Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?

Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.

I have to tell you it does. You are inhaling soot particles, nitrogen oxides, radioactive inert gasses, and several other goodies. Breathing DOES cause cancer


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Breathing" is not a cancer causing substance, but an act of life. It's the bad substances in the air that may cause cancer.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
WOW! You ARE astute. SO, breathing is another case of running a risk for a benefit.

The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?

Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?

Hans
 
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser
Click to expand...

You left out (6.): It's effective, idiot.:hit:
 
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>> I can't quite understand where you got these twisted ideas from.


Twisted ideas? I cite a reputable study which concludes there is no valid evidence of any lives saved with mammography along with a study that shows an associatiion between diagnostic x-rays and cancer and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I cite a span of a quarter of a century where the medical authorities in the US knew very well that their polio vaccine was causing more polio than they were preventing and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I cite the the infamous Swine Flu fiasco which caused scores of deaths and hundreds paralyzed from a vaccine administered without scientific basis nor any preventive rationale and you call it a "twisted idea"??? I would suggest to you, that "twisted" are the brains of those whose only response to real "evidence" is ad hominem attack, whether in the form of calling that poster "twisted" or "wicked" or simply an "idiot". I would suggest that such levels of discourse only betrays the mental bankruptcy of the accusor. Where do I get such ideas? I get them from distinguished professionals. medical doctors as well as MDs who license Medical doctors, high government medical officers. I get them from scientists, Nobel Prize Winners, and personal injury lawyers. And I get them from personal experience, with family, friends and self.

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>The Danish study you cite so enthusiastically is also government funded, how come you choose to trust THIS government funded piece of reserch?


I don't trust anybody.


>>Now, I'm from Denmark, and that study made the headlines here, of course. Interestingly, we still screen for breast cancer, I wonder how that could be?


I can think of any number of possible reasons: (1.) Danes are just as dumb as Americans? (2.) Habits are hard to overcome??? (3.) At least you think you're doing "something"??? (4.) Money talks??? (5.) All of the above????


-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Rouser is arguing against himself???? Way to take on an impossible challenger Rouser. Maybe you'll get further with yourself than anyone else has. Good luck convincing yourself.
 
Rouser2 said:
I cite a span of a quarter of a century where the medical authorities in the US knew very well that their polio vaccine was causing more polio than they were preventing and you call it a "twisted idea"???
Click to expand...
I'll just take that one from the tirade, and point out that it has been explained to you a dozen times why this is a "twisted" interpretation of the facts (you have absolutely no idea how much polio that vaccine was preventing), and why it is still preferable to put up with some vaccine-induced disease if it prevents the much more virulent wild virus from becoming re-established in the population from reservoirs abroad.

What is "twisted" is your selection of facts to suit your "twisted" anti-medicine agenda, and your "twisting" of many sources to imply things that the authors never intended them to imply. Also your continual harping on about imperfect medical practices of the past, carried out by people who were acting with the best of intentions, and mostly succeeding in doing a lot of good even if some harm also resulted. Also your persistent ignoring of the improved practices of the present day, and the incalculable benefits we all enjoy thanks to continuing medical advances.

Rouser, I'm actually desperately sorry for you. I'm sorry you lost your brother, but I'm even sorrier for anyone with such a bitter and twisted view of a group of people on whom we all depend, and a system which would take you in and fix you up if you ever needed it, irrespective of the bile you spew up on them every day.

You must be very unhappy, and I pity you.

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:

Rouser, I'm actually desperately sorry for you. I'm sorry you lost your brother, but I'm even sorrier for anyone with such a bitter and twisted view of a group of people on whom we all depend, and a system which would take you in and fix you up if you ever needed it, irrespective of the bile you spew up on them every day.

You must be very unhappy, and I pity you.

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

I'm not. His contemptible rantings could adversely affect the health of someone who is foolish enough to listen to him. He's no better than a f****ing faith healer.
 
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]


>>I'll just take that one from the tirade, and point out that it has been explained to you a dozen times why this is a "twisted" interpretation of the facts (you have absolutely no idea how much polio that vaccine was preventing), and why it is still preferable to put up with some vaccine-induced disease if it prevents the much more virulent wild virus from becoming re-established in the population from reservoirs abroad.

Dr. Jonas Salk must be placed in your "twisted" category as a critic of just how "preferable" it was to knowingly cause polio in unsuspecting victims via the live Polio vaccine which the CDC did for a quarter of a century after his initial warning.

As to the rest of your own bile-driven tirade, responding to factless ad hominem attack is pointless. I try not to get into mud fights with people who have nothing else to offer.


-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
I try not to get into mud fights with people who have nothing else to offer.
Click to expand...
I've tried offering you logic, and facts, and sensible balance and even sympathy. None of it seems to get through.

Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Rolfe.
 
Rouser2 said:


I would suggest to you, that "twisted" are the brains of those whose only response to real "evidence" is ad hominem attack, whether in the form of calling that poster "twisted" or "wicked" or simply an "idiot". I would suggest that such levels of discourse only betrays the mental bankruptcy of the accusor. Where do I get such ideas? I get them from distinguished professionals. medical doctors as well as MDs who license Medical doctors, high government medical officers. I get them from scientists, Nobel Prize Winners, and personal injury lawyers. And I get them from personal experience, with family, friends and self.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

What a crock. You cherry pick the one study out of a hundred that supports your ridiculous view, cling to it like a baby's blanket and then completely reject the mountains of evidence that we supply that refutes your claims. You have failed miserably to support any such claims on this board.

Did I mention that you are a nitwit?
 
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Prester John has not stated any point. And neither have you.

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Rolfe [/i]

>>Hows about you have a look at Prester John's link and try to make some sort of sensible comment on that?

Prester John has not stated any point. And neither have you.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
Oh good grief, read the words, one after the other, the sentence will follow...his link, his link, what's his point got to do with it, or Rolfe's for that matter? Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.
 
DickK said:
Oh good grief, read the words, one after the other, the sentence will follow...his link, his link, what's his point got to do with it, or Rolfe's for that matter? Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.
Click to expand...

You have to support Rouser's BS 100% or else you are avoiding the issue and/or don't make sense. That's how hard-core Libertarians think.
 
Rouser2 said:
posted by Zep [/i]

>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.


The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

So, now you're using your anti-vac quackery as a reference? 'Scuse me for not being convinced.

I hope that nobody believes you and dies as a result.
 
Originally posted by DickK [/i]


>>Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

>>Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

Apparently Prester John has no point. Rolf has no point and you have no point either. So what's the point? Cancer death rates fall?? So what? Does this mean that Modern Medicine has turned the corner on the War on Cancer?? Prester doensn't say; nor does Rolf nor you. What does a 12 percent drop over 30 years mean? Does it mean there are cancers being cured that were not before? Prester doesn't say, nor does Rolf, nor you. Perhaps the alleged decline is due to the fact that fewer people, especially fewer men are smoking, contracting fewer lung cancer cases (the quickest, surest death) while other cancers, with a much longer life span, are increasing. You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by DickK [/i]


>>Prester John's comment is that "British cancer death rates fell by 12% between 1972 and 2002 " and it's followed by a link to the British Medical Journal, http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/cont...ll/328/7435/303

>>Be obtuse if you like, either read it or don't, but stop dissembling perleeze.

Apparently Prester John has no point. Rolf has no point and you have no point either. So what's the point? Cancer death rates fall?? So what? Does this mean that Modern Medicine has turned the corner on the War on Cancer?? Prester doensn't say; nor does Rolf nor you. What does a 12 percent drop over 30 years mean? Does it mean there are cancers being cured that were not before? Prester doesn't say, nor does Rolf, nor you. Perhaps the alleged decline is due to the fact that fewer people, especially fewer men are smoking, contracting fewer lung cancer cases (the quickest, surest death) while other cancers, with a much longer life span, are increasing. You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Are you really this thick? Or just trolling? No 3rd choice.
 
You really are an idiot Rouser.

heres a quote from the article

In the same period, mortality from breast cancer in women has fallen by 20%
Click to expand...

BMJ 2004;328:303 (7 February)
 
and the point is i am not presenting my opinion, i am presenting facts about the current situation. the thread you started Rouser is about Cancer, so is the article. Maybe if you read some real medical science you would lose some of the ignorance you have in abundance.
 
Rouser2 said:
...You see, it is very necessary to "dissemble". Otherwise no one knows what anyone else is talking about. Do you know what you are talking about???

-- Rouser
Click to expand...
That has to be the best entry in the anti-language awards. I think the root of the problem is now clear...the words you're using don't mean what you think they mean, unless you think we ought to start debating plain english now? Get a grip or get a dictionary, better still get another hobby, the Internet is not doing you any good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom