaluation of glyphosate had it been published in time. The agency said it had no plans to reconsider its assessment of the chemical.

NON-SELECTIVE HERBICIDE

Glyphosate is what’s known as a non-selective herbicide, meaning it kills most plants. Discovered by the Monsanto chemist John E. Franz in 1970, glyphosate is no longer under patent, is supplied by numerous companies and is now the world’s most widely used weedkiller, deployed in agriculture, forestry and domestic gardening. Monsanto and other companies have developed genetically engineered seeds that can tolerate glyphosate, allowing farmers to apply it to entire fields without destroying crops.

The safety of the chemical has been under scientific and regulatory scrutiny since the 1980s. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other international bodies, including the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada’s Pest Management Regulatory Agency, New Zealand’s Environmental Protection Authority and Japan’s Food Safety Commission, have kept it under regular review, and all say glyphosate is unlikely to cause cancer in humans.

But it is not settled science, and researchers across the world continue to study glyphosate – measuring traces of it in water and foods, exposing lab rats to it, and monitoring possible health effects in people who have used it year after year in their work.

One of the largest and most highly regarded studies to examine effects of pesticide use in real life is the Agricultural Health Study, a prospective investigation of about 89,000 agricultural workers, farmers and their families in Iowa and North Carolina. Since the early 1990s, it has gathered and analysed detailed information on the health of participants and their families, and their use of pesticides, including glyphosate.

AHS researchers have published numerous studies from their data. One paper looking at glyphosate and possible links with cancers was published in 2005. It concluded that “glyphosate exposure was not associated with cancer incidence overall.” Since then, more data has been collected, adding statistical power to subsequent AHS analyses.

In early 2013, Blair and other researchers began preparing new papers with updated AHS data on lymphoma and pesticides, including data on glyphosate. Reuters reviewed drafts dated February 2013 and March 2013, and asked Spiegelhalter and Tarone to examine them. They said the papers, while still in the editing process, were in relatively advanced manuscript form. The drafts contain notes in the margin and suggested changes signed “AEB,” Blair’s full initials.

After studying the draft papers, Tarone said the unpublished figures show “absolutely no evidence whatsoever” of an increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma because of exposure to glyphosate.

Spiegelhalter told Reuters: “In the drafts I saw, none of the herbicides, including glyphosate, showed any evidence of a relation” with non-Hodgkin lymphoma. He noted that the study was statistically strong enough to show a relationship for other pesticides – so had there been any link to glyphosate, it should have shown up.

In his legal testimony, Blair also described the Agricultural Health Study as “powerful” and agreed the data showed no link.

But these draft papers were never published, even though Blair told Monsanto’s lawyers in March that the Agricultural Health Study was robust and statistically well-powered, and told Reuters the research was important for science and the public. Email exchanges between Blair and his fellow researchers in 2014 also show they were keenly aware there would be scientific and public interest in fresh AHS data.

On February 28, 2014, Michael Alavanja, a co-lead author of one of the draft papers, sent an email to another AHS co-researcher, copying the message to Blair. It noted that the research was “important to science, public health, IARC and EPA” – the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

In the same email, Alavanja referred to the findings on non-Hodgkin lymphoma, or NHL. He wrote: “It would be irresponsible if we didn’t seek publication of our NHL manuscript in time to influence IARCs (sic) decision.”

Yet the new AHS data on glyphosate and lymphoma did not surface.

Instead, a revised version of one of the 2013 draft papers prepared by Blair and other researchers appeared in a journal called PLoS One in October 2014. It did not include the data on herbicides, of which glyphosate is one.

This was unusual. Since 2003 AHS researchers had published at least 10 papers using different rounds of updated data to explore possible links between pesticides and specific diseases. And each one included all four pesticide classes: fungicides, fumigants, insecticides and herbicides.

Alavanja was one of the authors of the paper published in PLoS One in 2014. He said he and other authors and senior scientists at the National Cancer Institute decided to remove herbicides from that analysis primarily because of “the issue of statistical power and the need for a comprehensive evaluation of glyphosate and all cancers.”

