Cancer Prevention
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:35 am

Lacy53 wrote:

More info here on breast cancer risk factors. Note the discussion of "diet and vitamin intake" under the Unclear Factors heading:

http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-risk-factors

Obvious answer. That would be because a research study isn't funded by the pharmaceutical industry on the value of diet and vitamin intake. Lots of money is spent on researching the drugs that finance the pharmaceutical company. They won't make a cent on researching and discovering that bright colored veggies are going to decrease cancer risk.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:00 pm

sister sweets wrote:

Claudia - this increase is probably to pay for all that FREE healthcare that everyone writes about. Laughing

According to the sheet I rec'd.... "The differnce is due to: 1) General costs associated with the administration and delivery of health care. 2) New benefits and enrollment rules under health care reform."

I'm sure the administration of just insurance has gone up a lot... and well the rules... we all know about right... What a joke!

Fri Oct 04, 2013 12:11 pm

Keliu wrote:

Marie-Andrée wrote:

I am in total agreement with April. Why use a sledgehammer to do a job when a kinder tool will work ?
We all know people who've had cancers and have been treated with chemo, radiation, the whole shebang. Some suffered for years of continuous treatment. They died horrible deaths.

Tell that to these people:

Sheryl Crow

They would probably all be dead if they had not received medical intervention.

I think many celebrities complement their conventional treatment with holistic or alternative support:

Quote:

Q: Im a breast cancer survivor, and Im wondering, are you doing anything special with your diet to stay healthy and cancer-free?
—Sherry Lebed Davis, Lynnwood, Wash.

Sheryl: When I first got diagnosed, I went to this great nutritionist who specializes in disease prevention and well-being, and I still incorporate her tips like eating omega-3s—I eat salmon or other fish at least three times a week.

I eat a lot of walnuts, almonds, colorful vegetables, and prunes, which get such a bad rap but are loaded with antioxidants. I also drink pomegranate juice and keep a vat of tomato soup around or some kind of tomato sauce, because it has lycopene. Also, spices like cinnamon, which I throw into my cereal.

And one big thing I learned was that so much of wellness depends on your body getting rid of waste. So I eat a lot of Fiber One, which has 14 grams of fiber per serving.

Q: My mom was a two-time cancer survivor, and both times she was told that her attitude was the strongest tool she had. What has helped you most?
—Kym Ott, Chattanooga, Tenn.

Sheryl: It was a really personal blow, because I was newly out of a relationship and that made it more difficult to even fathom that I could be diagnosed with cancer. And this great friend told me one of the gateways to awakening is to allow yourself to experience your emotions.

As Westerners, weve gotten adept at suppressing them. Its always ‘Try not to think about it or ‘Keep yourself busy. You push all that stuff down, and it manifests itself in other ways—whether its stress or disease. So my attitude was to grieve when I felt like grieving, be afraid when I felt like being afraid, and be angry when I felt like being angry. It also helped me to learn to say no to people. Thats been really liberating.

http://www.health.com/health/article/0,,20411904_2,00.html

Quote:

Q: I would like to know if you used a holistic approach in addition to your medical treatment. Reason I ask is because I hear so much of holistic modalities being part of recoveries, but I am not yet convinced that they work. I wish you the best and my prayers are with you and all women battling the cancer nightmare.
Pauline Elvidge, Georgetown, Massachusetts

CROW: Dear Pauline, I remember when I was first diagnosed and I was deep into doing research on what it meant to have cancer and what I could expect from my treatment. I called a great friend who is one of the top guys at the Lance Armstrong Foundation and asked what he thought about seeking holistic treatment in conjunction with my radiation. His response was, "If your doctor isn't open to that, then you have the wrong doc." In fact, it was my surgical oncologist who recommended I check out the Tao of Wellness, where I supported my treatment with acupuncture as well as herbal teas. The idea is to fortify the immune system. I say why not?

Q: I recently read your interview in Vanity Fair and was so impressed by your integrity and stamina. I just read a report yesterday that stress has been linked to ovarian cancer but there have been no causal links demonstrated between breast cancer and stress to date. Do you feel that stress may have contributed to your development of stage one breast cancer? I would also like to ask, do you think there is enough being done regarding awareness of cancer, breast cancer in particular, and what more would you like to see done (i.e. programs, educational efforts)?
Catherine, New York, New York

CROW: Hi Catherine, I have to believe that stress is not good, period. There is a pretty goofy movie called, "What the Bleep Do We Know," and it talks about the fact that the cells operate at their fullest capability when we are relaxed and positive...that the cells actually change shape when we are stressed. It is my belief that disease is a breakdown in physiology and what has to be determined is, if we all walk around with cancer cells, it is at which point that the cells begin to change shapes or start to form patterns that really matters. What is causing our immune system to stop working at its highest potential? What is causing the cells to mutate, to multiply, etc.?

I think there are amazingly great advances being made in cancer research. I've met so many amazing doctors who are impassioned and convicted about finding a cure. Just the advances that have been made in the last few years regarding gene research as well as effective treatment are encouraging. We are past the time when the mastectomy is the only solution. It has only been in the last 20 years that lumpectomy and radiation/chemo became a viable option to having the entire breast removed.

Q: What are your thoughts about treating cancer holistically? Organic foods/diet? Did you use any of these alternative means to improve your health and rid your body of the cancer?
Nick Giammusso, Williamsville, New York

CROW: Hi Nick, I believe anything that can be used to support the immune system is valuable. I went to a wonderful Chinese doctor at the Tao of Wellness in Santa Monica and received acupuncture as well as herbs. I also met with a nutritionist who specializes in wellness. I completely changed the way I eat. I am very conscious about what I put into my body. I eat all organic, clean food, a lot of fish, colorful vegetables, etc.

http://cgi.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/10/06/crow.cancer/index.html

I hadn't heard of the relatively new Contrasted Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) exam before:

Quote:

The Sheryl Crow Imaging Center at the Pink Lotus Breast Center launched Contrasted Enhanced Spectral Mammography (CESM) to North America in March 2012. To the patient, it's a routine mammogram with an IV contrast injection – but to the radiologist, it's a no-guesswork, easy to read exam. CESM subtracts out all of the “mystery” in a mammogram while utilizing blood flow patterns to dim the normal breast tissue, leaving only vascular, cancerous areas in the picture.

CESM technology acquires the spectral data necessary to automatically create two images per view: a standard mammographic image showing tissue density and a contrast-enhanced image in exactly the same position with the background signal subtracted out.

A certain number of women have inconclusive mammograms, often due to dense breast tissue, which appears white on a mammogram – as does cancer, making cancer difficult to detect. Even when combined with ultrasound, some women’s images will remain "inconclusive" with findings on mammogram that cannot be dismissed. This generally requires an MRI to resolve the issue (or a biopsy, when possible).

MRI, however, has many drawbacks: (1) expensive, (2) confines you to a clanging tube for 45 minutes, (3) highlights areas in the breast that need further evaluation but are frequently “nothing” (called false positives), (4) must be timed to the menstrual cycle, causing week-long delays, and (5) does not generate immediate results.

CESM provides us with very similar information to MRI, but can be done within 10 minutes at nearly 1/10 of the cost. Frequently, the same day your mammogram appears abnormal, you leave with answers and a plan.

Thanks to innovative technology like CESM, the Pink Lotus Breast Center is equipped with another tool to ensure the breast health of women, providing peace of mind when you need it most.

Quote:

When an inconclusive mammogram and ultrasound require further testing, scheduling and completing the next step – such as MRI – often creates a circuitous and lengthy path that may not even lead to a diagnosis. CESM shortens this path for many patients in several ways: (1) a CESM exam only takes a little longer than a diagnostic mammogram, and uses the same equipment as a routine mammogram, which patients already understand; (2) the CESM technology clearly isolates concerning lesions while hiding non- cancerous tissue, thus eliminating the ambiguity of the initial study; (3) unlike MRI, CESM is not confounded by hormone replacement or menstrual cycles, so CESM can be scheduled immediately with results available within minutes, and (4) compared to MRI, CESM does not cause as much discomfort or claustrophobia, and is four times faster. The exam is simple: after an intravenous injection of contrast dye (similar to MRI), the patient receives a mammogram using CESM technology, which essentially analyzes blood flow patterns within the breast tissue to create a clear picture of normal versus abnormal findings.

http://pinklotusbreastcenter.com/breast-cancer-101/2012/03/pink-lotus-breast-center-first-in-the-us-to-launch-ges-contrast-enhanced-spectral-mammography/

Contrast-enhanced spectral mammography versus MRI: Initial results in the detection of breast cancer and assessment of tumour size.
Results: Breast cancer was visible in 66/80 MG (mammography), 80/80 CESM (contrast-enhanced spectral mammography), and 77/79 MRI examinations
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24048724

Exam Pics: http://www3.gehealthcare.com/en/Products/Categories/Mammography/Contrast_Enhanced_Spectral_Mammography#tabs/tabE4AA594582AD4ABA9408D613EBDB2CD7

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:29 pm

I get a thermography scan + a regular mammogram. Supposed to be much more effective at detecting problems than a mammogram alone, although I don't have any literature at my fingertips right now. Bad thing is that a place to get thermography can be hard to find, and it isn't covered by insurance if you can find it. Good thing is that when you can get it, it's relatively cheap, at least here in the States.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:31 pm

HPV Vaccine: A Strong Criticism from Leading Israeli OBGYN Doctor

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/09/hpv-vaccine-a-strong-criticism-from-leading-israeli-obgyn-doctor.html

This link reads:

The CBCD has learned that Dr. Uzi Beller, “an international authority on gynecological cancers who treats patients on a daily basis (1)”, came out publicly against vaccinating 65,000, 14-year old girls in Israel with Gardasil (1). Dr. Beller voiced his criticism of Gardasil vaccination at “a meeting in Tel Aviv 10 days ago (with) 40 leading experts on gynecology, oncology, women’s health, vaccines and other specialties (1).”

When describing his opposition to Gardasil vaccination, Dr. Beller said, “I am not at all against vaccines. I just underwent the oral polio vaccination as the Health Ministry instructed medical institutions to give the two drops to every doctor who is in direct contact with patients. But, HPV is different from all other vaccines. It is not a vaccination against cervical cancer but against a virus that in some cases causes a premalignant condition, and in a small number of cases, a malignancy (1).”

“…in an interview with The Jerusalem Post in his office, (Dr. Beller) noted that the …pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the vaccine have been extremely aggressive in their lobbying and marketing; the vaccines are worth billons of dollars to them. At the same time, he said, many medical professionals who advocate vaccination have been pushing a “populistic campaign without being familiar with the issue (1).”

Dr. Beller continued by saying, “I would be happy to see a solution to this disease. Unlike mammography, there is no organized health fund screening for cervical cancer required, even though Pap smear testing has been shown to be worthwhile in early detection. I want to see fundamental studies proving efficacy, and they do not exist. The vaccines were tested on mostly white women attending colleges and university – mostly from developed countries and healthy. The data were based on a relatively short-term follow-up period. What is known does not yet justify widespread vaccination of healthy girls (1).”

Moreover, the Jerusalem Post report said that “Beller stressed that girls taking the vaccine should continue with Pap screening. ‘All the experts accept this, and This is accepted by everybody and actually means that the vaccine gives only limited protection, if any. Major studies have shown that women who were vaccinated nevertheless developed cervical cancer.’ (1)”

“ ‘If the HPV vaccine, however, were proven to prevent cervical cancer, that would be something else,’ Beller continued. ‘But it hasn’t. The US Food and Drug Administration checks for safety of the vaccine, but (does not check) for efficacy. There is no evidence that the vaccine protects against cervical cancer, only (that it) counters the virus itself. No decrease in invasive cervical cancer... in the vaccinated population has been documented so far. Australia was the first country to implement a school based mass vaccination program with Gardasil in April 2007.’ The World Health Organization in 2009 recommended the use of HPV vaccines for primary prevention of cervical cancer. But there is no evidence that prophylactic (preventative) vaccination against HPV types 16 and 18 reduces the incidence of cervical cancer (1).”

Health Ministry officials (in Israel) continue to consider canceling plans to administer the HPV vaccine, following studies suggesting vaccine-linked autoimmune conditions and other adverse effects (1).

“We wonder why the CDC and FDA are pushing Gardasil so strongly when health ministries in other countries are expressing concern. It seems that experts around the world, from Japan to Israel to Italy are re-evaluating the safety record of the HPV vaccine, while American health officials prefer to ignore it.” – Greg Bennett, CBCD

The Center continues to believe that the poor safety record of the HPV vaccine is due to the fragments of foreign DNA contained in the vaccine. The CBCD suggests that these foreign DNA fragments could be a cause of the autoimmune conditions observed by the Israeli scientists, as suggested by Dr. Hanan Polansky’s Microcompetition with Foreign DNA Theory.

The CBCD therefore suggests that with medical doctors and researchers in Israel raising concerns about the HPV vaccine, American pediatricians and OBGYNs should consider all the data. Doctors across America should take into account recent research on the HPV vaccine coming out of Israel, and should not rely solely on the FDA and CDC’s official opinion.

For more information on the Center for the Biology of Chronic Disease and the dangers posed by foreign DNA, visit http://www.cbcd.net. To request an interview or to speak with a CBCD official, please Email info (AT) CBCD (DOT) net.

References:

(1) http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/HPV-To-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate-326711

Wait a minute... You don't suppose that Dr. Beller Has been hanging-out with a bunch of simple-minded, paranoid,fear mongering, hysterical and overly dramatic Americans do ya?

Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:39 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

HPV Vaccine: A Strong Criticism from Leading Israeli OBGYN Doctor

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/09/hpv-vaccine-a-strong-criticism-from-leading-israeli-obgyn-doctor.html

References:

(1) http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/HPV-To-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate-326711

This article is mentioned in the middle of page 11 also along with an article on Japan's current position to withdraw its recommendation that the HPV vaccine be used by girls due to possible long term side effects. "Girls will still be able to be vaccinated for free, but from now on they will be informed by healthcare providers that the health ministry does not recommend it."

More controversy:

Controversial vaccine trial should never have been run in India, British researchers say
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr305.php
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-06-24/brit-scientists-show-hpv-vaccine-is-not-justified-anywhere/

The second link includes a video of the study author discussing the data quality problems they found in the PATH claims

Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:44 pm

Interesting article on cancer and exercise:

Quote:

Exercise is powerful cancer medicine

A study published in June in the medical journal Cancer found that women who are active two hours daily, five days a week, see their risk of developing breast cancer fall by about 30 per cent. (Note that this is activity – walking, grocery shopping, yard work – not exercise in the gym.)

Earlier research, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that women who increased their activity levels after being treated for breast cancer saw their risk of recurrence drop by half. That study focused on exercise, but showed that a mere 30 minutes daily of moderate activity (such as brisk walking or biking) provided dramatic benefits. It also showed that fewer than one-third of breast-cancer survivors were even minimally active.

There are a number of studies that examine the specific benefits of exercise to subgroups, such as women in their reproductive years and postmenopausal women – and there can be significant differences.

Canada has long been a leader in this field. Research done by Christine Friedenreich, an epidemiologist at the University of Calgary, way back in the 1990s showed clearly that women who exercise routinely during their lifetime cut their breast-cancer risk by at least one-third; those who did not smoke or drink alcohol in addition to being physically active saw their risk plummet by 70 per cent, showing the cumulative impact of reducing risk factors.

The take-home message here is the same one that Ms. Bélanger understood as a high-school student reaching out to a friend: Exercise is one of the cheapest, most effective methods we have for preventing and treating breast cancer (and cancer more generally). It is also grossly underprescribed. (Research has shown that actually having doctors write a prescription for exercise is one of the best ways to get people to break a sweat.)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/health-and-fitness/health/conditions/exercise-is-powerful-cancer-medicine/article4479006/

Quote:

Estimating the future burden of cancers preventable by better diet and physical activity in Australia

Conclusions: About 25% of cancers, or about 43 000 cancers in 2025, can potentially be prevented through improvements in diet and physical activity. It is imperative that governments, clinicians and researchers act now if we are to reduce the significant future human and financial burden of cancer.

https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2012/196/5/estimating-future-burden-cancers-preventable-better-diet-and-physical-activity

There are some interesting resources here:

World Cancer Research Fund / American Insitute for Cancer Research
Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer: a Global Perspective
Our Global Network is dedicated to funding research and health education programmes into the links between food, nutrition, physical activity, body fatness and cancer risk.
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/er_full_report_english.php

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:45 pm

havana8 wrote:

More controversy:

Controversial vaccine trial should never have been run in India, British researchers say
http://www.rsm.ac.uk/media/pr305.php
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-06-24/brit-scientists-show-hpv-vaccine-is-not-justified-anywhere/

The second link includes a video of the study author discussing the data quality problems they found in the PATH claims

You know what's just crazy weird about this... This is attached to the Bill Gates Foundation...

And here you can watch him talk about his doubling $$ towards vaccines... and also how we need to reduce population, in order to protect the world. This is all to be done through improved healthcare, improved reproductive services and vaccines. Why would any of these in an "improved" copacity lower your reproductive rate? http://youtu.be/T9vZLlJhI7o

And HERE... where India's population is guestimated to get way out of control if something isn't done about it. http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/04/05/indias-population-in-2050-extreme-projections-demand-extreme-action/

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:10 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

{...}References:

(1) http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/HPV-To-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate-326711

Wait a minute... You don't suppose that Dr. Beller Has been hanging-out with a bunch of simple-minded, paranoid,fear mongering, hysterical and overly dramatic Americans do ya?

LOL

But it does appear that even in Israel, they’re having similar public controversy/discussions.

Here’s a Comment I remembered reading re: this article (same article link that was posted earlier in this thread – 4 (?) pages back)

http://www.jpost.com/Health-and-Science/HPV-To-vaccinate-or-not-to-vaccinate-326711

Article – HPV - to vaccinate or not vaccinate (Jerusalem Post – 9/21/13)

(Comment) Rachel Grenadier • Top Commenter • (from Tel Aviv, Israel)

This article's byline is misleading in the extreme. Vaccinations against acquiring human papilloma virus and cancers of the cervix as well as oral cancers are almost 100% effective against the disease which is difficult to diagnose, much less treat. The only scientists who claim there are "side effects" are given money by various religious-based groups who oppose the vaccine, claiming it leads to promiscuity among teen-aged girls and boys which is absurd and not supported by any evidence anywhere. Studies show teenagers are having sex. They should be protected against cancer. Period. End of discussion.

September 27 at 1:11AM

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:59 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

aprile wrote:

For instance, most women with breast (if they werer lucky enough to get tested), would discover they are deficient in Vitamin D3, magnesium (which aids its uptake) and other minerals. Yet, this is not the standard alopathic protocol. And I beg to ask WHY NOT? Wink

No, you are wrong:

8.Is there evidence that vitamin D can help reduce breast cancer risk?

Epidemiologic studies of the association between vitamin D and breast cancer risk have had conflicting results. Although several studies have suggested an inverse association between vitamin D intake and the risk of breast cancer, others have shown no association or even a positive association (that is, individuals with higher intakes had higher risks). A meta-analysis of six studies that investigated the relationship between vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk found no association (19). However, most women in these studies had relatively low vitamin D intakes, and, when the analysis was restricted to women with the highest vitamin D intakes (>10 μg, or 400 IU, per day), their breast cancer risks were lower than those of women with the lowest intakes (typically <1.25 μg, or 50 IU, per day) (19).

In the Women’s Health Initiative, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation for an average of 7 years did not reduce the incidence of invasive breast cancer compared with placebo (20).

The association between blood levels of vitamin D and breast cancer risk was examined in a cohort of postmenopausal women who were enrolled in NCI’s Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial and from whom blood was drawn at study entry. During the subsequent follow-up period, 1,005 of these women developed breast cancer. When researchers compared the blood vitamin D levels of these women with those of 1,005 similar control women who did not develop breast cancer, they found no association between vitamin D status and risk of breast cancer (21).

19.Gissel T, Rejnmark L, Mosekilde L, Vestergaard P. Intake of vitamin D and risk of breast cancer--a meta-analysis. Journal of Steroid Biochemistry and Molecular Biology 2008; 111(3–5):195–199.
20.Chlebowski RT, Johnson KC, Kooperberg C, et al. Calcium plus vitamin D supplementation and the risk of breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2008; 100(22):1581–1591.
21.Freedman DM, Chang SC, Falk RT, et al. Serum levels of vitamin D metabolites and breast cancer risk in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers, and Prevention 2008; 17(4):889–894.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/vitamin-D

Breast cancer prevention (?) is an extremely complicated issue; only simple minds assume it is as easy as taking a few supplements and having a few tests. Standard allopathic protocol is determined by the scientific evidence; all the research noted above is conducted by mainstream medicine BTW, not (your personally-favoured) alternative medicine. Aprile, are you aware of the Dunning–Kruger effect?

@Lacy - Your last comment was completely uncalled for. Just because you support your opinion with medical websites, DOES NOT make YOU more informed than anyone else who posts on this thread. As Sis so aptly pointed out, it would be extremely rare to see a study funded to determine the benefits of bright colored fruits and veggies, much less the the benefits of Vitamin D in the fight against breast cancer. Nevertheless, I did find this study which linked women with low Vitamin D levels to more aggressive breast cancers. I also believe even Deb Crowley can attest to the fact that her Vitamin D levels were quite low.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2011/04/29/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-more-aggressive-breast-cancers

Also, I am not so ignorant as you presume that breast cancer avoidance is so simple as a one-pronged approach. I realize that many times, even our best efforts will fail and that's because there often hidden reasons why. For instance, where I live on Long Island our antiquated water system which consists of underground aquifers is now being exposed in the media. Not only are they are using chlorine to disinfect the system, they have discovered *trace* amounts of chemicals which appear to have leached from the groundwater into the water supply, although they've assured the public for years that could never happen. So chlorine, which is a known halogen, reduces iodine and magnesium uptake in the body...as well as many other essential minerals. WHY is this important for breast cancer prevention? As previously stated, the breast has an affinity for iodine, as does the prostate and other fatty tissues. But with respect to breast cancer - "Iodine is absolutely critical for something called P53 gene which is known as the “keeper of the genetic code”. Without iodine and selenium it will not function to eliminate abnormal cells from the body such as cancer.

So when we have a toxic environment loaded with xenoestrogens, halogens and more, we are going to see more & more cancer. Does medicine want to make this connection? Of course not.
It just so happens that Long Island is also a hot bed for cancer, i.e., we have higher than normal cancer rates -- in particular, breast cancer. There are also *cluster areas* where breast cancer rates are even higher, for instance in Bethpage where the old (government-owned) Northrop Grumman plant used to stand. But the results of a major study that came out a number of years ago disagreed concluding that the cancer rate wasn't related to the environment. What a surprise! More lies by government officials.

However, many residents begged to differ as they saw the very real effects of cancer for themselves and argued that the Bethpage study was inadequate. Detractors stated that the study didn't take into consideration people who had already died and also researchers hadn't even bothered to contact people who had moved away from the area (Negligence.) They also said that the 19-block radius was too narrow to compile accurate results. So where does that leave us? ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE!!!! Off to price a whole house filter I guess. Don't you see, they don't want to take responsiblity for their actions? Does anybody remember Love Canal? Here's Bethpage's cancer page:

http://bethpagecancerproject.com/1/post/2013/04/the-best-tasting-cancer.html

I am done arguing with you Lacy... I know in my heart that cancer is environmental, and there is most definitely a connection to vitamins and mineral deficiencies and everything previously mentioned. Is it scary? You bet it is, especially if you are uninformed or put your head in the sand and are virtually blind sided when it hits you or your family and all the medical profession has to offer you is more toxins.

That's all for me...

~ Aprile

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 7:24 pm

Here's the current stance of the Australian Government on Thermal Imaging for Early Breast Cancer Detection:

Quote:

The NHMRC’s position is that there is no evidence of sufficient quality to demonstrate that thermography is effective for early detection or screening for breast cancer.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/your-health/use-thermal-imaging-early-breast-cancer-detection

and:

Quote:

Sometimes you might hear about other types of breast screening, including thermal imaging (also known as thermography). Thermal imaging has been deregistered for use in Australia by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. It is not recommended by Cancer Australia, BreastScreen Australia, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists, or the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). There is no Medicare rebate for breast thermal imaging.
http://www.bcna.org.au/living-breast-cancer/follow-care/breast-imaging

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:03 pm

This whole thread seems like a cut and paste war, sigh.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:13 pm

aprile wrote:

@Lacy - Your last comment was completely uncalled for. Just because you support your opinion with medical websites, DOES NOT make YOU more informed than anyone else who posts on this thread. As Sis so aptly pointed out, it would be extremely rare to see a study funded to determine the benefits of bright colored fruits and veggies, much less the the benefits of Vitamin D in the fight against breast cancer. Nevertheless, I did find this study which linked women with low Vitamin D levels to more aggressive breast cancers. I also believe even Deb Crowley can attest to the fact that her Vitamin D levels were quite low.

http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/cancer/articles/2011/04/29/low-vitamin-d-levels-linked-to-more-aggressive-breast-cancers

Also, I am not so ignorant as you presume that breast cancer avoidance is so simple as a one-pronged approach. I realize that many times, even our best efforts will fail and that's because there often hidden reasons why. For instance, where I live on Long Island our antiquated water system which consists of underground aquifers is now being exposed in the media. Not only are they are using chlorine to disinfect the system, they have discovered *trace* amounts of chemicals which appear to have leached from the groundwater into the water supply, although they've assured the public for years that could never happen. So chlorine, which is a known halogen, reduces iodine and magnesium uptake in the body...as well as many other essential minerals. WHY is this important for breast cancer prevention? As previously stated, the breast has an affinity for iodine, as does the prostate and other fatty tissues. But with respect to breast cancer - "Iodine is absolutely critical for something called P53 gene which is known as the “keeper of the genetic code”. Without iodine and selenium it will not function to eliminate abnormal cells from the body such as cancer.

So when we have a toxic environment loaded with xenoestrogens, halogens and more, we are going to see more & more cancer. Does medicine want to make this connection? Of course not.
It just so happens that Long Island is also a hot bed for cancer, i.e., we have higher than normal cancer rates -- in particular, breast cancer. There are also *cluster areas* where breast cancer rates are even higher, for instance in Bethpage where the old (government-owned) Northrop Grumman plant used to stand. But the results of a major study that came out a number of years ago disagreed concluding that the cancer rate wasn't related to the environment. What a surprise! More lies by government officials.

However, many residents begged to differ as they saw the very real effects of cancer for themselves and argued that the Bethpage study was inadequate. Detractors stated that the study didn't take into consideration people who had already died and also researchers hadn't even bothered to contact people who had moved away from the area (Negligence.) They also said that the 19-block radius was too narrow to compile accurate results. So where does that leave us? ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE!!!! Off to price a whole house filter I guess. Don't you see, they don't want to take responsiblity for their actions? Does anybody remember Love Canal? Here's Bethpage's cancer page:
http://bethpagecancerproject.com/1/post/2013/04/the-best-tasting-cancer.html

I am done arguing with you Lacy... I know in my heart that cancer is environmental, and there is most definitely a connection to vitamins and mineral deficiencies and everything previously mentioned. Is it scary? You bet it is, especially if you are uninformed or put your head in the sand and are virtually blind sided when it hits you or your family and all the medical profession has to offer you is more toxins.

That's all for me...

~ Aprile

Very nice April. Real life.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:21 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

You know what's just crazy weird about this... This is attached to the Bill Gates Foundation...

And here you can watch him talk about his doubling $$ towards vaccines... and also how we need to reduce population, in order to protect the world. This is all to be done through improved healthcare, improved reproductive services and vaccines. Why would any of these in an "improved" copacity lower your reproductive rate? http://youtu.be/T9vZLlJhI7o

I guess to really understand where Bill Gates is coming from, you need to have a better understanding of his previous Ted Talks. I did find this for you; it's taken from a Q&A transcript:

There’s an associate member here, Tyler Donald, who’s writing from Chester Springs, saying: “It’s obvious you’re doing wonderful things to prevent deaths, you’re a self-proclaimed optimist. Another view is that your charity is adding enormously to the problem of overpopulation in the world.” Do you have an optimistic solution to that problem?

BG: Okay, this is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me. When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did because I thought population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face. You’ve got to help mothers who want to limit family size, have the tools and education to do that. That’s the only thing that really counts. Well then, I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health.

And that sounds paradoxical. You think: Okay, better health means more kids not less kids. Well in fact, what parents are doing is they’re trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them. And so, the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there’s a perfect correlation, that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down. In fact, Hans Rosling, here at this conference in two of my favorite speeches actually showed that unbelievable correlation that population growth has gone down. Today, where is there high population growth? It’s in the places with the worst health conditions — Northern Nigeria, Northern India … And so the two problems go exactly hand in hand and if we improve health rapidly we will get the peak population to be as much as a billion below the current expected peak — that is about 8.3 billion versus 9.3.

I had been thinking about your question since you first posted it, wondering how Bill Gates' efforts in reproductive services and vaccinations could limit population (family size). I came up with those two answers (contraception, increased survival by vaccinations of children) but also considered that family economics may have a part to play in his thinking. Assuming poor families do not have the ability to increase their income, it is advantageous to have smaller families (fewer mouths to feed). You end up with healthier children and less chance of malnutrition, thereby increasing the standard of living for that family (as bad as it is, it's still better than the alternative).

http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/06/bill_gates_qa_w/

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:08 pm

Lacy53 wrote:

I guess to really understand where Bill Gates is coming from, you need to have a better understanding of his previous Ted Talks. I did find this for you; it's taken from a Q&A transcript:

There’s an associate member here, Tyler Donald, who’s writing from Chester Springs, saying: “It’s obvious you’re doing wonderful things to prevent deaths, you’re a self-proclaimed optimist. Another view is that your charity is adding enormously to the problem of overpopulation in the world.” Do you have an optimistic solution to that problem?

BG: Okay, this is a very important question to get right because it was absolutely key for me. When our foundation first started up, it was focused on reproductive health. That was the main thing we did because I thought population growth in poor countries is the biggest problem they face. You’ve got to help mothers who want to limit family size, have the tools and education to do that. That’s the only thing that really counts. Well then, I came across articles that showed that the key thing you can do to reduce population growth is actually improve health.

And that sounds paradoxical. You think: Okay, better health means more kids not less kids. Well in fact, what parents are doing is they’re trying to have two kids survive to adulthood to take care of them. And so, the more disease burden there is, the more kids they have to have to have that high probability. So there’s a perfect correlation, that as you improve health, within a half generation, the population growth rate goes down. In fact, Hans Rosling, here at this conference in two of my favorite speeches actually showed that unbelievable correlation that population growth has gone down. Today, where is there high population growth? It’s in the places with the worst health conditions — Northern Nigeria, Northern India … And so the two problems go exactly hand in hand and if we improve health rapidly we will get the peak population to be as much as a billion below the current expected peak — that is about 8.3 billion versus 9.3.

I had been thinking about your question since you first posted it, wondering how Bill Gates' efforts in reproductive services and vaccinations could limit population (family size). I came up with those two answers (contraception, increased survival by vaccinations of children) but also considered that family economics may have a part to play in his thinking. Assuming poor families do not have the ability to increase their income, it is advantageous to have smaller families (fewer mouths to feed). You end up with healthier children and less chance of malnutrition, thereby increasing the standard of living for that family (as bad as it is, it's still better than the alternative).

http://blog.ted.com/2009/02/06/bill_gates_qa_w/

Given the low death rate as sited in the articles above, in theory not even supporting a proper study, the problem with lost children is not due to cervical cancer.

That said... It seems one of the largest problems in India comes down to sanitation and the lack of clean water. No vaccine, let alone gardisal, it going to address that.

This site seems to give some pretty good numbers... http://thewaterproject.org/water-in-crisis-india.asp

Seems to me if BG was interested in improving health of people in India... the biggest impact could be with aiding them in their desalination program. http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-04-24/news/38790269_1_minjur-plant-desalination-plant-ivrcl

There's an awesome video floating around on the set up Isreal has accomplished. Fascinating. Water problems seem an issue of the past. Not only are they no longer water poor. They are creating so much drinking water they are exporting. This means JOBS, Income from exporting, AND Health... If I can find the video I'll post it!

The most basic needs of a humans are Food, Water and Shelter...If those issues aren't addressed, vaccines are of little significance. Life will be crappy and short.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:48 pm

Here's the video on water in Israel... What they have accomplished... amazing... now that... IMO is some technology that a country like India could use... ASAP!

http://youtu.be/x7G9v6JdYwc

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:24 pm

It would be nice to think that a few water desalination plants could fix India's health problems - but their biggest problem is millions of people living in poverty (plus the caste system). They live in slums, multiple families living in a small room with no running water and no sanitation. They defecate in the streets and bathe in the Ganges, one of the most polluted water ways in the world. It is said that if a child makes it to the age of five in India, they are pretty much immune to every disease going - but often they don't. India is rife with Typhoid, Cholera, Hepatitis, Malaria - everything really - bring on the vaccination. I don't think you can compare the problems of India to Israel. I would imagine Israel's water problems would be due to drought.

free skin care · Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:48 pm

So if they are vaccinated from these diseases... Which sound like they should be...I don't argue that....all you listed will kill them right away. And most certainly do not have a 90-95% self cure rate.

Then they'll be fine without water and sanitation?

I still don't see how gardisal is the priority. Which is how we got to this country within this discussion....Why put money there?

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:07 am

ClaudiaFE wrote:

So if they are vaccinated from these diseases... Which sound like they should be...I don't argue that....all you listed will kill them right away. And most certainly do not have a 90-95% self cure rate.

Then they'll be fine without water and sanitation?

I still don't see how gardisal is the priority. Which is how we got to this country within this discussion....Why put money there?

No they won't be fine without clean water and sanitation. But to provide that they need infrastructure such as decent housing with running water, toilets and a sewerage system.
However, things are changing in India, like China, they are an emerging nation and things are improving.

"Why put money there?" Why not put money there? They're human beings and deserve the same health care that is available in other nations. No-one on this earth is undeserving!

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:58 am

bethany wrote:

This whole thread seems like a cut and paste war, sigh.

Isn't that just the way we share information these days?

Although, I do find it annoying when people press the quote button just in order to regurgitate a post they favour.

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:26 am

Quote:

Very nice April. Real life.

Thanks Sis - yeah sadly it is real life. When neighbors notice every woman on their block is getting breast cancer yet the *study* finds no coerlation, you know what's at work. No need to post government double talk quotes here. We got the message loud and clear - ZERO accountability and big huge coverup. Also, there's population control to consider. How sad. If more people lived healthier productive lives, they could continue to contribute to the economy, and to the social security pool for that matter, rather than needing to retire early due to illness. Sadly, this has become the new cylcle of life. Toxins, sickness and more sickness due to over-medication. Neutral

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 7:26 am

I didn't mention anything about undeserving.

Although I don't see how Gardisal testing in a country that has a low rate of death due to cervical cancer is deserving... or even remotely necessary.

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 10:37 am

August 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Case Reports journal has reported that a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl lost all ovarian function and went into menopause after being injected with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil.

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, provides solid evidence that Gardasil caused the destruction of the girl's fertility.

She also pointed out that Merck Pharmaceutical, the manufacturer of Gardasil, has no supporting information on the effects of the vaccine on ovaries, suggesting that Merck had either done no safety testing on Gardasil in relation to its effects on women's reproductive systems, or had suppressed the information.

Dr. Little's report states that before the Gardasil vaccination, the girl had regular menstrual cycles, had been thoroughly examined and tested, and had no family or personal medical history that could explain the premature menopause.

The girl received the Gardasil vaccination in the fall of 2008. By January 2009, her cycle had become irregular. Over the course of the next two years, her menses became increasingly scant and irregular, until by 2011, she had ceased menstruating altogether.

"This patient presented with amenorrhoea after identifying a change from her regular cycle to irregular and scant periods following vaccinations against human papillomavirus," Dr. Little wrote in the report.

Dr. Little carried out numerous tests on the girl, including checking hormone levels and internal organ function, and diagnosed her as having "premature ovarian failure." She also found that the girl had no living egg cells.

After investigating other possible causes of the girl's premature ovarian failure, Dr. Little was left with the Gardasil vaccination as the only remaining explanation.

"Although the cause is unknown in 90% of cases, the remaining chief identifiable causes of this condition were excluded. Premature ovarian failure was then notified as a possible adverse event following this vaccination," Dr. Little stated.

In the report titled "Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination," Little wrote that Merck had only tested Gardasil's effects on the testes of rats.

Dr. Little contacted the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) of Australia, the equivalent of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), for information about the safety testing of Gardasil on women's ovaries.

She found that the TGA had records of various tests on rat testes, but no records of the effect of the vaccine on rat ovaries in the Australian Public Assessment Report for Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent Vaccine (Gardasil).

Dr. Little's report states that, "It is not known whether this event of premature ovarian failure is linked to the quadrivalent HPV vaccine. More detailed information concerning rat ovarian histology and ongoing fecundity post-HPV vaccination was sought from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).”

It revealed that “no histological report has been available for vaccinated rat ovaries."

In other words, the TGA had no safety information on the effect of Gardasil on female reproductive systems.

"This event could hold potential implications for population health and prompts further inquiry," Dr. Little's report concluded.

"Gardasil has been controversial from the beginning," noted Steven Mosher of the Population Research Institute.

"While other vaccines protect against diseases spread by casual contact, Gardasil was developed to protect against a sexually transmitted disease," Mosher said, adding that Merck Pharmaceutical has proven effective in lobbying governments around the world to make the vaccine mandatory for schoolchildren.

"Tens of millions of young girls have received the Gardasil vaccine since its approval by the FDA six years ago. If even a tiny fraction of them have experienced infertility as a result, then these girl children have been denied a very fundamental right, that is, the right to decide how many children they want to have," Mosher said.

"In the case of the Australian girl the effect is irreversible. She has lost an integral part of her womanhood, while still but a child,” he said. “Women deserve better."

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:30 pm

ClaudiaFE wrote:

So if they are vaccinated from these diseases... Which sound like they should be...I don't argue that....all you listed will kill them right away. And most certainly do not have a 90-95% self cure rate.

Then they'll be fine without water and sanitation?

I still don't see how gardisal is the priority. Which is how we got to this country within this discussion....Why put money there?

The Gates Foundation does provide funding for water, sanitation and hygene in India.

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/What-We-Do/Global-Development/Water-Sanitation-and-Hygiene

They also provide funding for all vaccines (not just Gardasil) which are recommended by the Indian Academy of Pediatrics. Water-borne diseases which are prevented by vaccine include cholea, hepatitis A and probably more (I am too tired to look it up). I doubt Gardasil is a priority (as you claim).

What the charitable foundation does with it's money is up to them; they don't make judgements based on moral or medical grounds but rather follow the advice of the official agencies within the countries they help. They approve and provide grants; they do not do the actual work required to implement the programs they support. It is not up to Bill Gates to solve all the problems in India, but at least his foundation is doing something to address the issues there.

http://www.medindia.net/patients/patientinfo/vaccination-for-children-schedule-in-india.htm

free skin care · Sat Oct 05, 2013 1:23 pm

Deb Crowley wrote:

August 8, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Case Reports journal has reported that a healthy 16-year-old Australian girl lost all ovarian function and went into menopause after being injected with the human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccine Gardasil.

Dr. Deirdre Little, the Australian physician who treated the girl, provides solid evidence that Gardasil caused the destruction of the girl's fertility.

.... (blah, blah, blah etc.)

"Tens of millions of young girls have received the Gardasil vaccine since its approval by the FDA six years ago. If even a tiny fraction of them have experienced infertility as a result, then these girl children have been denied a very fundamental right, that is, the right to decide how many children they want to have," Mosher said.

"In the case of the Australian girl the effect is irreversible. She has lost an integral part of her womanhood, while still but a child,” he said. “Women deserve better."

Ridiculous fear-mongering. It is a case report, not a study. Consider it a professional (medical) anecdote, which is subject to some of the same faults and biases as an average anecdote. It is slightly better than average, since medical tests were done to rule out the known causes of premature ovarian failure (POV); none were found. However, POV has an estimated incidence of 10 per 100,000 person-years between the ages of 15 and 29 (that means it does rarely occur in young women, even those who have never received an HPV vaccine), and the cause of POV is unknown in 90% of cases (idiopathic - of unknown cause/origin). The authors are leaping to conclusions when all they have is an isolated case of coincidence. Nothing suggest "cause and effect".

The case report "Premature ovarian failure 3 years after menarche in a 16-year-old girl following human papillomavirus vaccination" was reported by Dr. Deidre Terese Little and Dr. Harvey Rodrick Ward. FYI, Dr. Little is on the board of advisors for an Australian Catholic anti-abortion group called Family Life International; on their official website is the comment that Gardasil is often associated with promiscuity. Dr. Ward is known as a "pro-life/antiabortionist" Ob/Gyn and apparently supports antiabortion activists. Is there any chance that their personal beliefs and biases influenced their conclusion that Gardasil causes POV?

This case report has been reviewed by Australian authorities and rejected. They state that that there was no “plausibly biological basis” for drawing a link between the vaccine Gardasil and premature ovarian failure.

https://ama.com.au/ausmed/no-link-between-gardasil-and-infertility-tga

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.