• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?

Originally posted by MRC_Hans [/i]


>>Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries


Oh really? Can you name just one that does not receive government money?


-- Rouser


P.S. Flash: Breathing does not cause cancer.
 
What does government funding have to do with the efficacy of mammograms? No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

[I mean, they'd use a more aggressive, hard-to tread cancer, right?]
 
Good news: they are getting better and better at detecting tumors and the earlier they are detected, the more effective the treatments. If you ever receive that horrible news (I did) you can fight back!

Bad news: there are ignorant cretins in the world who are trying to discourage this.
 
Rouser2 said:
>>Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries


Oh really? Can you name just one that does not receive government money?

No. And?


-- Rouser


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 :eek:
Click to expand...

And to prove it even more, nobody has ever developed cancer after they ceased to breathe ;).

News flash: Eating also causes cancer :eek: !


Hans
 
dimmit Hands! Next thing you're gonna tell me that snorting Sweet Tarts causes cancer! Don't take all my fun away!
 
Originally posted by Suezoled [/i]


>>No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

Comment: Naivete cubed.


-- Rouser
 
Mark said:
Good news: they are getting better and better at detecting tumors and the earlier they are detected, the more effective the treatments. If you ever receive that horrible news (I did) you can fight back!

Bad news: there are ignorant cretins in the world who are trying to discourage this.
Click to expand...


Like the Danish researcher-cretins who found that the notion that mammograms save lives is unproven and based on faulty research.

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


>>No matter what you believe, the government is not out to give the population cancer. If they were, don't you think... no, wait... nevermind.

Comment: Naivete cubed.


-- Rouser
Click to expand...

Comment: I rest my case
 
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
 
"Rouser" will not cause massive headaches. It's the material he presents on such an insane level that causes electro-chemical reactions that induce pain.
 
Rouser2 said:



Like the Danish researcher-cretins who found that the notion that mammograms save lives is unproven and based on faulty research.

-- Rouser
Click to expand...

You are starting from a faulty and biased premise: that any program which receives government money is tainted and therefore useless. This is Libertarian dogma and, to anyone who is even slightly familiar with the state of cancer research, utterly absurd.

I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend. However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease. So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

If you want to be a troll, that is your business; but with this topic you are playing a dangerous game with people's lives and you should be ashamed of yourself. Not that you will, of course. Libertarian idiot.
 
Originally posted by Mark [/i]


>>I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend.

So you're not familiar with the study, yet you feel qualified not only to comment on it, but to denigrate it. And just what government school did you attend?


>> However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease.


The key word is "slight." What does "slight" mean? Is there a percentage range for "slight"?? Is 5, 10, 25 percent "slight"???? Or are you just parroting Modern Medicine's rationalizations ???

>> So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

A familiar cliche. That's what Modern Medicine says regarding any number of dangerous diagnostic procedures. But is it true? As to mammograms, the Danish study says there is no evidence of such benefits. But you, who are not familiar with the study, say that's just wrong.

>>My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

Anecdotal evidence can be countered with contrary anecdotal evidence. And how do you really if know you even had the big "C"???

>>You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

I only wish my "uninformed rantings" had even made a dent on my own brother's situation, but to no avail. I don't tell anyone what to do. That's what Modern Medicine does. I only suggest that people be fully informed. Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation. In other words, it might be a good idea to think twice.


-- Rouser
 
Rouser2 said:
Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation.
Click to expand...
Now there's a piece of good advice from an unlikely source.

Just think about the motivation of the people charging large amounts of money to desperate people for unproven and quack remedies. And as far as evidence (or lack thereof) goes, there are some excellent resources. This is a good one.

Rouser, we're all desperately sorry that it didn't work out for your brother. But wake up and smell the coffee. Millions of dedicated professional scientists and doctors, lumped together as "modern medicine", have been responsible for a huge proportion of the improvement in our general quality of life over the past hundred years or so. Many of these people work for a pittance trying to bring decent health care to the third world. Even the ones making a nice living in the developed world, by and large, care about their patients. If they didn't, they would have gone into something with more regular hours.

I know medical researchers. If they could invent themselves out of a job tomorrow, they'd die happy. Of course that's unlikely. There's far too much still to tackle for anyone who conquers a serious disease to fear any more than a Nobel Prize and a change of speciality. But from the days when the 19th century doctors fought to get midwives and other birth attendants to take proper hygienic precautions to avoid puerperal fever, even though they themselves would make money if called to a case of puerperal fever, stamping out disease has been a genuine desire.

I can't quite understand where you got these twisted ideas from. But open your eyes and look around you, if you can.

Rolfe.
 
Rouser2 said:
Originally posted by Mark [/i]


>>I can't speak directly to this Danish study...although from what I have seen, on the surface, you are drawing conclusions that the researchers did not intend.

So you're not familiar with the study, yet you feel qualified not only to comment on it, but to denigrate it. And just what government school did you attend?


>> However, I will say that all cancer treatments/therapies/etc., carry some slight risk of actually causing the disease.


The key word is "slight." What does "slight" mean? Is there a percentage range for "slight"?? Is 5, 10, 25 percent "slight"???? Or are you just parroting Modern Medicine's rationalizations ???

>> So does just being alive. But...those risks are FAR outweighed by the benefits of early detection and treatment.

A familiar cliche. That's what Modern Medicine says regarding any number of dangerous diagnostic procedures. But is it true? As to mammograms, the Danish study says there is no evidence of such benefits. But you, who are not familiar with the study, say that's just wrong.

>>My own case is a good example...the disease was caught so early that I never even had to have chemo or radiation at all. If I had followed your line of thinking, I would never have had the tests in the first place and would quite likely be dead in the next 2-3 years.

Anecdotal evidence can be countered with contrary anecdotal evidence. And how do you really if know you even had the big "C"???

>>You are speaking from extreme ignorance and the thought that your uninformed rantings might actually influence someone against being tested is making me very angry indeed.

I only wish my "uninformed rantings" had even made a dent on my own brother's situation, but to no avail. I don't tell anyone what to do. That's what Modern Medicine does. I only suggest that people be fully informed. Consider all sides, opinions, evidence or lack thereof. And, of course, consider the source -- and the motivation. In other words, it might be a good idea to think twice.


-- Rouser
Click to expand...

You're an idiot.
 
Hey, I missed out here. Been busy bashing anti-vaxxers on a humanist board, you know.

Hmm, now rouser is an expert on cancer, and breast cancer at that. :dl:


Well, I'd go on about prostate cancer, but I'm sure rouser can find a cause for that in how doctors ***cough*** screen for that :D
 
Rolfe said:
We all have a fatal disease. It's called "life". :D

Rolfe.
Click to expand...
Youp! A sexually transmitted sufferance with a fatal outcome. No more no less.

Hans
 
The Central Scrutinizer said:


It took you this long to figure it out? :D
Click to expand...

My excuse is that I have been without caffeine for 4 days now. Ugh. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom