+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    127

    Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    It seems that cancer rate is increasing in very wealthy people. As physician, I decided to start a scientific study on this subject. Here is what the epidemiological data indicate: 1) Patients are willing to donate their fortune to charity. 2) The family of the "newly diagnosed" cancer patient doesn't want to fulfill the wish of the dying patient. They will keep the money for themselves instead of donating too charity organizations in Africa. 3) Only females cases were reported, 4) the type of cancer is different 5) lack of geographical correlation. (3, 4 and 5 challenge the current knowledge in cancer biology)


    Few cases will provide a good example:

    Susan Morrison - esophageal cancer - London (I received this e-mail today)
    Rosemary King – cancer type? - United Kingdom (read the case in "charity scam")
    Sara Frank - Breast cancer - Netherland -

    I heard about other cases too but it will be nice to document more cases in order to have a representative sample. Since this is an ongoing investigation I will appreciate your input.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    this is so ridiculous. did you know that cancer can strike people whose immune system is too acidic their pH level is in the 6.3 range and below they are eating too much processed foods, not enough raw and fresh, they lack live foods that contain enzymes, their bodies are in a sick stage being too acidic. That is how they get cancers and I put a post on here that early detection is a MYTH, cancers start in the body like for 10 years before they can ever be detected. Those drs that made up this stupid theory need to get an education and start researching instead of making up such stupid statements and you believe that stuff too? These doctors belong in One flew over the coo coo clock retarded stupid morons and idiots.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    i read it online that it is a myth the cancers start from a tiny dot they grow in the body slowly you dont feel it the report stated here it grows and grows it grows in the body for 10 years the cancer so to say that early detection no such thing as early detection because no sort of instrument that they use to detect cancers can be found because it is so tiny you see, you can have cancer but the imaging instrument can not see it at all so many myths about things. i read here that mammograms are killling women, and the bloody dumb hospitals still using that on women for what reason to kill them to make their bloody money women you have to do your searches on line wake up and smell the rats in the medical field and the doctors they know it going to kill you with all the radiation but the drs will inform the women nah just a little won't hurt you them bloody dum liars you can't trust them in the medical fire_ld they are like fire to women lie to them all the time the money is more important to them then your health. i read that chemo therapy will cause 75% of peoople to develop heart problems rememmememember that chemo bs kills the good and bad cells, sure is money maker for the drs and the chemo for the breasts heck another set back does not a bloody thing and they know it cancer is full of poopo

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,773

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    Quote Originally Posted by galaxy
    this is so ridiculous. did you know that cancer can strike people whose immune system is too acidic their pH level is in the 6.3 range and below they are eating too much processed foods, not enough raw and fresh, they lack live foods that contain enzymes, their bodies are in a sick stage being too acidic. That is how they get cancers and I put a post on here that early detection is a MYTH, cancers start in the body like for 10 years before they can ever be detected. Those drs that made up this stupid theory need to get an education and start researching instead of making up such stupid statements and you believe that stuff too? These doctors belong in One flew over the coo coo clock retarded stupid morons and idiots.
    Could you recommend me some websites on this?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,773

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    Quote Originally Posted by galaxy
    i read it online that it is a myth the cancers start from a tiny dot they grow in the body slowly you dont feel it the report stated here it grows and grows it grows in the body for 10 years the cancer so to say that early detection no such thing as early detection because no sort of instrument that they use to detect cancers can be found because it is so tiny you see, you can have cancer but the imaging instrument can not see it at all so many myths about things. i read here that mammograms are killling women, and the bloody dumb hospitals still using that on women for what reason to kill them to make their bloody money women you have to do your searches on line wake up and smell the rats in the medical field and the doctors they know it going to kill you with all the radiation but the drs will inform the women nah just a little won't hurt you them bloody dum liars you can't trust them in the medical fire_ld they are like fire to women lie to them all the time the money is more important to them then your health. i read that chemo therapy will cause 75% of peoople to develop heart problems rememmememember that chemo bs kills the good and bad cells, sure is money maker for the drs and the chemo for the breasts heck another set back does not a bloody thing and they know it cancer is full of poopo
    Any websites would be appreciated. And I heard that, for all practical purposes that 'cancer' is now considered an epidemic. Not sure.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    Quote Originally Posted by EveryKnee
    Any websites would be appreciated. And I heard that, for all practical purposes that 'cancer' is now considered an epidemic. Not sure.
    Read full post here

    http://www.newstarget.com/010886.html

    Breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of 44 and 55.

