Chemo Could Spread Cancer

For decades the medical establishment’s go-to treatment for cancer has been small doses of chemo paced out in cycles.

Doctors have long believed that the low doses of chemo can kill cancer cells while allowing healthy cells to rebuild between treatments. Unfortunately, this heavy reliance on chemo has meant that any gains in survival rate among cancer victims have been offset by terrible sickness and a low quality of life during treatment.

Now, new research published in Nature Medicine shows that chemotherapy can actually be extremely counterproductive in treating cancer as it could spur healthy cells to release a compound that actually stimulates cancer growth.

According to the researchers, the effect is caused by the impact of chemotherapy drugs on healthy connective tissue cells called fibroblasts which when blasted with chemo can pump out a cancer facilitating protein at a rate of 30 times more than they normally would.

“Cancer cells inside the body live in a very complex environment or neighborhood. Where the tumor cell resides and who its neighbors are influence its response and resistance to therapy,” said senior author Peter S. Nelson, M.D., a member of the Hutchinson Center’s Human Biology Division.

Nelson contends that the reasoning behind believing chemo is an effective treatment against all forms of cancer is not faulty. Chemo kills cancer, but in doses high enough to irradiate cancer from a person in one blast, the patient would certainly die.

“In the laboratory we can ‘cure’ most any cancer simply by giving very high doses of toxic therapies to cancer cells in a petri dish. However, in people, these high doses would not only kill the cancer cells but also normal cells and the host,” Nelson said.

As a result the small-dose option is used for solid cancer tumors such as those of the breast, prostate, lung and colon by practitioners of mainstream medicine, leading to a chance that the cancer could spread more rapidly through the body in some cases than if no treatment were given.

Alternative medicine has long shunned chemotherapy as a viable option for cancer treatment because of its harmful effect on the rest of the body and immune system.

Sikh Temple Shooting Questions Arise

The shooting tragedy at a Sikh temple in Milwaukee on Sunday has again put the “frightening” ability of Americans to obtain firearms in the headlines. As was the case with the Aurora, Colo., movie theatre tragedy, there are conflicting reports and strange coincidences associated with the official story.

Authorities allege that six-year military veteran Wade Michael Page, 40, entered the temple Sunday morning and began gunning down congregants, killing six and wounding five others. Page is alleged to have also shot and critically wounded the first responding police officer before being killed by officers.

Initial reports of a “highly organized” attack on the temple involving as many as four shooters have led to speculation from some people of whether or not the official narrative surrounding the event is accurate.




 

According to Milwaukee’s Journal Sentinel, police are currently trying to trace a single semi-automatic handgun found at the scene of the shooting. According to reports, they were also searching for a “person of interest” on Monday who was seen videotaping the scene amid the media flurry following the tragedy. The man sports a tattoo in remembrance of 9/11 similar to tattoos Page is reported to have had on his body.

Page is profiled as having been a white supremacist, radical who was involved in a neo-Nazi white power band called End Apathy. The bald, heavily tattooed man was also reportedly put on a watch list of hate group members compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center after contacting the National Alliance, a racist organization.

Some alternative media sources contend that Page has all the markers of being a patsy in a false flag operation.

According to Prison Planet:

…[T]he establishment media follows the official narrative now being formulated – the shooter was a white supremacist with telltale racist tattoos who a) belonged to a political group that will be scapegoated and held up as an example of violent rightwing extremism, or b) was a “lone wolf” who followed racist political philosophy (more than likely sharing attributes outlined in the Department of Homeland Security’s “rightwing extremism” document, including the supposed threat by returning veterans).

Media speculation that Page was working along with a greater white supremacist movement and the current classification of the shooting as an act of domestic terror raises questions of how the Department of Homeland Security may react to the incident in coming weeks and months. Similar to Aurora, Colo., shooter James Holmes, officials have noted that there was no reason for Page to be on the government’s radar prior to the shooting.

During his military service, Page reportedly received basic training in Fort Sill, Okla., moved to Fort Bliss in Texas and finished at Fort Bragg, N.C. From 1992 until 1998 he served as a member of the Army’s Psychological Operations Unit, according to military documents.

According to an Army field manual from 2005, the unit’s primary function is to convey selected information to influence a population’s emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups and individuals.

The manual states:

The purpose of PSYOP is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to U.S. national objectives. PSYOP are characteristically delivered as information for effect, used during peacetime and conflict, to inform and influence. When properly employed, PSYOP can save lives of friendly and adversary forces by reducing the adversaries’ will to fight. By lowering adversary morale and reducing their efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions and create dissidence and disaffection within their ranks, ultimately inducing surrender. PSYOP provide a commander the means to employ a nonlethal capability across the range of military operations from peace through conflict to war and during postconflict operations.

Speculation remains that Page exhibited some of the same disturbing psychological markers that have been associated with Holmes, and there are questions of whether pharmaceutical drugs were involved in the temple shooting.

TSA Above Justice

The Transportation Security Administration has had some hefty accusations levied against it — including perverted voyeurism, sexual assault, abuse of power and theft — by American citizens in recent years.

Yet, while a TSA agent can foist inconvenient and uncomfortable demands on travelers, the agency has, without explanation, failed to comply with an order from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for more than a year.

Last year, a suit filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center alleging the TSA’s use of naked body scanners violated privacy rights provided in the Constitution made its way to the court. The court did not rule on the Constitutionality of the scanners, but did offer a small victory for EPIC in ruling the TSA breeched Federal law by implementing the machines without public comment.

According to the Administrative Procedures Act, the TSA was required to have a 90-day public comment period to allow citizens a forum to share concerns about the scanners. The TSA shirked this responsibility in 2009 when it officially deployed its initial genital-viewing machines.

It has now been more than a year since the court ordered TSA officials to fulfill the public’s right to question its invasive tactics, and the agency has yet to act. Last week, the court granted a petition from EPIC compelling the TSA to respond to the request that they act on the court’s initial ruling by Aug. 30.

The court’s action comes amid other recent TSA headlines. The agency entered into its first union labor contract with its employees last week.

Even with the agency signaling that it is here to stay and seeking more power for its employees, critics like Senator Rand Paul (R.-Ky.) are continuing to push back against the agency. Paul currently has a bill in the Senate that would privatize airport security, though he doesn’t expect much Congressional support.

You can ask TSA to obey the law by signing a White House petition here.

Breaking: Heat So Intense Greens’ Brains Melt

Unfortunately, global warming skeptics are going to have to fully accept the climate change theories of Al Gore and the like. The definitive evidence is in: Global warming is real.

That, presumably, was how the progressive Think Progress thought the picture of street lamps in Stillwater, Okla., published on its blog melting in the intense (114 degree) heat would play as it took an opportunity to call out Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on the issue.

With the photo the website declared:

WOW. It’s so hot in Oklahoma that the streetlights are melting.

Today could be the hottest day in Oklahoma City history, 114 degrees.

Meanwhile, a senator from Oklahoma, James Inhofe (R), is a major climate denier.

If the post was to be believed, it would have to mean one of three things is true:

  1. The streetlamp bulbs, most likely made of the same high-density polyethylene that most all bulbs of that type are, were defective. The melting point of the plastic material is, according to manufacturers, somewhere around 226 degrees Fahrenheit.
  2. The vigilant observer of the melted bulbs actually got the temperature reading wrong and was unwittingly braving temperatures higher than 226 degrees that day. That’s some serious global warming. This scenario seems unlikely, unless the photographer regularly walks around in a heat-resistant suit.
  3. The poster of the picture is seriously lacking in careful observation and deductive reasoning skills. As the individual attempts to back what he believes to be scientifically proven global warming, he actually has no real motive to consider deductive scientific questions. (Like: “Would a bulb made to be in constant direct sunlight at the top of a streetlamp be made of a material capable of withstanding elevated temperatures?” or “Why aren’t all the streetlights melting?”)

If you answered No. 3, you are correct.

According to KFOR-TV in Oklahoma City, the street lamps melted because of a dumpster fire in the area that erupted the night before (Think Progress has not yet linked that to global warming). KFOR first posted the streetlamp photo on its Facebook page.

The progressive blog has since issued a correction, but still partially blames global warming via a quote:

After we published this piece, we saw reports from people on the ground in Stillwater that the melting streetlights were due to a nearby fire. The person who took the photo, Patrick Hunter, described the scene: “Being the person that actually took this photo, I’d say that this was due to a fire semi-close by coupled with the unbelievable heat we are experiencing. Still an amazing photo and not fake as many are saying on here. Enjoy!”

The site also changed gears, focusing on drought in Oklahoma instead of streetlamps melted by burning rubbish in a follow-up piece.

Inhofe (whose skepticism about climate change was only enforced by the  blunder), used the incident as an opportunity to call out global warming activist Bill McKibben and his followers.

“Poor Bill McKibben — he’s been trying to get something to melt for ages but it keeps backfiring,” Inhofe said in a statement.

“These alarmists never learn their lesson. Remember Bill McKibben was the one who was going to melt a giant ice sculpture in the shape of the word ‘hoax’ on the national mall, but his group had to cancel because there wasn’t enough interest. Now, after proclaiming that street lights in Oklahoma are melting because of global warming, it turns out that a fire caused this scene.”

Reporter Links Sport Shooters, Murderers

Is there any correlation between Olympic shooting sports and deranged murderers?

Of course there isn’t, unless you happen to be a reporter for The Washington Post. In a seemingly desperate attempt to tie two completely unrelated topics that have been dominating mainstream news media over the past couple of weeks, Post reporter Katherine Boyle attempted to tie James Holmes’ horrific massacre to Olympian target shooting.

The piece, entitled “Even at the Olympics, Athletes in Sport of Shooting Face Questions About Gun Violence,” Boyle asserts the following regarding Olympian shooter Kim Rhode:

But Rhode, 33, is confronted with questions that few other athletes face because she is a shooter — a term embraced by Rhode and other athletes who shoot rifles and pistols for sport. Olympic shooters must deal with unfortunate associations: They compete in a sport — one that demands concentration and decades of practice — that also requires a machine that, when used maliciously, can kill people.

At a news conference last Thursday, before she earned a gold medal in women’s skeet shooting, Rhode was asked about another shooter, arguably a more famous one, who used a rifle, a shotgun and a semiautomatic pistol to kill 12 and injure 58 in a packed movie theater. As with most mass shootings, the backdrop was pedestrian. The targets, random — the opposite of what happens at the Olympic Training Center in Colorado Springs, where Rhode and other members of USA Shooting practice their sport.

Particularly revealing of Boyle’s attempt to use a piece about highly skilled athletes competing in an Olympic event into a politically charged narrative on how different gun owners are from “normal” people who don’t have them are the words, “that also requires a machine that, when used maliciously, can kill people.”

Just for fun, here are some ad-lib variations of the statement using other tools Olympians might have:

[Swimmers] compete in a sport — one that demands concentration and decades of practice — that also requires a [speedo] that, when used maliciously, can kill people.

[Fencing competitors] compete in a sport — one that demands concentration and decades of practice — that also requires a [foil, epee or sabre] that, when used maliciously, can kill people.

[Badminton players] compete in a sport — one that demands concentration and decades of practice — that also requires a [shuttlecock] that, when used maliciously, can kill people.

End The Secrecy

Ron Paul seems to be asking members of the Senate that are unwilling to take a look at his bill to audit the Federal Reserve following its overwhelming passage in the House what the big deal is, with recent remarks.

In an interview with CNBC, Paul said that the goal of the bill is not to shut down the Fed, but do away with its proclivity toward leaving the American public in the dark with regard to its monetary meddling. The veteran Texas Congressman said that he agrees at the moment it looks as if his bill has little chance of being considered in the Senate.

Paul vows that regardless of whether the Senate takes up his initiative, he will continue to highlight what he describes as Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s love of secrecy and taxpayer dollars.

Paul also noted that Americans have a right to know exactly who is receiving Fed bailout dollars.

“We have an obligation and a right to know what the Fed is doing in secret when they bail out their friends and bail out the banks, and get involved in overseas financing, as they are prepared to do in Europe right now,” he said.

 

Recession Sparks Entrepreneur Boom

President Barack Obama may have had the opportunity to point out a silver lining regarding the ongoing economic recession if it weren’t for his recent “you didn’t build that” remarks. High rates of unemployment resulting from the struggling economy have resulted in a surge in American entrepreneurship, according to one report.

Researchers at the University of Missouri’s Truman School of Public Affairs found that from 2007-2010, the amount of necessity entrepreneurship rose from 16 to 28 percent of total entrepreneurship in the Nation. Necessity entrepreneurship results directly from an individual’s need to create a new income stream because of job loss or pay cuts. Other entrepreneurs are known as opportunity entrepreneurs; they decide to start a business based on the perception of achievable success and often leave other successful careers to do so.

“We’ve seen similar trends occur in past economically slow periods that have led to economic booms,” researcher Maria Figueroa-Armijos said. “The doldrums in the 1980s led to increased entrepreneurship and the economic growth in the 1990s.”

The researchers note that the rising number of necessity entrepreneurs means the Federal government should do more to protect people running small businesses as they begin to make up an even larger portion of the Nation’s economy.

“Currently, there is much more economic support for opportunity entrepreneurs than for people starting their own businesses out of necessity,” Figueroa-Armijos said. “With the rise of necessity entrepreneurs during the recession there is obviously a need for more help from lenders and policy makers. These necessity entrepreneurs could create jobs and economic growth for long-term economic prosperity.”

Political Chicken And Coffee

Imagine that it is possible to be a homophobic, right-wing zealot one moment and a gay-loving uber-liberal the next, simply by crossing the street.

In this author’s locale, it is possible (Chick-fil-A and Starbucks sit right across from one another). But that’s only if you allow yourself to believe that the customers of fast food restaurants and other businesses should be labeled simply because they prefer their chicken fried in peanut oil and like to sip coffee in a place with hip music playing in the background and a free Wi-Fi connection.

Does it really matter how companies feel about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Instead of asking themselves that simple question, Americans on both sides of the debate have decided to instead jump to their feet — in largely meaningless ways — and engage themselves in a debate that has nothing to do with marriage equality or moral tradition.

Several months ago, Starbucks made clear that it supports the right of gays to marry. Some conservatives flipped out and, to the dismay of some Christian coffee lovers, a handful of pastors called for a Christian boycott of the company.

“Christians are upset with Starbucks for turning against God… Starbucks can follow Satan if they want to,” Steven Andrew, evangelical pastor and president of the USA Christian Ministries in California, said in a statement at the time. “However, pastors are to help Christians. Are you on the Lord’s side? Will you help the USA be blessed by God?”

Andrew probably joined the likes of Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and thousands of conservatives yesterday for Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day. The event was aimed at encouraging conservatives to go to the restaurant after its CEO Dan Cathy said he supports traditional marriage in an interview with a Christian publication. The company has come under heavy fire from gay-rights groups and been boycotted by many people.

The takeaway message is that Christians should avoid the evil sodomite sympathizers at Starbucks and gay rights activists should avoid peanut-fried, right-wing chicken from Chick-fil-A, right? If that’s the case, here are a few other things people on both sides should boycott:

In case you forgot, those of you who are in favor of women’s equality need to support the 45 companies that pulled advertising from Rush Limbaugh’s talk show after he called Sandra Fluke a slut. His other advertisers are clearly misogynists.

Conservatives should boycott Target stores. Target sells gay greeting cards.

If you are a gay-rights fan, be sure that you avoid any petroleum products with ties to Saudi Arabia. The LGTB-unfriendly nation frequently imprisons and kills people for homosexual activities.

Don’t like homosexuality or Libertarians? Steer clear of Paypal, Facebook and several other tech companies, because innovator and businessman Peter Thiel is both gay and a Libertarian and has ties to several Internet companies that you likely use on a daily basis.

If all of this is beginning to sound a bit over the top, it is because it is over the top. There are more than 311 million people in the United States; we will never all agree completely. Rather than have a sensible debate on whether gay marriage should be legal, Americans have collectively chosen to have a shouting match about who is on what side.

Conservatives will have to accept at some point that the cat is out of the bag with regard to American homosexuality and, short of adopting the legal tactics of certain theocratic nations, it is not going to go away. And gay-rights activists must realize that some people simply do not agree with their lifestyle, and believe that it is neither natural nor moral.

In considering those two things, marriage traditionalists and gay-marriage advocates can find a common enemy: government-sanctioned marriage. Traditionalists and Christians view marriage as the union of a man and woman in the eyes of God first and foremost. Secularists view the union as a contractual one, man-made and legally binding. A traditionalist would never accept a government form as the only thing needed to be married, and a secularist would surely have similar disdain for a marriage not legally binding but God-sanctioned.

Any aspect of marriage that is provided by the government form should be freely attainable by all individuals. That is, any two, three, four and so on people in a free society should have the right to enter a contract that allows for the transfer of wealth, hospital visitation and other rights when a person is ill or dying, the sharing of common assets and the distribution of those assets in the event of breach of contract. In a free society, people have a natural right to assemble and associate as they will, so long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others to do so. The Federal government has not given married couples the special privilege of entering into that contract; it has simply denied others the right to do so — not just people who are gay, but also straight, single people.

When the Federal apparatus and its legislative minions discuss marriage, they are discussing the contractual, not the religious, aspect of the institution. And when they veer into discussing the religious definition of marriage, either in favor or against gay marriage, they abrogate the Constitutional guarantee of a political body that lacks the power to shape religious policy.

If legal gay marriage becomes standard from sea to shining sea, homosexuals who wish to be married and a whole boatload of bleeding-heart liberals will feel vindicated by the symbolic victory. Likewise, if conservatives and traditionalists are able to revive a strict adherence to the Defense of Marriage Act, they will feel a hard-fought battle against moral decay and a threat to their religious value has been won. But, aside from perceptual victory, nothing is going to change. In the first scenario, traditional Christian institutions will not feel that because bureaucracy changed its mind that God will as well and suddenly ordain gay marriages. And, in the second scenario, people who have made the decision to accept alternative sexual practices aren’t likely to stop.

If the debate about gay marriage is to ever be resolved, Americans will have to decide whether the discussion is about religion, legal contracts, the validation of an alternative lifestyle, moral decay or simply what types of people should patronize which establishments. In the meantime, when you sit down to enjoy your chicken sandwich or overpriced specialty coffee, check out a few other recent headlines. You may find that a Nation in decline on all fronts has much scarier problems than whether gays should be allowed to marry in the eyes of the government.

Food Stamps For Everyone

The Federal government has pushed questionable tactics to fill its food stamp rosters over the past several years, disregarding asset and income requirements in some cases.

A recent Federal audit of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program says that because people who make too much or have too much worth in assets have been allowed to receive food stamps, some of the more than 45 million recipients aren’t even needy.

From the report:

In fiscal year 2010, an estimated 2.6 percent (approximately 473,000) of all households receiving SNAP benefits nationwide would not have been eligible for the program without BBCE [broad-based categorical eligibility] because their incomes were greater than the income limits defined in federal law.

The average monthly income of those that shouldn’t have been receiving benefits was $1,965.

Since 2008, Federal spending on food stamps has doubled to about $80 billion annually, an increase some people attribute to aggressive marketing campaigns promoting the assistance programs.

Recently, the food stamp program came under fire for partnering with the Mexican government to be sure that Mexican immigrants to the United States were aware of the availability to nutritional assistance.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said of the initiative in a statement to the Department of Agriculture: “It has become increasingly clear that, in recent years, the mission of the food stamp program has been converted from targeted assistance for those in need into an aggressive drive to expand enrollment regardless of need. USDA’s activities suggest that the program administrators take personal offense when people who technically qualify for their largesse decline to accept–and see it as an obstacle to overcome.”

Gary Johnson, Ron Paul: What if?

With the Presidential election in November approaching, both President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney are making their rounds, solidifying their talking points and trying to create an image that entices voters.

But some voters still aren’t buying it.

Four years ago, Obama won due in part to a large contingent of youthful voters, many of whom were idealistic and tired of Republican leadership. In the time that Obama has held his seat in the Oval Office, many of those voters have finished college. And a large number of them have struggled to find employment, have moved back in with their parents and have had their idealistic worldviews bludgeoned by the stark realities of coming of age during hard financial times.

The promise of “hope” and “change” isn’t likely to encourage many of the disenfranchised youths to cast an Obama ballot, and the President’s new mantra, “forward,” has likely left many wondering: “Unto what?”

What the President lacks in kept promises to these voters, Romney matches in his inability to excite them (or just about anyone, if headlines are an indicator). The two candidates have left many in the group feeling like the 2012 election will be a pointless one.

Consider the polling numbers. Most polls indicate that Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 are still more likely to vote for Obama than for Romney, but by a margin of only about 12 percentage points. For those aged 25 to 29, old enough to have been heavily politically involved during the last election cycle, the gap is about half that.

The numbers indicate that in the latter bloc, about 30 percent of the likely voters remain undecided. The younger voters, according to some experts, will likely be the most malleable.

“The concern for Obama, and the opportunity for Romney, is in the 18- to 24-year-olds who don’t have the historical or direct connection to the campaign or the movement of four years ago,” John Della Volpe, director of polling at the Harvard Institute of Politics told The New York Times. “We’re also seeing that these younger members of this generation are beginning to show some more conservative traits. It doesn’t mean they are Republican. It means Republicans have an opportunity.”

Republicans aren’t the only ones who see an opportunity in the shifting political mindset of American youths.

Ron Paul has been heavily supported by young people throughout his long-shot bid for Republican nomination, and his efforts and supporters are likely going to yield him a moment in the spotlight and a heavy presence of support at the upcoming Republican National Convention. The question remains: How will he use it, and what will he direct his notoriously dedicated supporters to do?

Increasingly, Libertarians are calling on Paul to throw his might behind their man, Gary Johnson. With Paul tethered to the GOP, they argue, he could still win a further victory for his liberty movement by working to ensure that the third-party candidate is allotted a place on the debate stage alongside Romney and Obama.

Johnson has made it clear that one of his primary goals during the campaign is to get into the debate. But, due to rules imposed by the major parties, he must first achieve a 15 percent favorability rating in three national polls. This, many of his supporters argue, is completely achievable if Paul is willing to steer his supporters to Johnson’s side. Currently, Johnson polls around 5 to 8 percent in some national polls and Paul has achieved 10 to 15 percent favorability at times. Combined, Johnson supporters argue, Americans would be given a fresh alternative to the ideas posited by Romney and Obama during the nationally televised debates.

Mainstream Republicans and Democrats give the same reason for excluding Johnson from the debates that has always been given about leaving out third-party candidates: He will cost either Romney or Obama votes and skew the election in the favor of the wrong “real” candidate. But Johnson thinks this is bunk and is confident that if Americans are allowed to hear his ideas alongside those of Obama and Romney, Libertarian votes would pour in come November.

“Anything can happen [in the debates]. That could be crash and burn. [Or] it could bring attention to what it is I am saying, my resume,” he said in a recent interview. “I think a lot more people in this country describe themselves as libertarian as opposed to voting libertarian. I think my voice is representative of the fastest growing segment of American politics today, which is libertarian.”

To many voters, Johnson could offer the best of both worlds; but barring inclusion in the debate, he is unlikely to be taken seriously at all.