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.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Plagirism? It's not plagirism when the parts of the article I posted have stated the NEW YORK TIMES, WHO, and STUDIES.
And we now know how you feel about alternative medicine and where your viewpoints stem from. You'll probably believe saturated fat causes heart disease and everyone should be on lipitor as well. LOL.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
You're WRONG! All DRUGS carry side effects but not all things considered medicine carry side effects LEAST of all toxic and deadly side effects. Seriously, I suggest you study alternative medicine a little more closely and instead of using websites like Quackwatch and Snopes read actual books on the history of alternative medicine.......like I said one of the best is Daniel Haley's Politics in Healing. It talks about Hoxsey's horse treatment, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum and a whole host of other nontoxic cancer therapies that have been prove beyond a doubt to treat and cure cancer. But you like many others will continue to toe the indoctrinated line instead of broadening your thinking. After all you are probably being educated in a university or college right here in the USA and someday hope to be one of those gallant and brilliant researchers or MD's funded by the drug companies right?
And to answer your question no I would not take nolvadex nor would I take chemo or radiation if I was diagnosed with cancer. That's how much I believe in alternative medicine.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Of course there isn't going to be a controlled double blind study on alternative medicine. Research at that level is completely controlled by the drug companies and it requires a crap load of money the alternative medicine group doesn't have nor will probably ever have as long as allopathic medicine controls everything.
I suggest you research alternative medicine a little more. Royal Rife, Hoxsey, Krebiozen, DMSO, colostrum. ALL THESE have SUBSTANTIAL proof of being effective and safe for cancer treatment. And here's the funny thing about the gold standard of the placebo controlled double blind study..............THEY WERE USED IN THE LIPID HYPOTHESIS.......and it's still one of the BIGGEST SCAMS in the history of medicine.
If I tell my doctor that I drink raw milk he'd probably look at me like I was a loony.
But I've also never been sick not even from a common cold since I started drinking raw milk years ago.
I don't need you, the AMA, doctors, or the government telling me what works and what doesn't work. There are PLENTY of scientists, MDs, and even government officials fighting the good fight and going against the establishment of organized medicine. And we will ALL be better off for it.
And your beloved Rockefeller who pretty much funded and created the AMA was under the care of not only an allopathic but also a homeopathic doctor up until his death.
Yet he lambasted and crushed homeopathy in the US.
And you wonder why people don't trust doctors nor the government least of all organizations like the FDA and AMA.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
What does acute trauma care have to do with cancer and chronic disease?????? Of course homeopathy isn't going to help with emergent medical trauma and surgery. Duh. That's not the argument.
The SUBSTANTIAL proof is in lots of books. Politics in Healing by Daniel Haley is a good start.
$20K for a placebo controlled double blind study? Not one that is worth it's weight in paper.
Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
You're measly little studies are never going to make it in JAMA or New England Journal of Medicine. Those studies require millions of dollars in funding and are the only real studies people especially professionals pay attention to. I.e. ones that are "published".
And I never said I hated all doctors. Far from it. I hate doctors that toe the establishment line and swallow everything the AMA, government, pharma companies tell them. And it's not just in the area of alternative medicine. It's in healthcare overall.
Instead, they quietly sat on it to appease their feminist supporters.
Originally posted by RowenaMcQueen
I'm not going to waste time with all of the loopholes, or the fact that this study is flawed.
[edit on 21-1-2010 by RowenaMcQueen]
Why is National Cancer Institute Covering up Link?: Abortion Breast Cancer Coalition Letter to Congress
WASHINGTON, January 21, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The US National Cancer Institute (NIC) has again denied the link between abortion and breast cancer to a Globe and Mail reporter, despite one of their leading researchers being named as co-author on a study that admitted up to a 40 per cent increased risk of breast cancer associated with induced abortion.
In 2003, Louise Brinton, NCI’s chief of the Hormonal and Reproductive Epidemiology branch, was an organizer of the NCI workshop in 2003 that told women it is “well established” that “abortion is not associated with increased breast cancer risk.” Then, in 2009, Brinton was co-author of study, published in April last year by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, in which she admitted that abortion raises breast cancer risk.
Despite the admission by one of their leading researchers, the NCI website continues to carry the “well established” claim that there is no connection between abortion and breast cancer.
On January 8 the Globe and Mail’s Gloria Galloway wrote that she received another denial from the NCI when she attempted to receive confirmation on the study. The NCI’s Michael Miller told Galloway in an email, “NCI has no comment on this study.” Instead, Miller forwarded a link to the NCI’s official statement denying the breast cancer link that refers back to the 2003 workshop. Further requests for information, Galloway said, went unanswered.
At the same time, the Washington-based Coalition for Abortion/Breast Cancer has issued a letter to Congress asking that the NCI be called to the carpet for what the coalition says is NCI’s ongoing efforts to ignore or cover up the evidence supporting the link.
“We ask Congress to exercise its proper oversight authority and investigate the US National Cancer Institute’s failure to protect American women by issuing timely warnings about breast cancer risks,” the letter said.
The letter is signed by Karen Malek, the group’s president, Dr. Joel Brind, a professor of endocrinology and deputy chair of Biology and Environmental Sciences at City University of New York, and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. It says that thousands of women’s lives are put at risk “in part due to confusing and conflicting messages from our own National Cancer Institute.”
The letter states that researchers invited to participate in NCI’s 2003 workshop, despite the claim that it would comprise a “comprehensive review” of the existing data, were explicitly prohibited from reviewing current data demonstrating a link between abortion and breast cancer.
“Women need to be aware that abortion can affect both her breast cancer risk and health of future children,” the letter said. It notes that the NCI website was updated on January 12 this year, after news about the recent study broke, and now includes the claim that “the evidence overall still does not support early termination of pregnancy as a cause of breast cancer.”
“In the face of recent publication of results to the contrary ... reported by an NCI Branch Chief Dr. Brinton, this appears disingenuous,” says the coalition’s letter.
“The evidence is overwhelming that the NCI is in direct conflict with its own mission. The NCI is not providing accurate information that would permit women making choices about contraception and abortion to avoid the dangers of the increased risk posed by these exposures, even though they are reported by one of NCI’s top scientists in the field.”
Life Site News
Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by FortAnthem
It's worth noting that the site reporting this "news" is lifesitenews.com, an obviously anti-abortion site with a great deal of bias. There has been no discussion of the actual study, and no data has been divulged, either by the news site or those who signed the letter mentioned in the article. I searched PubMed (the database for all currently published or accepted but yet-to-be-published scientific literature) and Ms. Brinton's name does not appear on any studies relating to abortion in any way, as claimed by the article above.
When the study is picked up by a peer-reviewed journal, then it will have credibility. Being printed in a journal would certify that is has been held to at least SOME level of scientific standard. There are literally thousands of journals on an array of topics, so unless this new study has not merit, it should be published sometime soon. I guess we'll just have to play the waiting game, though I wouldn't hold my breath on this new "study" being published anytime soon.
[edit on 1/22/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]
What I would like to see is these researchers take their statistical information and apply it in the laboratory. If they can demonstrate this risk in animal models, that would be a much stronger correlation than trying to tease the information out of about a thousand patient interviews (which I can tell you from personal daily experience, PATIENTS LIE when it's about something bad).
Originally posted by FortAnthem
reply to post by VneZonyDostupa
Thanks for the summary.
I hope someone does like you said and conducts some lab research to determine if the conclusions of the study are true.
[/QUOTE[
I'm sure there are plenty of university labs chomping at the bit to do this research. University research is competitive and effective, especially in America.
If these things do increase a woman's risk, the info needs to get out to the public so women can make an informed decision.
Guess we'll have to wait for further studies. I hope too many people aren't unnecessarily put at risk in the meantime.
I agree 100%. If there IS a demonstrated risk, it needs to be disclosed to patients at the time the therapy is offered. Granted, the risk demonstrated in the current study is minimal, but the patient should always have as much information as humanly possible.