- #21
Thread Owner
I see the anti-medicine tin foil hat wearing quack is back, go spread your ignorance elsewhere.
PSA: Please learn from Elizabeth Edwards untimely passing
- Thread starter ennui
- Start date
The link he posted was about having a breast exam by the doc and self examination which are both valid too.
My stepmom has a tumor on her lung and my dad is convinced that it is from the radiation treatment she had when she had breast cancer. We find out today what is going on and then they will decide on treatment. They are certain that Jesus has healed her and the 7 cm tumor will be gone.
exactly. my mom is a breast cancer survivor. She found out she had cancer in a routine mammogram. She felt and saw no change. Because it was detected early, the cancer was removed from her body before it got to her lymph nodes and spread throughout her body.
same with my aunt. No physical changes noticed; cancer showed up on mammogram.
same with my grandma (who survived breast cancer after age 90!). She didn't see or feel any physical changes either. Caught it early, and she is now 94 and cancer-free.
Don't tell me that without mammograms I would still be with all 3 of these women this Christmas. I'm firmly convinced that early detection saves lives.
I double checked with my dad that they would be following the doctor's advice if it was still there. I always tell him that God made people want to be doctors and help people. I also tell him that God created the people who discovered Tylenol so there is no need to bother Jesus about my headache.
I would love to just offer some utterly simple (and free) way to find evidence of a malignant cancer (regardless of the type), and also for such evidence to be found at the time of its genuine onset, rather than the point where it has manifest itself as signs and/or symptoms.
It's just not that easy.
Remaining within the context of the thread, "breast cancer" does not have a specific latency period, meaning there's no hard and fast rule to know the span of time between the point of genuine onset (when the cancer actually began), and the point where it has manifested itself (a lump found by screening, or physical examination).
I placed "breast cancer" in quotes, because yet another deep complexity lies in the fact that there's no one single type of cancer that receives the name breast cancer. There are numerous (countless?) forms of cancer that (when found in the breast) can all be placed under one single name: breast cancer.
In general, it takes years for "breast cancer" to develop. A screening, or even a physical exam, that shows evidence of "breast cancer" is hardly catching it at its "early stage", nor it is an "early diagnosis".
Catching ("early diagnosis of") cancer at its "early stage" requires catching it at its actual onset, which is currently an impossibility. In more simple terms, when someone has found a tumor, regardless of its size, that tumor isn't new ... it's been growing for a while (i.e. not early).
The money accumulated by (and the livelihoods supported by) entities/people promoting arguments for it is infinitely more powerful than the funds available to people making arguments against it.
If I told someone that I haven't had "sickness" of any kind in more than 10 years, and that any clear and early signs that sickness is growing within me (the point where most people say, "I think I'm getting a cold") cause me to begin a time-specific regimen of 2 grams (2,000mg) of Vitamin C (taken as sodium ascorbate) for an appropriate period of time, I'd imagine that most people would just figure I'm "lucky".
No, it's not luck. I used to have sicknesses like most other people, until I educated myself more deeply about the topic.
I place "sickness" in quotes because most people, a day or two or three before being "sick" do say things like "I think I'm getting a cold", or "I think I'm coming down with something", but I automatically consider myself sick in those cases (it's just a matter of degree to me).
There's a lot to know about that particular method of prevention/healing (Vitamin C), but those details are for another topic some other day, and it's different for everybody. It's more than just Vitamin C.
For the purposes here though, the point is ...
Someone like me will tout the virtues of Vitamin C to prevent or fight sickness, yet I'm not trying to make money off you for buying it. I'm not looking to make money in any kind of way, nor does my livelihood depend on you buying it, or having success with it.
On the other hand, medical practitioners, researchers, pharmaceutical companies, medical technology companies, and even book publishers (and their editors) have little incentive to tell you, "yeah, just take some Vitamin C". If everybody knew that Vitamin C could solve "being sick" (to name just one thing), there would be a lot of people looking for work.
There's a lot of money in the "mammogram" business.
For example (just one example), the people/entities with money and power aren't going to tell you that a mammogram, especially regular mammogram screenings can easily cause breast cancer.[FONT=verdana,geneva,lucida,'lucida grande',arial,helvetica,sans-serif,Comic Sans MS]
[/FONT]And it would be far more than one single post here at CW to explain this reality. Even at that, I'd rather people learn for themselves, because unfortunately, most people would be unwilling to listen to little ole me, just some guy on a coupon board.
- #29
Thread Owner
If it looks like a duck...
a_s_b, aren't you an accountant? Just curious where you get all of your information and why you feel you are someone who should recommend that women avoid mammograms???
I can bet that if any of the women in your life are blessed to find an early stage breast cancer on a routine mammogram, and receive appropriate and curative treatment at such an early stage, that you will feel incredibly grateful she chose to have the mammogram. Or would you rather her find out when the lump is large enough to be felt on a breast self exam and the concerns about staging/spread are much more serious?
- Messages
- 3,137
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
I thought taking huge doses of Vitamin C could be harmful. A friend sent me this article or a similar one a few years back:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/09/us/taking-too-much-vitamin-c-can-be-dangerous-study-finds.html
That study was done over ten years ago in 1998.
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/09/us/taking-too-much-vitamin-c-can-be-dangerous-study-finds.html
That study was done over ten years ago in 1998.
I suppose it's possible that you'll consider this one thing to be (as I referred to it earlier) "utterly simple", but still, it's not free:
Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging
By the way, I appreciate that ennui has only been quoted once, thus I have not been subjected to the rest of her drivel (though that particular quoted comment wasn't horrible to view).
Most of you probably have no idea how nice this is:
Although I admit, I will actually click on View Post in those coupon insert threads.
Most of you probably have no idea how nice this is:
Although I admit, I will actually click on View Post in those coupon insert threads.
I apologize for the set-up, but it didn't really work anyway. I specifically mentioned Vitamin C "as sodium ascorbate" because I was hoping it would bring out a different response.
By the way, most people think of Vitamin C as ascorbic acid, and it is ascorbic acid that these researchers were using in their study.
It should be noted a "six-week study of 30 healthy men and women" is by no means a worthy study, nor was the study cited as "peer-reviewed". If it were, let's say, a 6 year study, and they gave details as to the criteria for deciding they were actually using "healthy men and women", then maybe, just maybe the study would carry more weight.
Here is the source of the story, and the study (though you need to pay to see it):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v392/n6676/full/392559a0.html
From the article you posted:
"The researchers found that at the 500-milligram level, vitamin C promoted genetic damage by free radicals to a part of the DNA, the adenine bases, that had not previously been measured in studies of the vitamin's oxidative properties."
Also from the article:
"The lead author of the new study, Dr. Ian Podmore, said that at 500 milligrams, vitamin C did act as an antioxidant on one part of the DNA, the guanine bases. Oxidation of guanine to oxoguanine is what is usually measured to determine the degree of DNA damage through oxidation."
These two extremely relevant portions of the article (and the study) presents a distinct contradiction.
On one hand, they purport that the 500mg of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C supplement) promotes genetic damage (by way of free radicals) to the adenine bases of our DNA, yet that same 500mg of ascorbic acid (Vitamin C supplement) acted as an antioxidant on the guanine bases of our DNA. That's a significant problem toward promoting ascorbic acid (Vitamin C supplement) as a PRO-oxidant if they say it both a pro-oxidant, and also an anti-oxidant.
"The failure of the authors to point out this paradox in the conclusions drawn from their work is a significant oversight. They focus solely on the oxidation of adenine, and conclude that a supplement of 500 mg vitamin C acts as a pro-oxidant, while ignoring the observed antioxidant effects with regard to guanine." (<<<--- that's clickable)
Another thing about the feeble study is that they were doing things ex vivo, not in vivo. "In conclusion, we believe that the results presented are an ex vivo artifact, given the high values obtained. In the context of the huge literature supporting the health benefits of vitamin C, the conclusions of the study are unwarranted." (<<<--- that's also clickable)
Here's another thing one can read, if they like:
Iron and Vitamin C
But going even beyond the crap offered by their **** study, contrary to popular belief, ascorbic acid is not Vitamin C. Don't expect worthless sources such as wakipedia to tell you this.
As for the Vitamin C I take, I use truly natural Vitamin C that has the necessary protective bioflavonoids and synergists. Nothing synthetic for me.
Synthetic ascorbic acid makes the body acidic, and depletes the body's reserve of calcium. I'm very well aware that ascorbic acid converts easily to (for example) dihydroascorbic acid, which is a free radical, thus very bad for you.
When you buy a bottle of Vitamin C at a store, there is a 9 out of 10 chance that you're buying something that was created (synthetically made) by Hoffman-LaRoche, a drug manufacturer that rakes-in about $50 billion a year, making it one of the largest in the world. After gobs of different companies buy the **** from them, they put on their own labels, and sell it to you, but it's all from the same source.
In short, there's absolutely no evidence to support the concept that huge doses of (the supplement form of) Vitamin C could be harmful. Even though that's true, I still humbly suggest that people avoid the supplement form (synthetic form) of Vitamin C that is found at stores.
sigh
As I said, "I'd rather people learn for themselves, because unfortunately, most people would be unwilling to listen to little ole me, just some guy on a coupon board."
It's actually not an unfortunate thing, because I feel strongly that people should learn for themselves. In retrospect, the sentence should have been, "I'd rather people learn for themselves anyway, since I know that most people wouldn't be willing to listen to little ole me, just some guy on a coupon board." That's a little better.
