 |
 |
| Author |
Message |
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:40 am  |
| Yubs wrote: |
I have never heard of poor people in the U.S. queuing up for desperately needed healthcare in
| Quote: |
| football stadiums. |
Seriously? |
Yes, seriously.
http://today.ucla.edu/portal/ut/PRN-ucla-volunteers-bring-free-medical-157687.aspx
I have seen documentary programmes about these events. Also, Dr. Oz has run these mass "clinics" and features the footage on his shows - often inviting patients that have been helped by the volunteer doctors on his show.
You are absolutely wrong about this.
ETA:
| Quote: |
The Remote Area Medical (RAM) free clinics travel the country providing care to underserved communities using an all-volunteer workforce. Last year, UCLA volunteers joined the first Los Angeles-based clinic at the Forum. This week, volunteers from the schools of Medicine, Nursing and Dentistry as well as the Jules Stein Eye Institute, among others, showed up in force, coordinated by Dr. Rodriguez.
"We've diagnosed depression, diabetes, hypertension, chronic pain — all in the past hour," he said on the floor of the bustling arena. "Most of the people here are working-class. One guy lost his job, then his home, and has no insurance. This is a symptom of the dysfunctional health care system that we have today, that people have to line up overnight to get care." |
|
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:04 am |
| TheresaMary wrote: |
Aprile I am not off the mark by any means or standards. I completely get diet is important with cancer, but telling people that they should eat only organic food which is costly and isn’t proven by any shape or form to undo cancer is not only mad but completely illogical and makes me want to cringe. Yes cancer has been linked to toxins, but not just toxins in foods, and the idea that your trying to sell people here that eating only organic is going to prevent that from happening is down right crazy and if a professional made such a claim they would be in serious trouble.
It is about getting educated completely, but ridiculing people because they can’t afford a 100% organic diet is complete and utter hogwash. Sorry but there’s no science proving anything about eating 100% organic prevents cancer nor is there any evidence that it can reverse cancer. I’m not judging your financial status, but stating that people who cannot afford to eat 100% organic or even 80% organic shouldn’t be subjected to being belittled or called a bad parent. Nor does it mean they are uneducated or irresponsible – sorry that’s your personal opinion and you are entitled to it but calling others or labelling others with sick titles is just completely annoying to me and irresponsible.
As to not living in the US, and not having an idea about the true burden and cost of healthcare – shows really how much ignorance you have and how little to no idea you have of me or my family or connections to the US. You need to stop telling people how to live their lives and stating myths as facts when in all actuality there is nothing behind anything you say except a few notorious quack reports. For someone who claims to be so anti-processed stuff, yet then goes onto using stem cells directly onto their skin – is a little confusing as surely one is no more toxic than the other? |
TM ~ Go back and read everything I wrote. I said cancer wasn't entirely due to toxins in foods. I also did not once name call... But you are certainly doing a good job of that yourself. I also did not SAY that eating 80% or 100% was the only way to protect ones family from cancer. It IS definitely something to consider especially if one is stricken with cancer. Seriously TM - you need to get a grip.
Taking responsbility for one's health and the health of ones family takes hard work - I'll give you that. Seriously, I have restated with the utmost clarity what I meant, even clarifying that people need to choose food wisely based upon their budgetary constrictions, and most importantly get educated!!! WHY do you see this as negative? It's the truth!! Lower income American families as well as middle class families need to get educated too! As already stated, lower income families will often try to purchase beer, soda, chips and other crap with food stamps. Those items aren't cheap. You don't think there's a need for education there?
I've heard experts talk about this on talk radio. In fact I heard an entire segment about program by one nutritionist who was working in the inner city communities to educate them on the importance of making better food choices for their families. Is there something wrong with recognizing that there's a problem here?
Middle and upper class families are just as guilty. They spend money on all sorts of things like fancy vacations, travel sports, dance lessons and on and on, yet drive through Burger King and McDonalds on a regular basis and rarely sit down to a *real meal*. Don't misconstrue and TWIST my words and refer to my comments about making health a priority as ridicule. But if you see it that way, so be it. Getting educated is a true need in this country. I have stated this before and I will say it again, Americans are unhealthy -- mostly because they eat poorly. The other reason is lack of exercise. WHY do you think the president's wife Michele Obama was so involved in the school lunch program? Also, parents do need to get informed about GMOs and their affect on the body. While there are no studies on humans, if lab animals fed GMO feed got cancer, should parents take that risk with their precious children? No - they shouldn't!! But the problem is most parents don't even know they are taking that risk - they don't even know what GMOs are!!
Also, nowhere did I declare people need to feed their kids 80% or 100% organic. What I did say is that it should definitely be explored and sought out when possible, particularly when often times organic costs the same. Also, this is not about not having the resources to purchase quality food for their families. People *think* they are doing the right thing, when they purchase foods that say *natural* on the box. Boxed food is not real food. Hence the need for education. No of course, doctors won't ever tell that to you that you should eat organic or try to select certain organic foods over traditionally grown produce. They know zippo about nutrition and supplements (that's already been previously discussed.)
Quite frankly, I think you have dropped off the deep end with this RANT. There is absolutely NO NEED for you to call me illogical, downright mad or crazy. I have not name called nor insulted your intelligence. As for this ocmment:
| Quote: |
| You need to stop telling people how to live their lives and stating myths as facts when in all actuality there is nothing behind anything you say except a few notorious quack reports. For someone who claims to be so anti-processed stuff, yet then goes onto using stem cells directly onto their skin – is a little confusing as surely one is no more toxic than the other? |
Why is it when certain people have differing opinions on this forum, they resort to attacking comments like yours? Since when is recommending people eat a healthful diet (that does not come from a box) quackery? Since when are essential nutrients and minerals vital for health quackery? As for your opinion that stem cells are somehow foreign or toxic to the body, well that's just your personal opinion and I can appreciate you feel differently than I do.. However, it appears your last comment is more about an underlying current that exists on this forum. I like to think of it as the "good ole girls club" mentality.
No one is forcing anything down anyone's throat TM. This forum is for a balanced exchange of information. Everyone here is entitled to post their views and opinions. If you don't like what I have to say, then so be it. Sometimes when we read something in black and white, it touches off a nerve. I'll leave it at that. ~ Aprile |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:44 am |
Aprile – I’m aware of what you have written in response to what I wrote addressing statements as such. If you care to comment on my posts, then please ensure you are reading what I am responding to before you address my messages, because it is most definitely in this thread. Having said that, you can make whatever judgments you choose to do so – but I think you are completely out of line for saying some of the things you are saying period.
Not all lower income families will try to purchase beer, soda, chips and other crap with food stamps. That’s the point I’m really against here and whilst you may not have said it originally, you have emphasised it here, and I disagree with it one hundred percent. How can you or anyone else make such a judgment on people. Yes I think there is need for education, but tarring everyone with the same brush (as you would do with the medical community) is not my thing, nor will it ever be.
Getting educated is a true need in this country or any country for sure is a priority, but I’m sorry making generalised statements is something I’m going to shout up and down about because I think its entirely unnecessary.
As mentioned before, organic food does not often cost the same, not here in the UK or the US from my understanding and I’m not just talking about conversations I’ve had with my brother and his wife and family but also several friends who live out there and having been there myself I know this is not the case.
Again you say doctors know zippo about nutrition and supplements – well that’s your opinion and again you are entitled to it – but need I say I know in the UK doctors do receive such training and yes they do and I know it features on their studies but again I suppose you are the expert and know everything.
I took exception to your statement that people shouldn’t get peps period. That is crazy to me because it has the potential to save lives and not spread cancer which is the very point that I have addressed with you several times. These screenings can save lives and do – and to say to someone (as you did originally) that they cause spreads of cancer is illogical and crazy.
Nothing is wrong with having an opinion but stating it as fact is and that’s the biggest problem I have with what is being said here. Sure if there are studies proving organic is good and can reverse cancer – believe me I’m all for them but stating that it can and then not being able to provide factual evidence showing so is misleading because as we both know when you are in that situation you will do anything for that glimmer of hope of getting out of it.
A balanced exchange of information is necessary but statements like people should only eat organic food and they will not cause cancer (albeit not yours but Panos which I was responding to originally and you jumped on my message, in the same way when I responded about doctors in the UK having nutritional training you jumped on that message too) I think I’m glad to be part of an “old girls” club. But then again you don’t name call at all do you. Suffice to say I’m happy to ignore all your postings from this point forward. However I am not going to shut up about my experience of the great standards of medicine in the UK which saved my hubby and the idea that is being put about that the medical is a corrupt and unduly authority that is just out to make money is not reflected in my experience and I think as you have said people have a right to hearing both sides of the story. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:46 am |
Please Lord, let this be my last post in this thread. 
Keliu, I NEVER said there weren't problems here. Point me to any of my posts where I said that, please.
I am not "absolutely wrong"
You make it sound like this is happening all over the U.S. IT IS NOT. You are wrong if you think it is.
Further, all of your links are for two clinics in LA. LA faces its own unique problems, one of which is a very large population of illegal aliens. I wouldn't even care to speculate how many of the people who showed up for this were illegals. But the article isn't going to mention that. It doesn't fit the progressive narrative for universal healthcare. I'd like to see Australia deal effectively with the influx of illegal immigrants that we have here due to having a third-world country on her borders. Read Marie-Claire's excellent post again, please.
Detroit is another sad, sad case that you're going to be hearing more about. It is looking more like a city in a former Soviet bloc country than the once-thriving American city it used to be. It was done in by a shrinking tax base, under-funded, over-generous pensions, political corruption, and an unsustainable system of welfare benefits (i.e., Socialist/Marxist redistribution of wealth via taxation). Most of our large cities are headed that way, in fact, and for those reasons.
My largest point in all of this is not that it's not sad that things like this happen. I hate it. I'm not uncompassionate and sometimes I cry when I read the news and contemplate the pain and suffering everywhere, and where the world is headed. Seriously, I do. Probably you do, too.
My largest point is that turning prosperous countries like the U.S., Britain, France, and (yes, even Australia eventually) into Greece by implementing Socialist/Marxist type economic policies (like universal healthcare and which I've already explained how the entire downward spiral occurs) IS NOT the way to fix them.
Who will help the poor when everyone is standing in the breadline? Or is the point to make us all equally poor so that no one has to feel bad because they don't have the same stuff their neighbors do? |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:54 am |
TM - You seem to be the one criticizing with a broad brush. As I read your recent post - you took most of Apriles comments and made them into either 'sound bites' or took them off in a tangent to a far extreme.
It is fortunate you have nutritionally trained docs in the UK. As a rule the US does not. Our medical training is primarily geared at treatment vs preventative understanding. Aprile is a great fan of prevention. That is what I read. She has a healthy skepticism of treatments - Everyone needs to be their own advocate and to understand what a treatment is - the inherent dangers and perhaps options. From that decisions are made that suit YOU. (and it may not be someone else's choice).
It would be nice if we could be fair and evaluate responses for what they are instead of taking what we want of it and use it to go off in left field and unfairly judge someone.
This is what Yubs is always trying to convey but it seems the message doesn't want to be heard by many posters. The argument and the disagreement becomes the most important piece Vs the actual message. |
_________________
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. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 7:55 am |
| Yubs wrote: |
Please Lord, let this be my last post in this thread.
Keliu, I NEVER said there weren't problems here. Point me to any of my posts where I said that, please.
I am not "absolutely wrong"
You make it sound like this is happening all over the U.S. IT IS NOT. You are wrong if you think it is.
Further, all of your links are for two clinics in LA. LA faces its own unique problems, one of which is a very large population of illegal aliens. I wouldn't even care to speculate how many of the people who showed up for this were illegals. But the article isn't going to mention that. It doesn't fit the progressive narrative for universal healthcare. I'd like to see Australia deal effectively with the influx of illegal immigrants that we have here due to having a third-world country on her borders. Read Marie-Claire's excellent post again, please.
Detroit is another sad, sad case that you're going to be hearing more about. It is looking more like a city in a former Soviet bloc country than the once-thriving American city it used to be. It was done in by a shrinking tax base, under-funded, over-generous pensions, political corruption, and an unsustainable system of welfare benefits (i.e., Socialist/Marxist redistribution of wealth via taxation). Most of our large cities are headed that way, in fact, and for those reasons.
My largest point in all of this is not that it's not sad that things like this happen. I hate it. I'm not uncompassionate and sometimes I cry when I read the news and contemplate the pain and suffering everywhere, and where the world is headed. Seriously, I do. Probably you do, too.
My largest point is that turning prosperous countries like the U.S., Britain, France, and (yes, even Australia eventually) into Greece by implementing Socialist/Marxist type economic policies (like universal healthcare and which I've already explained how the entire downward spiral occurs) IS NOT the way to fix them.
Who will help the poor when everyone is standing in the breadline? |
My thoughts exactly.  |
_________________
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. |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:45 am |
Sis somehow I thought you would be along, especially as you were one of the ones referred to previously. I’m criticising with a broad brush – why because I’m speaking up for the good service that my hubby has had with doctors (albeit in the UK which I understand is also a major issue here).
I get that people are entitled to their own decisions 100% but I don’t see that is what is being done here. People are getting scared out of having things done. I read with interest when Aprile posted about her Dr Sircus protocol and that was great, but on page 3 of this thread she says and this is a quote you should check yourself: “Don't be a victim of our current medical model and protocol which is to radiate, overbiopsy and all the rest. Take control of your health now and you will be healthy”
This is by far one of the main issues I have a problem with. The only way to find out if a lump is cancerous or benign is to have a biopsy. Without doing so, a person cannot get treatment and there is every chance they will not live through cancer. That to me is a serious matter. I see she later justified it, but nonetheless taking it at face value you have to see there are dangers here.
Likewise when I addressed Panos comment “"I suggest doctors who fight diseases are idiots and nothing more" are his words exactly, Aprile was quick to jump to assumptions and I was accused of “AGAIN taking things completely out of context”. When I was responding to a message posted by another user (again it’s a regular pattern I’m noticing here – surely you can see that.
Likewise on Page 5 I’m told “TM - you don't live in the U.S. so you can't really comment about our system here.” I’m sorry but that to me is just very indicative of arrogance. Yes I don’t live in the US, but I have family and close friends and other relatives out there – so how can someone know exactly what my knowledge is. Hell my son even broke his leg on a summer vacation one time and I ended up at the hospital and had to pay out for that – so do I really not know anything about medical healthcare?
Likewise on Page 6 when I addressed your comment:
“Keliu - again you are not familiar with medicine in the US. Traditional medical model - aka: Western medical curriculum/physician training in the US does NOT include nutritional training or other natural preventive healing type modalities.”
To say “Sis in the UK doctors do have training which include nutrition.
This is why I'm against whats being said here about our doctors being biased and only wanting to prescribe chemo etc for cancer, and not wanting to think outside the box. In the UK we do have a good system and its working for many people and saving lives.”
You will recall saying “No Theresa Mary they don't. Dated a surgeon for five years - no nutritional training. Really they don't. If they do - it's a choice. Not a curriculum requirement.”
Aprile jumps all over telling me “TM ~ Again, Sis is referring to the US ONLY when she speaks about requirements, not the UK where you live.” And I say “Aprile - Sis referred to my post which I made clear was talking about UK and not US and she didn't specify that her comment was in relation to the US, so I wanted to clarify it.”
I’m completely all for sharing information but I’m sorry I’m not a fan of using information to limit peoples choices which is exactly what scarring people out of having a biopsy is going to do. Sure if there is research, then by all means post it and state it is your personal choice not to have it, but that is most definitely not what is happening here.
Having said that, I get that what I’m saying isn’t to your and Aprile’s liking but I’m sorry I’m not going to stand by and not share my experiences which differs from you – particularly as you both make such a valid point about there needing to be a balance of information out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:25 am |
I was thinking about all this again while I was out walking my dogs before work.
What I said about Mexico being a "third world" country sounded bad. I love many things about Mexican culture. I think the U.S. is richer for having the Mexican influence in our culture. But the way it's functioning right now *is* more like a third world country. Women traditionally were not allowed to own land there, for example; now, although there is some legal protection for them to do so, my understanding is that tradition frequently trumps the law. Just wanted to clear that up that I wasn't slamming Mexico or anything. It's just the way things are right now.
I also have been thinking about helping "poor people" and the truly best way to do so.
I was raised to believe that charity begins at home. I donate regularly to causes I believe in (mostly local, although I donate to some larger orgs like cancer society and humane, etc.). I have also given a bit of money here and to neighbors who lost their jobs in the recent crisis and were having tough economic times. Stuff like that.
So I propose this: anyone who is truly concerned about "the poor" and thinks government doesn't do enough for them...next time you decide to buy that $600 microcurrent gadget or that $50 face cream or get those $1000 fillers put around your mouth...instead of doing that for yourself, put your money where your mouth is and take that money and donate it to charity.
You can sell superfluous stuff like boats, or forego long vacations, and donate that money, too. I mean, I like boats, but unless you're a fisherman, boats are just a luxury. Right?
If you're concerned about the standards for the poor in other countries and you're satisfied that all is completely well in yours and no problems exist...donate it to a charity in another country.
Here in the U.S. you can also donate money to the government and designate where it goes. So people who are truly concerned about the state of government and think taxes aren't high enough to cover everything government should provide can donate to the U.S. government, too. Or their own government. I suspect there's not a government in existence that would turn down donated cash.
The government doesn't have to tax people into poverty...people are certainly free to give all their stuff away to the poor by themselves, if they think more should be done to help others.
I'm not being snarky here...this is just a fact.
Or better yet, since this is a cancer thread, take some of your "beauty money" and donate it to cancer research. That's inarguably a better use for it than what we frequently spend it on. I just donated $100 to the Susan Komen Foundation. https://secure.info-komen.org/site/Donation2;jsessionid=0A13BFD79ACC69E5A3A93F191121F2E0.app352b?df_id=12023&12023.donation=form1
I'll match that for Deb Crowley at another organization of her choice if she'll remind me what kind of cancer she had. I just can't remember and I can't find it. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 9:50 am |
I would encourage everyone, ESPECIALLY US citizens to watch this way too long video. In segments if you have to...
This, IMO, is the root of the problem in the US... Big difference between quality healthcare and affordable insurance.
http://youtu.be/r9q1Id41wGo |
_________________
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! |
|
|
|
 |
Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:11 am |
TM - As far as the eye can see, the greatest issue you have with me is that I don't agree with biopsies and radiation for the reasons I posted. You do realize that I justified my stance based upon evidence that biopsies, in particular can spread existing cancer within the breast tissue? You do also realize that radiation can also cause cancer, correct? That is why the dentist covers you with a lead apron and leaves the room. Likewise, you won't find the mammography technician in the same room while she radiates and compresses your breast in the machine. Do you also know that often times breast cancer patients can get radiation scatter which will impact their thyroid gland due to its close proximity?
Seriously, you're acting as though I am pulling all of this information from space. Further, there is newer technology that does not radiate and has been found to be just effective if not moreso than mammography to detect early stage breast cancer. This technology is called thermography, and they can also do body scans. AND please do not tell me this technology is quackery because that would be *your* personal opinion. ~ Aprile |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:15 am |
| sister sweets wrote: |
| Yubs wrote: |
Please Lord, let this be my last post in this thread.
Keliu, I NEVER said there weren't problems here. Point me to any of my posts where I said that, please.
I am not "absolutely wrong"
You make it sound like this is happening all over the U.S. IT IS NOT. You are wrong if you think it is.
Further, all of your links are for two clinics in LA. LA faces its own unique problems, one of which is a very large population of illegal aliens. I wouldn't even care to speculate how many of the people who showed up for this were illegals. But the article isn't going to mention that. It doesn't fit the progressive narrative for universal healthcare. I'd like to see Australia deal effectively with the influx of illegal immigrants that we have here due to having a third-world country on her borders. Read Marie-Claire's excellent post again, please.
Detroit is another sad, sad case that you're going to be hearing more about. It is looking more like a city in a former Soviet bloc country than the once-thriving American city it used to be. It was done in by a shrinking tax base, under-funded, over-generous pensions, political corruption, and an unsustainable system of welfare benefits (i.e., Socialist/Marxist redistribution of wealth via taxation). Most of our large cities are headed that way, in fact, and for those reasons.
My largest point in all of this is not that it's not sad that things like this happen. I hate it. I'm not uncompassionate and sometimes I cry when I read the news and contemplate the pain and suffering everywhere, and where the world is headed. Seriously, I do. Probably you do, too.
My largest point is that turning prosperous countries like the U.S., Britain, France, and (yes, even Australia eventually) into Greece by implementing Socialist/Marxist type economic policies (like universal healthcare and which I've already explained how the entire downward spiral occurs) IS NOT the way to fix them.
Who will help the poor when everyone is standing in the breadline? |
My thoughts exactly. |
EXCELLENT Post Yubs - you certainly have a true handle on what's going on in our country with respect to the declining economy and all of the downward spiraling that comes with. WOW. ~ Aprile |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 12:22 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| Tyger wrote: |
| - and we do have a private sector/insurance here too, so you don't have to be treated by the NHS (although you still have to contribute to the NHS - after all no-one knows when they might need emergency treatment). Incidentally, most of the doctors in the private sector here also work for the NHS. |
We also have private health insurance and private hospitals. However, recently there was much discussion on the news stating that the public hospitals actually have access to state of the art equipment and better staffing levels. Private hospitals are there to make money - profit can over-ride the purchase of new equipment and the need to increase staff levels.
One of my friends who recently suffered from a collapsed lung and who has private health cover said she was told by her specialist to go public because the care she would receive in the public hospital was top notch and could not be matched in a private hospital. And as Tyger stated above, our specialists also work in both private and public hospitals. |
Having worked in both private practice and the NHS (and in several specialities, especially cancer), I would always advise anyone seriously ill in the UK to go to the NHS for exactly the reasons you have outlined for Oz - up-to-date equipment (and more of it), staffing levels (a consultant and their team looking after you), plus knowing that NHS doctors have much more experience in very complicated cases than in the private sector (this of course informs their private practice as well, though many doctors do not work privately - patients are often surprised (even indignant!) when a high profile doctor won't see them privately), and the advantage of regular multidisciplinary team meetings where complicated cases can be put forward for discussion, with input from several specialities at once.
Private patients who are treated in the private wing of an NHS hospital (many have them) will also have access to the above but will of course be paying twice (unless they are from abroad), having also paid their NHS dues from their salary. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:40 pm |
| Yubs wrote: |
Keliu, I NEVER said there weren't problems here. Point me to any of my posts where I said that, please.
|
I have never even intimated that you said such a thing. What I did say was that the US uses volunteer doctors to administer to the poor in football stadium clinics. You laughed and derided me for that statement and said (in an insulting way) that I was reading inaccurate reports. I then pointed you to the information which shows that this type of event certainly does take place - and then you state that it was only one event and was probably made us of by illegal immigrants. Well if you had of read the articles properly, you would have seen that these doctors travel all over the country doing this work.
Please watch this video of Dr. Oz and the free health clinic he ran for over 7,000 people in Houston Texas. I watched the episode of his show where he featured this event and it was an absolute eye opener for me.
http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/houston-free-clinic
Please read the associated comments.
Instead, you are now lecturing people for not giving to worthy causes! I would advise against presuming what people do and don't do.
But I'll say it again - far better for a civilised society to have an organised method of treating the sick - instead of having to rely on volunteers like a third world country. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:49 pm |
| Also, just wanted to say that this habit of duplicating someone's posts just because you happen to agree with it is just a waste of space and clogs up the discussion. We do have a "thank-you" button that can be used. I hope the moderators can address this issue. |
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 4:22 pm |
Yubs... Deb is working on her house today. I think there might have been enough sun to do some painting...
I spoke with her about your idea to donate. She is a breast cancer survivor. And she says if you're asking who she would like to see money go to... Her fave is:
http://www.stjude.org/waystohelp
Their mission is: " … to find cures for children with cancer and other life-threatening diseases through research and treatment. And no family ever pays St. Jude for anything."
