Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
TorontoCon





Joined: 14 Aug 2007
Posts: 796
Reputation: 50.5
votes: 5

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have a very good doctor and you did the right thing. I also think that mammograms are overused.

If you are concerned with small doses of radiation, perhaps you can ask your doctor about THERMOGRAPHY and ask to be referred to a clinic if you ever have another concerning lump. It is non-toxic, fully external and uses the detection of excess angiogenesis (vascularization - blood vessels) of the lump and resultant heat generated by blood flow. Tumors are highly vascularized in general. I'm not sure how effective this diagnostic is for deep tissue tumors...

Here's a link to more info if you like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....d_RVDocSum

And here's an abstract from a Review journal discussing ALL current breast imaging practices, including not only thermography, but mammograms and many other techniques.

Abstract:
Advances in breast imaging.
Agnese DM.

Department of Surgery and Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Although mammography remains the most widely used tool for the early detection of breast cancers and evaluation of palpable abnormalities, a number of other imaging tools are being developed and used. Ultrasonography (US) is an excellent adjunct to conventional mammography. In addition to identifying solid and cystic abnormalities, US can often distinguish benign and malignant solid nodules. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also is useful in assessing the extent of disease within the breast, particularly in women with dense breasts. MRI may be a more sensitive screening tool in women at elevated breast cancer risk. Newer techniques based on the metabolic activity of breast tumors also have been developed. One such technique is scintimammography, which uses radiolabeled tracers to detect breast malignancies. Positron emission tomography (PET), which relies on the high metabolic rate of tumors, also has been described as a method to evaluate breast disease. Other techniques, such as optical tomography and thermography, rely on angiogenesis and generated heat to identify cancers. These and other tools may help to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection. Ideally, this improved detection results in improved outcomes in those who have breast cancer and avoidance of unnecessary procedures in those who do not.

PMID: 16525954 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Note: this is the most recent review article. There might be better reads out there.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
TorontoCon wrote:

And I also agree that Naturopathy IN CONCERT WITH (but not REPLACING) traditional medical treatment is the way to go. Even meditation and psychotherapy in addition to diet and exercise.


At the risk of boring the hell out of everyone, I just want to tell you what happened to me last summer. My master herbalist found a lump in my breast and told me to go and see my doctor. I went for a full medical exam with blood tests, etc. My doctor advised me that I should have a mammogram. He was pretty sure it was a tear in the pericardium (spelling?). He told me it was quite common and was caused by heavy lifting (I'm guilty). He said he could feel the same thing in the same spot when he was jackhammering (not the typical doctor). I refused to go for a mammogram because if that was all it was, why bother. He told me if I came back in a month and the lump was smaller, he would not send me. So I came back and the lump was gone. If I had gone for a mammogram, that would have exposed me to radiation, and also consider the cost of the procedure. Not to mention the waiting (I have had two mammograms previously) and it's a lot of waiting and agonizing. Just his simple statement that it was more common than I realized, made me think. So are a lot of people being exposed to radiation, for nothing (when it comes to mammograms)?


Wait just a second. What if it had been a tumor. Then you would have been glad that you got the mammogram. Hindsight is 20/20. You can't simply say that because it turned out not to be that you are glad you didn't expose yourself to radiation.

Do you fly on airplanes? Same amount of radiation as a mammogram. If you break your leg are you not going to get an x-ray?

It should be noted that free radicals and radiation in small doses are actually GOOD for you. Your body's own white blood cells PRODUCE free radicals in order to heal wounds. If you take super high doses of antioxidants you will find that your wounds heal very slowly. UV exposure to the sun is good in small doses. Exposure to radiation in small doses actually primes your cells defenses against cancer (much in the same way as vaccines work).
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Guess what Craig, it's not a tumour. The blood tests assured me of that. I guess I should have needlessly gone for the mammogram, like so many others before me. Being that you're a man, you have no idea how they squish your breast like a pancake. But I'm sure it would have been well worth it, just to back up the blood tests.
I don't fly and the last time there were broken bones around here was when quite a few summers ago both of my sons, each broke a bone. Yeah after that I started them on a Calcium/Magnesium/VitaminD3 combination and am happy to say there have been no broken bones since.
You call me a naturalist. I like to think of myself as a realist. After being in the insurance biz, with all the risk management training, I treat my life and my health with the same risk management. What are the hazards? What can I do to reduce the hazards? That is how I look at my health. It's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another, after being exposed to the truth, to still chose ignorance.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TorontoCon wrote:
You have a very good doctor and you did the right thing. I also think that mammograms are overused.

If you are concerned with small doses of radiation, perhaps you can ask your doctor about THERMOGRAPHY and ask to be referred to a clinic if you ever have another concerning lump. It is non-toxic, fully external and uses the detection of excess angiogenesis (vascularization - blood vessels) of the lump and resultant heat generated by blood flow. Tumors are highly vascularized in general. I'm not sure how effective this diagnostic is for deep tissue tumors...

Here's a link to more info if you like: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu.....d_RVDocSum

And here's an abstract from a Review journal discussing ALL current breast imaging practices, including not only thermography, but mammograms and many other techniques.

Abstract:
Advances in breast imaging.
Agnese DM.

Department of Surgery and Internal Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Although mammography remains the most widely used tool for the early detection of breast cancers and evaluation of palpable abnormalities, a number of other imaging tools are being developed and used. Ultrasonography (US) is an excellent adjunct to conventional mammography. In addition to identifying solid and cystic abnormalities, US can often distinguish benign and malignant solid nodules. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) also is useful in assessing the extent of disease within the breast, particularly in women with dense breasts. MRI may be a more sensitive screening tool in women at elevated breast cancer risk. Newer techniques based on the metabolic activity of breast tumors also have been developed. One such technique is scintimammography, which uses radiolabeled tracers to detect breast malignancies. Positron emission tomography (PET), which relies on the high metabolic rate of tumors, also has been described as a method to evaluate breast disease. Other techniques, such as optical tomography and thermography, rely on angiogenesis and generated heat to identify cancers. These and other tools may help to improve both the sensitivity and specificity of cancer detection. Ideally, this improved detection results in improved outcomes in those who have breast cancer and avoidance of unnecessary procedures in those who do not.

PMID: 16525954 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Note: this is the most recent review article. There might be better reads out there.


Thank you TorontoCon. Very informative for those whose doctor requires that they get a mammogram every year. That will be the route I will be taking for when I get to that age (I think they want you to start when you're 50). I have also looked into Thermography, I don't believe our health care system picks up the full tab on this, like they do with mammograms. When I checked, the cost to me would be $250.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
It's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another, after being exposed to the truth, to still chose ignorance.


:roll:

Whatever. Paranoia.

Oh and BTW, if you've been exposed to the truth you can't choose to be ignorant - it is contrary to the very definition of ignorance - kind of ironic wouldn't you say :P


Last edited by Craig on Sat Feb 16, 2008 7:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
Guess what Craig, it's not a tumour. The blood tests assured me of that.


Blood tests are not a reliable method of determining if you have breast cancer. But whatever, gamble with your life - I don't care.

Blood tests will only tell you if the cancer is metastatic - at which point it is probably too late anyway. So WHO is the ignorant one???? :P

Stop reading websites written by people who have a Ph.D from the Sally Struthers School of Beauty and Nutrition.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
Sheila wrote:
It's one thing to be ignorant, but quite another, after being exposed to the truth, to still chose ignorance.


:roll:

Whatever. Paranoia.

Oh and BTW, if you've been exposed to the truth you can't choose to be ignorant - it is contrary to the very definition of ignorance - kind of ironic wouldn't you say :P


Wake up Craig, people chose "the state of being ignorant" all the time. I liken it to putting your hands over your ears and screaming "I can't hear you, I can't hear you". I find it especially prevalent when you have atheists and creationists arguing.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Craig wrote:
It should be noted that free radicals and radiation in small doses are actually GOOD for you. Your body's own white blood cells PRODUCE free radicals in order to heal wounds. If you take super high doses of antioxidants you will find that your wounds heal very slowly. UV exposure to the sun is good in small doses. Exposure to radiation in small doses actually primes your cells defenses against cancer (much in the same way as vaccines work).

Is this from the Chernobyl School of Medicine? Sunshine I agree is good for you, lose the suncreen and sunglasses. But to willingly expose yourself to radiation, at levels way above what the sun emits. I don't know Craig, I am neither a scientist or a doctor and considering all the information about cell phones, I would say that NO radiation is best.
1. Do you know of anyone who refused the conventional treatment of cancer and died?
2. Do you know of anyone went through the conventional treatment of cancer and died?
3. If you were a woman and had the choice between a mammogram or thermography, which would you choose?
4. As far as vaccinations go, do you know of any that do not contain mercury or thimerosol?
5. Have you ever heard of Essiac?
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
I would say that NO radiation is best.


Radiation received from medical sources is an order of magnitude less than what we receive from the natural environment (and yes, I'm talking about x-rays and radioactive elements).

Quote:
1. Do you know of anyone who refused the conventional treatment of cancer and died?


I know one personally and my wife knows of plenty.

Quote:
2. Do you know of anyone went through the conventional treatment of cancer and died?


Of course. I hope you aren't suggesting that because I know more people who died after receiving conventional treatment that it is worse. The vast majority of people who have cancer are smart enough to listen to the OVERWHELMING body of evidence that suggests that they should receive conventional treatment.

Quote:
3. If you were a woman and had the choice between a mammogram or thermography, which would you choose?


I would choose the method advocated by every major authoritative medical body in the world.

Quote:
4. As far as vaccinations go, do you know of any that do not contain mercury or thimerosol?


As an insurance agent you should know about risk management. The benefits of vaccines FAR out-weigh the risks...

http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/im/.....-eng.php#4
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 4:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Craig, how about number 5? Just Google Essiac or Rene Caisse. One of the biggest government cover ups concerning Cancer, that Canada has ever seen. Actually I'm sure there are more (please see empowerplus), oh yeah there is, if you would have checked out this site by Dr. Andrew Saul www.doctoryourself.com
or Dr. Joseph Mercola at www.mercola.com
and the British Columbia Cancer Agency has a lot to say about cancer at www.bccancer.bc.ca especially under their "unconventional therapies"
Thanks for checking into those links, I want to add that Dr. Mercola's site posts the latest health studies from around the world in the "vital votes" section. You don't have pay anyone anything to find peer reviewed studies on there.
Craig
Site Admin




Joined: 29 Aug 2006
Posts: 4415
Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8Reputation: 47.8
votes: 36

PostPosted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What I find interesting about this whole debate is that despite the fact that our carpets are laced with dangerous chemicals, chemo and radiation will kill you, mammograms are hazardous to your health, fast food is horrible for you, pesticides are used in farming, pharmaceutical drugs are prescribed freely WE ARE LIVING TWICE AS LONG TODAY AS WE WERE 100 YEARS AGO WHEN THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY OF THESE THINGS. Back when we all ate a nutritious diet, were not exposed to air pollution, water pollution, carpet pollution, medical radiation, and countless drugs we lived to the ripe old age of 50.

Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't be critical - I myself was raising the possibility of a link between cell phones and cancer in another thread. But let's keep things in perspective.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes Craig, and with that ability to live longer, comes with breeding disease into our society. Like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, both are genetic in our offspring. Have you ever heard of "dinner table heredity", where if you are lacking in vitamins and minerals, this can be transferred in-vitro to your children? I think it is called epigenomics. When I asked my 98 year old grandmother, what the secret to her long life is (she didn't want a party last year because it wasn't a milestone), she said she attributes her longetivity to taking cod liver oil, Vitamin E and milk of magnesia (magnesium) on a daily basis. When I asked her why she thought there was so much disease, she replied that it was the chemicals that farmers and oil companies use. My grandmother may not be educated, but she does know what's she's talking about.
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila wrote:
Yes Craig, and with that ability to live longer, comes with breeding disease into our society. Like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, both are genetic in our offspring.


Thats a rather large leap there. Women are still only able to produce said offspring for so many years. What "breeding" of disease has long life introduced pray tell?

Quote:
Have you ever heard of "dinner table heredity", where if you are lacking in vitamins and minerals, this can be transferred in-vitro to your children?


Have you heard of a simple thing call maternity Vitamins or is that not natural enough?

Quote:
I think it is called epigenomics.


I did a little reading on EPIGENETICS. Lots of stuff about spontaneous mutations of the chromosome etc, chromatin immunoprecipitation... but I didn't see anything attributing any genetically inherited disease to longer life or lack of proper nutrition during pregnancy. Do you per chance have a verifiable study I could read? I find this very interesting.

Quote:
When I asked my 98 year old grandmother, what the secret to her long life is (she didn't want a party last year because it wasn't a milestone), she said she attributes her longetivity to taking cod liver oil, Vitamin E and milk of magnesia (magnesium) on a daily basis. When I asked her why she thought there was so much disease, she replied that it was the chemicals that farmers and oil companies use. My grandmother may not be educated, but she does know what's she's talking about.


Well of course she is a shrewd woman, she's your Granny.
Sheila





Joined: 09 Feb 2008
Posts: 556
Reputation: -6.8
votes: 16
Location: Central Alberta

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 11:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

crazymamma wrote:
Sheila wrote:
Yes Craig, and with that ability to live longer, comes with breeding disease into our society. Like cystic fibrosis or muscular dystrophy, both are genetic in our offspring.


Thats a rather large leap there. Women are still only able to produce said offspring for so many years. What "breeding" of disease has long life introduced pray tell?

For instance when our friends 5 year old was diagnosed with muscular dystrophy, his mom was told that if she gave birth to another son, he too would have it. 100 years ago their son would have lived a very short life. As it is now, he is expected to live to between 20 - 25. So that means he will come of age, and may breed this into his own children. By the way, the regular medical community gave them no hope. But luckily I googled muscular dystrophy on www.doctoryourself.com, hooked them up with my master herbalist and viola, he is exceeding all expectations from the regular medical community. This spring they are buying him a bike.

Quote:
Have you ever heard of "dinner table heredity", where if you are lacking in vitamins and minerals, this can be transferred in-vitro to your children?


Have you heard of a simple thing call maternity Vitamins or is that not natural enough?

Proven fact that folic acid in pre-natal vitamins have reduced the risk of spinal bifida. But how many of those women continue with vitamins after the pregnancy?

Quote:
I think it is called epigenomics.


I did a little reading on EPIGENETICS. Lots of stuff about spontaneous mutations of the chromosome etc, chromatin immunoprecipitation... but I didn't see anything attributing any genetically inherited disease to longer life or lack of proper nutrition during pregnancy. Do you per chance have a verifiable study I could read? I find this very interesting.

You are so right about the spelling, what a retard I am, lol. Check this out
http://www.mercola.com/2006/de.....er-ate.htm

Quote:
When I asked my 98 year old grandmother, what the secret to her long life is (she didn't want a party last year because it wasn't a milestone), she said she attributes her longetivity to taking cod liver oil, Vitamin E and milk of magnesia (magnesium) on a daily basis. When I asked her why she thought there was so much disease, she replied that it was the chemicals that farmers and oil companies use. My grandmother may not be educated, but she does know what's she's talking about.


Well of course she is a shrewd woman, she's your Granny.


True!
crazymamma





Joined: 18 Aug 2007
Posts: 1011
Reputation: 71.8
votes: 14
Location: The kitchen

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sheila,

Don't feel that spelling makes you a retard, I am the second worst speller in the world.

For some reason spelling will not stick in my brain. Gotta love the spell check.

I will read your link and get back to you on it.

Have a great weekend everybody.!!!!!
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


CANCER

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB