Media’s Influence On Our Priorities
Every year 10 million people die from cancer around the world. In just the United States alone, in the last 20 years, over 10 million people have died of cancer. On the television they will attempt to capture our hearts and minds with politically motivated covid-19 deaths or deaths occurring from gun violence, while countless millions die in secret.
The most common type of cancer in the United States is breast cancer. Have you ever heard feminists on television mention this problem? No. Probably because they have been totally captured by the corporate media apparatus. The topic itself of breast cancer in women is quite muddy with a huge chasm in opinion between the corporations and the people. Corporations, of course, totally disregard the dangerous chemicals in deodorant as a cause for cancer, while people themselves have determined otherwise. Conflicting information like that found regarding this topic, ultimately leads to confusion which causes people to ultimately trust the experts rather than taking the matter into their own hands, hence 10 million Americans dying of cancer in the last 20 years.
Lets break down one of the possible causes of breast cancer along with its manipulation by the media. In 2015 the actress Gwyneth Paltrow published a controversial article by Dr. Habib Sadeghi that postulated tight fitting bras contributed to lymph restriction and breast disease.
While the media themselves offer no real solutions or potential causes for the breast cancer epidemic in women, they sure are quick to discredit anyone else’s attempt at shedding light on the matter. This comes as no surprise given the fact the media is totally owned and operated by the 1% richest people on earth.
As we can see here, in a study published in 2016, by the medical journal of Advanced Oncological Research and Treatment, determined at least some investigation is warranted with regard to bras and yet the media themselves make it seem like a baseless conspiracy theory.
Now let us examine another claim made by the media regarding breast cancer in women this time with regard to cellphone usage. In a publication brought to us by the Breast Cancer Foundation of New Zealand they stipulate: “There’s no evidence which suggests that carrying a mobile phone in your bra can cause breast cancer.”
After a quick search in the medical literature databases, we can easily find this study from all the way back in 2013: Multifocal Breast Cancer in Young Women with Prolonged Contact between Their Breasts and Their Cellular Phones brought to us by the medical journal of Case Reports in Medicine. In the report it states,
“We report a case series of four young women — ages from 21 to 39 — with multifocal invasive breast cancer that raises the concern of a possible association with nonionizing radiation of electromagnetic field exposures from cellular phones. All patients regularly carried their smartphones directly against their breasts in their brassieres for up to 10 hours a day, for several years, and developed tumors in areas of their breasts immediately underlying the phones.”
One would think that cancer foundations like in New Zealand would be apprised of such important research like the paper I just shared with you, but clearly, they are not. That’s because cancer foundations like in New Zealand have raised billions of dollars over the years and somehow have come up with very little treatment options or causes, especially for women, probably because these foundations are more advertising apparatuses for the cancer business in general and they actually provide very little benefit to women due to their corporate structure.
Now we will examine another common type of cancer and how it is treated by corporations, namely testicular cancer. As we can see here, testicular cancer also presents a great mystery to the world’s advanced scientific institutions as they explain to us “Incidence of the usually uncommon malignancy is now almost 10 times the global average in Norway and Denmark”.
In yet another study most likely funded by mega corporations, they say, “Based on incidence data, there is no convincing evidence of increased risk of testicular cancer from cell phone use.”
Again, exploring the medical databases on our own paints a far different picture. In a study provided to us by the Cleveland Clinic in Journal of Fertility and Sterility they say:
“Men who use these hands-free devices tend to carry their cell phones in their pants pocket or clipped to their belts at the waist while in talk mode. As a result, they may be exposing their testicles to damaging radiofrequency electromagnetic waves, explains Ashok Agarwal, PhD, head of the andrology laboratory and the director of the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Glickman Urologoical and Kidney Institute at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio.
“The Bluetooth devices, which many people are using these days because of health or safety concerns, may not be always so safe. There is a downside,” he says.”
In the study itself they say:
“Result(s): The comparisons of mean sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology among four different cell phone user groups were statistically significant. Mean sperm motility, viability, and normal morphology were significantly different in cell phone user groups within two sperm count groups. The laboratory values of the above four sperm parameters decreased in all four cell phone user groups as the duration of daily exposure to cell phones increased.
Conclusion(s): Use of cell phones decrease the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology. The decrease in sperm parameters was dependent on the duration of daily exposure to cell phones and independent of the initial semen quality.”
For posterity let us examine yet another example of how the media influences public opinion.
In the debate regarding cellphones and brain cancer, a similar landscape of nebulous claims and counterclaims resemble the other types of cancers we’ve studied so far. An Atlantic article entitled “Do Cellphones Cause Brain Cancer or Not?” perfectly exemplifies the state of confusion surrounding the topic of brain cancer and cellphones. Upon further investigation, we are quickly met with a very high visibility article from the NewScientist with a very presumptuous and seemingly definitive title: “No, mobile phones still won’t give you brain cancer”.
Another search once again yields a very different picture. In this article from CNN we find the title Brain cancer victim sues cell-phone providers about a Maryland man suing big cellphone companies.
In another article from ComputerWorld about the same man who was mentioned in the CNN piece it states:
“A Maryland neurologist filed an $800 million lawsuit this week against several wireless providers and two umbrella organizations claiming that radiation from his cell phone is responsible for his malignant brain tumor…
..The lawsuit came one day after Dr. George Carlo, a public health researcher, released a summary of research in which he raised questions about the safety of cell phone use.
Carlo’s research found radio frequency radiation from wireless phone antennae “appears to cause genetic damage in human blood,” while another case study uncovered a “statistically significant increase” in neuro-epithelial brain tumors among cell phone users”
In another article published by The Guardian, entitled Italian court rules mobile phone use caused brain tumor, it states:
“An Italian court has ruled that excessive, work-related use of a mobile phone caused an executive to develop a benign brain tumor… A medical expert estimated the damage to Romeo at 23% of his bodily function...”
Once again we have easily proven that the mass media’s take on carcinogenic aspects of modern life are derived from ridiculous oversimplifications, motivated by massive corporate profits in the cancer market that ultimately and maliciously influences public opinion in a way that favors corporations.