Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Corporate-Owned Media Blames Women for Getting Cancer

page: 2
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Night Star
 


You go girl - and good luck!!!



It is different for everyone. Many of us had no familiy histories, many ate healthy and exercised and did everything right. There is quite an age range of women involved.


No way do "bad diet, irresponsible lifestyle and genetics" explain the cancer pandemics - no matter what 'they' say.



In any case, it isn't alays a death threat and women should check themselves regularly.


Very true. ...Cancer was classified as a "chronic disease" back in the early 2000's - meaning it is treatable and manageable - and definitely NOT a death sentence.




posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


No, is not a death sentence, my father is living prof of it, my grandfather had the same type of cancer my father had and he lived with it for 25 years and he didn't had any treatments as he didn't believe in modern medicine, he died at the ripe age of 100 of hart failure, no because his cancer killed him.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Dear soficrow,

Thank you for your kind and thorough response. Looking back on it though, it was probably a mistake for me to enter this thread. I have no experience with any individual with breast cancer, and lost track of how powerful an issue it is.

But even though I realize my entry into this discussion was a mistake, I will compound the error by briefly discussing your response.

I perfectly agree with you that there hasn't been enough information gathered for cancer research, even though in each of at least the last three years the National Cancer Institute has spent more than twice as much on breast cancer than any other cancer. Cancer spending NCI

And of course I agree with you that Industrial Chemicals may have something to do with women's cancers.

But you've said something that has me completely confused:

It says the proofs exist for medical radiation, birth control pills and hormone replacement therapies - largely because the evidence is unavoidable. Industry has spent billions to prove the links between cancer and alcohol, tobacco etc - but those links are NOT universally applicable, although they are much publicized.
It seems as though you're saying Industry has spent billions finding some links, but that evidence was unavoidable anyway. Further, that industry has not spent billions on finding other links, so the links haven't been found. All of our cancer research relies on Industry? But the NCI alone has spent 1 3/4 billion in just the last three years, what is the result of their research? The information is still incomplete, for many reasons, but the information we have does not indicate that Industry is putting a false spin on this report.

You know, it just dawned on me that my difficulty may be that I am limiting my inquiry to the report and Industry's response while you are looking at the evils of industrial pollution and disease. If that is the case, I can't argue with you at all, but I would claim that the thread headline and the opening post didn't accurately reflect what you were concerned about.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



But you've said something that has me completely confused:

It says the proofs exist for medical radiation, birth control pills and hormone replacement therapies - largely because the evidence is unavoidable. Industry has spent billions to prove the links between cancer and alcohol, tobacco etc - but those links are NOT universally applicable, although they are much publicized.
It seems as though you're saying Industry has spent billions finding some links, but that evidence was unavoidable anyway. Further, that industry has not spent billions on finding other links, so the links haven't been found.


Erm, no.

a. The evidence showing links between cancer and medical radiation, birth control pills and hormone replacement therapies is unavoidable.

b. Industry has spent billions to prove the links between cancer and alcohol, tobacco etc - but these links are NOT universally applicable, although they are much publicized.

c. Specific links between cancer and specific environmental chemicals and contaminants have not been found because the funding is unavailable for such research.

....I would also caution against focusing on direct cause-and-effect relationships - most of these diseases, like cancer, result from epigenetic effects and involve cascades.



The information is still incomplete, for many reasons, but the information we have does not indicate that Industry is putting a false spin on this report.


Just scan the headlines and the news - everyone everywhere is blaming the victims.



You know, it just dawned on me that my difficulty may be that I am limiting my inquiry to the report and Industry's response while you are looking at the evils of industrial pollution and disease. If that is the case, I can't argue with you at all, but I would claim that the thread headline and the opening post didn't accurately reflect what you were concerned about.


Oh yes it does. The thread headline and opening post reflect EXACTLY what I'm concerned about: The corporate legal strategy to blame the victims by falsely claiming that "modern disease" results from "bad diet, irresponsible lifestyle and genetics" is now public health policy.





edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 10:35 AM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 

Dear soficrow,

Thanks again for clarifying things. I'll need a while to think this over. It may turn out that I have nothing else to say, other than to repeat my gratitude to you.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by ThrowCatsAtCacti
 


So true. But I'm PO'd at the never-ending corporate spin that blames the victims - it's not true, not fair, and it's setting us up for a return to Eugenics policies that isolate the sick, and promise to "sanitize" the human gene pool - while cutting costs for health and social programs.



Yes, and even perhaps the governments allowing these "medical studies" to be spun by the media
and reporting agencies as such. Capitalizing on stigma even, a stigma they wish to create.
For shame, and it is very disturbing to realize that the FDA does not really care about the truth,
which in turn equals our well being. It only cares about its funding.

thanks again sofi for bringing this to our atttention.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Actually they are telling the truth but in a legal jibberish way. Bad lifestyle what exactly is that and by whose terms? Could they mean we are not living in bubble which keeps us away from the unhealthy environment they give us. Bad diet? That might mean the GMO's that they are feeding us and chemical contaminated water that they give us It all depends in the definition. If they were using the same standard we are using why all the laws and swat teams being used against what we considered healthy food. Bad genes? Maybe they mean the genetically alteration they are doing to our bodies through chemicals and vaccinations. It all a state of mind don't you see.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:07 PM
link   


Not only does the media absolutely screw up medical/health journalism by reporting in such fashion, but so, too, do the researchers and authors of papers/studies that are peer reviewed journals.

If you have access to a journal and are somewhat capable of understanding much of the medical terminology, you can easily see how the data and discussion will clearly point to one thing (ambiguous data, loose associations, etc.) but then, in the conclusion, the authors succumb to pre-existing notions and, often times, ignore the data and discussion and suggest, "More research is warranted......."

edit on 10-12-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 



...you can easily see how the data and discussion will clearly point to one thing (ambiguous data, loose associations, etc.) but then, in the conclusion, the authors succumb to pre-existing notions and, often times, ignore the data and discussion and suggest, "More research is warranted......."


Most often that kind of withdrawal results because of pressure from corporate industry. .....In this case, government funds the IOM but corporate industry owns the government.

It's a conflict-of-interest that's practically unavoidable. But given their constraints and gag-orders, these researchers did a fine job if you know how to read between the lines.

.....I really do think the research document is pretty decent - it's the media spin I question.



edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: add last sentence



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow


Most often that kind of withdrawal results because of pressure from corporate industry. .....In this case, government funds the IOM but corporate industry owns the government.

It's a conflict-of-interest that's practically unavoidable. But given their constraints and gag-orders, these researchers did a fine job if you know how to read between the lines.


That's a good point. Unfortunately, most people can't even read the lines in medical journals, much less between them.


.....I really do think the research document is pretty decent - it's the media spin I question.




That's usually the case. As I'm sure you know, there's an overwhelming tendency for media to confuse correlation with causation, as well.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd
 



there's an overwhelming tendency for media to confuse correlation with causation, as well.


Only when it profits the corporate ownership.

For example, the childhood obesity epidemics being blamed on the victims and their parents, although the evidence clearly indicates such childhood obesity results from epigenetically inherited chronic disease .





edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: to add last sentence
edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: correction



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


marg...at least you had the proper protocol for getting diagnosed. Many women are falsely diagnosed and treated for profit. You got very lucky.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

FACT: Very little is "genetic," and based solely on the genetic code or DNA. Most "dispositions" result from "epigenetics" - including epigenetically inherited traits resulting from environmental causes, without any changes to the DNA.

You are misunderstanding the difference between genetics and epigenetics - not surprising given the HUGE amount of money corporate industry has spent to promote this "misunderstanding."


You're incorrect. Mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase a woman's risk for both breast and ovarian cancer. Here is a good write-up about it, with related statistics. It is not epigenetic.In fact, your definition of epigenetic is incorrect. While it CAN be alterations of DNA due to environmental factors, epigenetics also includes DNA methylation inherited from your mother, so it is inherited to some extent.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by RightWingAvenger
 


I am a nightmare to doctors I have fired many doctors when they do not work in my best interest, (I had three surgeries already in the span of 10 years, two planed one emergency) so I am what is call "a difficult case", I question everything, treatments, options, drugs and the doctors link to big pharma.

I wasn't blind when I was diagnosed with some "findings" in my breast I was informed, knowledgeable and ready, but what I was not prepared, was for the mental anguish of not knowing what is wrong and having no control about my fate been dependable on an establishment I do not trust is the hardest thing to endure, specially when my best interest was not linked to my health but how much money they could make out of me.

That do not goes well with the big health establishment, when patients question the doctors.

Because then doctors can not promote crap in the way of drugs prescriptions, I have never been a willing person.

edit on 10-12-2011 by marg6043 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


While I certainly can't claim to know you personally or the nature of your encounters with physicians, if your attitude going into an office is anything like the attitude in your posts here, then I can see why you went through so many doctors.

There is a big difference between being deeply involved in your own health care and being a jerk who gets defensive anytime someone in a white coat offers a treatment plan.

I've dealt with plenty of patients that act as I imagine you have, and it's a pain in the butt. I offer them the best, most efficacious treatment plan possible, and they start screaming about conspiracy theories, that I must be "getting paid by pharma" and so on. If I weren't so determined to help people get well, I would just walk out the door and tell them to get treatment elsewhere, as they obviously don't want my help.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


It is in my best interest to chose what is best for me, you only live once, and when it comes to surgeries you only get one chance, after all I am the one paying for my treatments and insurance, no you or anybody else.

It is my money after all and my choice.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 


I agree, it is absolutely in your best interest to choose what is best for you.

On the other hand, it is NOT in your best interest to assume every doctor is a shill and that every pill is being offered to line their pockets. That's just being paranoid, which can HARM your health, rather than help it.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa


FACT: Very little is "genetic," and based solely on the genetic code or DNA. Most "dispositions" result from "epigenetics" - including epigenetically inherited traits resulting from environmental causes, without any changes to the DNA.

You are misunderstanding the difference between genetics and epigenetics - not surprising given the HUGE amount of money corporate industry has spent to promote this "misunderstanding."


You're incorrect.


No, you're mistaken.



Mutations in the genes BRCA1 and BRCA2 increase a woman's risk for both breast and ovarian cancer.


Firstly, not all breast and ovarian cancer involves these mutations. Secondly, the so-called "it's genetic" "diagnosis" is most often made based on the gene product (mutant misfolded protein), NOT the gene - and the "it's genetic" diagnosis is actually an assumption.



....your definition of epigenetic is incorrect. While it CAN be alterations of DNA due to environmental factors, epigenetics also includes DNA methylation inherited from your mother, so it is inherited to some extent.


Not sure what you think my definition of epigenetic is. ....To clarify: some chemicals and toxins are mutagenic and/or carcinogenic; however, far more frequently, common chemical exposures cause proteins to misfold and become infectious - without altering DNA. So it's the misfolded proteins (aka prions) that cause disease, and which are inherited.

You are correct that epigenetic changes that do NOT affect DNA can be inherited. As I said - "epigenetically inherited traits resulting from environmental causes, without any changes to the DNA."

In fact, the current epidemics of childhood obesity indicate an alarming rate of inherited chronic disease resulting from underlying infectious misfolded proteins. This is one reason for renewed interest in LaMarck's theories and hypotheses.



edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)
edit on 10/12/11 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
 


Thanks for the tip dear but sadly is hard to find doctors this days that will be willing to work for you best interest and not those of their pockets.

When you pay for you own treatment and you pay for your own insurance you will look for what is best for you and those willing to take you money will work with you and your concerns.

I have been around long enough to remember when doctors used to come to our homes and be friends first and doctors second, when alternative medicine was mixed with modern medicine and I have seen the transition from what used to be a family doctor that knew you from birth to the type of doctor today that their priority is to prescribe drugs and ask for symptoms later.

In my books is my interest first.



posted on Dec, 10 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Firstly, not all breast and ovarian cancer involves these mutations.


I never said they did. I said these mutations increase your risk.

Do you actually read people's posts before responding to them?


Secondly, the so-called "it's genetic" "diagnosis" is most often made based on the gene product (mutant misfolded protein), NOT the gene - and the "it's genetic" diagnosis is actually an assumption


I'm not certain you understand how genetics works. Every mutation in a coding gene causes a change in the protein it produces. Thus, an inherited mutation in a tumor suppressor gene (BRCA1 and 2 for example) that decreases the efficiency of the tumor suppressor protein (in this case, a DNA repair molecule) would increase your risk for certain cancers.

Environmental toxins wouldn't produce enough misfolded protein in this instance. When someone has a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, we see 100% of the related protein is misfolded. This doesn't happen in environmental instances, in which only certain amounts of protein are misfolded, related to either the dose of toxin or the duration of exposure.




Not sure what you think my definition of epigenetic is


I'm basing it purely on what you called "epigenetic" several posts back. If your own words aren't what you meant, you should change them.


however, far more frequently, common chemical exposures cause proteins to misfold and become infectious


Source please.


So it's the misfolded proteins (aka prions) that cause disease, and which are inherited.


Prions aren't inherited. Prion DISORDERS are inherited, and these are not environmental.

For example, Mad Cow Disease (Creutzfeld-Jakob Disease) is a prion disease. It has never, and will never, show inheritance. You can have every member of your family drop dead from it, and it will not show up in you or your children (unless you ate the same beef they did, haha).


You are correct that epigenetic changes that do NOT affect DNA can be inherited. As I said - "epigenetically inherited traits resulting from environmental causes, without any changes to the DNA."


Again, you are incorrect. Epigenetic changes DO affect the DNA. The most common epigenetic change is DNA methylation. A methyl molecule attaches to certain bases (most often cytosine) and works to inactivate a gene by changing how the DNA folds.


In fact, the current epidemics of childhood obesity indicate an alarming rate of inherited chronic disease resulting from underlying infectious misfolded proteins.


The current epidemic of childhood obesity is due to lazy parents, convenience food, and sedentary lifestyles.





new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join