It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Don't Blame Cancer Patients for Their Disease

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Don't Blame Cancer Patients for Their Disease


blogs.telegraph.co.uk

….."The Fraction of Cancer Attributable to Lifestyle and Environmental Factors in the UK in 2010" was published yesterday.

Now that the news has carried the results of this report, will cancer patients feel the need to hide themselves away – lest their family and friends "blame" them for developing the disease? The massive anxiety caused by the word "cancer", the possible financial hardship and the effects of treatment are enough to bear without having the blame laid at your door.
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
NCD Pandemic Killing Over 37 Million This Year
The USA's New Health-Based Economy




posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   
60% of cancers are caused by environmental factors - 40% are caused by diet and lifestyle, according to this research. Personally, I'd put it at 80% environmental, 20% diet and lifestyle. But nobody asked. Anyway, the focus is on prevention.

The only cancers considered "preventable" are caused by diet and lifestyle, according to the media aka corporate spin. Pollution and other cancer-causing contaminants in the environment are man-made, but by corporate terms, diseases caused by industrial activities are not "preventable."

The research report actually says, "40 per cent of cancers are caused by things we have the power to change." Meaning somebody else decided we do NOT have the power to change the fact that industry spews poisons into our water, soil and air - and into our foods and medicines. We are allowed to decide whether or not to drink or smoke, and what amount of carbs, protein and fats to consume - but we may NOT decide what contaminants to allow in our food, air and water. Even when they cause cancer, never mind other diseases.

Cancer was practically non-existent in the early 1900's. Now, 1 in 2 American men will get cancer, and 1 in 3 American women. The rest of the world is catching up fast. But long story short -

out of the 151.4 million men in the US right now, 45.42 million will get environmentally-caused cancer.

So I want to know: Who in Hades decided 'we the people' have no power to change our environment - and stop the pollution? Will they please share their "risk-benefit" analysis with all the sick people who have to pay the price for their decisions?



blogs.telegraph.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 7/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:07 PM
link   
Harvard (or was it Columbia??) medical school said over a decade ago that ~95% is related to diet and the environment. I'm at the family castle, but will find the reference once I return to my man cave.

Also, I choose to purchase local produce from organic farmers, and get raw milk, and farm raised turkey and chicken; which of course doesn't have antibiotics, or a lot of the other horrible things found in your average supermarket meat.

It helps, and we do still have a choice. Still, the whole earth is a bit contaminated, and so what we can do is minimize exposure at best, not outright eliminate it.
edit on 7-12-2011 by unityemissions because: (no reason given)

edit on Thu Dec 8 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: member generated correction



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:09 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Dear soficrow,

I will give up smoking if the corporations will give up polluting the air that I breathe and the water that I drink. The truth is that cancer is blamed on smoking because they don't want you to look at the biggest culprit (and no, I am not promoting smoking) and that is pollution. If you look at the rate of cancer from state to state and compare it to the rate of smoking it won't match up right; but, if you now compare it to the pollution levels it begins to make sense. New Jersey is a great example.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


I'd object to some of that 40% simply because when I was growing up much was hidden by Big Business and the Governments helped.
We didn't know that smoking was bad.
In fact we were told we were not "real men" unless we smoked..

The power of adverstising and the imortal "chasing the easy $$$" led Big Business to kill us and then lie about it for years..



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


You might be interested in learning a bit about the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis.


The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis (HCRA) was founded by John D. Graham and specialises in advocating forms of risk-assessment widely criticised by community groups. The Center gained funds from both industry and government agencies.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:14 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


That is interesting. Thanks for the information! I'll be sure to check which university it was specifically tomorrow.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


I understand your frustration - our world is full of poisons. It's not fair to blame the victims.

But don't you think it makes sense to control what we can? Like, quit smoking 'cuz all those noxious gases and contaminants combine with other noxious gases and contaminants that get inside your lungs and body from out polluted water, food and air - and it is not good.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:18 PM
link   
I was always under the assumption that Cancer was caused by a sort of negative mindset. They say depression and pessimism can heavily effect your immune-system. Of course, diet, lifestyle, and environment can help create these negative emotions.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Trustme333
 



..when I was growing up much was hidden by Big Business and the Governments helped.


Much is STILL hidden by Big Business, and the government STILL helps. That's because Big Business owns the government.



The power of adverstising and the imortal "chasing the easy $$$" led Big Business to kill us and then lie about it for years..


Corporate law says they have to put profits before people, and the environment too and everything else for that matter. They're still killing us, and still lying about it - all the way to the bank.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


The problem with cigarettes, well just about any tobacco grown in the US is that RADIOACTIVE FERTILIZER is used, absorbed by the plant, then smoked by you...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:32 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


Waiting with bated breath. Here are a couple of quick snippet about shenanigans at Columbia University's Institute of Human Nutrition - and also the AMA and the American Obesity Association. Needless to say - these aren't even the tip of the iceberg.


Non-Profit Organizations with Ties to Industry

> Universities with Corporate Ties


..
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY, INSTITUTE OF HUMAN NUTRITION

The New York Times reported that Columbia's Institute of Human Nutrition "forged an agreement with Mr. Price [president of a nutritional-supplements company] for fees and a share of the company. (NYT, 8/2/00, p.1)

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

AMA planed a campaign to remind doctors of ethical guidelines limiting their acceptance of gifts from pharmaceutical companies. The campaign was to be sponsored by Eli Lilly Corporation. (USA Today, 4/27/01, "Drugmakers bankroll ethics guidelines on 'freebies'")

According to a New York Times story, the AMA made a deal with Sunbeam to endorse the company's health products in return for royalties. Publicity scotched the deal in 1997. Sunbeam is suing the AMA for breach of contract. (NYT, 8/13/97 and subsequent weeks)

The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in early 1996 Procter & Gamble/olestra, through its PR agency, gave the AMA a check for $900,000 in partial support of an AMA fitness program; the check came after the AMA issued a statement endorsing the FDA's approval of olestra . (AMA press release, Jan. 1996; Chicago Sun-Times, 11/26/97, p. 70)

AMERICAN OBESITY ASSOCIATION

According to the Wall Street Journal, this organization, formed in April, 1995, is "a lay advocacy group representing the interest of the 70 to 80 million obese American women and children and adults afflicted with the disease of obesity." It has one member. "Dr. Atkinson says the group receives most of its funding — several hundred thousand dollars in all — from the pharmaceuticals industry, including Interneuron, American Home Products, Roche Laboratories, Knoll Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and Servier — all of which market or develop diet pills." (Wall Street Journal, 2/9/98, B1)



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



I was always under the assumption that Cancer was caused by a sort of negative mindset. They say depression and pessimism can heavily effect your immune-system. Of course, diet, lifestyle, and environment can help create these negative emotions.


Gotta watch those assumptions!!!

There is a negative feedback loop - but think about it. Our planet is full of poisons we did NOT evolve to "handle."



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Dear soficrow,



But don't you think it makes sense to control what we can?


No, I don't. I don't want to just be about doing everything I can to be at my peak physical condition. Life is about more than health and in the end, it doesn't make a difference. I don't think we should do everything we can that is bad for us; but, we never know from day to day what will be found good or bad. I think we should live our lives with some relative balance. I had a cousin who was dying, his blood was attacking his blood vessels. It was genetic. He would have seizures and heart attacks, sometimes multiples in a day. They gave him three months to live and told him to stop smoking and drinking. It might have meant an extra day or two alive. I told him to drink and smoke, might as well enjoy life a little.

I am not being sarcastic and that really happened. I have cared for more than one person with cancer also. You are going to die, that is a fact. The longer we live, the more likely we will get cancer regardless of what we do. If someone wants to eat until they way 300 lbs, so what. Pick your poison and choose how important it is to you. That is what I think anyways.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by richierich931
reply to post by AQuestion
 


The problem with cigarettes, well just about any tobacco grown in the US is that RADIOACTIVE FERTILIZER is used, absorbed by the plant, then smoked by you...


Dear rocjoerocj931,

I had heard that and similar things; but, I don't have any evidence that cigarettes are safe for the user and therefore, even though I smoke, cannot recommend it and feel a need to say that I do not.



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 


It's not the nicotine that kills! It's the smoke!



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:14 PM
link   
40% diet....

Even if you try to eat *healthy* (a very subjective term), and you follow the food pyramid guidelines.... you're destined to get cancer..


Even if you learn the food pyramid is horrible and develop healthy eating habbits, you will still eat GMO's and some microwaved/pre-packaged foods laden with preservatives, pesticides, additives, and the health effects that may come from GMO's.


If you can afford to eat organic... well, the definition of organic isn't what it used to be...



posted on Dec, 7 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   
You smoke and got cancer? YOUR FAULT
You eat fast food, got fat and got cancer? YOUR FAULT
You don't exercise, live a stressful life and got cancer? YOUR FAULT
You're an alcoholic and got cancer? YOUR FAULT

You eat well, exercise, don't smoke, drink moderately (the recommended amounts), control stress levels and still get cancer? YOU'RE JUST UNLUCKY, CHAMP...

people need to stop giving excuses to feel bad for people with certain preventable diseases... "oh poor him, he has Hep C and HIV"... next time wear a f-ing condom and don't do injection drugs...

what's this world coming to?



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:13 AM
link   
reply to post by AQuestion
 



... I don't want to just be about doing everything I can to be at my peak physical condition. Life is about more than health and in the end, it doesn't make a difference.


It's not about being in "peak physical condition" - it's about being healthy enough to enjoy life. For some it's about having the strength to play with their kids. For others it's about having the energy to stay up past 8:30pm to have a social life. For too many it's about making it through the day, hanging on to their jobs, paying the mortgage, buying food, forget the rest - and for sure, forget the dreams.



posted on Dec, 8 2011 @ 12:29 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Dear soficrow,



It's not about being in "peak physical condition" - it's about being healthy enough to enjoy life. For some it's about having the strength to play with their kids. For others it's about having the energy to stay up past 8:30pm to have a social life. For too many it's about making it through the day, hanging on to their jobs, paying the mortgage, buying food, forget the rest - and for sure, forget the dreams.


And for some it is the joy of food, for some it is the joy of experience, for some it is the joy of learning, for some it is the joy of loving, how can I say what joy another should pursue if they do not intentionally harm another?



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join