|
|
  |
Page 6 of 23 [331 Posts]
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:
Previous
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
...,
21,
22,
23
Next
|
| Author |
Message |
Robert Cohen
medicine forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 116
|
 Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 3:46 am Post subject:
Re: Phone Tower EMF and cancer
|
|
|
a
google search got these two old articles, while i realize that cellular
technology has (hopefully)
been made safer
since years 1999 and 2000
these archaic articles contents have been rattling around for years,
and do indicate something of what i fear has/hopefully HAD been the
harsh reality
http://www.wave-guide.org/archives/emf-l/Jan1999/(Maisch)-Brain-tumour-incidence-and-airport-radar-(fwd).html
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/june00cell.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PRSmith
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:55 pm Post subject:
Re: Should Ex-Smokers Worry?
|
|
|
thunderr wrote:
| Quote: | fejjie wrote:
We may all die of lung cancer - we smoked like fools. We may
have killed ourselves. But we'll go to our graves free from
the slavery of addiction and cig smoking - we'll die like men
(and women), with honor...
LOL!!!!!!! That is so funny. Like men ? Obviously you haven't
been around here long. The greatest reason to want to smoke is
to not be like the nazi assholes that inhabit this group.
|
Now there is intelligence speaking {snicker} |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
C.R.U.S.A.D.E.R Australia
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 5
|
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 2:50 pm Post subject:
Re: Phone Tower EMF and cancer
|
|
|
-----------------------
RCohen Wrote:
these archaic articles contents have been rattling around for years,
and do indicate something of what i fear has/hopefully HAD been the
harsh reality
------------------------
Unfortunately Robert, the reality hasn't changed. While I have it on
good authority that mobile technology has improved significantly and
that lower outputs are required for transmission etc, the actual energy
has not diminished since it has been taken up by a greater bandwidth -
3G, Wi Fi, Wireless Broadband etc... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwitteringOne
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 7:03 am Post subject:
Re: How Medical Research Was Misinterpreted to Suggest Scientists Know More Than They Do
|
|
|
"How Medical Research Was Misinterpreted
To Suggest Scientists Know
More Than They Do ~
I suggest no scientist
Is making the claims being attacked
In this piece."
~ Peter Moran
"Too long,
Needs shortening, so claims, I know not."
~ Folly
"What's the P?"
~ Twittering
"As in -----?"
~ Peter Moran
"A dash of Salt, a heck of a lot more Pepper ~
Which, I expect, must do it.
La Feast de Résistance ~ !
And now the problem comes ...
To bite ~ !"
~ Twittering
"A P value
We share."
~ Folly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J
medicine forum addict
Joined: 07 May 2005
Posts: 93
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 7:26 pm Post subject:
Re: Drug Has Amazing Results on Blood Cancer
|
|
|
<"http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20050515.wcancer0515/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/>
Sunday, May 15, 2005 Updated at 6:05 PM EDT
Associated Press
Orlando, Fla. — Doctors were just hoping to treat symptoms when they gave
people with a deadly blood disorder a drug to reduce the need for
transfusions.
To their astonishment, signs of the disease itself disappeared in nearly
half of them.
Specialists said the experimental drug, Revlimid, now looks like a
breakthrough and the first effective treatment for many people with
myelodysplastic syndrome, or MDS, which is even more common than leukemia.
“It may be, if not eradicating the disease, putting it into what I would
call deep remission,” said Dr. David Johnson, a cancer specialist at
Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center who is familiar with but had no role in the
research.
Revlimid “is not yet on the market but almost certainly will be” because of
these findings, he said.
MDS refers to a group of disorders caused by the bone marrow not making
enough healthy, mature blood cells. About 15,000 to 20,000 new cases are
diagnosed each year in the United States, and as many as 50,000 Americans
have it now. They usually suffer anemia and fatigue and need blood
transfusions about every eight weeks to stay alive.
“It's a serious problem, it tends to occur in older people, and it's fatal
for most,” said Dr. Herman Kattlove, a blood disorder specialist at the
American Cancer Society.
Revlimid is similar to thalidomide, a drug notorious for the birth defects
it caused decades ago but that in recent years has proved effective against
another blood cancer, multiple myeloma. Researchers don't really know how
it works other than that it boosts the immune system in a number of ways.
In small studies, Revlimid also showed promise and with far fewer side
effects. In a new study, doctors tested it on 115 people with MDS who have
the most common chromosome abnormality that causes the disease.
After about six months on the drug, 66 per cent no longer needed blood
transfusions, said the study's leader, Dr. Alan List of the H. Lee Moffitt
Cancer Center in Tampa, Fla. A year later, three-fourths of them still
don't need transfusions.
But the big surprise was that signs of the genetic mutation fuelling the
disease diminished in 81 patients and vanished in 51.
“The chromosome abnormality completely disappeared, something we've never
seen before” from a drug aimed just at boosting red blood cells, List said.
Dr. Bruce Johnson of the Dana-Farber Cancer Center in Boston compared it
with what doctors saw in early tests of the drug Gleevec on people with
chronic myelogenous leukemia several years ago.
“If you extrapolate what they saw, it's one of the signs for long
remission,” he said of the abnormality's disappearance.
Dr. Jasmine Zain, a blood specialist from the City of Hope Cancer Center in
New York, said the results warrant further testing on the drug.
“Nowhere do you see 60 to 70 per cent responses,” she said.
About one-third of people on the drug had temporary drops in other blood
cells and clotting components, fixed by briefly interrupting treatment or
lowering the dose.
The study was sponsored by Celgene Corp., which makes Revlimid. List is a
consultant for the company and reported results Sunday at a meeting of the
American Society of Clinical Oncology in Orlando. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ironjustice@aol.com
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1522
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eva
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 17 May 2005
Posts: 39
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 11:53 pm Post subject:
Re: Low Fat Diet May Reduce Breast Cancer Relapse
|
|
|
"Grumpy richard" <grumpyrichard@no.junk.please.grumpyrichard.com> wrote in
message news:KJidnaKamIPnixffRVn-vQ@speakeasy.net...
---------
Well, now, this is better. This says that for people like me who already
have breast cancer, eating a low-fat diet may lower the chance of
recurrence. Okay, <sigh> cancel the quiche, I'll have my usual 97%
fat-free processed turkey sandwich with fake butter. I feel virtuous again.
Eva |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aokay (David G. Bryce)
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Wed May 18, 2005 2:03 am Post subject:
Re: Low Fat Diet May Reduce Breast Cancer Relapse
|
|
|
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:53:00 GMT, "Eva"
<EvaDStructionNO@NOverizon.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
"Grumpy richard" <grumpyrichard@no.junk.please.grumpyrichard.com> wrote in
message news:KJidnaKamIPnixffRVn-vQ@speakeasy.net...
More interesting data from the American Society of Clinical Oncology
meeting:
http://grumpyrichard.com/node/27?PHPSESSID=169cfac040e20af12da3f0afb37272a5
---------
Well, now, this is better. This says that for people like me who already
have breast cancer, eating a low-fat diet may lower the chance of
recurrence. Okay, <sigh> cancel the quiche, I'll have my usual 97%
fat-free processed turkey sandwich with fake butter. I feel virtuous again.
Eva
|
NY Times's email today:
Study of Breast Cancer Patients Finds Benefit in Low-Fat
Diets
By GINA KOLATAand LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN
It was the first time that a large, rigorous study showed
that diet could have any impact on any cancer, scientists
said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/health/17cancer.html?th&emc=th
You need to register to see it, I think, but NYT's registration is
harmless. Site uses NON-tracking cookies -- don't be paranoid.
Interesting article.
aokay
A BC-husband |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I. P. Freely
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 5:48 pm Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
My dual surgery didn't cost either surgeon a cent; each got his full fee (or
would have if he weren't a professor on a salary). The cost savings were in
everything else BUT actual prostate and colon carving -- admin, prep,
anesthesiology, opening, closing, days to weeks of recovery, endless rounds
of teams of physicians, and the potential complications. Any HMO that can't
see that is incompetent.
If my providers and/or insurer refused to do a significant dual procedure
for ANY reason other than hard medical science, I'd be in the faces of the
CEOs of the hospital and the insurer with complete documented estimates of
the known and potential comparative costs. I've been fairly successful* in
combating recalcitrant corporate managers with FACTS, and a CEO's primary
responsibility is maximizing profit.
*How successful? In disputes with > 25 corporations, lawyers, and government
agencies, including such little guys as VISA, Sears, many major oil
corporations and automakers, State Farm, the VA, the Air Force, a pit bull
attorney demanding that I "have my people contact his people", the word's
biggest mortgage company, Winnebago, a city government, Utah, and many more,
my success rate is 100%. My cost? Time and postage. Is it any wonder I rely
so heavily on FACTS? If I were just smart enough, I'd have this computer
spilling its malperforming guts on Michael Dell's and Bill Gates' desks.
My point is that we don't have to tolerate this bureaucratic s**t, and it
seldom requires lawyers. When confronted with hard facts -- and a credible,
specific threat of exposure if appropriate -- most corporate muckey-mucks
see the light. Some are downright apologetic when you convince them they're
screwing you and/or costing themselves money.
Soapbox Off.
I.P.
"Mark & Steven Bornfeld" <bornfeldmung@dentaltwins.com> wrote >
| Quote: | So doctors should make it right out of their own pockets?
BTW, do you work for free too? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Meyer
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 9:43 pm Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
Grumpy Richard wrote:
| Quote: | But hey - when the bill is $30,000, and the surgeon
is reimbursed $1000 an hour, - who can blame them
for doing a lot of extra procedures?
|
You've raised two issues:
1. Should a man over 65 ever get a prostatectomy?
2. Are surgeons doing them for the money, not for
sound medical reasons?
I believe that the answer to 1 has to be resolved on
a case by case basis. Whatever the overall statistics
show, it's very hard for me to believe that not one of
the men who contract terminal prostate cancer after
age 65 could have been saved by treatment. There are
men who are not diagnosed until after age 65, and some
of those men do in fact die of PCa. Some of those
men might die in spite of treatment. But if some
younger men are saved by treatment (which the study
you cite claims is true), then it would be most surprising
if none of the men older than 65 could be saved by
treatment.
It is almost certainly true that some older men diagnosed
with non-aggressive cancers are over treated. It is true
that many of those men would have died of something else
with no treatment - so the treatment was wasted.
But the study doesn't convince me that all of the men
over 65 are in that category - especially those who are
otherwise very healthy and have relatively aggressive
but early stage cancers.
Your second argument seems to me partially, but not
universally, on target. There are too many medical
procedures performed in the U.S. because the doctors
get paid big bucks for it. There are too many doctors
who engage in that practice, and too few controls
to weed out such criminals.
But some controls are possible. I have been told by
a surgeon contracting with my HMO (Kaiser) that he is paid
an annual retainer. He claimed he got no extra money
for performing a surgery than for not performing a
surgery.
I _think_ that both the urologist and the radiation
oncologist that my HMO sent me to recommended treatment
because they believed it would save my life, not because
they hoped to make extra money from my HMO.
Skepticism is smart, but complete cynicism may not be
justified here.
Alan |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I. P. Freely
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 10 May 2005
Posts: 35
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 4:30 am Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
In addition, a 66-yo white male should live about another 17 years ON
AVERAGE -- a couple of years longer than his PC would likely nail him. Gimme
treatment!
I.P.
"OCL" <oregoncatlover@yahoo.com> wrote
| Quote: | Choosing treatment modalities based on actuarial tables just
does not seem wise to me. If the average life expectancy
for this 66 year old man is 76 or so then are you saying that,
based on the statistical probabilities, that he should not have
a prostatectomy? Why would someone make medical
decisions based on the statistical averages? Why assume
that he *only* going to live to 76? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TwitteringOne
medicine forum Guru
Joined: 02 May 2005
Posts: 372
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 5:23 am Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
"How about athletes with familial
Longevity?"
~ I P Freely
"What's that?"
~ Folly
"IP, have we met
Recently? Or, just freely associating, am I?"
~ Twittering |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Grumpy Richard
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 18 May 2005
Posts: 24
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 9:44 am Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
| Quote: | Why would anyone who thinks physicians overtreat for money think
they might not undertreat if they were paid whether they work or not?
Steve
|
Yes, sloth and greed dwell together in the house of human nature. It's
true that as soon as big cash bonuses are no longer paid for unnecessary
procedures, fewer unnecessary procedures will be performed. But, will
too few *necessary* procedures be performed? Fortunately, we have data
to learn from.
The US is the only large first-world country that has "privatized"
medicine. In all other large first-world countries, physicians are
either on salary, or there are strong disincentives to overtreat.
The results? Medical outcomes are at least as good in all other
first-world countries. Probably better, actually. And the cost is half
of healthcare in the US.
Outcomes as good or better... half the cost... in this case, the
evidence seems to point to sloth being preferable to greed in the world
of medicine.
Steven Bornfeld wrote:
| Quote: |
Alan Meyer wrote:
Grumpy Richard wrote:
But hey - when the bill is $30,000, and the surgeon
is reimbursed $1000 an hour, - who can blame them
for doing a lot of extra procedures?
You've raised two issues:
1. Should a man over 65 ever get a prostatectomy?
2. Are surgeons doing them for the money, not for
sound medical reasons?
I believe that the answer to 1 has to be resolved on
a case by case basis. Whatever the overall statistics
show, it's very hard for me to believe that not one of
the men who contract terminal prostate cancer after
age 65 could have been saved by treatment. There are
men who are not diagnosed until after age 65, and some
of those men do in fact die of PCa. Some of those
men might die in spite of treatment. But if some
younger men are saved by treatment (which the study
you cite claims is true), then it would be most surprising
if none of the men older than 65 could be saved by
treatment.
It is almost certainly true that some older men diagnosed
with non-aggressive cancers are over treated. It is true
that many of those men would have died of something else
with no treatment - so the treatment was wasted.
But the study doesn't convince me that all of the men
over 65 are in that category - especially those who are
otherwise very healthy and have relatively aggressive
but early stage cancers.
Your second argument seems to me partially, but not
universally, on target. There are too many medical
procedures performed in the U.S. because the doctors
get paid big bucks for it. There are too many doctors
who engage in that practice, and too few controls
to weed out such criminals.
But some controls are possible. I have been told by
a surgeon contracting with my HMO (Kaiser) that he is paid
an annual retainer. He claimed he got no extra money
for performing a surgery than for not performing a
surgery.
Why would anyone who thinks physicians overtreat for money think
they might not undertreat if they were paid whether they work or not?
Steve
I _think_ that both the urologist and the radiation
oncologist that my HMO sent me to recommended treatment
because they believed it would save my life, not because
they hoped to make extra money from my HMO.
Skepticism is smart, but complete cynicism may not be
justified here.
Alan
|
--
GrumpyRichard.com
A daily chronicle of honest medicine
"God Heals, and the doctor takes the fees"
-Ben Franklin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve U
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 19 May 2005
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 9:45 am Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
Grumpy Richard,
Your hypothesis that I live in a Blue State is correct! I'm curious
about how you could tell.
Steve U |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Headland
medicine forum beginner
Joined: 20 May 2005
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 7:00 pm Post subject:
Re: Study: Cancerous Prostate Removal Pointless If Over 65
|
|
|
As I pointed out, the French have a free universal healthcare system
that works as well as or better than the system here in the USA. The
fact that millions of people in the USA don't have ready access to
healthcare and go untreated as a result is hardly a glowing testament
to the virtues of a totally privatised system. Looking after the most
basic needs of the poor and vulnerable members of society is not giving
out "free lunches", it is simply civilised and humane. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| |
Page 6 of 23 [331 Posts]
|
Goto page:
Previous
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
...,
21,
22,
23
Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
|
The time now is Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:45 am | All times are GMT
|
|
Buy Anything On eBay | India news online | Buy Anything On eBay | Web Advertising | Mortgages
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
electronics forum,
Science forum
Unix/Linux blog
Unix/Linux documentation
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
diseases
»
cancer
