MSM caught fear mongering..."Are Cell Phones Safe?"

Are Cell Phones Safe?

www.msnbc.msn.com

A senate committee is taking up the issue of potential health risks from cell phone use.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 15-9-2009 by Demoncreeper]

Msnbc's "Dr. Nancy" media section, "Are Cellphones Safe?" interviewed a DR., who immediately corrected the way she was reporting the story. She says she felt "reprimanded" by his overhaul of the ACTUAL facts.
The Dr, continues saying that it is that kind of reporting that scares people. He continues on, with his spiel.

When the reporter thanks him for his time, he looks shocked as says: "That's it, that's what I came here for?"

Haha.
MSM media. Just another example of fear mongering presented by them.

The good Dr. corrects her.

Hope the video link works out.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Cell phones have their uses. In emergencies, for example

As fashion accessories, they're idiotic, imo

reply to post by St Vaast


That wasn't really the point of this thread, it was more on how the media tried to "scare" people with the way they report. And how after being corrected, they no longer had interest. haha.
I guess I could have made it more clear. My bad.

SAY NO TO THE ELECTRONIC LEASH!

At least that's what I say when folks ask me why I don't own a cell phone.

I am also afraid of the radiation, yes - you heard me right I get bad vibes from them.... and that could very well be a side effect of listening to a few guests on Coast to Coast AM talking about cell phones. But...

I'll stay on the safe side and save some dosh.

The doc saw through what the reporter was doing.. all reporters are looking for a good story, one that will bring in ratings and land them a better spot. Bad news (like fear mongering over cell phones being horrible OMG!) is "good news" to them because it makes people panic, then they tell someone else they need to read/watch this or that. Every night there's either bad news to draw attention or crappy celebrity news that is just completely useless... still haven't figured out why people watch that trash but anyway. When is the last time you heard something GOOD on the news that got a lot of hype?

Originally posted by Demoncreeper

Are Cell Phones Safe?

www.msnbc.msn.com

A senate committee is taking up the issue of potential health risks from cell phone use.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Of course they are. They real question is why has the Food and Drug Administration reused to admit and even diligently tried to suppress the evidence that B-17 vitamin makes it impossible for a person to get cancer.

Every wonder why wild animals don't get cancer and caged zoo animals do? B-17 is in grass. It is also highly concentrated in apricot seeds. Much like vitamin C completely rules out a person getting scurvy, B-17 will prevent someone from getting cancer.

The problem lies in the TREATMENT of cancer, no one makes money if people don't get cancer now do they???

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Agreed, but sadly I didn't make the post very clear as to what the topic was. I was limited for quotes, as it was just a video. (which you NEED to watch to really get the point of the thread.)

I put the headline in, as it was related to "news", but doesn't really fit the subject of the thread that I wanted to bring forth.

Does anyone know, can I change the title of the thread to the point of the thread, rather than the title of the story, without getting in trouble?

The point was MSM getting put in their place after attempting to fear monger with the idea of cellphones dangerous use.

A recent report highlighted that previous studies showing they are safe were all flawed. Funny that the studies were done by the cellphone companies! They are not safe, they are causing brain cancer at this very moment. It is estimated billions will have brain cancer in the near future due to increase in cellphone use. I have one but refuse to talk on it.. it is for emergencies only and checking my email.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

They real question is why has the Food and Drug Administration reused to admit and even diligently tried to suppress the evidence that B-17 vitamin makes it impossible for a person to get cancer.

Medical studies say otherwise:

Amygdalin (from Greek: ἀμυγδάλη amygdálē “almond”), C20H27NO11, is a glycoside initially isolated from the seeds of the tree Prunus dulcis, also known as bitter almonds, by Pierre-Jean Robiquet[1] and A. F. Boutron-Charlard in 1803, and subsequently investigated by Liebig and Wöhler in 1830, and others. Several other related species in the genus of Prunus, including apricot (Prunus armeniaca) and black cherry (Prunus serotina),[2] also contain amygdalin. It was promoted as a cancer cure by Ernst T. Krebs under the name "Vitamin B17", but studies have found it to be ineffective.[3][4][5]


[3] ^ Ellison NM, Byar DP, Newell GR (September 1978). "Special report on Laetrile: the NCI Laetrile Review. Results of the National Cancer Institute's retrospective Laetrile analysis". N. Engl. J. Med. 299 (10): 549–52. PMID 683212.

[4] ^ Moertel CG, Ames MM, Kovach JS, Moyer TP, Rubin JR, Tinker JH (February 1981). "A pharmacologic and toxicological study of amygdalin". JAMA 245 (6): 591–4. doi:10.1001/jama.245.6.591. PMID 7005480.

[5] ^ a b Moertel CG, Fleming TR, Rubin J, et al. (January 1982). "A clinical trial of amygdalin (Laetrile) in the treatment of human cancer". N. Engl. J. Med. 306 (4): 201–6. doi:10.1007/s00520-006-0168-9. PMID 7033783. content.nejm.org...

SOURCE: en.wikipedia.org...

Where did you get your information?

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Aggie Man


Whose studies show it ineffectual? The bloody crooks purveying drugs to hopefully cure the disease before the drug does? You can make a study say whatever you want it to. The identity of the studiers is paramount for its' credibility. I am already skeptical if anyone comes out in favor of the AMA or their accomplices the FDA. Because I already KNOW that they are evil.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
reply to post by St Vaast

 

That wasn't really the point of this thread, it was more on how the media tried to "scare" people with the way they report. And how after being corrected, they no longer had interest. haha.
I guess I could have made it more clear. My bad.

It was all a set-up to show how stupid the girl doctor is. Bob Bazell is also an NBC employee, specifically NBC News, and he is not a doctor.

Originally posted by Gregarious
reply to post by Aggie Man

 

Whose studies show it ineffectual? The bloody crooks purveying drugs to hopefully cure the disease before the drug does? You can make a study say whatever you want it to. The identity of the studiers is paramount for its' credibility. I am already skeptical if anyone comes out in favor of the AMA or their accomplices the FDA. Because I already KNOW that they are evil.

Well, show me studies that indicate otherwise. How slanted are your sources?

Just sayin'

b-17 is toxic!!!

Beta-glucosidase, one of the enzymes that catalyzes the release of the cyanide from amygdalin, is present in human small intestine and in a variety of common foods. This leads to an unpredictable and potentially lethal toxicity when amygdalin or Laetrile is taken orally.

It's not right to give advice to people to take something that is toxic.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by Aggie Man]

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


Cool. Thanks for that info. I just saw that as well. Now I don't know what the hell to think about this. haha.

Are cellphones really bad for you, and this was just some misdirection to make me feel safe with it glued to my ear? haha..

Seriously though, yeah. I don't get it, now.

reply to post by Demoncreeper


Based on personal experience, I say no, they are actually very bad for you, health wise. The begin with, I have an uncle who worked with a Dr. Martin Cooper, at Motorola. He was the first one who told be they emit microwave radiation, which could, and eventually will, used long enough, cause a brain tumor. I know a man who worked for the phone company, I will not name which one. He had a tumor in his left jaw bone, and he now has a metal jaw. I know a woman who is a good friend, she always carried her cell in the hip pocket of her jeans. She had to get a full hysterectomy and lost 1/2 of her hip bone, a good reminder not to do that again. She is 28 years old. These devices give me a headache, probably because the frequency is, you guessed it, the same as your brain works on. I also know a State Trooper who got cancer in his balls because he would lay the radar gun there. I would not use one if my life depended on it. But, that's me.

20 highest-radiation cell phones (United States) (is yours on the list?)

Manufacturer and model SAR level(digital)
1 Motorola V195s 1.6
2 Motorola Zine ZN5 1.59
2a Motorola Rival 1.59
4 Kyocera Jax S1300 1.55
4a Motorola VU204 1.55
6 RIM BlackBerry Curve
8330 (Sprint) 1.54
6a RIM BlackBerry Curve
8330 (U.S. Cellular) 1.54
6b RIM BlackBerry Curve
8330 (Verizon Wireless) 1.54
9 Nokia E71x 1.53
10 Pantech Matrix 1.52
11 LG Rumor 2 1.51
11a RIM BlackBerry Bold 1.51
13 HTC SMT5800 1.49
14 Sony Ericsson W350a 1.48
15 T-Mobile Dash 3G 1.47
16 Samsung Instinct 1.46
16a Samsung Spex SCH-R210 1.46
18 Kyocera X-tc 1.45
18a Motorola i576 1.45
18b Motorola Adventure V750 1.45

reviews.cnet.com...

Tell the FCC and the FDA to modernize their cell phone radiation standards!
salsa.democracyinaction.org...

How Much Radiation Does Your Phone Emit?
well.blogs.nytimes.com...

The evidence is clear, yet people carry them everywhere, talk or text on them constantly, and I have even seen people give them to their baby to keep him/her quiet.

Originally posted by Demoncreeper
Are cellphones really bad for you, and this was just some misdirection to make me feel safe with it glued to my ear? haha..

Seriously though, yeah. I don't get it, now.

Nobody knows. For 3 months they're deadly. For 3 months they're safe. For 3 months they're deadly. For 3 months they're safe. Et cetera. Et cetera. Et cetera.

reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II


True enough. I just want to know if they were both msn employees, why the "bantering". Shouldn't they have conspired to make us believe they are scary?

OR in conspiracy theory style:

Was it giving us all a false security, so that EVERYONE would carry a cell phone, and be tracked?. hahaha.

reply to post by Demoncreeper
As far as changing the title of a thread I have no idea, I'm sure a forum moderator could change the title if u asked.

And sorry, my bad, I was fired up to give my response as soon as I clicked the thread. lol

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Haha, no worries dude. I knew it was going to happen, cause I tried to keep to the rules of "breaking news", yet...it wasn't about the actual subject, rather the bantering. haha.

Everything causes cancer these days, I just found the method of the video interesting.

reply to post by Aggie Man
I really don't care what those people say who have a VESTED INTEREST i lying about B-17. The FACTS speak for themselves.

Ehxibit A: Wild animals do not get cancer, caged zoo animals get the disease frequently.

Exhibit B: The Hunza tribe people eat upwards of 6 - 8 apricot seeds a DAY, they use the seeds and apricottrees as status symbols, NOT A SINGLE person from that tribe has EVER gotten cancer unless they left the tribe to migrate to western countries. Not only that they commonly live past 120 years old.

Why would I lie aout this? I don't sell apricot seeds, I'm a chef by profession.

apricot seeds cure 4 cancer