Lots to read on their website... this link is to their Quick Facts page: http://www.stjude.org/stjude/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=434d1976d1e70110VgnVCM1000001e0215acRCRD&vgnextchannel=f46013c016118010VgnVCM1000000e2015acRCRD& fnl=WTHOM2
Your gesture is very kind! Thank you! |
_________________
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! |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 5:49 pm |
| aprile wrote: |
| Seriously, you're acting as though I am pulling all of this information from space. Further, there is newer technology that does not radiate and has been found to be just effective if not moreso than mammography to detect early stage breast cancer. This technology is called thermography, and they can also do body scans. AND please do not tell me this technology is quackery because that would be *your* personal opinion. ~ Aprile |
Can you provide any independent, high-quality studies to support your statement that thermography is newer and just as effective as mammography to detect breast cancer? If not, then what you are voicing is an opinion, not fact.
We have already talked about thermography on this thread; it isn't effective on it's own but may be used in conjunction with mammogram (according to the FDA and other regulatory bodies in various countries). Mammography is superior. A few recent studies conclude:
Currently there is not sufficient evidence to support the use of thermography in breast cancer screening, nor is there sufficient evidence to show that thermography provides benefit to patients as an adjunctive tool to mammography or to suspicious clinical findings in diagnosing breast cancer.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22426613
Mammography is the recommended method for breast cancer screening of women in the general population. However, mammography alone does not perform as well as mammography plus supplemental screening in high-risk women. Therefore, supplemental screening with MRI or ultrasound is recommended in selected high-risk populations. Screening breast MRI is recommended in women at high risk for breast cancer on the basis of family history or genetic predisposition. Ultrasound is an option for those high-risk women who cannot undergo MRI. Recent literature also supports the use of breast MRI in some women of intermediate risk, and ultrasound may be an option for intermediate-risk women with dense breasts. There is insufficient evidence to support the use of other imaging modalities, such as thermography, breast-specific gamma imaging, positron emission mammography, and optical imaging, for breast cancer screening.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23290667
Breast cancer is a common malignancy causing high mortality in women especially in developed countries. Due to the contribution of mammographic screening and improvements in therapy, the mortality rate from breast cancer has decreased considerably. An imaging-based early detection of breast cancer improves the treatment outcome. Mammography is generally established not only as diagnostic but also as screening tool, while breast ultrasound plays a major role in the diagnostic setting in distinguishing solid lesions from cysts and in guiding tissue sampling. Several indications are established for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Thermography was not validated as a screening tool and the only study performed long ago for evaluating this technology in the screening setting demonstrated very poor results. The conclusion that thermography might be feasible for screening cannot be derived from studies with small sample size, unclear selection of patients, and in which mammography and thermography were not blindly compared as screening modalities. Thermography can not be used to aspirate, biopsy or localize lesions preoperatively since no method so far was described to accurately transpose the thermographic location of the lesion to the mammogram or ultrasound and to surgical specimen. Thermography cannot be proclaimed as a screening method, without any evidence whatsoever.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23941008 |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:00 pm |
I believe I already posted the position of Breast Screen Australia on thermography:
| Quote: |
Studies have shown that a tumour has to be large (several centimetres in diameter) before it can be detected by thermography (Homer 1985). Screening mammograms have the ability to detect breast cancer at a much smaller size, and therefore to reduce deaths from breast cancer. Less than 50% of breast cancers detected by mammography screening have an abnormal thermogram (Martin 1983).
There is no current scientific evidence to support the use of thermography in the early detection of breast cancer and in the reduction of mortality.
http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/br-policy-thermography |
|
_________________
Born 1950. There's a new cream on the market that gets rid of wrinkles - you smear it on the mirror!! |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:45 am |
Aprile you are not the only person on this thread – so please give it a rest will you. Some of the things I have responded to you automatically (and wrongly) presume its about you and what you have said when its not. When I made comments about diet etc they were in relation to what Panos said yet you constantly seem to be grippling with anything I say.
Yes I do not agree with you re biopsies. I do realise that radiation can cause cancer in high levels for sure but that’s drastically different than what was said previously by Panos about living on just fruits and air. Is that really possible in this lifetime – I am not so sure but if he wants to believe that he can but we need to stick to the facts here.
I am not acting like you are pulling this information from space, what I’ve asked you is for proper scientific facts showing about some of the things you (and others) have said. I have not called technology or medicine quackery, what I have called quackery is the notions that eating raw food will stop cancer and even reverse it – and that is quackery and if you choose to believe that – fine no problem there – but telling someone who has cancer in any shape or form that it will cure it is downright wrong and for one I’m glad in the UK if such a statement was made they would end up in court faster than anything (and I’m glad for that).
Like I said previously, I have no problem with personal opinions being shared, but when its put across as fact rather than personal opinion there is a huge difference isn’t there. Suffice to say I’ll ignore your posts and please ignore mine!
| aprile wrote: |
TM - As far as the eye can see, the greatest issue you have with me is that I don't agree with biopsies and radiation for the reasons I posted. You do realize that I justified my stance based upon evidence that biopsies, in particular can spread existing cancer within the breast tissue? You do also realize that radiation can also cause cancer, correct? That is why the dentist covers you with a lead apron and leaves the room. Likewise, you won't find the mammography technician in the same room while she radiates and compresses your breast in the machine. Do you also know that often times breast cancer patients can get radiation scatter which will impact their thyroid gland due to its close proximity?
Seriously, you're acting as though I am pulling all of this information from space. Further, there is newer technology that does not radiate and has been found to be just effective if not moreso than mammography to detect early stage breast cancer. This technology is called thermography, and they can also do body scans. AND please do not tell me this technology is quackery because that would be *your* personal opinion. ~ Aprile |
|
|
|
havana8
Moderator
 
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3449
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:24 am |
| Hi All, Please take any further political discussion off forum and move the conversation back on topic. In addition, if you wish to participate further, please ensure you do so in a spirit of respect and constructive non-personal discourse without any rude, patronizing or inflammatory language. Thank you. |
|
|
havana8
Moderator
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3449
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 7:36 am |
Regarding thermography, there was this recent abstract on PubMed:
Coll Antropol. 2013 Jun;37(2):583-8.
Thermography--a feasible method for screening breast cancer?
Kolarić D, Herceg Z, Nola IA, Ramljak V, Kulis T, Holjevac JK, Deutsch JA, Antonini S. | Source: "Ruder Bosković" Institute, Centre for Informatics and Computing, Zagreb, Croatia.
Potential use of thermography for more effective detection of breast carcinoma was evaluated on 26 patients scheduled for breast carcinoma surgery. Ultrasonographic scan, mammography and thermography were performed at the University Hospital for Tumors. Thermographic imaging was performed using a new generation of digital thermal cameras with high sensitivity and resolution (ThermoTracer TH7102WL, NEC). Five images for each patient were recorded: front, right semi-oblique, right oblique, left- semi oblique and left oblique. While mammography detected 31 changes in 26 patients, thermography was more sensitive and detected 6 more changes in the same patients. All 37 changes were subjected to the cytological analysis and it was found that 16 of samples were malignant, 8 were suspected malignant and 11 were benign with atypia or proliferation while only 2 samples had benign findings. The pathohistological method (PHD) recorded 75.75% malignant changes within the total number of samples. Statistical analysis of the data has shown a probability of a correct mammographic finding in 85% of the cases (sensitivity of 85%, specificity of 84%) and a probability of a correct thermographic finding in 92% of the cases (sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 79%). As breast cancer remains the most prevalent cancer in women and thermography exhibited superior sensitivity, we believe that thermography should immediately find its place in the screening programs for early detection of breast carcinoma, in order to reduce the sufferings from this devastating disease.
PMID: 23941007 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
but with a link to this abstract in the "comment on" section:
Coll Antropol. 2013 Jun;37(2):589-93.
Thermography is not a feasible method for breast cancer screening.
Brkljacić B, Miletić D, Sardanelli F. | Source: University of Zagreb, School of Medicine, Dubrava University Hospital, Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Zagreb, Croatia
Breast cancer is a common malignancy causing high mortality in women especially in developed countries. Due to the contribution of mammographic screening and improvements in therapy, the mortality rate from breast cancer has decreased considerably. An imaging-based early detection of breast cancer improves the treatment outcome. Mammography is generally established not only as diagnostic but also as screening tool, while breast ultrasound plays a major role in the diagnostic setting in distinguishing solid lesions from cysts and in guiding tissue sampling. Several indications are established for contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Thermography was not validated as a screening tool and the only study performed long ago for evaluating this technology in the screening setting demonstrated very poor results. The conclusion that thermography might be feasible for screening cannot be derived from studies with small sample size, unclear selection of patients, and in which mammography and thermography were not blindly compared as screening modalities. Thermography can not be used to aspirate, biopsy or localize lesions preoperatively since no method so far was described to accurately transpose the thermographic location of the lesion to the mammogram or ultrasound and to surgical specimen. Thermography cannot be proclaimed as a screening method, without any evidence whatsoever.
PMID: 23941008 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:11 am |
I posted this earlier in the thread but think it got lost...I usually do a mammogram and a thermography scan, just to hedge my bets and because most literature I've read recommends them as complementary diagnostic modalities.
Both have their drawbacks. We probably all know how much fun a mammogram is. And the bigger your boobs, the more fun you have.
With thermography you're "underpants naked" (with no draping like in a mammogram) in front of the doctor or tech for however long it takes to get a proper scan. That's a lot of fun, as well.
In the U.S. mammograms were fully covered for most insurance, but now I don't know with the new regs. Haven't checked it out yet. I don't know about for Medicaid patients.
Bad thing about thermography is it's all out of pocket. Insurance won't cover at all. But you can pay for it out of tax-free Flexible Spending if your employer offers that. |
|
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:43 am |
My mother is a hospice nurse and to her, cancer is the devil. The stories told and from all walks of life and insurance. My father had prostate cancer that spread thru his entire body before he blessedly passed away from a heart attack.
I have had my own breast cancer scare and ran thru the gamut of options.
There is plenty I could say on this subject from my own first-hand knowledge of that and affording healthcare as a small biz owner.
But what I will say is that this thread is about cancer prevention, not politics and pettiness. That's not how you solve anything.
I get the passion of where this subject has gotten to but not the level of contempt for even human courtesy. It is too much to even read anymore. Its not about egos here and how much you think you know or having the last word.
And sadly enough, its not even just this thread, these days it is every thread where someone disagrees. This plague has spread across the forums. For shame!
However you may feel that the anonymity allows you to treat people in a less than kind and compassionate way, stop it. Pretend you are talking to someone face to face and lets hope you would at least do that in a grown up manner. Bullies, and I for one am sick of it!
How can the world become a better place if this is how you behave on a forum for BEAUTY of all things.
As a therapist, I feel the loss here. So I will go back to trying to help people that are deserving on some of the other forums that I moderate (where trash-talking is NOT allowed and very harshly enforced).
Okay, back to the subject actually on hand. It is not about taxes, or politics or government.
If you had cancer right now, the last thing you would be wanting to read is the ranting and bickering, mine included.
Deb, I appreciate the reminder of the test. My gyn had recommended it a while back and I need to follow up. That's something positive we can do. |
_________________
Joined the 50 club several years back, blonde w/ fair/sensitive skin, Texas humidity and prone to rosacea, light breakouts and sunburns, combo skin type, starting to see sundamage and fine lines |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:38 am |
| aprile wrote: |
| TM ~ Go back and read everything I wrote. I said cancer wasn't entirely due to toxins in foods. I also did not SAY that eating 80% or 100% organic was the only way to protect ones family from cancer. It IS definitely something to consider especially if one is stricken with cancer. |
From: American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention; Reducing the Risk of Cancer With Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity
Whether organic foods carry a lower risk of cancer because they are less likely to be contaminated by potentially carcinogenic compounds is largely unknown. Several studies have examined the nutrient content of organic versus conventionally grown fruits or vegetables, and while some studies suggest a higher nutrient content, others suggest no difference. Systematic reviews on this topic differ in their conclusions. Whether the nutritional composition differences that have been observed translate into health benefits such as a reduced cancer risk is unknown. Vegetables, fruits, and whole grains should continue to form the central part of the diet, regardless of whether they are grown conventionally or organically.
While the purpose of organic food production is to promote sustainable agricultural practices, it is widely perceived that the consumption of organic foods may carry human health benefits. There is some debate over whether organic produce may have higher nutritional levels than conventionally grown produce. However, at present, no research exists to demonstrate whether such foods are more effective in reducing cancer risk or providing other human health benefits than similar foods produced by other farming methods.
Pesticides and herbicides can be toxic when used improperly in industrial, agricultural, or other occupational settings. Although vegetables and fruits sometimes contain low levels or residues of these chemicals, overwhelming scientific evidence supports the overall health benefits and cancer-protective effects of eating vegetables and fruits. At present, there is no evidence that residues of pesticides and herbicides at the low doses found in foods increase the risk of cancer. However, produce should be thoroughly washed before consumption, not only to decrease exposure to these compounds but also to minimize the risk of ill health effects from microbial contamination.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.20140/pdf |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
|
Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:46 am |
| aprile wrote: |
| TM - You do also realize that radiation can also cause cancer, correct? That is why the dentist covers you with a lead apron and leaves the room. Likewise, you won't find the mammography technician in the same room while she radiates and compresses your breast in the machine. |
Thermography devices have been cleared by the FDA for use as an adjunct, or additional, tool for detecting breast cancer. Toni Stifano, a consumer safety officer in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, explains that this means thermography should not be used by itself to screen for or to diagnose breast cancer.
The greatest danger, says Stifano, a breast cancer survivor herself, is that patients who substitute thermography for mammography may miss the chance to detect cancer at its earliest stage. There has been a steady decline in breast cancer deaths and one of the reasons is early detection through mammography, says FDA.
As for concerns about exposure to radiation from a mammogram, evidence shows that the benefits outweigh the risks of harm, especially when compared to the danger of breast cancer.
http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm257499.htm
A technician would leave the room during mammography not because the individual dose of radiation given to the patient is dangerous, but rather the combined dosages of radiation given to all patients throughout their career (patient after patient, day after day, year after year).
Modern mammogram equipment designed for breast x-rays uses very low levels of radiation, usually about a 0.1 to 0.2 rad dose per x-ray (a rad is a measure of radiation dose). Strict guidelines ensure that mammogram equipment is safe and uses the lowest dose of radiation possible. Many people are concerned about the exposure to x-rays, but the level of radiation used in modern mammograms does not significantly increase the risk for breast cancer.
To put dose into perspective, a woman who receives radiation as a treatment for breast cancer will receive about 5,000 rads. If she had yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 and continuing until she was 90, she will have received 20 to 40 rads.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/moreinformation/breastcancerearlydetection/breast-cancer-early-detection-acs-recs-mammograms |
_________________
Born 1953; Blonde-Blue; Normal skin |
|
|
|
| Thu Apr 25, 2024 1:45 am |
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. |
|
 |
|
|
