FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » diseases » cancer
Steady Diet of Soy Cuts Breast Cancer Risk
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 21 of 23 [331 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Next
Author Message
Orac
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

In article <1grgscl.9kj86v1q7svseN%down@thekraal.com>,
down@thekraal.com (madiba) wrote:

Quote:
Peter Moran <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote:

I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be
more likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at
initial consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible
diagnosis. Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other
diagnostic pathways that will include more formal excision-biopsies
such as excision following needle localisation.

Is that the way things happen at your end? I would've thought that
someone presenting with a large tumour was scheduled for the op right
away, with a pre-op frozen section/ biopsy to insure the diagnosis is
correct.

You cannot really talk turkey to patients about treatment options until you
have a pretty certain diagnosis. The stress for these women is bad enough
without asking them to try and deal with hypothetical situations. There
are other arguments against a rushed approach.

To be more precise: Patients usually present with the large breast
tumour AND a recent mammography. So one has a tentative
clinical-radiological diagnosis. If its as advanced as it looks saving
time is vital, so one schedules surgery. Depending on the local
infrastructure the woman has between a couple of days to a
week or two before the operation. This time could be used for further
(non-invasive) diagnostics such as MRI, sono, some even do tumour
markers to confirm the tent. diagnosis. We're talking 90% or higher
chance of tumour now, so the lumpectomy/quad.resection/mastectomy can be
discussed and planned.
Intraop SLNode and tumour biopsy sent for frozen sections and off you
go. One could argue that the rushed core biopsy in the practice is the
one leading to the aformentioned problems with unnecessary LN mets.

One could argue that, but one would very likely be wrong. If memory
serves me correctly and you're talking about the same paper I think
you're talking about, the phenomenon in the paper that you mentioned are
not true sentinel lymph node metastases. Sentinel lymph node metastases
are defined as being at least 0.2 mm in size. Anything less is not
considered a metastasis. What was described in the paper was small
clusters of cells, sometimes even individual cells, visible using only
special immunohistochemical stains, if I recall that paper correctly
from when I presented it at our journal club last month. There has been
controversy about what to do with these small clusters of cells ever
since the rise of sentinel lymph node biopsy for axillary staging.
Leaving aside the issue of whether the tumor was manipulated before SLN
biopsy, these the reason we're probably picking these cells up more
frequently is because the sentinel node is sectioned very finely,
whereas in the past, when axillary dissection was the standard of care,
each node would only have one or two sections made. Also, if I recall
the paper correctly, most of the cell clusters were subcapsular, which
are also not considered to be metastases, because you can occasionally
find benign breast epithelial cells in the subcapsular sinusoids
regardless. In any case, the staging guidelines chose this cut-off based
on the presently available data.

In any case, the present staging guidelines do not consider cell
clusters under 0.2 mm to be metastases, although they do note them. The
management of these cells is somewhat controversial, because we don't
yet have long-term studies, but the current standard is to note them and
to treat the patient as node-negative. We usually do not recommend a
completion axillary dissection on such patients, although there is
disagreement over whether this is correct, and many surgeons still do
recommend a completion lymphadenectomy.

Also, remember, that is one paper. There are other papers looking at the
same question. The literature is mixed on this question.

Peter is right. It is best to get a diagnosis before offering definitive
surgery, when possible.

--
Orac |"I am not *trying* to tell you anything. I am simply not
| interested in trying to compensate for your amazing lack
| of observation."
| http://oracknows.blogspot.com
Back to top
madiba
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 203

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Sunshine might stop skin cancers Reply with quote

Tim Campbell <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Quote:
There are many factors involved in the etiology of melanoma. Some years
back there was a study done in the Australian Navy that showed that
those who served on submarines had a greater likelihood of developing
melanoma than those who served on ships.

Well.. maybe the fair-skinned ones opted for subs in the hope of getting
less sunshine. But these factors can be considered when estimating risk
if the study was done well.

madiba
Back to top
Peter Moran
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grbsxe.17q55r81jbzhzwN%down@thekraal.com...
Quote:
Tim <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The report's authors state: "Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or
large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the
incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical
disruption of the tumor by the needle." This is a discreet way of saying
that needle biopsy, an increasingly common procedure, was itself
responsible for spreading the cancer, although the authors take pains to
qualify this disturbing conclusion by suggesting that not every cluster
of
cancer cells found in the regional lymph nodes will inevitably end up
developing into clinically apparent cancer.
This is the conclusion they reached:
"The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear."

Another point about this 'rigorous' study:
I find the stats unusual to say the least.
I don't use the Wald test myself, but the confidence intervals are
P= .07 for the FNA correlation
P= .04 for the core biopsy correlation
"Tumor size ( P<.001) and grade ( P= .06) also were significant
prognostic factors. "

IMHO this shows a highly significant correlation between mets in the SLN
and TUMOR SIZE -surprise, surprise...
Significant correlation for core biopsies, OK. Just scraped thru the 95%
confidence interval. But neither FNA nor tumor grade are significant
factors.

So there might be something to zapping breast tumors with big fat core
biopsy needles. If anyones seen the latest craze amongst the breast
radiologists (Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy) realises this approach may be
going too far. They drill out so much material that often nothings left
for the surgeons to operate.... Which brings us back to the authors - a
bunch of surgeons. Need I say more?

No need for the slur on surgeons. They have reported the material very
honestly, while allowing that this retrospective study may merely be
reflecting the results of unknown processes of selection.

I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be more
likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at initial
consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible diagnosis.
Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other diagnostic pathways
that will include more formal excision-biopsies such as excision following
needle localisation. As you have pointed out, tumour size is such a
dominant influence and the other statistical associations so weak that a
very few cases of such selection would be enough to explain the findings.

Another problem is that it is macrometastases that appeared to be increased,
rather than the expected micrometastases, in such a short time frame.

The authors are not changing their practices and nor should they on the
basis of this study. I guess, however, someone will have to do a
randomised trial.

Peter Moran
Back to top
eveline
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

"Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote in message
news:42013f60$0$259$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...
Quote:

"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grbsxe.17q55r81jbzhzwN%down@thekraal.com...
Tim <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The report's authors state: "Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or
large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the
incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical
disruption of the tumor by the needle." This is a discreet way of
saying
that needle biopsy, an increasingly common procedure, was itself
responsible for spreading the cancer, although the authors take pains
to
qualify this disturbing conclusion by suggesting that not every cluster
of
cancer cells found in the regional lymph nodes will inevitably end up
developing into clinically apparent cancer.
This is the conclusion they reached:
"The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear."

Another point about this 'rigorous' study:
I find the stats unusual to say the least.
I don't use the Wald test myself, but the confidence intervals are
P= .07 for the FNA correlation
P= .04 for the core biopsy correlation
"Tumor size ( P<.001) and grade ( P= .06) also were significant
prognostic factors. "

IMHO this shows a highly significant correlation between mets in the SLN
and TUMOR SIZE -surprise, surprise...
Significant correlation for core biopsies, OK. Just scraped thru the 95%
confidence interval. But neither FNA nor tumor grade are significant
factors.

So there might be something to zapping breast tumors with big fat core
biopsy needles. If anyones seen the latest craze amongst the breast
radiologists (Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy) realises this approach may be
going too far. They drill out so much material that often nothings left
for the surgeons to operate.... Which brings us back to the authors - a
bunch of surgeons. Need I say more?

No need for the slur on surgeons. They have reported the material very
honestly, while allowing that this retrospective study may merely be
reflecting the results of unknown processes of selection.

I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be
more
likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at initial
consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible diagnosis.
Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other diagnostic pathways
that will include more formal excision-biopsies such as excision following
needle localisation. As you have pointed out, tumour size is such a
dominant influence and the other statistical associations so weak that a
very few cases of such selection would be enough to explain the findings.

Another problem is that it is macrometastases that appeared to be
increased,
rather than the expected micrometastases, in such a short time frame.

The authors are not changing their practices and nor should they on the
basis of this study. I guess, however, someone will have to do a
randomised trial.

Peter Moran


Would this finding suggest that radiation prior to any surgical intervention

be prudent?
After all radiation has its own side effects and hazards....and then the
biopsy would not have been possible.
I felt more comfortable about my daughters biopsy when she was admitted
rapidly and the lumpectomy done in a couple days. Her lymph nodes showed no
signs of 'her 2 neu', although 8 were removed along with the sentinal node.


eveline
Back to top
madiba
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 203

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

eveline <evelinep@infinet.com> wrote:

Quote:
"Peter Moran" <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote in message
news:42013f665585@uq-127creek-reader-03.brisbane.pipenetworks.com.au...

"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grbsxe.17q55r81jbzhzwN%down@thekraal.com...
Tim <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The report's authors state: "Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or
large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the
incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical
disruption of the tumor by the needle." This is a discreet way of
saying
that needle biopsy, an increasingly common procedure, was itself
responsible for spreading the cancer, although the authors take pains
to
qualify this disturbing conclusion by suggesting that not every cluster
of
cancer cells found in the regional lymph nodes will inevitably end up
developing into clinically apparent cancer.
This is the conclusion they reached:
"The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear."

Another point about this 'rigorous' study:
I find the stats unusual to say the least.
I don't use the Wald test myself, but the confidence intervals are
P= .07 for the FNA correlation
P= .04 for the core biopsy correlation
"Tumor size ( P<.001) and grade ( P= .06) also were significant
prognostic factors. "

IMHO this shows a highly significant correlation between mets in the SLN
and TUMOR SIZE -surprise, surprise...
Significant correlation for core biopsies, OK. Just scraped thru the 95%
confidence interval. But neither FNA nor tumor grade are significant
factors.

So there might be something to zapping breast tumors with big fat core
biopsy needles. If anyones seen the latest craze amongst the breast
radiologists (Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy) realises this approach may be
going too far. They drill out so much material that often nothings left
for the surgeons to operate.... Which brings us back to the authors - a
bunch of surgeons. Need I say more?

No need for the slur on surgeons. They have reported the material very
honestly, while allowing that this retrospective study may merely be
reflecting the results of unknown processes of selection.

I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be
more
likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at initial
consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible diagnosis.
Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other diagnostic pathways
that will include more formal excision-biopsies such as excision following
needle localisation. As you have pointed out, tumour size is such a
dominant influence and the other statistical associations so weak that a
very few cases of such selection would be enough to explain the findings.

Another problem is that it is macrometastases that appeared to be
increased,
rather than the expected micrometastases, in such a short time frame.

The authors are not changing their practices and nor should they on the
basis of this study. I guess, however, someone will have to do a
randomised trial.

Peter Moran


Would this finding suggest that radiation prior to any surgical intervention
be prudent?
After all radiation has its own side effects and hazards....and then the
biopsy would not have been possible.
I felt more comfortable about my daughters biopsy when she was admitted
rapidly and the lumpectomy done in a couple days. Her lymph nodes showed no
signs of 'her 2 neu', although 8 were removed along with the sentinal node.

One would think it speaks for radiation before surgery, but
1) no radiation oncologist wants to get to work without seeing positive
histology, meaning a FNA or core biopsy beforehand..
2) For breast cancer, pre-operative radiation (and chemo) has only been
shown to be beneficial in advanced cases with lymphangiosis, the
so-called inflammatory BC.
--
madiba
Back to top
madiba
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 203

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

Peter Moran <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote:

Quote:
"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grbsxe.17q55r81jbzhzwN%down@thekraal.com...
Tim <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The report's authors state: "Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or
large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the
incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical
disruption of the tumor by the needle." This is a discreet way of saying
that needle biopsy, an increasingly common procedure, was itself
responsible for spreading the cancer, although the authors take pains to
qualify this disturbing conclusion by suggesting that not every cluster
of
cancer cells found in the regional lymph nodes will inevitably end up
developing into clinically apparent cancer.
This is the conclusion they reached:
"The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear."

Another point about this 'rigorous' study:
I find the stats unusual to say the least.
I don't use the Wald test myself, but the confidence intervals are
P= .07 for the FNA correlation
P= .04 for the core biopsy correlation
"Tumor size ( P<.001) and grade ( P= .06) also were significant
prognostic factors. "

IMHO this shows a highly significant correlation between mets in the SLN
and TUMOR SIZE -surprise, surprise...
Significant correlation for core biopsies, OK. Just scraped thru the 95%
confidence interval. But neither FNA nor tumor grade are significant
factors.

So there might be something to zapping breast tumors with big fat core
biopsy needles. If anyones seen the latest craze amongst the breast
radiologists (Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy) realises this approach may be
going too far. They drill out so much material that often nothings left
for the surgeons to operate.... Which brings us back to the authors - a
bunch of surgeons. Need I say more?

No need for the slur on surgeons.
You missed the disclaimer..


Quote:
They have reported the material very
honestly, while allowing that this retrospective study may merely be
reflecting the results of unknown processes of selection.
True, apart from the sloppy stats.


Quote:
I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be more
likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at initial
consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible diagnosis.
Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other diagnostic pathways
that will include more formal excision-biopsies such as excision following
needle localisation.
Is that the way things happen at your end? I would've thought that

someone presenting with a large tumour was scheduled for the op right
away, with a pre-op frozen section/ biopsy to insure the diagnosis is
correct.

Quote:
As you have pointed out, tumour size is such a
dominant influence and the other statistical associations so weak that a
very few cases of such selection would be enough to explain the findings.
Another problem is that it is macrometastases that appeared to be increased,
rather than the expected micrometastases, in such a short time frame.

The authors are not changing their practices and nor should they on the
basis of this study. I guess, however, someone will have to do a
randomised trial.
--

madiba
Back to top
Peter Moran
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 109

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grfbwi.wqdyxcy61jl0N%down@thekraal.com...
Quote:
Peter Moran <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote:

"madiba" <down@thekraal.com> wrote in message
news:1grbsxe.17q55r81jbzhzwN%down@thekraal.com...
Tim <timcall@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

The report's authors state: "Manipulation of an intact tumor by FNA or
large-gauge needle core biopsy is associated with an increase in the
incidence of SN metastases, perhaps due in part to the mechanical
disruption of the tumor by the needle." This is a discreet way of
saying
that needle biopsy, an increasingly common procedure, was itself
responsible for spreading the cancer, although the authors take pains
to
qualify this disturbing conclusion by suggesting that not every
cluster
of
cancer cells found in the regional lymph nodes will inevitably end up
developing into clinically apparent cancer.
This is the conclusion they reached:
"The clinical significance of this phenomenon is unclear."

Another point about this 'rigorous' study:
I find the stats unusual to say the least.
I don't use the Wald test myself, but the confidence intervals are
P= .07 for the FNA correlation
P= .04 for the core biopsy correlation
"Tumor size ( P<.001) and grade ( P= .06) also were significant
prognostic factors. "

IMHO this shows a highly significant correlation between mets in the
SLN
and TUMOR SIZE -surprise, surprise...
Significant correlation for core biopsies, OK. Just scraped thru the
95%
confidence interval. But neither FNA nor tumor grade are significant
factors.

So there might be something to zapping breast tumors with big fat core
biopsy needles. If anyones seen the latest craze amongst the breast
radiologists (Vacuum-Assisted Biopsy) realises this approach may be
going too far. They drill out so much material that often nothings left
for the surgeons to operate.... Which brings us back to the authors -
a
bunch of surgeons. Need I say more?

No need for the slur on surgeons.
You missed the disclaimer..

They have reported the material very
honestly, while allowing that this retrospective study may merely be
reflecting the results of unknown processes of selection.
True, apart from the sloppy stats.

I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be
more
likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at initial
consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible diagnosis.
Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other diagnostic pathways
that will include more formal excision-biopsies such as excision
following
needle localisation.
Is that the way things happen at your end? I would've thought that
someone presenting with a large tumour was scheduled for the op right
away, with a pre-op frozen section/ biopsy to insure the diagnosis is
correct.

You cannot really talk turkey to patients about treatment options until you
have a pretty certain diagnosis. The stress for these women is bad enough
without asking them to try and deal with hypothetical situations. There
are other arguments against a rushed approach.

Peter Mroan
Back to top
madiba
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 05 Jul 2005
Posts: 203

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Needle Biopsies Spread Cancer Reply with quote

Peter Moran <moringa@gil.com.au> wrote:

Quote:
I can suggest one. Larger tumours will be easier to feel and will be
more likely to be subjected to immediate needle or core biopsy at
initial consultations in the interests of having the earliest possible
diagnosis. Less easy to feel (smaller) lumps will go into other
diagnostic pathways that will include more formal excision-biopsies
such as excision following needle localisation.

Is that the way things happen at your end? I would've thought that
someone presenting with a large tumour was scheduled for the op right
away, with a pre-op frozen section/ biopsy to insure the diagnosis is
correct.

You cannot really talk turkey to patients about treatment options until you
have a pretty certain diagnosis. The stress for these women is bad enough
without asking them to try and deal with hypothetical situations. There
are other arguments against a rushed approach.

To be more precise: Patients usually present with the large breast
tumour AND a recent mammography. So one has a tentative
clinical-radiological diagnosis. If its as advanced as it looks saving
time is vital, so one schedules surgery. Depending on the local
infrastructure the woman has between a couple of days to a
week or two before the operation. This time could be used for further
(non-invasive) diagnostics such as MRI, sono, some even do tumour
markers to confirm the tent. diagnosis. We're talking 90% or higher
chance of tumour now, so the lumpectomy/quad.resection/mastectomy can be
discussed and planned.
Intraop SLNode and tumour biopsy sent for frozen sections and off you
go. One could argue that the rushed core biopsy in the practice is the
one leading to the aformentioned problems with unnecessary LN mets.

madiba
Back to top
J
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Bexxar Reply with quote

JJ wrote:

Quote:
How much does it cost?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7530854
By Karla Gale

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The Bexxar therapeutic regimen
(GlaxoSmithKline), which combines the anti-CD20 antibody tositumomab with
radioactive iodine, can induce prolonged remissions in patients with
follicular lymphoma when used as a first-line therapy, according to the
results of a drug trial reported in The New England Journal of Medicine.

"This appears to be as good as any state-of-the-art chemotherapy regimen
that's out there for follicular lymphoma," Dr. Mark S. Kaminski told
Reuters Health. And with minimal side effects, "it's very
patient-friendly," he added.

Kaminski, an oncologist at the University of Michigan Medical Center in
Ann Arbor, and colleagues enrolled 76 previously untreated patients who
had advanced cases (stage III or IV) follicular lymphoma. The treatment
involved two infusions of Bexxar given approximately one week apart.

Seventy-two patients (95 percent) responded to treatment, and 57 (75
percent) had complete responses. The five-year progression-free survival
rate was 59 percent overall, and 77 percent for patients who had a
complete response. The overall five-year survival rate was 89 percent.

The annual relapse rate declined progressively over time, the authors
note, from 15 percent during the first year to 4.4 percent per year after
3 years.

Side effects were moderate and reversible, and no patients required blood
transfusions or treatment with blood cell growth factors. Furthermore,
"there was no hair loss and only minimal nausea," Kaminski added.

These results "compare favorably" with other first-line therapies for this
type of lymphoma, the authors note.

However, Kaminski stressed that "this article is not advocating Bexxar as
front-line treatment, but it opens the door for further clinical trials so
we can best determine which of the many different approaches to use for
this kind of lymphoma and in what sequence."

But perhaps the "bigger message," he added, is that "this is so effective
up front, don't wait until the last minute to give this to your patients.
Move it further up in the treatment plan."

In a related editorial, Dr. Joseph M. Connors, from the University of
British Columbia in Vancouver, cautions that the superiority of this new
treatment stills needs to be verified with additional "carefully designed"
trials.

Also, Connors added that an economic analysis is needed "to answer the
important question of cost for this potentially very expensive new
treatment."

SOURCE: The New England Journal of Medicine, February 3, 2005.
Back to top
J
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: What would have really helped immediately after diagnosis? Reply with quote

zwalanga@yahoo.com wrote:

Quote:
snip> What needs to be changed about that...

...and how can I do it?

Go read the breast cancer newsgroup. That's where the replies to this
thread are.
J
Back to top
Mary Fisher
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: What would have really helped immediately after diagnosis? Reply with quote

<zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107885102.704926.226050@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
What a wonderful question! You must be a teacher, or perhaps I should
say; You *are* a teacher. Thank you for asking...

I have had three life-altering illnesses. The word phoenix doesn't
begin to describe it. Thoughout those illnesses (one with which I still
cope, and now, a new one), thoughout illnesses in loved ones with which
I must cope too, the one constant has been action. What is this? What
do we know? What do we *not* know and more importantly, WHY do we not
know? What is good about the information we have? What needs to be
changed about that...

...and how can I do it?

Stop listening to Donald Rumslfeld!.

Mary
Quote:

Zee
Back to top
Robert Cohen
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 116

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: European Cell Phone Study Reply with quote

Robert Cohen wrote:
Quote:

http://www.reuters.co.uk/printerFriendlyPopup.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyI
D=7141560

a sort of follow-up/update of the above reteurs, december 04, article,
a phenomena i've been worrying about since the ..1970s? (or whenever
the miraculous--too good to be "true"--analog cellular phone hooked me)

Do phones harm children's brains?
By _DONNA GORDON BLANKINSHIP, Associated Press
March 21, 2005

SEATTLE - Parents should think twice before giving in to a
middle-schooler's demands for a cell phone, some scientists say,
because potential long-term health risks remain unclear.

Researchers have speculated for more than 10 years that the
electromagnetic radiation emitted from cell phones may damage DNA and
cause benign brain tumors, said Henry Lai, a bioengineering professor
at the University of Washington.


Advertisement



"We don't know very much about the health effects of cell-phone use on
kids, but there are speculations," Lai said.

In Britain, the chairman of the National Radiological Protection Board
advised in January that parents should not give mobile phones to
children age 8 or younger as a precaution against the potential harm of
radiation from the devices.

When you use a cell phone, 70 to 80 percent of the energy emitted from
the antenna is absorbed by the head, Lai said.

Last week, a federal appeals court in Maryland reinstated five
class-action lawsuits claiming that the cell phone industry has failed
to protect consumers from unsafe levels of radiation.

Several research studies have pointed to the potential impacts of
long-term absorption of cell phone-emitted radiation, but little of the
research has focused on the children.

Lai said he was concerned about the impact on children because young
skulls are thinner and the growing brain may be more susceptible to
radiation.

He also said that because brain tumors usually take 30-40 years to
develop, children who use cell phones from their teen years onward
would have a longer period of time to see a cumulative impact.

"We don't know if kids are really more susceptible," Lai said, but he
encourages everyone to use a headset to keep the antenna away from the
brain, "even if they're not cool."

Most research on the subject has stopped in the United States except
for some work supported by the cell phone industry, he added.
Independent studies continue in Europe.

A Swedish study published in October suggested that people who use a
cell phone for at least 10 years might increase their risk of
developing a rare benign tumor along a nerve on the side of the head
where they hold the phone.

The study's subjects had been using cell phones for at least 10 years,
nearly all analog models that emit more electromagnetic radiation than
the digital models now on the market.

Digital phones emit radiation in pulses; the older analog varieties
emit continuous waves. Since cell phones exploded in popularity in the
late 1990s, most of those sold used digital technology.

Copyright 2005, Associated Press.
Back to top
J
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 612

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Meat diet / cancer / heart disease Reply with quote

"ironjustice@aol.com" wrote:

Quote:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james22.htm

You are seeing this message because Tom Hennessy aka ironjustice@aol.com
has posted a message in
alt.support.cancer
If you are new to this group, then please understand that his posts are
usually about iron, not eating red meat and bloodletting/giving. In his
mind, Hennessy believes he is a great researcher who has won a Nobel
Prize. In fact, he
merely copies medical material from the web and pastes it to usenet,
proudly calling this his research.

Tom's previous begging for funding post follows - he had Google remove it
from the archives - it was reposted by another
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.mult-sclerosis/msg/36b79938fd9ef029

Folow your doctor's instructions about giving blood and diet.

If you have a newsreader that can block his posts, do so.

either use the Message Rules (which is similar to Netscape or Mozilla)
Follow this guideline, for "news" https://support.nuvox.net/index.php/999
to copy/paste the posting name and email address into the rules
Netscape/Firefox/Moxilla is probably, Edit, Filters

Outlook Express possibly Outlook too.
Highlight/select his post.
Click on 'message' between 'tools and help' at the top of OE...
then click on Block Sender..

If you are using newsreader Forte Agent, here's how to plonk his threads
(under that email address).
Global filters in Forte Agent:
(I assume, like other newsreaders one selects that poster's post), then:
It's just 'Ctrl & K' followed by 'I'

The posts may not disappear immediately, only when you exit the newsgroup
and come back in.

If you receive emails from him also, block him in your "Mail".
Previous addresses include watchman@nucleus.com,
thennessy@telus.net, darreltaylor911@hotmail.com and
ironjustice@aol.comdoe
J
Crossposted to 2 newsgroups
Back to top
Jeff
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 25 Mar 2005
Posts: 1313

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Meat diet / cancer / heart disease Reply with quote

"J" <author@anon.inv> wrote in message
news:426409A2.6EC6E9C8@execulink.com...
Quote:
"ironjustice@aol.com" wrote:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james22.htm

You are seeing this message because Tom Hennessy aka ironjustice@aol.com
has posted a message in
alt.support.cancer
If you are new to this group, then please understand that his posts are
usually about iron, not eating red meat and bloodletting/giving. In his
mind, Hennessy believes he is a great researcher who has won a Nobel
Prize. In fact, he
merely copies medical material from the web and pastes it to usenet,
proudly calling this his research.

I haven't seen anything that suggests that Tom thinks he has a noble. While
I question the value of his posts, I don't remember him taking credit for
other people's work.

As far as whether or not we wish to see Tom's posts, I think we can
determine that for ourselves.

Thanks anyway, but I think we can determine if all of Tom's screws are
tight or if we wish to read his posts.

While I think Tom's posts are a waste of electrons, I resent you telling us
what to do.

Jeff

(...)
Back to top
Willcox
medicine forum beginner


Joined: 13 Apr 2005
Posts: 4

PostPosted: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:34 am    Post subject: Re: Meat diet / cancer / heart disease Reply with quote

J <author@anon.inv> wrote:

Quote:
If you have a newsreader that can block his posts, do so.

How do you block people whose names are just one letter?
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 21 of 23 [331 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3, ..., 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Tue Sep 25, 2018 6:58 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » diseases » cancer
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Vegetarian diet for arthritis ironjustice@aol.com nutrition 3 Thu Jul 20, 2006 1:14 am
No new posts Fats in diet stryped@hotmail.com nutrition 5 Wed Jul 19, 2006 6:00 pm
No new posts Diet supplements don't benefit cancer patients: journal J cancer 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:01 am
No new posts Seaweed extract may help halt cervical cancer virus Roman Bystrianyk cancer 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:34 am
No new posts Proteins, linked to pancreatic cancer spread, found J cancer 2 Tue Jul 18, 2006 5:00 pm

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0293s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0052s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]