But there's the exact thing I'm talkin' about. Am I an accountant? No, I am not an accountant. My profession, and any professions that have come before this one, bear no specific relevance whatsoever to my knowledge level on this topic.
I wonder how many people are working the fry machine at McDonald's, but could build a computer from the ground up, only to offer computer advice to someone and be asked, "Aren't you just a fry guy at McDonald's?".
That's right up there with judging books by covers.
I could be wrong about the tone, but if your curiosity is genuine, I can give you literally hundreds of sources of information ... but I believe your tone is more along the lines of a "who the **** are you and what the **** do you know" type of thing. That would mean you don't actually care about the source of my knowledge.
As for why I think I am "someone who should make recommendations" --- what I definitely know is that I am fully capable of offering humble advice. That's why it was offered specifically as "humble advice", meaning the advice is being provided with deference. I'll be just fine if people decide to disregard it. No gun is pointed at their head.
I already covered the fact that the point in which "breast cancer" is capable of being found is by no means its early stage.
I digress ...
As for women in my life and "breast cancer", there's my maternal grandmother (89) and on my dad's side of the tree, my aunt (76). The only details I will offer are these. Both have "breast cancer", both were told long long ago to have routine mammograms, both had several (5 and 4 respectively) mammograms, and at the point of the routine mammograms (5th and 4th respectively) both were then "diagnosed" with "breast cancer". That was 1990 for both.
I can thank my gramma and my aunt for the inspiration to research the topic. Because of what I found, and because of what they found themselves from both my and their research, here we are 20 years later, and neither one gets mammograms any longer (haven't since 1991), and neither one has done anything other than distinct changes in their diet. Both are still alive and doing very well.
I mean seriously, the chances that anybody here will do their own research is undoubtedly the same as nearly any other serious topic I've discussed here or elsewhere.
Women who get routine (i.e "regular") mammograms are far more likely to die from breast cancer than those who don't. That's a fact.
Is anybody really interested in learning that breasts that had no cancers at all can be smashed and irradiated every 2 years causing the very thing they wanted to avoid? Smash, and bust a blood vessel, and irradiate the blood vessel, 7 years later, breast cancer. Smash a breast, bust open a previously benign tumor, and irradiate the opened tumor, 7 years later, breast cancer. The proclivity toward false-positives and also false-negatives. Biopsies that create a path for tumors to move out of their original constraints, then moving through the body to create more havoc. There's bunches of these. Nobody would be willing to read them though, let alone research. Even this post, maybe 2 people will take the time to read it, and neither one will probably research.
Is anybody willing to address the reality that doctors make suggestions based on self-preservation? Malpractice is a big deal.
Anybody willing to see the American Cancer Society for what it is?
http://www.preventcancer.com/losing/acs/wealthiest_links.htm
Is anybody willing to read the plethora of material available to become informed? Most people are not.
Among the hundreds of things to read, here's one (though only 1 person out of 1,000 will read it):
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/sep/fav5.htm
Here's another:
"The most serious adverse effect of screening for breast and prostate cancer is that we are discovering thousands of people with what looks like a cancer under the microscope, but who would never subsequently develop any disease."
Here's more relating to my post to mrsmom about Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging
But you'll of course find that there are sources who say it's not as good as a mammogram. Follow the money.
None of these links are meant to be the last place to look, and I'm definitely not suggesting to limit your research to online sources. And unlike some, I definitely do not suggest using Google as artificial brains, or as an artificial teacher.
People can do whatever they want. Little ole me can only do so much. Ultimately, it's up to people to become educated on the topic. If people want to blindly accept that mammograms are worthwhile, and pose no risks whatsoever, that's their prerogative.
Circa the 80s:
That's two generations of women being trained to believe that they are stupid if they don't test, and they were touting 35 back then, and still tout 40 an up today. For the most part, the suggestion is 50 or older when you remove the biased cancer organizations' assertions.
Since I'm the only one posting in this thread, that'll be the end of it.
- Messages
- 7,060
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 402
Then you haven't gone in for your tin foil hat fitting yet?! :surrender:
As someone who has been near death & not from breast cancer(yeah, i'm off-topic). When you are ill or trying to prevent becoming sick-money is irrevelant. Your health is the most important thing you have.Sure,we get ripped off by medical tests & the fees hospitals charge but it's a price you pay.
For once, i agree with Ennui.I believe she's trying to put useful info out here for people.
For once, i agree with Ennui.I believe she's trying to put useful info out here for people.
So can you get that in Illinois?
- Messages
- 18,763
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 602
Honestly Pam I think they both are.
Based on that, I guess she's trotted out the same old tired script, calling people names and being a bigot?Then you haven't gone in for your tin foil hat fitting yet?! :surrender:
No, I have no concerns about mind control, so I have no need for such protective headgear. That said, it should be noted that a hat only covers the head, but blinders limit one's vision to a single path.
