Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

Damn, Jan, haven’t you gotten the message yet?  How many times must Rich spell it out to you?  Despite all your hostility, defamatory, and even libelous comments, he is still reaching out to you.  Please overlook your personal, petty disdain for Rich and choose healing instead.   Admit your hypocrisy, quit wasting your time on Usenet, and go to your parents’ bedside….while there still is time.   You’ll really feel much better and usenet will be here when you have less pressing matters to attend to.   Really, Jan, we’ll be alright here without you for a while. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>   Wow, that’s quite a sophisticated and elegent writing style >>you’ve got there. >He has a way to go before achieving YOUR level of sophistication:- )))) >I am extremely impressed with your ability to cut and paste. Palmer >made a wise choice when they selected you to be in their program. > And not one word of Jason’s abilities to look on numbers of >Aloha, >Rich > Rich doesn’t like this because his style is much the same as in: >>You are a total hypocrite who refuses to discuss topics > You are a total hypocrite. > You are a hypocrite to the nth degree > You are a shameless hypocrite > You are a total hypocrite > to show yourself to be the hypocrite > Hypocrisy at its finest. > But try not to get frustrated with her calling you a hypocrite. > You are just a hypocrite. > You know my name. I don’t know yours. Hypocrite!! > But you are not a hypocrite, now are you??:-))))))))))0 >Right on, Jan!  That mealy mouthed mean-spirited hypocrite > You are a hypocrite. > You are a hypocrite. > You are such a friggin hypocrite. > And he was warning orthers that Diane would call them a

> Rich is indeed a hypocrite. > Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->x-no-archive:  yes >        Oops! Make that *elegant*.  :) >Not only can you cut and paste but you also can use the dictionary. I >am now REALLY impressed!

No you can’t admit your mistakes, on top of theat you use another insult. > And who was it that said that chiropractic students are at the bottom >of the medical professional intelligence totem pole??:-))) >Aloha, >Rich

made a mistake. Arrogance at it’s finest. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Thanks and good night! >Atlas

Response:

Preventing Breast Cancer, The story of a Major, Proven, Preventable Cause of This Disease by Dr Gofman, M.D., Ph.D. http://www.ratical.com/radiation/CNR/PBC/

Response:

>>        Wow, that’s quite a sophisticated and elegent writing style >you’ve got there. >He has a way to go before achieving YOUR level of sophistication:-)))) >I am extremely impressed with your ability to cut and paste. Palmer >made a wise choice when they selected you to be in their program.

And not one word of Jason’s abilities to look on numbers of >Aloha, >Rich

Rich doesn’t like this because his style is much the same as in: >You are a total hypocrite who refuses to discuss topics

You are a total hypocrite. You are a hypocrite to the nth degree You are a shameless hypocrite You are a total hypocrite to show yourself to be the hypocrite Hypocrisy at its finest. But try not to get frustrated with her calling you a hypocrite. You are just a hypocrite. You know my name. I don’t know yours. Hypocrite!! But you are not a hypocrite, now are you??:-))))))))))0 >Right on, Jan!  That mealy mouthed mean-spirited hypocrite

You are a hypocrite. You are a hypocrite. You are such a friggin hypocrite. Rich is indeed a hypocrite. Jan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am not sure if this is true or not but it might be.  I received this > via email from a friend of mine. > rich >I’m not sure if *this* is true, but it’s worth looking into, I think: >"Since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of >ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer >cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of >mammography, reported The Lancet in July, 1995.

This "increase" represents not an increase in cancer, but rather an increase in the DETECTION of cancer.  Note that DCIS is not detectable through any means other than mammography (other than histological examination after biopsy or autopsy). >This increase is for all >women: since the inception of widespread mammographic screening the increase >for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%.

Women are starting screening in their 40s and the cancers are being found immediately. It would take many years of exposure to ionizing radiation through yearly mammograms to develop a cancer and then additional time for that cancer to become visible on mammogram.  The 3000% increase in cancers represents a 3000% increase in detection of pre-existing cancers.  Without mammography, many of these cancers would not have been detected until women entered their 50s and the cancer became palpable — and more advanced.  Note also that a 3000% increase in a fairly rare cancer is still a fairly rare cancer. >According to The >Lancet, even for women over the age of 40 it does more harm than good: "The >benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred >are enormous, [so] we suggest that public funding for breast cancer >screening in any age group is not justifiable."

This Lancet quote is taken out of context.  The "benefit" they are talking about is the detection of very rare pre-menopausal breast cancer.  The "harm" they are addressing is the increase in breast biopsies, cancer fear, etc.  The "cost" they are referring to is the incremental cost of detecting one cancer in a very low risk population as well as the cost of biopsy for benign conditions. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->"How does mammography cause breast cancer? First, because of the mutagenic >effect of the ionizing radiation used in the x-rays. And second, the extreme >mechanical pressure on the breasts during the procedure can cause the >metastasizing of existing cancer cells. This is acknowledged by the American >Cancer Society, but they feel the benefits outweigh the risks–that more >women are saved by the procedure than are killed. Whether this is actually >the case or not is still a matter of controversy. >"For instance, in general, about 40 replications or doublings of the breast >cancer cells create a potentially lethal burden, yet mammography cannot >detect a mass until 25 to 30 such doublings have already occurred. By this >time, the cancer is far less treatable than it would have been after 15 to >20 doublings.

This statement implies that mammography isn’t perfect.  That may be right, but currently it is the best available technique. >"There is an alternative medical technique that is able to detect breast >cancer earlier: advanced thermography. Thermography uses natural infrared >radiation from the body and, by measuring temperature variations, can spot >abnormalities. Without using any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure, >the latest thermographic equipment can see breast cancer developing years >before mammography could image a tumor. Thermography accomplishes this >because it is able to detect the beginnings of angiogenesis, when cancer >cells first try to form their own blood supply–a necessary step before they >can grow rapidly and metastasize.

That’s nice and there are several other methods, both radiographic and non-radiographic, undergoing trials right now.  I hope that some of these new technique proves to be even more sensitive than mammography. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->"Briefly, the pooling of the blood caused by factors secreted by cancer >cells as a prelude to creating blood vessels is not under the control of the >sympathetic nervous system. The normal response of the sympathetic nervous >system to cold is to reduce blood circulation near the surface to conserve >heat. But areas of angiogenesis in the breast are not under control of the >sympathetic nervous system, and are not affected. They will therefore, in >contrast to normal breast tissue, give off a heat signature visible to a >thermographic device." >Congress of the United States >House of Representatives >Committee on Government Reform >Hearing on "Integrative Oncology–Cancer Care for the New Millennium" >June 7 and 8, 2000, Washington, D.C. >Testimony of Burton Goldberg >Founder and CEO of AlternativeMedicine.com

Just because something has been read into the Congressional Record, it does not follow that there is any scientific basis to support it.  It still remains opinion despite the imprimatur of the august House.  However, it was a nice little example of how to lie with staistics.

Response:

>I am not sure if this is true or not but it might be.  I received this via

email from a friend of mine. >rich

Rich, Mammograms are part of the normal, billable health insurance costs for female patients over the age of 35-40..depends exactly on the insurane companies acceptance of earlier screens. Any woman may have one who meets the criteria, paid for by their health insurance. One baseline, and one every year to every 5, if all remains healthy…again, depending on the insurance co. Regardless, there are free screens offered by a *ton* of sponsors now, so mammograms may be obtainable in many areas all over. Call your local American Cancer Society, local State Health Department, Breast Cancer foundations, or ask your doctor/nurse for further info on these free screenings. Another good one is to call any Cancer Treatment Facilities/Oncology Departments of hospitals/clinics as they may do free screenings as well. Peace, Jason

Response:

>Testimony of Burton Goldberg >Founder and CEO of AlternativeMedicine.com>

There you go. >"Since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal

carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography, reported The Lancet in July, 1995.> Bullshit. The "incidence" has increased because mammography can save a woman’s life by detecting these hidden tumors in the first place. >"The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs

incurred are enormous, [so] we suggest that public funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable."> Bullshit. >"How does mammography cause breast cancer? First, because of the mutagenic

effect of the ionizing radiation used in the x-rays.> Bullshit. >And second, the extreme mechanical pressure on the breasts during the

procedure can cause the metastasizing of existing cancer cells.> That is so out of context it is inappropriate. >This is acknowledged by the American Cancer Society,>

No, it is *not*…the claim is taken completely out of context. >but they feel the benefits outweigh the risks–that more women are saved by

the procedure than are killed.> Now, that is the absolute truth. >Whether this is actually the case or not is still a matter of controversy.>

Bullshit…a mammogram can save your life. It can also distinguish between malignant and benign tumors. It can also detect non-palpable intra-ductal papillomas. And on and on..mammograms are the real deal. >"For instance, in general, about 40 replications or doublings of the breast

cancer cells create a potentially lethal burden,> Bullshit…less than 20 is enough. The average doubling time of most solid tumors is about 2 months…undergoing 30 doublings to reach 1cm in diameter..which is palpable without a mammogram. >yet mammography cannot detect a mass until 25 to 30 such doublings have

already occurred…> Bullshit. Contrast dye rewlz. >"There is an alternative medical technique that is able to detect breast

cancer earlier: advanced thermography. > Bullshit. >Thermography uses natural infrared radiation from the body and, by measuring

temperature variations, can spot abnormalities. Without using any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure, the latest thermographic equipment can see breast cancer developing years before mammography could image a tumor.> Bullshit…an oncogene can go carcinogenic in two months or less. >Thermography accomplishes this because it is able to detect the beginnings of

angiogenesis, when cancer cells first try to form their own blood supply-a necessary step before they can grow rapidly and metastasize.> Bullshit… that’s not how an oncogene gets started. Malignant cells need very little oxygen to flourish…anaerobic glycolysis is their thing. The only "step" an malignant cell needs to spread is its loss of contact inhibition and adhesion. >"Briefly, the pooling of the blood caused by factors secreted by cancer

cells as a prelude to creating blood vessels is not under the control of the sympathetic nervous system.> There’s a little more to it than that. >The normal response of the sympathetic nervous system to cold is to reduce

blood circulation near the surface to conserve heat.> Yes…by vasoconstriction. >But areas of angiogenesis in the breast are not under control of the

sympathetic nervous system,> Bullshit. >and are not affected. They will therefore, in contrast to normal breast

tissue, give off a heat signature visible to a thermographic device."> Which doesn’t help or diagnose a thing. Final note: Sorry…this is a deadly serious topic. Peace, Jason

Response:

> I am not sure if this is true or not but it might be.  I received this > via email from a friend of mine. > rich

I’m not sure if *this* is true, but it’s worth looking into, I think: "Since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), which represents 12% of all breast cancer cases, has increased by 328%, and 200% of this increase is due to the use of mammography, reported The Lancet in July, 1995. This increase is for all women: since the inception of widespread mammographic screening the increase for women under the age of 40 has gone up over 3000%. According to The Lancet, even for women over the age of 40 it does more harm than good: "The benefit is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous, [so] we suggest that public funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable." "How does mammography cause breast cancer? First, because of the mutagenic effect of the ionizing radiation used in the x-rays. And second, the extreme mechanical pressure on the breasts during the procedure can cause the metastasizing of existing cancer cells. This is acknowledged by the American Cancer Society, but they feel the benefits outweigh the risks–that more women are saved by the procedure than are killed. Whether this is actually the case or not is still a matter of controversy. "For instance, in general, about 40 replications or doublings of the breast cancer cells create a potentially lethal burden, yet mammography cannot detect a mass until 25 to 30 such doublings have already occurred. By this time, the cancer is far less treatable than it would have been after 15 to 20 doublings. "There is an alternative medical technique that is able to detect breast cancer earlier: advanced thermography. Thermography uses natural infrared radiation from the body and, by measuring temperature variations, can spot abnormalities. Without using any ionizing radiation or mechanical pressure, the latest thermographic equipment can see breast cancer developing years before mammography could image a tumor. Thermography accomplishes this because it is able to detect the beginnings of angiogenesis, when cancer cells first try to form their own blood supply–a necessary step before they can grow rapidly and metastasize. "Briefly, the pooling of the blood caused by factors secreted by cancer cells as a prelude to creating blood vessels is not under the control of the sympathetic nervous system. The normal response of the sympathetic nervous system to cold is to reduce blood circulation near the surface to conserve heat. But areas of angiogenesis in the breast are not under control of the sympathetic nervous system, and are not affected. They will therefore, in contrast to normal breast tissue, give off a heat signature visible to a thermographic device." Congress of the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform Hearing on "Integrative Oncology–Cancer Care for the New Millennium" June 7 and 8, 2000, Washington, D.C. Testimony of Burton Goldberg Founder and CEO of AlternativeMedicine.com

Response:

I am not sure if this is true or not but it might be.  I received this via email from a friend of mine. rich This is an important cause for me, as many of my friends have gone through this.  Please take the time to click on the link so you can donate a mammogram. Thanks, Lise  > Let this be your good deed for today… it only takes a second.  >  >  > Go to the site below. All you do is click a button and a  > woman gets a free  > mammogram at no cost to you. It is paid for by corporate  > sponsors (who gain  > advertising in the process because you see their logo.)  All  > you do is go to  > the site and click on the free button. It takes one second.  > However, you’re  > only allowed one donation so please pass the word.  >  > http://www.thebreastcancersite.com > <http://www.thebreastcancersite.com>

Response: