Shop with us!!! We sell the most advanced skin care anti-aging cosmetics on the market: cellex-c, phytomer, sothys, dermalogica, md formulations, decleor, valmont, kinerase, yonka, jane iredale, thalgo, yon-ka, ahava, bioelements, jan marini, peter thomas roth, murad, ddf, orlane, glominerals, StriVectin SD.
 
 back to skin care discussion board front page with forums indexEDS Skin Care Forums Search the ForumSearch Most popular all-time Forum TopicsHot! Library
 Guidelines  FAQ  Register
Free gifts for Forum MembersForum Gifts Free Gifts offers at Essential Day SpaFree Gifts Offers  Log in



StriVectin Instant Revitalizing Mask (90 ml / 3 floz) Dr Dennis Gross Age Erase Moisture with Mega 10 Plus for Eyes (15 ml / 0.5 floz) Payot Techni Liss First First Wrinkles Smoothing Care (50 ml / 1.6 floz)
Cancer Prevention

EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge
Reply to topic
Author Message
sister sweets
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 5982
Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:53 pm      Reply with quote
Lacy53 wrote:
Please expand your education on medical issues to include reliable sources of information, such as the CDC or FDA; at least that would give you a more balanced perspective and would make your posts more accurate.


Oh My Laughing Which agency do you work for? What's with the big FDA pitch? Surely you understand that is not an agency many trust nor are *fond of* in America. If I were Aprile I'd cease posting and leave the snake pit alone.

Enough said.

_________________
Enjoying dermalogica with my ASG and Pico toner ** Disclosure: I was a participant without remuneration in promotional videos for Ageless Secret Gold and the Neurotris Pico Emmy event.
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:55 pm      Reply with quote
sister sweets wrote:
I stated earlier that Andrew Weil - Harvard-trained said that we will one day recognize that chemo treatments are barbaric and Keliu I think it was, disagreed with this well-renowned speaker and educated man's evaluation but that's her perogative to agree or disagree with the value of chemotherapy.


NO I DID NOT! I think chemo is a horrible treatment and something that I sincerely hope myself and family never have to endure. However, it is the only proven effective treatment for cancer that we have at the moment. There is not one person alive who would say that chemo was pleasant. Why do you think that scientists are still searching to find another type of cure.

Here, in fact, is what I wrote:

Quote:
Of course medical science is constantly evolving and advancing. As for chemo being considered barbaric in the future - it is considered to be a very unpleasant treatment now - going through chemo is an ordeal, that is why the scientific community is trying so hard to find a better cure - and I'm sure they will one day and we will look back with pity at those that had to endure it.
http://www.essentialdayspa.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=49362&postdays=0&postorder=asc&&start=75


Do not twist my words.

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:03 pm      Reply with quote
The video in the attached link shows a bunch of news broadcasts that aired throughout the the US.

You'll note the quotes at the end come from American Medical Journals...

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=b3cc6449ac92c9b932fa221e2acffbdf

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:33 pm      Reply with quote
I believe that this is what is at the heart of the thinking here - and why people who live outside of the US cannot relate to the rhetoric:

Quote:
Conspiracy Rising: Conspiracy Thinking and American Public Life

How did conspiracy thinking become such a significant and surprisingly widely accepted form of political thinking in the United States? What compels people to respond to devastating, unpredictable events—terrorist acts, wars, natural disasters, economic upheavals—with the conviction that nothing is a coincidence, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected?

Conspiracy Rising: Conspiracy Thinking and American Public Life argues that while outlandish paranoid theories themselves may seem nonsensical, the thread of conspiracy thinking throughout American history is a both a byproduct of our democratic form of government and a very real threat to it. From the Illuminati, the Knights Templar, and the Freemasons to the government hiding aliens and faking the moon landing; from the New World Order to the Obama "Birthers," the book explores the enduring popularity of a number of American conspiracy theories, showing how the conspiracy hysteria that may provoke disdain and apathy in the general public, can become a source of dangerous extremism.
http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-Rising-Thinking-American-Public/dp/0313350132


The above explains the popularity of people such as Joseph Mercola.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/10/02/poll-americans-love-their-conspiracy-theories/

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:34 pm      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
There are differences IMO to consider between prevention and cure. Yes, we all understand the difference.

HPV is completely preventable by way of personal actions and choice.


What personal actions and choices would that be? Remaining completely sexually inexperienced prior to marriage*, and then making sure your chosen partner is also sexually naïve? Never getting divorced after that marriage, and ensuring complete fidelity of you and your partner during that marriage? Never re-marrying after one partner dies, unless your newly chosen one is sexually inexperienced? Condoms may reduce the risk of sexual transmission during sexual activity, but that risk is not reduced to zero. If HPV viruses have been linked to oropharyngeal cancers, do you allow kissing prior to marriage? Or do you just send every potential partner for HPV screening and reject the possible suitors who test positive?

I am curious how personal choices and actions can ensure that you are never exposed to HPV.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/stdFact-HPVandoralcancer.htm

How common are HPV and health problems caused by HPV?
HPV (the virus): Approximately 79 million Americans are currently infected with HPV. About 14 million people become newly infected each year. HPV is so common that nearly all sexually-active men and women will get at least one type of HPV at some point in their lives.


http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm#a5


When I say "marriage" I am referring to a long-term sexual commitment to one person, not necessarily that formal institution known as marriage.

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
aprile
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:02 pm      Reply with quote
Lacy53 wrote:
aprile wrote:
FWIW, I'm not totally against all vaccinations; I'm against the way they're administered in babies as combination vaccines and the preservatives used in them, such as mercury. In fact, I've had my own son vaccinated. I'm against over vaccinating and certainly using scare tactics to convince people into being vaccinated for something as benign as the flu when yes a healthy immune system should be able to fight it.

Combination vaccines have been studied to death; there is no ethical way to compare them (with a clinical trial) to the individual administration of each component of the combo vaccine, or by altering the currently recommended vaccine schedule. Do you understand that Aprile? While you may think (or may have read on some dodgy website which told you) that individual vaccines are safer than combos, there is nothing to back up that assertion. It is, at best, an untested hypothesis. While it may be safer (who knows?) it most definitely is riskier, since infants/children will be extending the time that they remain unvaccinated for some serious diseases. It is highly unethical to conduct clinical trials in which some subjects (in this case infants and young children) are deliberately exposed to a known, high-risk situation ... can you wrap your head around that concept (ethical considerations)? No ethics committee in the world would allow a clinical trial would expose children to an increased risk of death.

There is no mercury in any vaccine; there never has been. I think what you mean is thimerosal, which is a compound that contains mercury, but I realize now that I should never try to read your mind (since your thinking processes are so foreign to my own). Thimerosal contains a form of mercury called ethylmercury. Ethylmercury is broken down and excreted much more rapidly than methylmercury (which is a different form of mercury) . Therefore, ethylmercury (the type of mercury found in the influenza vaccine) is much less likely than methylmercury (the type of mercury in the environment) to accumulate in the body and cause harm. When thimerosal enters the body, it breaks down to ethylmercury and thiosalicylate, which are easily eliminated. Measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines do not, and never did, contain thimerosal. Varicella (chickenpox), inactivated polio (IPV), and pneumococcal conjugate vaccines have also never contained thimerosal.

In 1999, as a precautionary measure, the U.S. Public Health Service recommended removing thimerosal as a preservative from vaccines to reduce mercury-exposure among infants as much as possible. Today, except for some flu vaccines in multi-dose vials, no recommended childhood vaccines contain thimerosal as a preservative. (If you are concerned about thimerosal, Flu vaccine in single-dose vials are available, and they do not contain thimerosal). In all other recommended childhood vaccines, no thimerosal is present, or the amount of thimerosal is close to zero (the only childhood vaccines today that have trace amounts of thimerosal are one DTaP and one DTaP-Hib combination vaccine). The childhood vaccines that used to contain thimerosal as a preservative are now put into single-dose vials, so no preservative is needed. In the past, the vaccines were put into multi-dose vials, which could become contaminated when new needles were used to get vaccine out of the vial for each dose. No reputable scientific studies have found an association between thimerosal in vaccines and autism. Thimersol was developed in the 1930s and is used (or has been used) as a preservative in many injectible medications/vaccines and has an excellent safety and preservative record.

You have proven yourself to be a veritable fount of misinformation. Please expand your education on medical issues to include reliable sources of information, such as the CDC or FDA; at least that would give you a more balanced perspective and would make your posts more accurate. Here's a start:

http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228



Lacy - You can stop right now with your sarcastic superior tone with me. Sis is right, you sound like you're employed by the FDA. I do not proclaim to be an expert in the field of medicine, but I do know quite a bit about the importance of a healthy immune system, what "real food" is, and absolute the need for minerals given the state of our food chain in the U.S. In fact, most people need all the help they can get. I am not going to debate you about the safety of thimerisol or the connection to autism. Precautionary measure my A**, they took it out becuase links were being made and they looked bad. You can stop with the condescending tone.

As previsouly mentioned, I work in an audiology practice. One of the things patients need to disclose is their health status, current medications, particulary since many meds can be ototoxic. Of course, most of our patients are elderly (over age 65) and most of them are on some sort of medication. Sadly, many of them wear their *lists* as though they were a badge of honor or right of passage. This is a brand of warped thinking. This is where the physician is at fault. Being in the biz for a while, I can usually determine *who* are the good docs and who are the bad ones by the lengthy lists. Certainly doctors who are prescribing lengthy lists are not healers nor are they well informed about medical issues. In fact, one side effect of magnesium deficieny is heart disease... All heart disease can be lessened or cured with magnesium. In fact, magnesium is *real* emergency medicine. However, the current state of the pharmaceutical paradigm is all about "deliberately created medical ignorance".
To me, this is where modern medicine has failed us. Not to mention, where is the desire to treat each patient as an individual, let alone a human being gone?

NO-ONE needs this many medications. In fact, when I read this list, it made me really sad because I knew it was driven by one thing, "GREED", which is apparently the common bond that many modern-day physicians share.


So here's the list:
Avapro
Claritin
Coreg
Furosimide
Lovazza
Lipitor
Januvia
Metformin
Amlopidine
Prilosec
Singulair
Spiriva
Levoxuyl
Imdur
Sanctura
Advair
Albuterol
Flonase
Luxig Foam
Mimyx Cream
Protopic Ointment
Ketokonazole Shampoo

You tell me.... build a healthy immune system through lifestyle changes, consuming organic, non GMO foods, purified water, organic nutritional supplements, including replacing minerals essential to life OR the list above. I know which one I'll choose.

~ Aprile
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:38 pm      Reply with quote
Interesting term... sexually naive.

While most states no longer require blood tests for a marriage license, I personally would require a health screening for anyone who I plan on exchanging fluids with.

The thing is... you don't get it just by sitting next to a person, and most 90-95% of all cases clear themselves.

I shouldn't have said "completely"... obviously there is still room for risk as any relationship involves another you can't control, and must trust.

Your sexual practices will however increase or decrease your odds of contracting this disease.

Not every person is at the same risk for contracting an STD. You can't claim that they are.

And some of us are quite prone to autoimmune. Some of us are lucky enough to KNOW that, and we not only make decisions for ourselves, but it's quite logical to make decisions for our children who share our DNA to function off the same medical background. Others do not know they are an autoimmune disorder time bomb waiting to happen...

Regardless,Merck's website CLEARLY STATES

GARDASIL is contraindicated in individuals with hypersensitivity, including severe allergic reactions to yeast, or after a previous dose of GARDASIL.

Hypersensitivity as defined on WIKI...Hypersensitivity (also called hypersensitivity reaction or intolerance) refers to undesirable reactions produced by the normal immune system, including allergies and autoimmunity. These reactions may be damaging, uncomfortable, or occasionally fatal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypersensitivity

And I just can't tell you how many people I know whose autoimmune was triggered by a vaccine... clearly not knowing they were "hypersensitive"... I personally fall into that category.

The final thing here... I suspect most people when reading Merck's contraindications (if they actually READ them prior to the shot...) Don't understand the term: Hypersensitive. I suspect the person who has always been otherwise perfectly healthy, active and productive doesn't suspect until it's too late they might be hypersensitive.

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:46 pm      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
Interesting term... sexually naive.

While most states no longer require blood tests for a marriage license, I personally would require a health screening for anyone who I plan on exchanging fluids with.



You really see "sexually naive" as an interesting term? It's actually a very commonly used term to refer to people who do not actively engage in sexual activity. Apparently, even mice can be sexually naive.

Quote:
Copulatory behavior of sexually naive and sexually experienced male rats following removal of the vomeronasal organ.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3749310


Quote:
Many parents think their teens are sexually naïve.
http://www.catholic.org/hf/family/story.php?id=36385


Are you suggesting that a health screening would be required before even an open mouth kiss is exchanged?

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:07 pm      Reply with quote
I do think it's a weird term. I don't care what google says... It's called an OPINION!

You know... I've not heard much about HPV being transmitted via kissing...

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20101013/virus-behind-oral-cancer-epidemic

""I did one study to suggest it might be transmitted by deep kissing, but the risk was small -- so I think it is unlikely that HPV is transmitted by French kissing," she says. "People with oral HPV infection should not be concerned about interacting with their loved ones in a normal way. Salivary transmission of HPV is very rare."


And here: http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/service-areas/ent/areas-of-care/head-and-neck-cancer/throat-cancer/hpv-faq

"f HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, are there other ways to contract the virus?
Researchers are still evaluating the various ways HPV can be transmitted. There have been reports of HPV transmission through what is referred to as “deep french kissing.” It may also be possible for the virus to be transmitted to an infant through the infected mother’s cervical canal. Virus could also be transmitted by hand to mouth contact in the context of sexual activity."

Based on this very limited information, IMO, it's not time to recommend this shot for the entire population ages 9-26...

ETA: from the CDC...
"How do people get oral HPV?
Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections."

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:41 pm      Reply with quote
sister sweets wrote:
Oh My Laughing Which agency do you work for? What's with the big FDA pitch? Surely you understand that is not an agency many trust nor are *fond of* in America. If I were Aprile I'd cease posting and leave the snake pit alone.

Enough said.


I do not work for any health agency, and certainly not the FDA or CDC. I am just an ordinary person who likes to be informed.

You probably don't realize this since you are an American, but the FDA, CDC and other American health departments/agencies are respected internationally and are often used or referred to as a source of factual information. Your statement that the FDA is not trusted by many Americans reflects your own personal biases and prejudices, unless you can link to some credible source for that statement? I doubt that the average American even knows what the FDA is or does, other than it deals with prescription drug approval.

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:04 pm      Reply with quote
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:

Edie Falco
Melissa Etheridge
Christina Applegate
Giuliana Rancic
Robin Roberts
Kylie Minogue
Cynthia Nixon
Judy Blume
Betsey Johnson
Olivia Newton-John
Ann Romney
Kathy Bates
Jaclyn Smith
Sheryl Crow
Sharon Osborne
Robert Deniro
Cybill Shepherd
Michael Douglas
Michael C. Hall
Rod Stewart
Lance Armstrong
Shirley Temple

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

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:14 pm      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
I do think it's a weird term. I don't care what google says... It's called an OPINION!

You know... I've not heard much about HPV being transmitted via kissing...

http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20101013/virus-behind-oral-cancer-epidemic

""I did one study to suggest it might be transmitted by deep kissing, but the risk was small -- so I think it is unlikely that HPV is transmitted by French kissing," she says. "People with oral HPV infection should not be concerned about interacting with their loved ones in a normal way. Salivary transmission of HPV is very rare."


And here: http://www.mountsinai.org/patient-care/service-areas/ent/areas-of-care/head-and-neck-cancer/throat-cancer/hpv-faq

"f HPV is a sexually transmitted infection, are there other ways to contract the virus?
Researchers are still evaluating the various ways HPV can be transmitted. There have been reports of HPV transmission through what is referred to as “deep french kissing.” It may also be possible for the virus to be transmitted to an infant through the infected mother’s cervical canal. Virus could also be transmitted by hand to mouth contact in the context of sexual activity."

Based on this very limited information, IMO, it's not time to recommend this shot for the entire population ages 9-26...

ETA: from the CDC...
"How do people get oral HPV?
Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections."


Yes, "sexually naïve" is the new medical/scientific term for virgin. I have seen it used for a while in official documents or research. My opinion is it's better than the alternatives (virgin, inexperienced), but it still is ambiguous. But I doubt there will ever be a term that is perfect.

Reading the WebMD article, you will see a lot of uncertainty regarding kissing. Words such as may, unlikely, unknown, small risk all imply that no definitive statement can be made regarding HPV transmission during kissing, especially the "French" variety. The CDC article I linked to earlier said this (guess you missed it):

How do people get oral HPV?

Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections.


My question to you regarding kissing prior to "marriage" was to question your own personal limits to risk, since you said "completely preventable by way of personal actions and choice". I see you have now retracted the term "completely"; so perhaps my post did alter your thinking.

Edited to add: I know you are a parent and want to do everything possible to keep your sons healthy and safe. But you have to realize when they get to a certain age, they will develop a natural curiosity about sex. You really can't control what they do, nor can you be certain that they will adopt your values completely. Just something to consider!

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:17 pm      Reply with quote
This was in my mail box today - it's an excerpt from Robert Redfern's newsletter and demonstrates perfectly the nonsensical rhetoric spewed by the vitamin sellers who state that US government agencies are out to kill everyone for money:

Quote:
It is International Breast Cancer Month, when Big Pharma tries every trick in the book to use their ‘government given right’ to terrorise you (collectively) into handing over a billion or more of your hard earned money. I thought I would try to persuade you otherwise. I have seen so many ladies in pink and sob stories on the TV to last me a lifetime. I simply get furious of the blatant use of females scared out of their skins by the stories of breast cancer, death, mastectomies, family genes gone wrong and any other Big Pharma dirty tactics.

Big Pharma have been running this fraud for around 50 years, during which they have collected over 50 billion and still not found a cure for breast cancer (or any other major cancer).

..................Since some doctors have proved to be so untrustworthy when it comes to the possibility of high revenues, let’s take a figure of 50%. That means that 50% will not get breast cancer. Even if it was 10%, or 20% do you think the billions raised in Breast Cancer Month are used to identify why these women do not get breast cancers? It is a big fat zero. The safe and amazing reason these women with this so called ‘dangerous gene’ do not get breast cancer is of no interest to the Medical and Pharma business. They simply want to know what treatments they can develop, deliver and profit by. That is it folks, they are not interested in your health, only in your disease.

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:21 pm      Reply with quote
This is an older article... re American's trust of the FDA: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/13/news/economy/fda_hamburg_interview.fortune/

Regarding Obama's appt. to the FDA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

Mansanto is quite aware of the US distrust of there former EE/gov't position ties: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/revolving-door.aspx

This article seems to do an ok job showing the people who have flipped between working a gov't position or working for Mansanto... http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

Conflict of interest?

When big pharma is contributing to campaigns... there is a conflict of interest.

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Thu Oct 03, 2013 9:28 pm      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
Conflict of interest?

When big pharma is contributing to campaigns... there is a conflict of interest.


And when Dr. Mercola sells supplements and devices that he recommends in his alternative medical newsletters or columns, that too is a conflict of interest. It happens on both ends of the spectrum; never forget that.

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Thu Oct 03, 2013 10:10 pm      Reply with quote
Lacy53 wrote:
ClaudiaFE wrote:

ETA: from the CDC...
"How do people get oral HPV?
Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections."




Lacy53 wrote:
The CDC article I linked to earlier said this (guess you missed it):


Guess you didn't realize that I too copied the CDC quote...

It appears the risk is low. IMO it's inappropriate to offer blanket treatment.

Lacy53 wrote:
My question to you regarding kissing prior to "marriage" was to question your own personal limits to risk, since you said "completely preventable by way of personal actions and choice". I see you have now retracted the term "completely"; so perhaps my post did alter your thinking.


As I said, I hadn't give much consideration to kissing. As several reputable medical resources indicate, there isn't strong evidence HPV is transmitted through saliva. Don't you think Merck would be jumping up and down doing the biggest happy dance in the world if they could prove that? I don't see a huge risk here. Do you?

With regards to limiting my own risk. I happened to be a very responsible teen and young adult. I'm fortunate to report that I always get a clean bill of health at my exams... no cooties.

Lacy53 wrote:
Edited to add: I know you are a parent and want to do everything possible to keep your sons healthy and safe. But you have to realize when they get to a certain age, they will develop a natural curiosity about sex. You really can't control what they do, nor can you be certain that they will adopt your values completely. Just something to consider!


That's right... they are also extremely predisposed to autoimmune. I'm an informed parent who can clearly read Merck's directions with regards to contraindications...Please review. I've already had one twin visually and negatively react to vaccine. His pedi, in consult with Sr. Drs. and Pedi Neurologists were on the same exact path as me with regard to halting the final shots from the series. My child shows hypersensitivity.

According to Merck, it is quite reasonable for my children to pass.

Trust me... it is concerning to see all the Miley wanna-be's.

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
aprile
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:32 am      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
This is an older article... re American's trust of the FDA: http://money.cnn.com/2009/10/13/news/economy/fda_hamburg_interview.fortune/

Regarding Obama's appt. to the FDA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/monsanto-petition-tells-obama-cease-fda-ties-to-monsanto/2012/01/30/gIQAA9dZcQ_blog.html

Mansanto is quite aware of the US distrust of there former EE/gov't position ties: http://www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/revolving-door.aspx

This article seems to do an ok job showing the people who have flipped between working a gov't position or working for Mansanto... http://rense.com/general33/fd.htm

Conflict of interest?

When big pharma is contributing to campaigns... there is a conflict of interest.



And they're STILL contributing. WHY doesn't Monsanto lose any federal cases? WHY do the Obamas eat ONLY organic? You won't see them parked outside Mickey D's.
aprile
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:26 am      Reply with quote
Lacy53 wrote:
ClaudiaFE wrote:
Conflict of interest?

When big pharma is contributing to campaigns... there is a conflict of interest.


And when Dr. Mercola sells supplements and devices that he recommends in his alternative medical newsletters or columns, that too is a conflict of interest. It happens on both ends of the spectrum; never forget that.


That's called FREE ENTERPRISE. At least he's not pushing drugs and vaccines that harm people. Wink
aprile
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:35 am      Reply with quote
ClaudiaFE wrote:
Lacy53 wrote:
ClaudiaFE wrote:

ETA: from the CDC...
"How do people get oral HPV?
Only a few studies have looked at how people get oral HPV, and some of these studies show conflicting results. Some studies suggest that oral HPV may be passed on during oral sex (from mouth-to-genital or mouth-to-anus contact) or open-mouthed (“French”) kissing, others have not. The likelihood of getting HPV from kissing or having oral sex with someone who has HPV is not known. We do know that partners who have been together a long time tend to share genital HPV—meaning they both may have it. More research is needed to understand exactly how people get and give oral HPV infections."




Lacy53 wrote:
The CDC article I linked to earlier said this (guess you missed it):


Guess you didn't realize that I too copied the CDC quote...

It appears the risk is low. IMO it's inappropriate to offer blanket treatment.

Lacy53 wrote:
My question to you regarding kissing prior to "marriage" was to question your own personal limits to risk, since you said "completely preventable by way of personal actions and choice". I see you have now retracted the term "completely"; so perhaps my post did alter your thinking.


As I said, I hadn't give much consideration to kissing. As several reputable medical resources indicate, there isn't strong evidence HPV is transmitted through saliva. Don't you think Merck would be jumping up and down doing the biggest happy dance in the world if they could prove that? I don't see a huge risk here. Do you?

With regards to limiting my own risk. I happened to be a very responsible teen and young adult. I'm fortunate to report that I always get a clean bill of health at my exams... no cooties.

Lacy53 wrote:
Edited to add: I know you are a parent and want to do everything possible to keep your sons healthy and safe. But you have to realize when they get to a certain age, they will develop a natural curiosity about sex. You really can't control what they do, nor can you be certain that they will adopt your values completely. Just something to consider!


That's right... they are also extremely predisposed to autoimmune. I'm an informed parent who can clearly read Merck's directions with regards to contraindications...Please review. I've already had one twin visually and negatively react to vaccine. His pedi, in consult with Sr. Drs. and Pedi Neurologists were on the same exact path as me with regard to halting the final shots from the series. My child shows hypersensitivity.

According to Merck, it is quite reasonable for my children to pass.

Trust me... it is concerning to see all the Miley wanna-be's.



Straying a little off topic, but since you mentioned Miley, I thought you might want to read this:

http://lgbticons.com/2013/10/03/sinead-oconner-sends-an-open-letter-to-miley-cyrus/ Wink
Keliu
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 27 Jun 2006
Posts: 6560
Fri Oct 04, 2013 5:47 am      Reply with quote
aprile wrote:
At least he's not pushing drugs and vaccines that harm people.


It makes absolutely no sense to simply label all drugs and vaccines as harmful. The issue isn't just black and white. You can't dismiss hundreds of years of medical research as worthless and deny its benefit to the human race.

It would certainly be wonderful if noone ever got sick, if we could all live to a grand old age whilst keeping fit and healthy, with all our faculties - and then die peacefully in our sleep. But that's not how it works. Life can be cruel - but many peoples lives are at least made tolerable by modern medications.

_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!!
aprile
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 30 Jan 2007
Posts: 1149
Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:30 am      Reply with quote
Keliu wrote:
aprile wrote:
At least he's not pushing drugs and vaccines that harm people.


It makes absolutely no sense to simply label all drugs and vaccines as harmful. The issue isn't just black and white. You can't dismiss hundreds of years of medical research as worthless and deny its benefit to the human race.

It would certainly be wonderful if noone ever got sick, if we could all live to a grand old age whilst keeping fit and healthy, with all our faculties - and then die peacefully in our sleep. But that's not how it works. Life can be cruel - but many peoples lives are at least made tolerable by modern medications.


Read my post above...I am talking about the over-medicating of America. Sadly, the overly trusting elderly are the most abused by the system and are in the worst health. No-one should ever be prescribed 15-20 or more medications, yet it's been my experience that it happens every day. This to me is nothing short of medical malpractice. The human body is like a car, without proper fuel, it cannot operate at ultimate capacity. That is the thing that most people miss. People may not realize they are deficient in any one vitamin or mineral until they get very sick. 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
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:58 am      Reply with quote
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?

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
ClaudiaFE
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 18 Sep 2008
Posts: 956
Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:09 am      Reply with quote
HOLY CRAP...

I just opened my rate increases for my personal medical insurance...

An awesome 73.4% increase in rates. I could buy and make payments on a pretty awesome car for this crap insurance...

I pretty much don't care who believes what about what... STAY healthy... do it however you can and however you are willing...

_________________
Claudia of FlexEffect... 43, fair skin, occasional breakout, Using ECO FROG (my own=disclaimer), and TrueScience (I also sell this)... Happy with that...Come visit on FB!
sister sweets
VIP Member
20% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 01 Aug 2007
Posts: 5982
Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:27 am      Reply with quote
Claudia - this increase is probably to pay for all that FREE healthcare that everyone writes about. Laughing

_________________
Enjoying dermalogica with my ASG and Pico toner ** Disclosure: I was a participant without remuneration in promotional videos for Ageless Secret Gold and the Neurotris Pico Emmy event.
Lacy53
Preferred Member
15% products discount
free skin care

View user's profileSend private message
Joined: 25 Jun 2009
Posts: 782
Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:30 am      Reply with quote
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

_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin
System
Automatic Message
Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:36 pm
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.

Reply to topic



Decleor Prolagene Lift, Lift & Firm Day Cream - Normal Skin (50 ml / 1.7 oz) Orlane 24 Hour Hydration Limited Edition (50 ml) June Jacobs Protective Moisturizer Broad Spectrum SPF 30 (47 ml / 1.6 floz)