As myself and others have been telling you for years, your cellphone really is giving you cancer. That’s the conclusion from a new mega study that backs up the reality that cellphone radiation is contributing to the development of brain tumors.
“For example, using your phone for just 20 minutes a day for five years increased the risk of one type of brain tumor threefold, and using the phone an hour a day for four years upped the risk of some tumors three to five times, study author Igor Yakymenko said.”
It’s something that has been dubbed a ‘conspiracy theory’ for some time: the notion that pressing your cellphone against your ear could be causing some serious damage. In fact, I remember being called ‘crazy’ about 5 years ago by a medical professional for investing in a pair of headphones in order to go hands-free with my calls.
But then again, I’ve also been called ‘crazy’ for going against Monsanto’s Roundup (now admittedly linked to cancer), and heavy water fluoridation (now being scaled back and found to beย worthless when it comes to cavity prevention).
What This Study Truly Means
But here’s what this study truly means. Once again, we now find that it is essential to take your health (and knowledge of true health) into your own hands, and take your own measures to decrease your daily exposure to dangerous factors. Whether it’s avoiding additives in the food supply, or limiting your cellphone use and going hands-free.
As RT reports:
“Yakymenko said that cellphone use for 20 minutes a day for five years can boost the risk of one type of brain tumor by three times, while using a cellphone for an hour a day for four years and increase the risk of certain tumors by three to five times.”
Ultimately, studies like this one serve one major purpose: to remind us that we should be using common sense and knowledge to better protect ourselves each day.
The vast majority of people will disregard information like this because they don’t want to associate anything harmful with their beloved cellphones. You’ll rarely see anything on MSM about this because the cellphone industry spends billions on advertising and they would be cutting their throats by airing anything like this. Hey I love my smartphone as much as the next person but I also use Orgonite to help mitigate and harmonize the electromagnetic frequencies and radiation being emitted from our cellphones and in the environment we live in.
As myself and others have been telling you for years, your cellphone really is giving you cancer. Quacks like you will say anything to sell their products and yet call other that have conflict of interest I call this hypocritism
ABout cellphone instead giving reference to study you give as to articles and opinion of not expert how professional… This article only show how incompetent you are, they dont find anything new they simply cherry picked old studies to support their claims in the same manner I can show you that smokig is good for you.
What’s he selling, while we’re on the subject of “competence”? Tell us about your refutation of the studies that the study you’re criticizing, and what other studies those were cherry-picked from. Because as far as I know, of the three major studies done in the last decade, only one found that cordless or cellphone users had a normal rate of brain tumors. They managed that feat by taking the users that had an unquantified use of their phones beyond 45 minutes/day and grouping those with the controls. Guess what? That study yeilded a result of increased incidence of brain tumors in the control population; the people that used hands free phones less than a few minutes per day or less. Go ahead, keep telling us about cherry-picking and repetition in studies..
“Because as far as I know, of the three major studies done in the last decade, only one found that cordless or cellphone users had a normal rate of brain tumors.” then maybe check one again and find such statment like correlation dont imply causation, You tell me that this “major studies” take all co-factors? because this is impossible, “hey managed that feat by taking the users that had an unquantified use of their phones beyond 45 minutes/day and grouping those with the controls. Guess what? That study yeilded a result of increased incidence of brain tumors in the control population; the people that used hands free phones less than a few minutes per day or less.” and 10 others dont find correlation, also tell me what is “hands free phones” ? “Go ahead, keep telling us about cherry-picking and borrowing data..”
Letโs take a look at the actual study: โOxidative mechanisms of biological activity of low-intensity radiofrequency radiationโ published in Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine.
The first thing to note as that this is a review article. It does not
present any new data. It is not an experiment or observational study.
Itโs not even a meta-analysis. It is just a group of researchers looking
at the literature and proclaiming that it confirms what they already
believed.
Review articles serve a legitimate
purpose in science. They are a primary way that researchers communicate
with each other and express their opinion. But they should not be
presented as if they are new data, or as if they confirm one side in a
debate. They can be abused, however, in a process called citation bias
โ packing the review with citations that support your side to make it
seem like it is more robust than it actually is (a process which can
even start inadvertently just by relying reference lists rather than databases).
The lead author of the current review (to avoid confusion it really
shouldnโt be called a โstudyโ), Igor Yakymenko, has published several articles arguing that low intensity radio-frequency radiation (RFR) can increase oxidative stress in tissues and this is a possible mechanism of increased disease risk. In his current review he argues that the
published evidence supports this position.
While the evidence may support the notion that RFR can increase
markers of oxidative activity in tissue, it does not establish that this
increase is biologically important and can actually lead to specific diseases. It also does not establish that cell phone use causes any harm by this mechanism.
At this point Yakymenkoโs hypothesis is still speculative, and there
is no evidence to make claims for actual health effects. There is no
problem with him publishing a review of the data and arguing for his
hypothesis, but it is dubious behavior to send out a sensational press
release declaring victory in a scientific debate because of your own
review, and then linking your claims to scary health concerns.
P.S “. Go ahead, keep telling us about cherry-picking and borrowing data..” therefore yes I will be saying about cherry picking because in the manner you describe I can show you that water cause brain cancer.
Last time I checked co-relation was the Gold Standard and step one in making any kind of enquiry. “Take all co-factors? because this is impossible.” Hey I know, let’s just give up and declare any study or trial ever conducted invalid! Because who needs science, woohoo!
” I checked, a review is one kind of study.” i think you dont understand what I wrote review is based on studies and only check this studies its nothing new. “You have your terms confused. You’re thinking of “trial” or “experiment”.” which one? because dont know to what fragment you wroting?. “Hey I know, let’s just give up and declare any study or trial ever conducted invalid! Because who needs science, woohoo!” pls check what is science, co-factors are also problem that is why any scientist know that when see epidemiological study must remember that correlation do not imply causation that is why epidemiological studies are good to prove negative but arent best to find positive(I also co-authored few in my country and know how co-factors can give you false error). “Because who needs science, woohoo!”” wooho I need science because is my job(Im neurologist/toxicologist).
And also, the last time I checked, a review is one kind of study. You have your terms confused. You’re thinking of “trial” or “experiment”.
We are reliable suppliers of both indoor and outdoor grown marijuana
strains. We supply both Indica and Sativa strains TEXTME 443) 732-5770 JJJJUU