Research - Leukemia
Groundbreaking New Study Links GMO to Leukemia
There are lots of ‘scientists,’ otherwise known as the academics on Monsanto’s payroll, who keep spouting the preposterous statement that there is no real science to back up the claims that GMO are bad for our health, but yet another study says otherwise.
Recently published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases, the study underscores the potential ‘leukemogenic’ properties of the Bt toxin biopesticides used in almost all GMO foods that are currently planted on more than 3.9 million acres of crops in the US. Many of these crops are shipped to other countries who have not yet banned GM foods from their imports, so the prevalence of their use on US soil affects the whole planet.
Just a few months ago, references to GMO were made by scientists in France who conducted a study that pinpointed Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn, called NK603, as a major cancer-causing agent. Rats developed cancerous tumors the size of ping-pong balls. The study was called into question; however by academics under Monsanto’s reign.
Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.
Now, the study states that the biopesticides engineered into crops like corn, soy, sugar cane, etc. carry what is known as Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt), also called Cry-toxins, which contribute to all sorts of health problems including:
How can these studies keep being denied? Scientist Michael Spector recently gave a profound Ted Talks speech about the danger of scientists denying the problems with GMO food. Another scientist, Dr. Theirry Vrain also gives a TED Talks lecture on the true damage that GMOs can do, even though they were once looked to as a positive, viable option to increase world food supply. Monsanto-funded studies, however, continue to spew ‘science’ about the benign nature of GMOs. When will this corporation stop lying to the masses?
Maybe this is why the World Health Organization still says GMOs are completely safe:
“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.”
Source : Nation of Change
Link to Source
Longer Baby's on Formula, Higher the Leukemia Risk
Prolonged formula feeding may increase the odds for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), investigators in a case-control study concluded.
Each additional month of formula feeding was associated with a 16% increase in the relative risk of ALL compared with a control group. Every additional month of delay in the start of solid foods increased the odds by 14%.
The findings might reflect the recognized association between breastfeeding and development of an infant's immune system, Jeremy Schraw reported at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif.
"One explanation for this co-risk may be that it's the same effect being picked up twice," Schraw, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "Children being given solid foods later may be receiving formula longer."
ALL is the most common malignancy in children, and several studies have suggested interaction between feeding practices and its development. Some of the evidence suggests interaction among diet, normal immune-system development, and levels of insulin-like growth factor, said Schraw.
To examine the influence of infant feeding patterns on ALL risk, Schraw and colleagues studied 142 children with the hematologic malignancy and compared them with a matched control group of 284 children. The ALL patients ranged in age from under a year to 14.
The study focused on various aspects of formula feeding, breastfeeding, and introduction of solid foods and their relationship with ALL.
Only two baseline characteristics differed between the patients and the control group. The patients began eating solid foods later (8.6 months versus 7), and more of their mothers smoked during pregnancy. All analyses were adjusted for age, race, sex, ethnicity, and maternal smoking during pregnancy.
Evaluation of feeding patterns showed no differences in the proportion of patients and the control group who were breastfed exclusively, fed formula exclusively, or received breast milk and formula. Schraw and colleagues also found no difference in the duration of breastfeeding and the incidence of ALL.
The investigators did find that the ALL patients had been formula fed significantly longer as compared with the control group (10.5 versus 8.1 months, P<0.05). The difference could be attributed to ALL patients who received both breast milk and formula as infants (10.0 versus 6.2 months, P<0.05).
"Our results highlight the role of energy balance in early life as critical contributors to risk for pediatric ALL," Schraw and colleagues concluded.
The investigators cited a need for additional research to identify factors associated with duration of formula feeding and delay in the introduction of solids.
Source : MedPage today via
Primary source: American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research
Source reference: Schraw J, et al "Longer formula feeding and later age at introduction of solids increase the odds ratio of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia" AACR-FCPR 2012; Abstract A102.
Link to Source
There are lots of ‘scientists,’ otherwise known as the academics on Monsanto’s payroll, who keep spouting the preposterous statement that there is no real science to back up the claims that GMO are bad for our health, but yet another study says otherwise.
Recently published in the Journal of Hematology & Thromboembolic Diseases, the study underscores the potential ‘leukemogenic’ properties of the Bt toxin biopesticides used in almost all GMO foods that are currently planted on more than 3.9 million acres of crops in the US. Many of these crops are shipped to other countries who have not yet banned GM foods from their imports, so the prevalence of their use on US soil affects the whole planet.
Just a few months ago, references to GMO were made by scientists in France who conducted a study that pinpointed Monsanto’s genetically engineered corn, called NK603, as a major cancer-causing agent. Rats developed cancerous tumors the size of ping-pong balls. The study was called into question; however by academics under Monsanto’s reign.
Most news sources are funded by corporations and investors. Their goal is to drive people to advertisers while pushing the corporate agenda. NationofChange is a 501(c)3 organization funded almost 100% from its readers–you! Our only accountability is to the public. Click here to make a generous donation.
Now, the study states that the biopesticides engineered into crops like corn, soy, sugar cane, etc. carry what is known as Bacillus Thuringiensis (Bt), also called Cry-toxins, which contribute to all sorts of health problems including:
- Blood abnormalities
- Hematological malignancies (blood cancers), i.e. leukemia
- Suppression of bone marrow proliferation
- Abnormal lymphocyte patterns
How can these studies keep being denied? Scientist Michael Spector recently gave a profound Ted Talks speech about the danger of scientists denying the problems with GMO food. Another scientist, Dr. Theirry Vrain also gives a TED Talks lecture on the true damage that GMOs can do, even though they were once looked to as a positive, viable option to increase world food supply. Monsanto-funded studies, however, continue to spew ‘science’ about the benign nature of GMOs. When will this corporation stop lying to the masses?
Maybe this is why the World Health Organization still says GMOs are completely safe:
“GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved. Continuous use of risk assessments based on the Codex principles and, where appropriate, including post market monitoring, should form the basis for evaluating the safety of GM foods.”
Source : Nation of Change
Link to Source
Longer Baby's on Formula, Higher the Leukemia Risk
Prolonged formula feeding may increase the odds for pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), investigators in a case-control study concluded.
Each additional month of formula feeding was associated with a 16% increase in the relative risk of ALL compared with a control group. Every additional month of delay in the start of solid foods increased the odds by 14%.
The findings might reflect the recognized association between breastfeeding and development of an infant's immune system, Jeremy Schraw reported at the American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research meeting in Anaheim, Calif.
"One explanation for this co-risk may be that it's the same effect being picked up twice," Schraw, a graduate student at the University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "Children being given solid foods later may be receiving formula longer."
ALL is the most common malignancy in children, and several studies have suggested interaction between feeding practices and its development. Some of the evidence suggests interaction among diet, normal immune-system development, and levels of insulin-like growth factor, said Schraw.
To examine the influence of infant feeding patterns on ALL risk, Schraw and colleagues studied 142 children with the hematologic malignancy and compared them with a matched control group of 284 children. The ALL patients ranged in age from under a year to 14.
The study focused on various aspects of formula feeding, breastfeeding, and introduction of solid foods and their relationship with ALL.
Only two baseline characteristics differed between the patients and the control group. The patients began eating solid foods later (8.6 months versus 7), and more of their mothers smoked during pregnancy. All analyses were adjusted for age, race, sex, ethnicity, and maternal smoking during pregnancy.
Evaluation of feeding patterns showed no differences in the proportion of patients and the control group who were breastfed exclusively, fed formula exclusively, or received breast milk and formula. Schraw and colleagues also found no difference in the duration of breastfeeding and the incidence of ALL.
The investigators did find that the ALL patients had been formula fed significantly longer as compared with the control group (10.5 versus 8.1 months, P<0.05). The difference could be attributed to ALL patients who received both breast milk and formula as infants (10.0 versus 6.2 months, P<0.05).
"Our results highlight the role of energy balance in early life as critical contributors to risk for pediatric ALL," Schraw and colleagues concluded.
The investigators cited a need for additional research to identify factors associated with duration of formula feeding and delay in the introduction of solids.
Source : MedPage today via
Primary source: American Association for Cancer Research Frontiers in Cancer Prevention Research
Source reference: Schraw J, et al "Longer formula feeding and later age at introduction of solids increase the odds ratio of pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia" AACR-FCPR 2012; Abstract A102.
Link to Source