Blair told Reuters the data on herbicides, including glyphosate, had been removed “to make the paper a more manageable size.” He gave a similar answer to the lawyer acting for Monsanto, who repeatedly asked in the legal deposition why the data was not published. Blair testified that the paper “went through many iterations.” He said he could not recall when the glyphosate data was removed, but “we decided to remove it because … you couldn’t put it all into one paper.”  

Monsanto argues that the data was not published because it showed no link between glyphosate and non-Hodgkin lymphoma.

The IARC review “ignored multiple years of additional data from the largest and most comprehensive study on farmer exposure to pesticides and cancer.”

Scott Partridge, vice-president of strategy at Monsanto

Tarone said the absence of herbicide data in the published 2014 paper was “inexplicable,” noting that volume of data had not been an issue in any previous published papers. He said updated AHS data and analyses on herbicides “should be published as soon as possible” to allow “a more complete evaluation of the possible association between glyphosate exposure and NHL risk in humans.”

Reuters asked nine other scientists listed as authors on the two draft papers of 2013 why these drafts had never been published. Some were unavailable for comment, and others referred questions to Laura Beane Freeman, who was a co-author on the draft papers and on the 2014 PLoS published study, and is the National Cancer Institute’s current principal investigator of the AHS.

In an email to Reuters, Freeman and a spokesman for the institute said: “After reviewing early drafts of the manuscript, it became clear that it would be impossible to do a thorough evaluation of all major pesticide groupings due to the sheer volume of information that was important to include.”

They said the decision to separate the results for herbicides, including glyphosate, allowed the scientists “to present more thorough evaluations” of the remaining pesticides.  An updated study on glyphosate is under way, Freeman said.

CULTURE CLASH

Despite IARC’s modest size and budget, its monographs – assessments of whether something is a cause of cancer – often catch the eyes and ears of policymakers and the public. Recent IARC monographs have included judgments that red meat is carcinogenic and should be classified alongside arsenic and smoking, and that coffee, which IARC previously said might cause cancer, probably is not carcinogenic.

The agency takes a different approach to many other regulators in two important ways. First, it says it assesses “hazard” – the strength of evidence about whether a substance or activity can cause cancer in any way, whether in a laboratory experiment or elsewhere. It does not assess the “risk” or likelihood of a person getting cancer from everyday exposure to something. Second, in general it only considers research that has been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

IARC considered around 1,000 published studies in its evaluation of glyphosate. But only a handful of those were cohort studies in humans – the kind like the Agricultural Health Study and the most relevant to real-life situations such as people working with glyphosate in agriculture.

The differing judgments on glyphosate by IARC and other regulators have stoked clashes on both sides of the Atlantic.  In the United States members of Congress have launched investigations into American taxpayer funding of IARC. They have yet to reach any conclusions.

In Europe, the battle centres on the looming decision about whether to re-license glyphosate for use in the European Union. The European Commission has said it wants EU member states to come to a decision by the end of 2017. Politicians will need to weigh the opinions of IARC and other scientific bodies when they decide whether or not to accept a Commission proposal to extend glyphosate’s marketing licence by 10 years.

It remains unclear whether the AHS data will see the light of day in time to be considered. Blair said he thought publishing the glyphosate data would be important and that his former colleagues at the NCI were working on it. The NCI’s Freeman said her team is currently “drafting a manuscript on this topic.” She said the new study “will explore the effects of glyphosate exposure in greater depth than a publication that includes multiple pesticides” and would, she hoped, be submitted “to a peer-reviewed journal in the coming months.”

Alavanja said a draft paper “should be available for submission to an appropriate scientific journal sometime later this year,” but that a publication date “is very difficult to predict.”          

Glyphosate battle

By Kate Kelland

Photo editing: Simon Newman

Design: Catherine Tai

Graphic: Ciaran Hughes

Edited by Richard Woods

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,

Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337

Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.

Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<

&

>Side Bars<

&

The Top Bar >PAGES<

 

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To

.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

The cancer-sufferer standing against Jeremy Corbyn in his own backyard …

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
The cancer-sufferer standing against Jeremy Corbyn in his own backyard …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

Anna’s article below puts into perspective not just the destruction of life as you may know it but in fact the confrontation of one’s own demise. Her article is wide ranging, very personal and in its way has the fascination that is seen in a rodent when confronted by a hungry snake!

On Rebuilding Your Life When Hit By An Exocet.

They were not, as you might imagine, all fellow patients with physical ailments. Exocets arrive in many forms.

For Mrs Blunt, it arrived in the form of her husband’s gleeful public declaration of his love for his homosexual partner. The media were delighted to report on his new relationship. She was left to rebuild her life with her children. An entirely innocent victim of a life shattering Exocet.

For Mrs Travis, it was the announcement that her husband was being investigated by Operation Yewtree. Mrs Travis had done nothing wrong, yet she lost her home, her peace of mind at a time that she was grappling with breast cancer – and her privacy. Her life would never be the same again.

Other who have been kind enough to make contact with me include a man who has recently been cleared of all charges, a totally innocent individual, yet who must still keep his head below the parapet for fear of further publicity so I shall not mention his name; and Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner who finds time in her busy schedule every day to phone me and keep my spirits up.

That is not to ignore the many good friends I have made whilst running this blog – Gloria Smudd and Blocked Dwarf come to mind in particular, both have given of their time to help me settle into my new home; Andrew Rosthorn, Daedalus Parrot and ‘another’ who shall remain nameless (again with good reason to keep their head below the media parapet)  have given hours of their time to help me stand for election.

It is with those who have found themselves caught up as innocent participants in the whirlwind of false allegations that I feel a particular affinity with. I have a new understanding of what it is like to have your life turned upside down.

My life, their life, can never be the same again. We have done nothing wrong, yet have to accept that there is no road back to our old life – whether it is because, in their case, that the vile accusations will continue to be propagated on an unforgiving internet, their family name forever besmirched; or in my case, that I will never walk again with all the limitations that brings in its wake.

One thing I have quickly learned is to disassociate yourself from those who have a fixed view as to how you should ‘present’ yourself to the public in future.

You have to be true to yourself.

Yet there are many around you only too quick to give you advice as to what you should or shouldn’t be saying, nor how you should be saying it! You can rest assured that my decision to carry on blogging hasn’t gone down well with some people. My decision to ‘go public’ with my story in The Times with James Gillespie and the Mail on Sunday with David Rose in an effort to bring publicity to the issue of people suing the NHS has gone down like a lead balloon in some quarters…..

Fortunately that doesn’t include Mr G who has been a tower of strength for me, not just in terms of what he has had to do for me physically – and I cannot wait to publish the blog post which will carry pictures of the wonderful extension he has built on for me to live in, I am so very proud of what he has done – but he has also supported me mentally; mopping my tears when I have been overwhelmed by self pity, cheering me when I have managed to write a blog post, and, small point, bringing me back photographs of all the little things I can no longer see for myself.

I say ‘small point’ – but have you any idea what a difference it makes to me that he brings back a photograph of what the pub garden looks like now that they have taken down a large tent, rather than merely ‘telling’ me about it? It makes me feel as though I am still part of the wider world.

It was Mr G too, who brought into the hospital that photograph of me at 23, to remind me that that girl was still inside me, even if I could no longer recognise myself in the mirror. (One of the side effects of the massive dose of steroids that I was having at the time, apart from making you talk ten to the dozen in a loud voice, is that they literally change the shape of your jaw and puff out your cheeks, so much so that I nearly screamed the first time I caught sight of myself!)

I have had to get used to the lack of privacy too. I can no longer be alone. There must always be someone with me. No phone call is private. No part of my body is private – I have round the clock care to wash me and dress me. No bodily function is private. That is why it becomes so very important to have some control over some part of my life – and that is where I have some connection with others who have received an Exocet in the backside.

We can’t change the past, can’t change what has happened, but we have control over how we face the future.

Hidden away, licking our wounds; or blazing out in public saying ‘I don’t care what you think, this is the person I am, this is the person I choose to be, this is the person I am – you can either like it or lump it’.

It will come as no surprise to those of you who know me well, to learn that I am choosing the latter path. In fact you could say – the latter path ‘with knobs on’.

As we speak, there are two web experts doing their best to put my blog site back as it was. It can’t be exactly the same, because it will be going on a wordpress.com site rather than a self hosted wordpress.org site and the software is not identical. I’ve chosen not to go the self hosted route this time, because I still have to face the reality that the cancer will kill me at some unspecified time in the future, and if the blog was self hosted, that would mean that it would disappear again.

Thankfully the kind reader who had hosted the archive site is going to host the new site as well, so it will stay up and running when I am gone – it does mean though, that all the comments on all the back posts will disappear. Apparently there is no known piece of software that will scrape both the posts and the comments onto a new WordPress site. Edinburgh University have a full record of all the comments for any serious researchers. I’m just explaining that before someone thinks there is some nefarious reason why there are 0 comments on the old posts.

So, my choice as to how to deal with future is to write; what I want, when I want, how I want. Writing is my window on the world, it allows me to reach out to people from this bed. I hope that you will take the opportunity to comment as well – not just read, for it is that conversation that transports me from this bed into the world that I used to belong to.

A world that was full of people and events and colour.

If you have time – you can make it like that still for me, by telling me of what you have been doing, what you are thinking. I know there were hundreds, nay thousands, of you reading this blog before I closed it in December – if just a few of you take the time to continue that conversation you will be helping me to be part of my old world.

Thank you.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

Susanne, who is now 68, has battled her illness, leiomyosarcoma, a rare soft tissue cancer, for six years. After almost killing her several times, it has now attacked her spine, rendering her immobile.

Crushed: Susanne, pictured above in her 20s, was a victim of medical negligence in 1973 when she was given a hysterectomy at the Westminster Hospital when she was admitted for a ¿dilation and curettage¿, a minor operation used to deal with heavy periods 

Crushed: Susanne, pictured above in her 20s,

Perhaps you would like to enjoy the privilege of getting to know Susanne a little better, in her rapidly closing life, however long it will be – see:
https://twitter.com/AnnaRaccoon2017

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

 

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW


I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

IN MEMORIAM > ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm On 17-Dec-2014

IN MEMORIAM > ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm On 17-Dec-2014
.

 Please Be Sure To

& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

To Give Hope & Information

 .

IN MEMORIAM >
ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm who Died On 17-Dec-2014

ARCHER Stuart Died 17-Dec-2014

Stuart died On 17 December, after a long and very bravely fought fight against bowel cancer, at his home in Newport.

Stuart was aged 66 when he died.

He leaves his wife and partner through his illness Trish and was dearly loved by Suzanne and Tom.
He will be missed not only by his family but by many friends and the town of Chepstow, where he had worked with Sandra and the staff at Archer & Co. and had gained the respect of many for his courteous behaviour and dedicated service to his clients. He will also be missed and remembered by those who knew of his illness and his resolute determination to survive with humour as long as possible, making the most of every moment he could.
I was privileged to have had several very private conversations with Stuart during his illness & treatment where, even when he knew the outcome was inevitable, he courageously sought out opportunities to be used in new trials that would not just prolong his own life but would provide information to help others following down the path!
My thoughts are with his family and those whom he had worked with for so many years, who miss him greatly, at this challenging time, when we remember his life on the anniversary of his death.
A Celebration for the life of Stuart Malcolm Archer, in accord with his wishes, was held at St. Pierre Golf and Country Club on Thursday 8th January 2015 at 13:00hrs.
The service of commemoration at St. Pierre was held after a private family ceremony at the Crematorium and was conducted by a Civil Celebrant Gill Fortescue with an extensive, and very appropriate eulogy.
The Eulogy was delivered by Stuart’s long term friend David Evans.

No flowers, by request, however donations for St. David’s Hospice Care may still be sent, in memory of his life, to:

Philip Blatchly & Son,
5 Station Road,
Chepstow,
Monmouthshire,
NP16 5PA.
TEL: 01291 624939

.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.
 Please Be Sure To
& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide To Give Others HOPE
I Have Been Fighting Cancer since 1997 & I’M STILL HERE!
I Have Cancer, Cancer Does NOT Have Me
I just want to say sorry for copping out at times and leaving Lee and friends to cope!
Any help and support YOU can give her will be hugely welcome.
I do make a lousy patient!

.
If YOU want to follow my fight against Cancer from when it started and I first presented with symptoms in 1998 see The TAB at the Header of this Blog. called >DIARY of Cancer ….< just click and it will give you a long list of the main events in chronological order, many linked to specific blog postings.
.
Thoughts, articles and comments will be in chronological order in the main blog and can be tracked in the >ARCHIVE< in the Left Sidebar.
.
You may find the TABS >MEDICAL LINKS< and also >CANCER LINKS< of help, also many of the links in articles and >HOT LINKS< in the Sidebar.
.
YOU are welcome to call me, minded that I am NOT medically trained, if you believe I can help in ANY way. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog. Archive: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
Health Blog. Ongoing: http:GregLW.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

Enhanced by Zemanta

11 Days To Shrink Or Destroy Breast Cancer

11 Days To Shrink Or Destroy Breast Cancer
.

 Please Be Sure To

& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

To Give Hope & Information

 .

Breast Cancer Trial Kills Tumours In 11 Days

Around a quarter of women given a combined treatment of drugs in a clinical study saw their tumours shrink or disappear.

08:01, UK,Friday 11 March 2016

Breast cancer chemotherapy research

A consultant analysing a mammogram. (File Pic)

Using Herceptin together with another powerful breast cancer drug before surgery could shrink or destroy tumours in just 11 days, a study has found.

Some patients may be spared chemotherapy if they are given a combination of the drugs Tyverb (lapatinib) and Herceptin (trastuzumab) immediately after diagnosis, according to the research by a team of British doctors.

The medics, who presented their study to experts at the European Breast Cancer Conference in Amsterdam, said their findings had “groundbreaking potential”.

Some 257 women with an aggressive form of cancer – HER2 – were involved in the clinical trial and either received no treatment, one of the drugs or a combination of them.

Around a quarter of the women on the combined treatment saw their tumours shrink or disappear.

Trial co-leader Professor Judith Bliss, from the Institute of Cancer Research in London, said it was “unexpected to see quite such dramatic responses to the trastuzumab and lapatinib within 11 days”.

She added: “Our results are a strong foundation on which to build further trials of combination anti-HER2 therapies prior to surgery – which could reduce the number of women who require subsequent chemotherapy, which is also very effective but can lead to long-term side effects.”

At present, women usually have their tumour removed during surgery followed by a combination of chemotherapy, radiotherapy, hormonal therapies and targeted drugs such as Herceptin.

Professor Arnie Purushotham, senior clinical adviser at Cancer Research UK, which funded the study, said: “These results are very promising if they stand up in the long run and could be the starting step of finding a new way to treat HER2 positive breast cancers.”

Around 5,300 to 8,000 women a year are diagnosed with HER2 positive breast cancer.

To view the original article CLICK HERE
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.
 Please Be Sure To
& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide To Give Others HOPE
I Have Been Fighting Cancer since 1997 & I’M STILL HERE!
I Have Cancer, Cancer Does NOT Have Me
I just want to say sorry for copping out at times and leaving Lee and friends to cope!
Any help and support YOU can give her will be hugely welcome.
I do make a lousy patient!

.
If YOU want to follow my fight against Cancer from when it started and I first presented with symptoms in 1998 see The TAB at the Header of this Blog. called >DIARY of Cancer ….< just click and it will give you a long list of the main events in chronological order, many linked to specific blog postings.
.
Thoughts, articles and comments will be in chronological order in the main blog and can be tracked in the >ARCHIVE< in the Left Sidebar.
.
You may find the TABS >MEDICAL LINKS< and also >CANCER LINKS< of help, also many of the links in articles and >HOT LINKS< in the Sidebar.
.
YOU are welcome to call me, minded that I am NOT medically trained, if you believe I can help in ANY way. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog. Archive: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
Health Blog. Ongoing: http:GregLW.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

Enhanced by Zemanta

IN MEMORIAM > ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm – On 17-Dec-2014

IN MEMORIAM > ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm On 17-Dec-2014
.

 Please Be Sure To

& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

To Give Hope & Information

 .

IN MEMORIAM >
ARCHER, Stuart Malcolm who Died On 17-Dec-2014

ARCHER Stuart Died 17-Dec-2014

Stuart died On 17 December, after a long and very bravely fought fight against bowel cancer, at his home in Newport.

Stuart was aged 66 when he died.

He leaves his wife and partner through his illness Trish and was dearly loved by Suzanne and Tom.
He will be missed not only by his family but by many friends and the town of Chepstow, where he had worked with Sandra and the staff at Archer & Co. and had gained the respect of many for his courteous behaviour and dedicated service to his clients. He will also be missed and remembered by those who knew of his illness and his resolute determination to survive with humour as long as possible, making the most of every moment he could.
I was privileged to have had several very private conversations with Stuart during his illness & treatment where, even when he knew the outcome was inevitable, he courageously sought out opportunities to be used in new trials that would not just prolong his own life but would provide information to help others following down the path!
My thoughts are with his family and those whom he had worked with for so many years, who miss him greatly, at this challenging time, when we remember his life on the anniversary of his death.
A Celebration for the life of Stuart Malcolm Archer, in accord with his wishes, was held at St. Pierre Golf and Country Club on Thursday 8th January 2015 at 13:00hrs.
The service of commemoration at St. Pierre was held after a private family ceremony at the Crematorium and was conducted by a Civil Celebrant Gill Fortescue with an extensive, and very appropriate eulogy.
The Eulogy was delivered by Stuart’s long term friend David Evans.

No flowers, by request, however donations for St. David’s Hospice Care may still be sent, in memory of his life, to:

Philip Blatchly & Son,
5 Station Road,
Chepstow,
Monmouthshire,
NP16 5PA.
TEL: 01291 624939

.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.
 Please Be Sure To
& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide To Give Others HOPE
I Have Been Fighting Cancer since 1997 & I’M STILL HERE!
I Have Cancer, Cancer Does NOT Have Me
I just want to say sorry for copping out at times and leaving Lee and friends to cope!
Any help and support YOU can give her will be hugely welcome.
I do make a lousy patient!

.
If YOU want to follow my fight against Cancer from when it started and I first presented with symptoms in 1998 see The TAB at the Header of this Blog. called >DIARY of Cancer ….< just click and it will give you a long list of the main events in chronological order, many linked to specific blog postings.
.
Thoughts, articles and comments will be in chronological order in the main blog and can be tracked in the >ARCHIVE< in the Left Sidebar.
.
You may find the TABS >MEDICAL LINKS< and also >CANCER LINKS< of help, also many of the links in articles and >HOT LINKS< in the Sidebar.
.
YOU are welcome to call me, minded that I am NOT medically trained, if you believe I can help in ANY way. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog. Archive: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
Health Blog. Ongoing: http:GregLW.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

Enhanced by Zemanta

IARC Report: The Carcinogenic Effects of Processed & Red Meat

.

 Please Be Sure To

& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide

To Give Hope & Information

.

IARC Report:
The Carcinogenic Effects of
Processed & Red Meat

PRESS RELEASE N° 240
26 October 2015

IARC Monographs evaluate:
consumption of red meat
and processed meat

Lyon, France, 26 October 2015
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), the cancer agency of the World Health Organization, has evaluated the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.
Red meat
After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10 countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.
This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.
Processed meat
Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
Meat consumption and its effects
The consumption of meat varies greatly between countries, with from a few percent up to 100% of people eating red meat, depending on the country, and somewhat lower proportions eating processed meat.
The experts concluded that each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%.
“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” says Dr Kurt Straif, Head of the IARC Monographs Programme.
“In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”
The IARC Working Group considered more than 800 studies that investigated associations of more than a dozen types of cancer with the consumption of red meat or processed meat in many countries and populations with diverse diets.
The most influential evidence came from large prospective cohort studies conducted over the past 20 years.
Public health
”These findings further support current public health recommendations to limit intake of meat,” says Dr Christopher Wild, Director of IARC.
“At the same time, red meat has nutritional value. Therefore, these results are important in enabling governments and international regulatory agencies to conduct risk assessments, in order to balance the risks and benefits of eating red meat and processed meat and to provide the best possible dietary recommendations.”
IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat
Note to the Editor:
Red meat
refers to all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse, and goat.
Processed meat
refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation.
Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.
Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.
A summary of the final evaluations is available online in The Lancet Oncology, and the detailed assessments will be published as Volume 114 of the IARC Monographs.
Read the IARC Monographs Q&A
Read the IARC Monographs Q&A
on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat.
For more information,
please contact Véronique Terrasse, Communications Group, at +33 (0)4 72 73 83 66 or terrassev@iarc.fr or Dr Nicolas Gaudin, IARC Communications, at com@iarc.fr
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)
is part of the World Health Organization.
Its mission is to coordinate and conduct research on the causes of human cancer, the mechanisms of carcinogenesis, and to develop scientific strategies for cancer control.
The Agency is involved in both epidemiological and laboratory research and disseminates scientific information through publications, meetings, courses, and fellowships.
Photo

A W.H.O. report on Monday warned about a cancer risk linked with eating processed meats. CreditÁngel Franco/The New York Times
On Monday the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organization, published an analysis linking colorectal cancer to the consumption of processed meats and red meat. Here are answers to a few questions about the report.

How might meats be linked to colorectal cancer?
Processed meats like hot dogs and sausages have been salted, cured or smoked to enhance flavor and improve preservation. Scientists have long worried that this processing leads to the formation of potentially carcinogenic chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in these products.

The concern with red meats — beef, pork and lamb — has more to do with the cooking, not the processing. Grilling, barbecuing and pan-frying meat creates potential carcinogens, including heterocyclic aromatic amines.

The report finds a link between consumption of processed meats and colorectal cancer (and perhaps other cancers), but also acknowledged that the link between red meat and cancer has not been proved.

“Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer,” the I.A.R.C. said in a handout accompanying its report.

Is there a safer way to cook meat?
There is just not enough data to know for sure whether broiling or boiling meats might lower cancer risk.

  1. What exactly is the risk?

    Small, compared with smoking or alcohol consumption. Colorectal cancer is the third most common non-skin cancer in the United States, and will bediagnosed in an estimated 133,000 patients this year, a wide majority of them over age 50. The lifetime risk is about 5 percent.

    W.H.O. estimated that 50 grams daily of processed meat or 100 grams daily of red meat might increase the risk of colorectal cancer by 18 percent and 17percent, in that order, over the absolute risk — if indeed red meat were related to cancer at all, which the report also acknowledged is not known.

    Most of the data reviewed by the W.H.O. are drawn from population studies, and many experts question whether these risk estimates can be applied to individuals who may have other risks for colorectal cancer.

  2. Is there any way to reduce the risk of colorectal cancer?

    There are several ways. People who eat diets rich in fruits, vegetables and fiber are at lower risk, as are those who exercise. Obesity, smoking and heavy alcohol consumption increase the risk of colorectal cancer. The incidence has been declining for 20 years, in part because of colonoscopy screenings. Daily low-dose aspirin may reduce the risk, but it has side effects and most experts do not recommend its use in people at average risk who do not also have cardiovascular disease.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

For the NHS View:

Processed meat ’causes cancer’ warns WHO report

Tuesday October 27 2015

Current UK recommendations are to eat no more than 70g of processed meat a dayProcessed meats have been linked to bowel cancer

What is the issue?

“Processed meat ranks alongside smoking as major cause of cancer, World Health Organisation [WHO] says,” The Daily Telegraph reports. It has been ranked as a group one carcinogen – the same ranking as cigarettes, alcohol and asbestos.

The WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a report evaluating the link between the consumption of red and processed meat and cancer. A question and answer factsheet was also published.

The report explained red meat refers to unprocessed meat such as beef, veal, pork and lamb, while processed meat has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes.

The largest body of evidence is for the link with colorectal (bowel) cancer

How was the report received by the media?

The quality of the UK media’s reporting was mixed. Some sources fell into the trap of assuming that since processed meat had been ranked as a group one carcinogen, it meant it was as dangerous as other substances in the group. This led to headlines such as the Daily Express’, “Processed meat is as bad as smoking”, which is simply untrue.

While any substance ranked as a group one carcinogen is known to cause cancer, this doesn’t meant the risk of cancer is the same for all substances. A bacon sandwich is not as dangerous as being exposed to weapons grade plutonium, and smoking a pack of 20 cigarettes a day is far deadlier than eating a ham roll.

The Daily Mail and The Guardian did make an effort to put the risk of eating processed meat into context. Both papers, via their respective websites, provided a link to an extremely useful infographic produced by Cancer Research UK.

A key statistic provided by the infographic is that if everyone stopped smoking, there would be 64,500 fewer cases of cancer a year in the UK, compared with 8,800 fewer cases if everyone stopped eating processed or red meat.  

What evidence is the advice based on?

The link between red and processed meat and cancer is not new, and there has been a large body of research evidence to suggest bowel cancer is more common when these food items are consumed. According to Cancer Research UK, 21% of bowel cancers and 3% of all cancers are caused by red meat.

The WHO Working Group assessed more than 800 observational studies that investigated the association between cancer and the consumption of red meat across a range of countries, ethnicities and diets.

Data from the studies was analysed to investigate the link. Studies that were better quality, where the observations were prospective – that is, diet was assessed before looking at cancer development – were considered more reliable, and their findings were given greater weight.

The researchers also preferentially looked for studies with larger sample sizes, that had used validated questionnaires, and had controlled for potential health and lifestyle confounders that may be influencing the link. However, it was not possible to avoid all sources of bias and confounding, particularly for red meat, where data availability was limited.  

What are the risks?

Positive links between colorectal cancer and processed meat were found in 12 of 18 cohort studies and six of nine case-control studiesexamining the meat.

Looking at a review that had pooled the results of 10 cohort studies, the Working Group found an increase of 100g of red meat a day increased the risk of colorectal cancer by 17% (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05 to 1.31), and 50g of processed meat a day increased the risk by 18% (95% CI 1.10 to 1.28).

There was also data available linking red meat consumption withpancreatic cancer and prostate cancer, and processed meat withstomach cancer.

As a result of these findings, the WHO Working Group has classified processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans” on the basis of sufficient evidence to draw a link with colorectal cancer and an association with stomach cancer.

There was a limited amount of evidence available when assessing red meat, and this was therefore classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans”. 

How much red meat is it safe to eat?

The advice from the WHO Working Group supports current public health recommendations to limit intake of red and processed meat.

If you currently eat more than 90g (cooked weight) of red and processed meat a day, the Department of Health advises you cut down to 70g.

Ninety grams is equivalent to around three thinly cut slices of beef, lamb or pork, where each slice is about the size of half a piece of sliced bread. A cooked breakfast containing two typical British sausages and two rashers of bacon is equivalent to 130g.

It is unnecessary to cut red meat out all together as it is a good source of nutrients, including protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12.

If you currently eat a large amount of red and processed meats, it might be good for you to cut down. Some ways to do this are:

  • eating smaller portions of meat
  • switching to chicken or fish
  • keeping a few days a week red meat-free
  • add beans or pulses such as kidney beans, chickpeas and lentils to replace some of the meat in dishes
  • instead of bacon, chorizo or salami, use chicken or vegetarian sausages

Analysis by Bazian. Edited by NHS Choices. Follow NHS Choices on Twitter. Join the Healthy Evidence forum.

Analysis by Bazian

Edited by NHS Choices

To view the original of this analysis CLICK HERE

.
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
.
 Please Be Sure To
& Link to my My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide To Give Others HOPE
I Have Been Fighting Cancer since 1997 & I’M STILL HERE!
I Have Cancer, Cancer Does NOT Have Me
I just want to say sorry for copping out at times and leaving Lee and friends to cope!
Any help and support YOU can give her will be hugely welcome.
I do make a lousy patient!

.
If YOU want to follow my fight against Cancer from when it started and I first presented with symptoms in 1998 see The TAB at the Header of this Blog. called >DIARY of Cancer ….< just click and it will give you a long list of the main events in chronological order, many linked to specific blog postings.
.
Thoughts, articles and comments will be in chronological order in the main blog and can be tracked in the >ARCHIVE< in the Left Sidebar.
.
You may find the TABS >MEDICAL LINKS< and also >CANCER LINKS< of help, also many of the links in articles and >HOT LINKS< in the Sidebar.
.
YOU are welcome to call me, minded that I am NOT medically trained, if you believe I can help in ANY way. .

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog. Archive: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
Health Blog. Ongoing: http:GregLW.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

Enhanced by Zemanta