    The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still high and the amount of harmful radiation used in the procedure.


    Effectiveness
    Is mammography an effective tool for detecting tumors? Some critics say no. In a Swedish study of 60,000 women, 70 percent of the mammographically detected tumors weren't tumors at all. These "false positives" aren't just financial and emotional strains, they may also lead to many unnecessary and invasive biopsies. In fact, 70 to 80 percent of all positive mammograms do not, upon biopsy, show any presence of cancer.

    Radiation Risks
    Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.
    According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topic.


    Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

    Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.



    Statistics
    While the number of deaths caused by breast cancer has decreased, the incidence of breast cancer is still rising. Since 1940, the incidence of breast cancer has risen by one to two percent every year. Between 1973 and 1991, the incidence of breast cancer in females over 65 rose nearly 40 percent in the United States.
    Some researchers attribute this increase to better detection technologies; i.e., as the number of women screened for breast cancer rises, so does the number of reported cases. Other analysts say the correlation between mammographic screening and increases in breast cancer is much more ominous, suggesting radiation exposure is responsible for the growing number of cases.
    The majority of health experts agree that the risk of breast cancer for women under 35 is not high enough to warrant the risk of radiation exposure. Similarly, the risk of breast cancer to women over 55 justifies the risk of mammograms. The statistics about mammography and women between the ages of 40 and 55 are the most contentious.

    New Screening Technologies
    While screening is an important step in fighting breast cancer, many researchers are looking for alternatives to mammography. Burton Goldberg totes the safety and accuracy of new thermography technologies. Able to detect cancers at a minute physical stage of development, thermography does not use x-rays, nor is there any compression of the breast. Also important, new thermography technologies do not lose effectiveness with dense breast tissue, decreasing the chances of false-negative results.
    Some doctors are now offering digital mammograms. Digital mammography is a mammography system in which x-ray film is replaced by solid-state detectors that convert x-rays into electric signals. Though radiation is still used, digital mammography requires a much smaller dose. The electrical signals are used to produce images that can be electronically manipulated; a physician can zoom in, magnify and optimize different parts of breast tissue without having to take an additional image.


    The experts speak on mammograms and breast cancer:
    Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
    The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
    In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.

    "The risk of radiation-induced breast cancer has long been a concern to mammographers and has driven the efforts to minimize radiation dose per examination," the panel explained. "Radiation can cause breast cancer in women, and the risk is proportional to dose. The younger the woman at the time of exposure, the greater her lifetime risk for breast cancer.

    Mammograms Add to Cancer Risk—mammography exposes the breast to damaging ionizing radiation. John W. Gofman, M.D., Ph.D., an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, spent 30 years studying the effects of low-dose radiation on humans. He estimates that 75% of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation from mammography, X rays, and other medical sources. Other research has shown that, since mammographic screening was introduced in 1983, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called 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.69 In addition to exposing a woman to harmful radiation, the mammography procedure may help spread an existing mass of cancer cells. During a mammogram, considerable pressure must be placed on the woman's breast, as the breast is squeezed between two flat plastic surfaces. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.

    In fact the benefits of annual screening to women age 40 to 50, who are now being aggressively recruited, are at best controversial. In this age group, one in four cancers is missed at each mammography. Over a decade of pre-menopausal screening, as many as three in 10 women will be mistakenly diagnosed with breast cancer. Moreover, international studies have shown that routine premenopausal mammography is associated with increased breast cancer death rates at older ages.

    1) Few radiologists are able to read mammogams correctly, therefore limiting their effectiveness. Even the man who developed this technique stated on national television that only about six radiologists in the United States could read them correctly. 2) In addition, each time the breasts are exposed to an x-ray, the risk of breast cancer increases by 2 percent.

    Mammography itself is radiation: an X-ray picture of the breast to detect a potential tumor. Each woman must weigh for herself the risks and benefits of mammography. As with most carcinogens, there is a latency period or delay between the time of irradiation and the occurrence of breast cancer. This delay can vary up to decades for different people. Response to radiation is especially dramatic in children. Women who received X-rays of the breast area as children have shown increased rates of breast cancer as adults. The first increase is reflected in women younger than thirty-five, who have early onset breast cancer. But for this exposed group, flourishing breast cancer rates continue for another forty years or longer.


    The use of women as guinea pigs is familiar. There is revealing consistency between the tamoxifen trial and the 1970s trial by the NCI and American Cancer Society involving high-dose mammography of some 300,000 women. Not only is there little evidence of effectiveness of mammography in premeno-pausal women, despite NCI's assurances no warnings were given of the known high risks of breast cancer from the excessive X-ray doses then used. There has been no investigation of the incidence of breast cancer in these high-risk women.





    Posted by Jane
    [email protected]
    Last edited by LosLobos6; 11-13-2006 at 05:10 AM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    5,840

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    someone posted this about mamograms at the CT forum here, it is back in the back pages. also i posted at the government forum that early detection is a myth it takes a cancer growth to start growing it is the size of a dot and no machine can detect it, the tumor will be noticeable with it has been growing inside the person for 10 years , that is a very long time, so it is a myth to say early detection and you will be safe, but that dang tumor is growing inside a person for ten years. There is a new method mammograms are outdated and not reliaable but still doctors are promotoing this and radiation causes the cancers in the breast as they tell them get one every year or whatever, it is excruciating pain I have heard my co -workers tell me, that is abnormal to subject women to this type of decpetion so they can get cancers hello the doctors want to make money the HELL with you doctors need yoru penis in one of them and see what the hell it feels liek, they make me so crazy mad

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    414

    Re: Rare cancer rate increase in wealthy women

    I agree whole-heartedly Galaxy! As I stated in another thread, everyone is born with cancer cells. Even the healthiest of people have cancer cells. The choice is ours if we want them to multiply. We need to be pro-active in our own health, build healthy cells, alkaline balanced pH, have a healthy & balanced diet with supplementation of the right sources & combinations. People just don't want to hear about how to prevent. If they hear it, they don't want to take action. "Gosh - you mean I can't eat fried chicken & french fries every day. . . . crap. Forget it - gotta die someday anyway." I hear that ignoramous response all the time from idiots who will someday be begging for mercy! I truly don't mean that statement to be maliscious and I don't wish this or any disease on anyone! But, it's the truth. If you don't take care of your body, nourish your cells, and assume responsibility for your health, you will eventually end up with cancer and a whole list of other disorders/diseases!

    Have you ever taken notice on how many people who get cancer many times have also osteoporosis, acid reflux, osteopenia, brittle bones, maybe kidney stones....... Is there a cooralation here? All of those above things have to do with the pH and lack of proper, bio-available calcium in your diet.

    People - take a stand and quit trying to fix yourself AFTER you get sick! Prevent the darn illness! It's soooo much easier to prevent than to cure! You don't have to cure it if you don't get it!

Similar Threads

  1. Can "Wealthy Trader"Really Make You Wealthy?
    By DanMaxwellJr in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-17-2015, 04:16 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-20-2015, 08:02 AM
  3. Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-07-2012, 03:30 PM
  4. Death Panels Begin, Women w/Cancer First Victims
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 09:25 AM
  5. A Rare Win For God
    By pwrone in forum Political Scams
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 05-13-2009, 04:49 PM

Tags for this Thread

Add / Edit Tags
000, accuracy, action, active, africa, age, ages, agree, ain, alkaline, american, annual, another, appreciated, authority, avoiding, bad, begging, belong, benefits, bio, body, brittle, build, bur, called, cancer, care, caused, cer, choice, clock, community, confirms, continue, crap, crazy, cure, dar, day, death, decades, decided, delivered, detected, detectors, development, director, disease, doctors, doesn, don, dont, dot, due, dying, early, eat, education, electric, eme, error, experts, explained, exposes, exposing, extremely, faced, feel, feels, field, financial, fix, fla, flat, forget, fortune, frank, fried, gotta, group, growing, growth, hear, heart, hey, high, highly, huma, humans, hurt, idiots, ill, illness, image, images, immune, important, increase, industry, inter, involving, ion, john, kid, kills, leading, level, line, list, live, london, long, longer, lose, mad, mail, making, mass, mea, medical, menopause, method, myth, nice, notice, ongoing, onli, online, order, organizations, page, pages, penis, people, person, picture, pigs, plastic, point, pos, post, posted, potential, prevent, pro, proper, quit, rains, rare, rats, raw, reason, representative, research, response, responsibility, responsible, results, retarded, revealing, rise, rising, safe, safety, set, sick, small, solid, soooo, sources, spent, stage, stand, star, start, stated, states, step, stones, stuff, stupid, surfaces, system, taken, takes, technologies, thread, times, tissue, told, tribute, truth, tumors, une, united, united kingdom, united states, url, woma, women, won, workers, year, years, zoom

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •