Respectful Insolence

There are two times a year that seem to be a time to beware of a serious assault of pseudoscience and quackery. The first time of year is in April, which is Autism Awareness Month. Over the last few years I can be just as sure as night following day, only to be followed by day again, that the anti-vaccine movement will use the occasion of Autism Awareness month to hit the airwaves with a blistering barrage of brain-dead buffoonery about vaccines and autism. This year, it consisted of Jenny McCarthy hitting Larry King Live with her equally brain dead boyfriend Jim Carrey, as well as Generation Rescue releasing its cornucopia of logical fallacies, pseudoscience, and misinformation, Fourteen Studies, all topped off by an amazingly disingenuous (not to mention profanely stupid) defense against the legitimate charges that the anti-vaccine movement will cause the resurgence of once vanquished infectious diseases.

The second time of the year is October, which is Breast Cancer Awareness month. No, it’s not because I don’t like Breast Cancer Awareness month, but part of me does dread it. In particular, I dread the use to which über-quack Mike Adams has put it in 2007 and 2008, although, with October two-thirds over, he’s been blissfully quiet this year about breast cancer, probably because this year he’s too busy spreading misinformation, pseudoscience, and lies about H1N1. Heck, even the Age of Autism joined in last year, trying to liken the increasing incidence of breast cancer in Third World countries to the “autism epidemic.”

This October, alas, there’s a new woo in town. Apparently not satisfied with bioidentical hormone quackery, stem cell quackery, and general woo, Suzanne Somers has been all over the media this week promoting her book Knockout: Interviews with Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer–And How to Prevent Getting It in the First Place.

It looks like it’s going to be a long fall.

Get a load of the blurb promoting it:

In Knockout, Suzanne Somers interviews doctors who are successfully using the most innovative cancer treatments–treatments that build up the body rather than tear it down. Somers herself has stared cancer in the face, and a decade later she has conquered her fear and has emerged confident with the path she’s chosen.
Now she shares her personal choices and outlines an array of options from doctors across the country:

EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE TREATMENTS

  • without chemotherapy
  • without radiation
  • sometimes, even without surgery

INTEGRATIVE PROTOCOLS

  • combining standard treatments with therapies that build up the immune system

METHODS FOR MANAGING CANCER

  • outlining ways to truly live with the diease

Since prevention is the best course, Somers’ experts provide nutrition, lifestyle, and dietary supplementation options to help protect you from getting the disease in the first place. Whichever path you choose, Knockout is a must-have resource to navigate the life-and-death world of cancer and increase your odds of survival. After reading stunning testimonials from inspirational survivors using alternative treatments, you’ll be left with a feeling of empowerment and something every person who is touched by this disease needs…HOPE.

I first found out about Somers’ book a little more than a month ago, and I was fortunate enough (I think) that one of my readers sent me a chapter list. I was really curious who these doctors where whom Somers interviewed. In particular, I predicted (and hoped) that one of the doctors was one whom we’ve met before. It was. Can you guess which one? Think about it. What major study did I blog about twice in the middle of September. No, no, you don’t have to go back to the archives and search. I’ll tell you:

Nicholas Gonzalez. He’s the second featured doctor who is “curing cancer,” right there in Chapter 6!

That’s right, one of these doctors who are “curing cancer” is a quack whose “protocol,” which includes 150 supplement pills a day topped off by a couple of coffee enemas per day, was recently shown to be worse than useless for pancreatic cancer and, indeed, far worse than conventional treatment.

Bummer timing, there, Suzanne, to have one of the subjects you lionize in your book to have his protocol shown to be not just worthless, but likely actively harmful.

Sadly, this bad timing appears to have had no effect on the silicone publicity blitz of everybody’s not-so-favorite bubble-brained quackery promoter. Somers has been all over the media this week, and I’ve seen nary a challenging question, much less a much deserved question about Nicholas Gonzalez. Instead we’re treated to cliched, credulous headlines like Suzanne Somers questions chemo in new book, Somers’ New Target: Conventional Cancer Treatment, or Suzanne Somers works to ‘Knockout’ cancer. The article circulating about her book on the AP wire begins:

Less than a year after the former sitcom actress frustrated mainstream doctors (and cheered some fans) by touting bioidentical hormones on “The Oprah Winfrey Show,” she’s back with a new book. This one’s on an even more emotional topic: Cancer treatment. Specifically, she argues against what she sees as the vast and often pointless use of chemotherapy.

Somers, who has rejected chemo herself, seems to relish the fight.

Let’s get one thing straight here. It is not amazing that Somers is still alive after having “rejected chemotherapy.” As I explained at the dawn of this blog, Somers had a stage I tumor with a favorable prognosis. If Somers is going to play the gambit of “I rejected chemotherapy and I’m still alive,” perhaps now is the time to go into more detail than I’ve ever gone into before about her case. Indeed, I did the research for my talk at TAM7 in July; so I might as well get some more use out of it and spread it beyond the 150 or so people who heard my talk.

To put it briefly, from what I can find from publicly available information on the Internet (I’ve never read one of Suzanne Somers’ books), Somers had a tumor that was treated by lumpectomy (excision of the “lump” or tumor) and a sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, whic was negative. For those not familiar with the SLN procedure, it was a procedure developed to determine whether a woman’s breast cancer has spread to the axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under the arm) without actually removing all of the axillary lymph nodes. The SLN biopsy was developed as a strategy to decrease the possibility of lymphedema after breast cancer surgery and still get the necessary information. Basically, an SLN biopsy is preformed by injecting a radioactive dye and a blue dye (usually Lymphazurin Blue) into the breast. The dyes are then taken up in the lymphatics and head towards the axilla, where they lodge in one or more lymph nodes. This is (these are) the sentinel lymph node(s). The concept behind the procedure is that the sentinel node is the first lymph node a tumor cell that broke off from the tumor and got into the lymphatics would “see” and lodge in. In other words, the dye mimics the pathway that tumor cells take to metastasize to the axillary lymph nodes. If the sentinel node is negative, it’s a highly accurate indication that the rest of the lymph nodes are negative, and no further surgery is needed. Best of all, the risk of lymphedema from the procedure very, very small, far smaller than it is for axillary dissection (removing all the lymph nodes). Since the purpose of axillary dissection was far more diagnostic (to find out if the lymph nodes are contain tumor and, if so, how many), this is a good thing. If the sentinel lymph node contains tumor, then axillary dissection is needed, but far fewer women now undergo the procedure.

Why do I mention this? Because Somers underwent, as far as I can tell, fairly minimal surgery for a favorable, estrogen receptor-positive cancer. She also underwent radiation, although she now states that she would not have opted for radiation. As I described so long ago, however, surgical excision is curative for most small breast cancers. Radiation therapy reduces the risk of local recurrences (recurrences in the breast), and chemotherapy and antiestrogen therapy (like Tamoxifen) reduce the risk of systemic recurrences (recurrences elsewhere in the body). In other words, chemotherapy and radiation are “icing on the cake” after surgery. Indeed, there is a website known as AdjuvantOnline.com that allows physicians to calculate the estimated risk of recurrence and the estimated benefit of chemotherapy and, if appropriate, antiestrogen therapy. Given when Somers had her cancer diagnosed (2000) and because I know that she had a stage I tumor, i entered data for her assuming a tumor between 1-2 cm in size, mainly because most tumors under 1 cm would not warrant adjuvant chemotherapy. Here is a blowup of the slide from my talk showing Somers’ data:

i-37875018801b06f57f856affb70d90c6-Somers2a-thumb-450x337-21061.jpg

(Click for larger image)

As you can see, Somers had an 88.6% chance of living 10 years without any chemotherapy or Tamoxifen. Chemotherapy provides a survival advantage of 2.5%; tamoxifen, 2.5%; and combination therapy, 4.1%. In other words, eschewing chemotherapy and tamoxifen increased Suzanne Somers’ odds of dying of her cancer within 10 years by around 4%. As I’ve explained before, although the benefit of chemotherapy and tamoxifen for early stage breast cancer is around 30% on a relative basis, but it’s only around 4% or 5% on an absolute basis. You may think that’s not very much, but, I assure you, the vast majority of women are willing to undergo chemotherapy and hormonal therapy for that extra insurance. Moreover, for more advanced tumors, that relative benefit generally stays around 30% or so, meaning that, as the risk of dying from cancer goes up, the absolute benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy goes up as well. Be that as it may, I’ve laid out this information to point out that testimonials like Somers’ are not particularly impressive if you know something about breast cancer. I also mention it to point out that, even though it’s a bad idea for Somers to be pumping herself full of “bioidentical hormones,” the favorable nature of her tumor means that she can get away with it. Even if it increased her risk of recurrence by 10%, the odds would still be overwhelmingly in her favor, adjuvant chemotherapy and tamoxifen or not, thanks to her friendly neighborhood surgeon. So when you see a passage like this about Somers, remember what I’ve just told you:

Diagnosed with breast cancer a decade ago, she had a lumpectomy and radiation, but declined chemotherapy, as she did more recently when briefly misdiagnosed with pervasive cancer.

By the way, Somers discussion of being misdiagnosed with “full body cancer” sounds rather fishy to me. I don’t want to downplay how emotionally frightening it may have been to have been misdiagnosed with a cancer recurrence as widespread metastatic disease, but the pressure for her to undergo chemotherapy just didn’t sound right. See for yourself:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Also read the first chapter of her book. She says that doctors urged her to take chemotherapy. However, in the case of a woman with a CT scan showing suspicious lesions that could be metastases, usually the discussion of chemotherapy is reserved until after there is a tissue diagnosis; i.e., after the biopsy. In the interview above, she states that a biopsy showed that she didn’t have cancer. (I guess you have to read the book to find out what she actually did have.) I can understand how such a scare might cause enormous fear, but unfortunately Somers never had much faith in scientific medicine to begin with, which is why she apparently used this scare as the jumping off point to attack “the cancer industry” with a napalm barrage of burning stupid, full of the arrogance of ignorance.

On the other hand, I will give Ann Curry some mild credit, though. in that at least it was mentioned that some of these doctors being praised by Somers in her book (well, most of them) have been in trouble with their state medical boards, the FDA, and the law. However, Curry was far too easy on Somers when she started blathering on about “choosing alternatives” and the “$2 billion cancer business.” I also have to repeat my disappointment in that Curry never mentioned the complete and utter failure of the trial testing the methods of one of Somers’ doctors who are “curing cancer,” namely Nicholas Gonzalez. At the very least, one of Somers’s doctors was shown to be using methodology that is not only ineffective but actively harmful, Gonzalez’s rationalizations notwithstanding. That’s why I hope that, wherever Somers shows up, you, my readers, will spread the news.

So what other doctors “curing cancer” is Somers promoting? These:

The Doctors Who Are Curing Cancer

Chapter 5: Stanislaw Burzynski, M.D.

Chapter 6: Nicholas Gonzalez, M.D.

Chapter 7: Burton Goldberg

Chapter 8: Julie Taguchi, M.D.

Chapter 9: James Forsythe, M.D.

Preventing Cancer Before it Starts

Chapter 10: Russell Blaylock

Chapter 11: Steve Haltiwanger, MD

Chapter 12: David Schmidt

Chapter 13: Jonathan Wright, M.D.

Chapter 14: Steven Sinatra, M.D., F.A.C.C., F.A.C.N.

Chapter 15: Michael Galitzer

Chapter 16: Cristiana Paul, M.S.

Oh goody. Burzynski. I’ve never written about him before. There’s also Russell Blaylock, who’s of late made a name for himself spreading misinformation about H1N1:

I’ll spare you from parts 2 and 3. You get the idea, and if you really want to see them, you can find them on YouTube. Suffice it to say, showing up on Alex Jones’ Prison Planet TV is not exactly a way to burnish one’s scientific credentials. Jones’ websites, Infowars and Prison Planet, are repositories of conspiracy craziness on par with David Icke’s lizard people, including 9/11 Truthers, “New World Order” conspiracy theorists (including, of course, the Illuminati and the Rothschilds), and a heapin’ helpin’ of anti-vaccine and alt-med conspiracy mongering.

A reader has kindly offered to send me a promotional copy of Somers’ book released to reviewers a month or two ago. I accepted with some trepidation, namely because the reason I had never wanted to read such drivel before was because I didn’t want to put a single penny into the coffers of woo-meisters like Suzanne Somers. That reason has been taken away from me. That’s why, if my brain can handle it, I will be reading Somers’ book over the next few weeks, and periodically blogging it. I had thought of blogging each chapter, but I don’t know if I can stand to do that. However, given the sheer volume of misinformation, pseudoscience, and quackery that Somers is laying down in my specialty, I feel that I must at least make an effort.

At least, as far as I know, Somers hasn’t been booked for Oprah yet. But it’s coming. I’m sure of it.

ADDENDUM:

It would appear that Suzanne Somers is going to be on Larry King Live on Friday night. Perhaps people should send his producers this post, as well as these posts about the Gonzalez Protocol:

Sadly, not a single interviewer I’ve seen interviewing Somers has asked her about the study of the Gonzalez protocol and how she reconciles the science that shows his protocol to be worse than useless with her belief in him as a someone who is “curing” cancer (as she discusses in Chapter 6 of her new book). It’s probably a lost cause, given how woo-friendly Larry King is, but any time you see Somers scheduled to hawk her book please point out, beforehand if possible or in a letter if not possible to get the information to the media outlet beforehand, this study about Nicholas Gonzalez.

It could save the lives of any credulous readers who might think that Suzanne Somers knows anything about anything other than portraying a stereotypical dim blonde in a 1970s sitcom and selling Thighmasters.

Comments

  1. #1 Katharine
    October 21, 2009

    She’s an actor.

    AN ACTOR.

    Why the fuck is anybody listening to her?

  2. #2 SciencePundit
    October 21, 2009

    I had thought of blogging each chapter, but I don’t know if I can stand to do that.

    Depending how bad it is and how well it sells, you might just feel the need to. Or you can do what the Panda’s Thumb bloggers did with (I believe it was) The Idiot’s Guide to Evolution: you can divide up the chapters among several medical bloggers. That way no one blogger is overwhelmed with too much of teh st00pid.

  3. #3 red rabbit
    October 21, 2009

    The thing that boggles my mind is people choosing to take medical advice from an actress famous for portraying a bimbo in a 1970’s sitcom, and for shilling the clearly worse than useless “thighmaster.”

    I have anecdotal evidence for that “worse than useless” statement…

  4. #4 Agashem
    October 21, 2009

    How is it that she eschews the entire cancer treatment pantheon and yet partakes so readily in plastic surgery? No doubt with some Botox thrown in. How is it these Hollywood bimbos can pick and choose what they like from ‘Western’ medicine if it makes them look younger (but don’t underestimate good lighting)but can talk this s*&t that could endanger other women?
    The stupid not only burns, it kills.

  5. #5 lurker
    October 21, 2009

    I may be wrong (I’m not an American and don’t know how your education system works), but don’t you need an MD to be a doctor? Who’s Burton Goldberg? (I’m not granting others on the chapter list any credibility, but you’d think you’d at least have the degree before claiming to be a doctor, or you’d stop someone claiming that you were. Well, I would, anyway)

  6. #6 Melinda
    October 21, 2009

    Guess who the quacks are? The ones who think poisoning our bodies is the route to take. The AMA, CDC and FDA love people like you, they don’t have to brainwash you…you’re already there. You go ahead and do things your way…eat your high fat diet…and cry about your heart disease.. I wont feel sorry for you….vaccinate your children…and pray they don’t end up with allergies, athsma, or worse…autism or dead(you think these 2 month old babies dying from SIDS is really what’s happening? Ask mom how long before they died did they get their 2-month shots) Fortunately, I have taken my health and the health of my children into my own hands and I research all this stuff you guys are, for some reason, against. We eat organic foods, drink filtered or spring water, do not drink soda (ever teen a hunchback teenager?), use natural toothpaste, aluminum free deodorant…etc…Oh, and my children are vaccine free and were breastfed for at least 2 years each. My children are healthy and at a normal weight. They never had “baby fat” as young children. Because I have decided to go off on my own rather than follow “what society does” my children will live long, healthy lives…free of disease that result from vaccines, poor diet, or big pharma drugs…

  7. #7 Katharine
    October 21, 2009

    … Melinda, I suspect you have never actually taken a biology class.

    High school biology doesn’t count.

  8. #8 Katharine
    October 21, 2009

    For what it’s worth, I have been thoroughly vaccinated. I am not autistic and obviously not dead; my allergies have nothing to do with vaccinations and in fact appeared when I was very young and before I ever got a vaccination, etc. Kids’ immune systems can handle vaccines because the pathogens are either dead or weakened. THEY CAN’T CAUSE DISEASE BECAUSE THEY CAN’T MULTIPLY. IS THIS NOT OBVIOUS, MA’AM?

    Kids are SUPPOSED to have some baby fat. That’s good fat. It means they’re getting enough to eat. It’ll also serve them well later on and help them keep their metabolism under control.

    I do not, in fact, eat a high fat diet or have heart disease. Actually, most of the stuff about diet and food with a minimal amount of additives is stuff we’ve been pushing for years, but apparently you’re only listening to it because the new-agey quacks are pushing it.

    Where the fuck are you researching this stuff, anyway? Age of Autism, which is known to be full of quacks? Mercola, which is equally bad? Dr. Andrew Weil, Deepak Chopra, or Mehmet Oz, who are also a bunch of people who have been thoroughly discredited by the medical and scientific community?

    And go ahead and accuse us of having ties to ‘big pharma'; in fact, most of us on here aren’t in any way involved in pharmaceuticals at all (I’m in neurobiology), and there is a good deal of funding for it that comes from the federal government. If you want to distrust someone, distrust the management idiots, not those in ‘big pharma’ who actually do the science.

  9. #9 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    Oh, and my children are vaccine free and were breastfed for at least 2 years each. My children are healthy and at a normal weight. They never had “baby fat” as young children. Because I have decided to go off on my own rather than follow “what society does” my children will live long, healthy lives…free of disease that result from vaccines, poor diet, or big pharma drugs…

    Maybe, but that’s only because the rest of the children are vaccinated and thus providing herd immunity for you to leech off of. If herd immunity falls, thanks to more people believing nonsense like yours, I wouldn’t be quite so confident that your children will manage to evade the horrible, all too often deadly toll of what should be vaccine-preventable diseases. Good luck with that.

  10. #10 Sam's mom
    October 21, 2009

    Oh my, aren’t you really someone?!? Have you ever considered anger management classes? Perhaps you should.

  11. #11 nitramnaed
    October 21, 2009

    I believe Melinda has done the 3 days of “INTERNETS” research that’s required of all Woo followers.

  12. #12 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    Oh my, aren’t you really someone?!? Have you ever considered anger management classes? Perhaps you should.

    Promotion of anti-vaccine beliefs that could potentially lead to the deaths of many children do make me angry. So does the promotion of cancer quackery that could lead to the deaths of many cancer patients. Mea culpa. I do get pissed off when I see such nonsense. It’s righteous anger, and its targets deserve it. I make no apologies.

    Besides, what you’re spouting is what Bronze Dog likes to call “doggerel.”

  13. #13 Dangerous Bacon
    October 21, 2009

    I was driving home late last night and tuned in to the Mark Levin show for a dose of right wing talk show crazy. There was a daft woman on, quacking away about faulty cancer treatment, claiming doctors don’t do chemosensitivity assays on tumors because “it’s too much work” etc. Turns out it was Suzanne Somers hawking her latest book, with Levin just letting her blab on.

    When she got to how the Evil Medical Establishment is persecuting brave maverick doctors I had to turn off the radio.

    I hear she’s going to be on Larry King tonight.

    Melinda: “Fortunately, I have taken my health and the health of my children into my own hands”

    That last part’s the scary thing. Those kids are depending on you, and you’re letting them down. When it comes to their health, you do not know best. The people who’ve done the extensive training and dedicated their lives to pediatric health are the ones you should be listening to.

  14. #14 han
    October 21, 2009

    I’m a new mom myself, and posts like Melinda’s really make my blood boil. She is the worst kind of sanctimommy, implying that because she instills irrational fear and leaves her children vulnerable to disease that somehow makes her a better mom than someone like me, who makes reasoned and informed decisions about her child’s health. My kid, who is fully vaccinated and eats a wide variety of food, will likely grow to be happier, healthier, and less fearful than his scrawny, “all natural” counterparts.

    Up yours, Melinda.

  15. #15 jimvj
    October 21, 2009

    Is “Full Body Cancer” a valid diagnosis?

  16. #16 nitramnaed
    October 21, 2009

    Playboy Bunnies, Pageant Queens and now second rate bimbo actresses dispensing medical advice…….Pretty soon well have comedians, ass-hat shock-jocks or second rate polititians…………never mind.

  17. #17 Bronze Dog
    October 21, 2009

    Oh my, aren’t you really someone?!? Have you ever considered anger management classes? Perhaps you should.

    Translation: “What’s the big deal with people dying? I can just sit back and watch someone die without so much as flinching. Your compassion makes you weak.”

  18. #18 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    That reminds me. Perhaps you should add “angry” to your Doggerel Index. I didn’t see it there.

  19. #19 superdave
    October 21, 2009

    I didn’t know there were all these docs out there prescribing fat and soda.

  20. #20 Bronze Dog
    October 21, 2009

    Good suggestion. Somehow I missed that one. I’ll add it to the list.

  21. #21 Berner
    October 21, 2009

    @Katherine #1

    Welcome to American culture where intellectuals are ignored and celebrities are adored!

  22. #22 sandy leonard
    October 21, 2009

    you are wrong about the biopsy, sometimes as with suspected lung cancer, even if a biopsy comes back negative, they will insist on chemo because they say that its possible that they did not get enough or the right spot for the biopsy. Once you have cancer anything they find suspicious they think its cancer

  23. #23 Jud
    October 21, 2009

    you think these 2 month old babies dying from SIDS is really what’s happening? Ask mom how long before they died did they get their 2-month shots

    Since SIDS is more common in children of parents who smoke, I guess smokers must be extra-conscientious about health and getting their kids vaccinated. Along with the other parents you mention above who have themselves and their children on high-fat diets and have heart disease but are extra-conscientious about vaccinating.

    So what color’s the sun on this planet where you live?

  24. #24 nitramnaed
    October 21, 2009

    Traditional cancer treatment? BAD. Invasive plastic surgery? GOOD!

  25. #25 Charisse
    October 21, 2009

    I’m glad I didn’t waste my time reading this trash. Any one with half a brain can find and read the truth about Bio-identical Hormones and wellness plans. Orac is a legend in his own mind. He knows nothing. Excuse me now while I climb out of this dung hole and make my exit.

  26. #26 Dweller in Darkness
    October 21, 2009

    As a parent of two thoroughly vaccinated children, I just can’t stand hearing anti-vaxxers ranting like Dark Ages doomsayers about the risks and dangers of things they know nothing, absolutely nothing about, out of a willful desire to believe that people fail and die because of a willful conspiracy rather than the simple frailty that comes from being human.

    Yes, kids die. Yes, autism sucks. Yes, life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

  27. #27 Dweller in Darkness
    October 21, 2009

    As a parent of two thoroughly vaccinated children, I just can’t stand hearing anti-vaxxers ranting like Dark Ages doomsayers about the risks and dangers of things they know nothing, absolutely nothing about, out of a willful desire to believe that people fail and die because of a willful conspiracy rather than the simple frailty that comes from being human.

    Yes, kids die. Yes, autism sucks. Yes, life is a sexually transmitted disease with a 100% mortality rate. I wish it weren’t so, but it is.

  28. #28 tariqata
    October 21, 2009

    The thing that infuriates me most is this:

    Somers’ experts provide nutrition, lifestyle, and dietary supplementation options to help protect you from getting the disease in the first place.

    Where does that leave my young, non-smoking, healthy-food-eating, happy-new-mother colleague who had a double mastectomy earlier this year? Was she just not doing enough to protect herself from breast cancer? If she’d only eaten more immune-system boosting foods she’d be fine? Fuck that kind of victim blaming.

  29. #29 Jen
    October 21, 2009

    Found this on Reuters. It’s a press release (yes, Reuters offers a pay-to-publish service)
    (full story here)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS109763+21-Oct-2009+PRN20091021

    Bioidentical Hormones, a True Prevention for Breast Cancer
    Dr Khalid Mahmud will be a guest at Preventative & Regenerative Medicine Symposium, Holiday Inn on the Bay – San Diego, CA, 1:30 PM Sat 10/24

    “Keeping aBreast is endorsed by Suzanne Somers in her book Breakthrough; Dr.
    Mahmud has been featured on NBC KARE, FOX 9 Morning News, and speaker for the
    World Health Summit.”

    Dr Mahmud’s practice:
    http://www.idinhealth.com/
    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Edina-MN/Innovative-Directions-in-Health/124930575114
    LOL at the promotional event “Botox Bonanza.”

  30. #30 Uncle Dave
    October 21, 2009

    Dangerous Bacon wrote in response to militant mommy Melinda;

    “The people who’ve done the extensive training and dedicated their lives to pediatric health are the ones you should be listening to.”

    Indeed!

    Melinda you should be embarrassed, if not now, you will be at some point in your life. If you really have doubts as to “traditional” medicine and you are really passionate about your cause, go to school and enroll in biology or microbiology or some other science related post graduate study (that is if you possess a undergraduate degree in a science major to begin with – which is a very very low probability).
    Learn the scientific method the hard way, like most of the people that contribute to this site did; through long and structured study and analysis at an accredited university or college.

    I hope all the best for your children, there is a good chance (modern society with fewer serious heath issues thanks to modern science and immunology) that they “might’ walk through this life storm without any health issue merely by chance and genetics.
    However, your views on science and medicine merely amount to convincing others (using your children as dice) that the state lottery is a viable investment strategy.

  31. #31 E.V.
    October 21, 2009

    Charisse knows dung (because she’s full of it) and has only half a brain by her own admission. Nice drama queen flounce out, Dr. Charisse – oh wait…

  32. #32 tl
    October 21, 2009

    you think these 2 month old babies dying from SIDS is really what’s happening? Ask mom how long before they died did they get their 2-month shots

    Wait, I think she’s onto something. The decline in SIDS is correlated with the increased number of vaccines we give our kids. Vaccines prevent SIDS!!!!

  33. #33 Karole
    October 21, 2009

    I had the same diagnosis and treatment as Suzanne Somers, although I opted for a bilateral mastectomy rather than a simple lumpectomy. I’m very glad I did, too, because more cancer was found in both breasts (not just the one where it was diagnosed) during the post-surgical pathology.

    It is completely ignorant and very irresponsibile for Somers to lecture all cancer patients based on her own diagnosis. Telling patients with more advanced cancer to reject chemotherapy is downright dangerous. Some patients are more frightened of the treatment than the cancer itself and may justify refusal to undergo chemo based on Somers’ B.S. Although I was fortunate enough to avoid chemo, I watched my mother go through it and I know it is very unpleasant. Dying of cancer would have been far more unpleasant, however.

    One last point: Somers’ tumors were reportedly estrogen-receptor positive yet she is taking hormones? Ingesting estrogen with estrogren-positive breast cancer is like throwing gasoline on a fire. That’s why an estrogen blocking medication like Tamoxifen is commonly prescribed after treatment. According to my oncologist, it doesn’t matter what the source is. If the body recognizes a substance as estrogen and reacts to it as if it were estrogen, it’s estrogen and will feed any new or existing tumors.

    I don’t wish Somers’ ill but I will be watching her case with interest as the years pass. I wonder if she will still refuse chemo if her cancer metasizes to her brain, liver and/or brain? Staring death in the face can make people re-evaluate a lot of positions.

  34. #34 madder
    October 21, 2009

    Melinda spewed forth:

    you think these 2 month old babies dying from SIDS is really what’s happening? Ask mom how long before they died did they get their 2-month shots

    And ask the parents of those who died of SIDS at 4 months when they got their 4-month shots, and try the same thing at 6 months…

    Really. The only way to prevent SIDS is to avoid absolutely everything that was done by the parents of SIDS fatalities within six weeks of those deaths. Diaper changes, baths, rides in cars, feedings….

  35. #35 Militant Agnostic
    October 21, 2009

    Is “Full Body Cancer” a valid diagnosis?

    No, but Full Body Stupidity is.

    I wonder if she will still refuse chemo if her cancer metasizes to her brain, liver and/or brain?

    Karole, I doubt if there is much brain for it to metastasize to.

  36. #36 a-non
    October 21, 2009

    I’m glad I didn’t waste my time reading this trash. Any one with half a brain can find and read the truth about Bio-identical Hormones and wellness plans.

    Yes. If you get past the hype from those who are trying to sell you those products, you can read all about how bio-identical hormones are likely a waste of time and possibly dangerous.

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bioidentical-hormones/AN01133

    http://www.menopause.org/bioidentical.aspx

  37. #37 Dangerous Bacon
    October 21, 2009

    Charisse: “I’m glad I didn’t waste my time reading this trash. Any one with half a brain can find and read the truth about Bio-identical Hormones and wellness plans.”

    Full-brain awareness is encouraged here.

    You’re right though, it’s dangerous to read what’s posted here. Your dogmatic mind-set would be challenged, and that’d be painful.

    Where are these people coming from today? Is it the Suzanne Somers Google Defender Brigade?

  38. #38 Militant Agnostic
    October 21, 2009

    Isn’t sleeping position a big risk factor in SIDS? I suspect those who insulate themselves from all information coming from sources that might actually have clue are probably unaware of this.

  39. #39 Liz
    October 21, 2009

    Anyone up for a “Suzanne Somers” body count?

    You can add my Aunt, who was diagnosed at stage 4 colon (mets in the liver, lymph etc, too) because she spent over a year self treating & ‘naturally’ trying to cure gastrointestinal problems instead of seeing an evil doctor. Then, she wasn’t going to do chemo after surgery until a Dr. yelled at her & reminded her she had but 6 months if she did not go through with it (we LOVE him for it)He yelled because she was a single mom of five kids, not because he was a jerk.

    The chemo was working BEAUTIFULLY all her tumors were shrinking, some disappeared & then she decided chemo was too toxic & tried to heal naturally with HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS a month in herbs & lymphatic drainage treatments at A FEW HUNDRED a pop. (Orac, remember the fun treatment at your Chicago restaurant where they wave a light over you & viola! your lymph system has been freed of “toxins” ! – yeah THAT.) Needless to say, she died a horrible death – cancer in her bones, her lungs, ovaries and we all got to watch for weeks as her body gave out.

    But at least her emaciated, bruised, jaundiced, partially paralyzed body was “toxin” free!

    So a few people somewhere were looking at this sick, dying whisp of a woman AND SHAKING OUT HER POCKETS. She spent thousands; thousands that could have helped the kids, who were already on public aid. Gee whiz, I wonder where these naturalists got the big idea for the “big pharma just wants your money” conspiracy? Look at Suzanne Somers website! “Buy my 19 books, herbal supplements (I take 60 a day!) and drink my special Suzanne Somers brand health elixirs – you’ll be right as rain!”

    http://www.theonion.com/content/video/courageous_man_refuses_to_believe

  40. #40 MitoScientist
    October 21, 2009

    Is anyone else slightly weirded out at the idea of two year olds breastfeeding? A little too natural if you ask me. Also, a major contributing factor in SIDS can be a deficiency in metabolic enzymes, like mcad, schad, etc.

  41. #41 Ramel
    October 21, 2009

    She’s an actor.

    AN ACTOR.

    Why the fuck is anybody listening to her?

    She’s not even a good actor!

  42. #42 Jeff Read
    October 21, 2009

    Nicholas Gonzalez. He’s the second featured doctor who is “curing cancer,” right there in Chapter 6!

    “Hi, everybody!”

    “Hi, Dr. Nick!”

  43. #43 Militant Agnostic
    October 21, 2009

    I think someone should start an airline which uses aircraft designed by comedians and flown by actors for all the woos to fly on. That way they won’t have to rely on “Western” materials science, fluid mechanics etc. and can avoid the evils of “Big Aviation” and it’s collaborators in the FAA.

  44. #44 techskeptic
    October 21, 2009

    Wow this article is surprisingly lucid on this subject

    http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=854680

    Go local news

  45. #45 Kimbo Jones
    October 21, 2009

    There is just so much awesome packed into that headline. Thank you. Saw it this morning and still smiling about it.

  46. #46 bob
    October 21, 2009

    Has anyone ever made Quack Bingo sheets? There’s enough BS in some of these comments that we’d have multiple winners no matter how you constructed them.

  47. #47 ababa
    October 21, 2009

    Melinda is yet another insecure sanctimommy that needs to boil parenting down to a simple, easy to follow checklist.

    No vaccines. Check!
    Extended breastfeeding. Check!
    Organic food. Check!
    Filtered water. Check!
    Natural toothpaste. Check!
    Aluminum free deodorant. Check!
    No soda. Check!

    I WIN!!!

    She revels in her “success” in avoiding problems that she would have still avoided anyways, and attributes it all to her efforts. Even by the most aggressive estimates (autism at 1 in 100) all of those maladies were of low probability anyways. Congrats on avoiding something you had a 99% chance of avoiding without any effort on your part, Melinda. It must have been because you didn’t vaccinate.

    Unfortunately for her, her perspective doesn’t let her realize that the things she avoids at best just hurt her pocketbook and at worst endanger her children. Most of her choices are inert, and as long as vaccination rates don’t drop too far she won’t pay for her mistakes. Her kids can hide in the herd and chances are very high she won’t experience a dangerous vaccine preventable disease and if she does she probably will avoid a dangerous complication from something like chicken pox or the flu. Her organic foods still have pesticides (and cost alot more), yet not the more recent safer ones in use today – but it probably won’t matter anyways. There is no harm in breastfeeding past two years, but she lost any real benefit long before that time.

    She has wholeheartedly bit into the “natural” craze and completely ignores the fact that everyone did the “natural” thing 200 years ago and lived to a ripe old age of 35. It’s a big competition, and now she can brag on the Internet about how great of a mommy she is because she checked everything off her “natural” list. Of course, that isn’t any consolation to the other parents like her with unvaccinated autistic/asthmatic/SIDS/etc. children who also checked everything off their list and still didn’t “win”. Those people must not have done everything right like she did.

  48. #48 Katharine
    October 21, 2009

    Berner, American culture is precisely why I’m trying to gtfo of America.

    Although I won’t relinquish my citizenship, considering the fact that the United States has, besides the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, one of the largest arsenals of weapons-grade moronery, and it is up to us who are not idiots to keep it under check and preferably destroy it.

  49. #49 Dianne
    October 21, 2009

    ababa, melinda doesn’t mention having an unattended home birth after c-section with a classic scar and preclampsia (diet treated only of course!) with delivery of the newborn into feces contaminated water. Until she does that she hasn’t really won the extreme sanctimommy contest.

  50. #50 Pablo
    October 21, 2009

    Up yours, Melinda.

    han, I just want to say, I love you.

  51. #51 Pablo
    October 21, 2009

    @sandy leonard

    you are wrong about the biopsy, sometimes as with suspected lung cancer, even if a biopsy comes back negative, they will insist on chemo because they say that its possible that they did not get enough or the right spot for the biopsy. Once you have cancer anything they find suspicious they think its cancer

    You know what’s really funny, Sandy? When you come to the blog of a surgical oncologist and tell him he is wrong about what “they” do. Um, he IS the “they” you are referring to.

  52. #52 Enkidu
    October 21, 2009

    @49

    Five minutes after I read that, I’m still laughing.

  53. #53 Greg
    October 21, 2009

    I’ll start with that I am 100% pro-vaccine, I was vaccinated, and my children will be as well. I also believe the evidence that there is no link between vaccines and Autism. I will get the H1N1 vaccine when it become available up in Canada. I have a couple of question though.

    Forgive my ignorance on this, but from my understanding Autism usually begins showing at 15-24 months, the range of time we get a lot of vaccines. I’m guessing it also manifests later as well, but the majority of cases can be diagnosed within this window, give or take a few months, is this correct?

    Further, are the vaccines we normally get at this age still effective if administered later, say after the age Autism is generally diagnosed?

    I ask these questions because, in the end, it’s the children and the rest of us who benefit when everyone is vaccinated. I think most people who are anti-vacc are not as afraid of vaccines as they are of their children being Autistic, and that if we can show them that their child has passed the generally recognized age the Autism normally manifests, maybe they would be less afraid of getting the vaccines?

  54. #54 nlgirl
    October 21, 2009

    Melinda says…pray they don’t end up with allergies, athsma, or worse…autism or dead

    so dead and autism are on the same level? Piss off Melinda. I have a very HEALTHY son who so happens to have autism.

  55. #55 marcia
    October 21, 2009

    I think Ann Curry did a pretty good job in a short period of time in that interview. Put her on the defensive.

    As opposed to this garbage interview of Somers yesterday.
    Gag me:

    http://www.accesshollywood.com/rising-star/suzanne-somers-i-shouldnt-have-said-anything-about-patrick-swayzes-cancer-treatment-october-20-2009_video_1168285

    Thank you, Orac. You’re leading the charge.

  56. #56 Greg
    October 21, 2009

    @49

    I thought it was wandering away from the tribe, far enough so they don’t have to hear your screams, to a nice shady spot and squeezing the child out onto a pile of soft leaves. Biting through and tying off the umbilical, cleaning up in a beautiful cool stream, while singing praises to nature, wrapping the newborn in a handwoven blanket, and returning home for fresh placenta stew.

    Until she does that she hasn’t really won the extreme sanctimommy contest.

  57. #57 ababa
    October 21, 2009

    Greg, all that does is reinforce their fears. Like when thimerasol was removed to hopefully alleviate concerns all it did was bring out the “see they are bad and you were hiding it from us, what else are you hiding!” complaints.

    Giving vaccines later is a problem because it delays the benefits as well. The longer they go without the more likely they are to catch a disease and if they do they are less likely to be able to recover. What may be a mild problem at 10 could be life-threatening at 9 months. Not to mention most antivaxers love to find issues with even adult vaccines (like Gardasil) and just find other problems to blame.

    They will continue to move the goalposts. The reality is they don’t like vaccines. Not in an baby, not in a teenager, not as an adult. The “Too many, Too Soon” is just an excuse to lend credibility to their real goal.

    Take a look at Age of Autism – by the name you would think they would focus on things that they think cause autism, and by that why would there ever be any articles on Gardasil posted? It’s never given to small children and not even in any antivaxer’s wildest dreams has it ever been suggested to cause autism. Yet there it is, with many articles criticizing it.

  58. #58 Rob Jase
    October 21, 2009

    Question – does the book detail the protocols by which Dr. Somers, et al, determined just how their methods prevented cancer?

    Because if they can predict, before any symptoms exist, who will get what cancer that might just be important.

  59. #59 Agoraphobic Kleptomaniac
    October 21, 2009

    @Sandy Leonard:
    “you are wrong about the biopsy,”

    And who are you, now? I believe there is an entire paragraph up there in the Post explaining why the biopsy usually is good enough…

    Reading Comprehension is the biggest failure of the internet age.

    Here, since i’m sure you’re too busy to actually read the article again to see what you missed:

    The concept behind the procedure is that the sentinel node is the first lymph node a tumor cell that broke off from the tumor and got into the lymphatics would “see” and lodge in. In other words, the dye mimics the pathway that tumor cells take to metastasize to the axillary lymph nodes. If the sentinel node is negative, it’s a highly accurate indication that the rest of the lymph nodes are negative, and no further surgery is needed.

  60. #60 techskeptic
    October 21, 2009

    I’m guessing it also manifests later as well

    and earlier. Which is a great reason why vax is off the hook. Its also a good reason (beside the epidemiologial reason givin in #57) why changing he vax schedule will do nothing to temper antivaxxers.

  61. #61 Greg
    October 21, 2009

    @ababa

    I don’t disagree with your assessment, and I can’t look at the AoA site too long without wanting to bang my head on something. My thinking is that it’s a matter of degree, well percentage really, if we can convince a few percent of those who are borderline we may be able to keep the overall vaccinated percentage high enough to keep the herd immunity.

    ~G

  62. #62 HealthEd
    October 21, 2009

    @ 44: Thanks for posting the Times-Union link, techskeptic. I’ve seldom seen a takedown of woo like that in the MSM. I want to marry that writer. Or at least hire her to freelance for me.

  63. #63 JustaTech
    October 21, 2009

    I will fight anecdote with anecdote! My MD aunt was diagnoed with breast cancer (ductal carcinoma) and she had the full range of treatments suggested by her doctor. She’s fine now. So there.

    Orac, here’s something I saw on the Daily Show that made me think of this “blame the victim” type of book:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/barbara-ehrenreich
  64. #64 techskeptic
    October 21, 2009

    No problem. Gotta give em credit when they do the right thing.

  65. #65 Elly
    October 21, 2009

    At the end of last year my not quite one year old son developed a rash (shortly after we visited a local children’s museum). It looked suspiciously like the measles rash – OK I admit to googling to check it out! But I then visited his pediatrician who said no it was just one of the 1000s of random rashes due to viruses that kids pick up. He was just too young to have had his first MMR (which he did have a few weeks later). I was furious that potentially someone else ‘doing the best for their kid’ might have put mine at risk.

  66. #66 Anonymous
    October 21, 2009

  67. #67 Elly
    October 21, 2009

    To clarify: I was refering to the comments from Melinda about her philosophy on vaccinating.

  68. #68 Pablo
    October 21, 2009

    Greg – I think the thing I would say about your suggestion is that I agree with ababa, in that you don’t want to feed into the hysteria, you want to combat it. Now, it is true that delayed vaccination is better than no vaccination, but on schedule vaccination is better and that is what we should encourage.

    I’ve posted this a couple of times, but there is no reason that doctors can’t push vaccination without driving off the customers. For example, there’s a big difference between saying

    1) We can in principle delay the vaccination of your child, but I need to tell you, doing so does increase the risk of your child catching one of these illnesses, and at the same time, there is absolutely no indication that doing it that way is any safer. In the end it is your decision, but I strongly recommend following the guidelines provided by the CDC

    and

    2) I understand your concerns and can use an alternate schedule if it makes you feel better.

    In the first example, if they chose the alternate route, so be it. However, in the second, you aren’t even trying, and are only enabling the fearmongering.

  69. #69 Anonymous
    October 21, 2009

    This past Sunday’s 60 Minutes segment did ask some hard questions to the Assistant Surgeon General. However, what was missing is that they didn’t ask why CDC officials persist in telling the public that this H1N1 strain of influenza is quite dangerous when the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season, is in direct conflict with what the CDC is telling the American people.

    Overall 60 Minutes did a fairly good, objective piece of journalism that told the truth. They even pressured the Assistant Surgeon General about the vaccine’s safety. On one hand, she’s hitching her safety statements to the fact that the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore “safe,” even though she realistically CAN’T say that the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine is safe, or that it has been thoroughly tested because it only has been tested for a few weeks.

    On the other hand CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic. This is completely inconsistent and irrational logic.

    Come on CDC, you simply can’t have it both ways.

  70. #70 Anonymous
    October 21, 2009

    It’s impossible to take a stance against such an ingrained medical paradigm as vaccines without taking some hits, and I’ve taken my fair share lately. Some bloggers and doctors are naturally unhappy with what I’m disseminating, so I’d like to take a moment to clarify my own views.

    First of all, I’m glad that people from both sides of this debate are available to discuss it because that is what we desperately need — discussion. Conventional medicine has routinely ignored and ridiculed the voices speaking up for a “safety first” approach. We need to have an open, public discussion about the realities and dangers of what we’re doing, and whether or not vaccination is the safest approach to preventing chronic illness and maintaining health.

    So I’m actually pleased that the opposition is taking the time to read my material, as are millions of others who already agree and have looked deeply enough into the matter to understand my position.

    The fact of the matter is that vaccinations do not optimize immune function and there is way too little information about what else they do in the human body that may contribute to poor health. My main point is that there are ways to prevent illness and maintain health that are so much more natural, easier, less expensive and more effective than routine use of multiple vaccines in childhood and throughout life.

    So in many ways I am grateful for the swine flu challenge that we are now going through, because it allows us the opportunity to expose flaws in vaccine system and the way mainstream medicine thinks about health and wellness.

  71. #71 Pablo
    October 21, 2009

    @Elly

    He was just too young to have had his first MMR (which he did have a few weeks later). I was furious that potentially someone else ‘doing the best for their kid’ might have put mine at risk.

    Make no mistake, Elly, they aren’t doing it “for their kids,” they are doing it for themselves. It’s all about their needs being met, and not anyone else’s.

  72. #72 Pablo
    October 21, 2009

    Conventional medicine has routinely ignored and ridiculed the voices speaking up for a “safety first” approach

    Can you provide any example where anyone has offered up a legitimate strategy that would actually make vaccination “safer” that does not involve stopping vaccinations completely?

    It’s not the “green our vaccines” loons, and it isn’t Bob Sears. So I’m wondering what “voices” you are talking about.

  73. #73 Phoenix Woman
    October 21, 2009

    However, what was missing is that they didn’t ask why CDC officials persist in telling the public that this H1N1 strain of influenza is quite dangerous when the experience of those in the southern hemisphere, which just finished their flu season, is in direct conflict with what the CDC is telling the American people.

    Uh, anonymous, in the space of six months in the state of Minnesota alone, H1N1 has killed six people and made tens of thousands of people sick, several hundred of them sick enough to need to go to the hospital.

    http://www.postbulletin.com/newsmanager/templates/localnews_story.asp?z=28&a=421886

    You may go away now.

  74. #74 Scott
    October 21, 2009

    Overall 60 Minutes did a fairly good, objective piece of journalism that told the truth. They even pressured the Assistant Surgeon General about the vaccine’s safety. On one hand, she’s hitching her safety statements to the fact that the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore “safe,” even though she realistically CAN’T say that the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine is safe, or that it has been thoroughly tested because it only has been tested for a few weeks.

    On the other hand CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic. This is completely inconsistent and irrational logic.

    Come on CDC, you simply can’t have it both ways.

    This is just grossly wrong. Antaeus Feldspar said it so perfectly in another thread that I’m going to borrow his words, as they apply completely to you:

    Inherent in [your] thesis are the following assumptions:

    1) If two viruses are radically different in their effect, they must be radically different in their nature.

    2) If two viruses are radically different in their nature, the countermeasures needed against them must also be radically different, such that the newer one must pose unforeseen dangers that have never been faced before.

    However, [your] assumption 1 simply does not hold up to examination. Different strains of the flu can indeed be radically different in their severity and in their virulence. But this does not make them radically different in their nature; if flu strains were radically different from each other in nature, they wouldn’t be able to combine with each other the way they do!

    Neither does Mercola’s assumption that, if H1N1 was a significantly different strain, a vaccine for it would have to be made in some unprecedented new way that would pose new dangers not faced before, hold up to examination. If you have two different padlocks of the same type from the same manufacturer, and you only have the key that opens the first lock, you will need a second key, with the “teeth” set at different heights from the first. The chance that it will require some unprecedented new process fraught with unpredictable dangers to make the second key is negligible.

    And as to…

    Conventional medicine has routinely ignored and ridiculed the voices speaking up for a “safety first” approach … there is way too little information about what else they do in the human body that may contribute to poor health.

    So if massive safety studies before approval aren’t “safety first” and provide “too little information”, please explain what you DO want to see.

    My main point is that there are ways to prevent illness and maintain health that are so much more natural, easier, less expensive and more effective than routine use of multiple vaccines in childhood and throughout life.

    Please provide examples, with robust evidence to show efficacy even of the same order of magnitude of vaccination.

  75. #75 Anonymous
    October 21, 2009

    killed six people and made tens of thousands of people sick….

    So what you’re saying is the death rate from this flu is extremely low!!

    I wonder what the death rate will be once people start receiving this virtually untested vaccine.

    Although the loss of even a single life is tragic, I don’t think anyone would look at these numbers and say that a mortality rate this low is cause to label H1N1 influenza a “deadly disease” that requires vaccination.

  76. #76 Dan Weber
    October 21, 2009

    Could someone respond to this Atlantic article? http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1/2

    Notably, they point out that in years in which the flu vaccine was mismatched or when there were manufacturing problems, we didn’t see changes in morbidity. Suggesting that it isn’t helping.

    Hopefully a science-based response, using data.

  77. #77 Scott
    October 21, 2009

    Your idiocy and callousness disgust me. Tell me, how many people does it have to kill before preventing those deaths with a cheap, safe intervention becomes worthwhile?

    Additionally, characterizing the vaccine as “virtually untested” conclusively reveals you to be a credulous moron with no clue what he’s talking about. (If any more proof were needed.)

  78. #78 flounder
    October 21, 2009

    Wow, Anonymous. I like to think of myself as a cold hearted bastard, but even I can’t just bat an eyelash at 250,000 deaths worldwide. I tip my hat to you, sir.

  79. #79 Uncle Dave
    October 21, 2009

    To Anonymous;
    I saw the 60 minutes piece and thought it was lousy.
    Not very informative to the public, actually more of a scare piece than a good information piece.
    Immunologist at New York’s Cedar Sini said that individuals born after 1950 seem to be in a risk group (1920’s to 1940’s birth groups seem to not contract it)? This conflicts with what my physician told me or at least insinuates that I, as a post 1950 birth, have some risk, however I was advised that I did not need to take it (I am not a respitory issue). I guess on the risk scale if there is any vaccine left after all the 6 month to 24 year olds get thiers, then I should???

    Basically 60 minutes showed a teen football player in Little Rock, AR. that contracted H1N1 shortly after a football game some time ago and is on a respirator barely holding on to his life (improves then gets worse, improves then turns for the worst again). Very very healthy young man prior to contracting the virus. The other players (including the other team) came down with the virus shortly afterward and most if not all returned to normal after a short period (whatever a short period is).
    Very strange effect in that in some (non respirtory compromised patients) it immediately attacks the respitory system while in others it passes like a typical flu virus?

    Obviously, I am no physician :)

  80. #80 James Sweet
    October 21, 2009

    Is anyone else slightly weirded out at the idea of two year olds breastfeeding?

    heh, that’s nothing. Four or even five years is not unheard of. I even read a news story once about a six-year-old who hadn’t yet been weaned…

    I actually don’t think two years is too long at all. In natural hunter-gatherer societies, I believe breastfeeding tended to last even longer than that. It’s actually quite beneficial when available nutrition is poor (e.g. enough calories, but not enough protein).

    What data there is suggest there are no deleterious psychological effects on the children from very late breastfeeding. Now, for me personally — and this is random speculation without any data — I tend to think it’s probably indicative of some issues with the parent if it goes much beyond two years, at least in our modern society where toddlers nutritional needs are very well met and do not need to be supplemented with breastmilk. But what do I know…

    Anyway, that she breastfed each of her children for two years was the only thing Melinda said that wasn’t crazy. The data on breastfeeding for the most part indicates, “The longer the better.” Maybe two years is past the point of diminishing returns, but then again maybe it’s not…

    Now, that her kids aren’t vaxed…. CRAZY!

  81. #81 James Sweet
    October 21, 2009

    I’ve posted this a couple of times, but there is no reason that doctors can’t push vaccination without driving off the customers. For example, there’s a big difference between saying

    1) We can in principle delay the vaccination of your child, but I need to tell you, doing so does increase the risk of your child catching one of these illnesses, and at the same time, there is absolutely no indication that doing it that way is any safer. In the end it is your decision, but I strongly recommend following the guidelines provided by the CDC

    and

    2) I understand your concerns and can use an alternate schedule if it makes you feel better.

    In the first example, if they chose the alternate route, so be it. However, in the second, you aren’t even trying, and are only enabling the fearmongering.

    Though, the one point that needs to be made is that the worst possible choice is:

    3) You are stupid!

    Because I know someone that happened to recently, and now she’s looking for a different doctor who is down with delayed vaxing. Luckily, my wife is steering her towards our doctor, who is more in line with #1, and will certainly make sure she eventually gets the vaccines even if it ends up being on a delayed schedule. But imagine if this doctor’s losing his temper had resulted in this woman finding a doctor who was straight-up anti-vax?

    Anyway, I like how you phrased #1. That’s the way to do it.

  82. #82 Uncle Dave
    October 21, 2009

    James Sweet wrote;
    “heh, that’s nothing. Four or even five years is not unheard of. I even read a news story once about a six-year-old who hadn’t yet been weaned…”

    “..I tend to think it’s probably indicative of some issues with the parent…..”

    Ya think!!! My spouse, as a teacher has met some very interesting parents in the course of 30 yrs. and breast feeding into the 4-5 year old stage is awfully indicative of off the scale maternal issues. If your an adult and you still have memories of suckling momies mamories, you likely hung out at the family saloon a bit to long.

    I myself am pastuerized milk drinker (a.k.a. believer in vaccines)

  83. #83 James Sweet
    October 21, 2009

    So, sad story on post hoc fallacies:

    One of my cats passed away a few months ago very mysteriously. Most likely she ate some kind of poison, but we never identified what it was. She was an indoor/outdoor cat, so who knows what she could have gotten into? One morning she appeared totally healthy, her appetite was fine, she was interacting normally. That evening, her kidneys were completely shutting down and there was nothing we could do.

    Here’s where the sad story gets relevant: About a week beforehand, I had purchased flea medication for my cats for the first time. Despite my wife’s reminders, I kept forgetting to give it to them. I gave it to my remaining cat a week or so after the one passed way.

    Imagine if I had remembered to give the flea medication on time? Here I would have been applying a nasty “toxin” to my cat, for the first time ever, and the next day her kidneys shut down and she dies. I would have been absolutely 100% convinced that it was the flea medication (and I probably never would have forgiven myself).

    If I remember to do my chores one week instead of the next, I wind up with incredible guilt and anguish — over a simple post hoc fallacy.

  84. #84 ababa
    October 21, 2009

    I have seen mothers complaining that kindergarten teachers don’t let them come in an breastfeed their children. Some of them even tried to push it to the point of “I’ll do it anyways and smile at them with a big toothy grin!”.

    Now beyond the maternal attachment issues, think for a moment at what the other children would say if they saw this. Children can be ruthless in teasing, and something like this could cause serious social issues, and a lack of confidence. In elementary school “uniqueness” doesn’t derive respect from classmates, it tends to be the object of ridicule. Particularly if it is viewed as an area of weakness or dependence.

  85. #85 gaiainc
    October 21, 2009

    Wow, Anonymous. Just wow. So basically what you’re saying is that death rate isn’t high enough for us to be worried, and that even though you say the loss of a single life is tragic, you actually don’t believe that. So what mortality rate is high enough for you to decide that a disease requires vaccination?

    Right now, I can’t give the seasonal or H1N1 vaccine to my patients that actually need them so they don’t get sick and/or die. I have several patients with flu whom I’m hoping don’t die on me and you’re telling me that I should be more worried about the death rate once people are getting the vaccine? Are you insane?

    I am incandescent with rage at the utter stupidity, heartlessness, and fricking arrogance of your words. Unbelievable.

  86. #86 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 21, 2009

    @ 69, who is either Joseph Mercola hiding under a cloak of anonymity or plagiarizing Mercola —

    You’re a little late to the party.

  87. #87 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 21, 2009

    Ok, whoa y’all–ease up on the breastfeeding bashing here. Nursing a 2 year old is not in the same realm as nursing a 5 year old (kindergarten age). The benefits of breastfeeding beyond the first year are less about nutrition than about emotional/psychological needs, but that doesn’t make it sick or wrong. For most moms nursing a toddler isn’t so much about going full-frontal on the playground as it is about quiet, private snuggling in times of stress or sleepiness. I’m sure that some of those saintly extreme mommies do believe that they’re continuing to ‘pass on immunity’ to their children through prolonged breastfeeding, which is of course bullshit, but there are other valid reasons for continuing past the first year that don’t make one a whackaloon lactivist.

    (superdave said:)I didn’t know there were all these docs out there prescribing fat and soda.

    Hells yeah! It’s a new diet developed by pediatricians in cooperation with dentists and cardiologists. In fact, since my children were weaned (circa age 2! Suck it, naysayers!) they have been happily subsisting on three squares a day of suet and mountain dew. Hey, they’re fully vaccinated, what could go wrong?

    Militant agnostic @43: That’d make a hell of a PSA.

  88. #88 SciencePundit
    October 21, 2009

    Here‘s that 60 Minutes piece for those who haven’t seen it yet.

  89. #89 bparton
    October 21, 2009

    @Melinda:

    “ever teen a hunchback teenager?”

    Huh? I tink I never teen one.

  90. #90 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 21, 2009
    Conventional medicine has routinely ignored and ridiculed the voices speaking up for a “safety first” approach

    Can you provide any example where anyone has offered up a legitimate strategy that would actually make vaccination “safer” that does not involve stopping vaccinations completely?

    I don’t think he can, Pablo. If he’s Joseph Mercola he doesn’t want to shed his protective cloak of anonymity, and if he’s not Joseph Mercola he doesn’t want to reveal that he’s a plagiarist.

  91. #91 MadScientist
    October 21, 2009

    I’d just like to point out that there are numerous things which people can do to avoid ever developing cancer – they’re all 100% effective but they all rely on the fact that you don’t develop cancer if you’re dead.

    Aside from avoiding activities which drastically increase your chances of developing some form of cancer, such as smoking or working in asbestos mines, there’s really nothing that is known to mediate in preventing the condition. For now it’s just a matter of luck that you don’t get it (and for a few people such as Christina Applegate the odds of developing breast cancer are close to 100% thanks to a few known genes). People are working on identifying the mechanisms involved in the development and growth of various types of cancer, but there is much yet to be learned. Anyone who claims to know of something which prevents cancer (other than dying) is a liar.

  92. #92 Dennis
    October 21, 2009

    You sir know nothing about research. The research in which Dr. Gonzalez was involved was a sham. He was fed a bunch of people that were already on their death bed without even the ability to eat. Eating is paramount in the Gonzalez protocol. He has several books coming out soon that address his lawsuit against the people that were in charge of the study. Maybe you should do a little research of your own. Good day sir.

  93. #93 bparton
    October 21, 2009

    I’ve been thinking about the pancreatic cancer regimen described and I’m having a lot of trouble wrapping my head around a pancreatic cancer patient swallowing bucketfuls of supplements every day and enduring coffee enemas. My cousin died 9 months after diagnosis, and in the mean time, he was far too busy doing things like puking his guts out and getting his legs amputated to even consider anything so ridiculous. He weighed something like 76 pounds when he died. For many months before that, he was flat on his back and sicker than sick. I just don’t get it.

  94. #94 Dan Weber
    October 21, 2009

    Good day sir.

    Is it bad I read that in a Gene Wilder voice?

  95. #95 Chris
    October 21, 2009

    Dennis:

    You sir know nothing about research.

    And you do? For one thing, did you read the top left of this blog page that says “Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist” (also, if you have been here long enough you will know he is a surgical oncologist specializing in breast cancer).

    Now go back and read the links at the end of the blog posting where Orac specifically addresses the Gonzalez protocol. Then please post what real evidence shows that the protocol has any medical validity (I personally think the coffee enemas are used just to torture the patients, if you disagree then show me the science behind it!).

  96. #96 Dangerous Bacon
    October 21, 2009

    Anonymous said: “(H1N1 flu) killed six people and made tens of thousands of people sick….

    So what you’re saying is the death rate from this flu is extremely low!!

    I wonder what the death rate will be once people start receiving this virtually untested vaccine.

    Although the loss of even a single life is tragic, I don’t think anyone would look at these numbers and say that a mortality rate this low is cause to label H1N1 influenza a “deadly disease” that requires vaccination.”

    Think again.

    The death rate from H1N1 flu in children has markedly exceeded the recent death rate from “ordinary” seasonal flu – 76 fatalities reported from H1N1 in kids from April through mid-October.

    And the N.Y. Times recently reported that the 43 pediatric deaths occurring from August through mid-October exceeds the number of child flu fatalities that we typically see in an entire flu season.

    Why are antivaxers so willing to overlook this alarming death rate? Have your obsessions blinded you to what’s going on?

    It’s past time for you to develop some rational perspective about the minimal risks associated with vaccines, as compared with the very real and documented serious complications and mortality associated with infectious disease.

  97. #97 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 21, 2009

    Is it bad I read that in a Gene Wilder voice?

    Is it worse that I added “I said Good day!!!!” in a Homer Simpson voice?

  98. #98 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    You sir know nothing about research

    The multiple grants I’ve received (including an NIH R01), as well as my funded laboratory and research program directorship, would argue otherwise.

    What are your credentials to pontificate about research, I wonder?

    You wouldn’t happen to be an “alternative medicine” practitioner, would you? And how would you know so much about Nicholas Gonzalez’s “research”? You wouldn’t happen to have worked with him, would you?

    Inquiring minds want to know!

  99. #99 Corina Becker
    October 21, 2009

    On one hand, she’s hitching her safety statements to the fact that the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore “safe,” even though she realistically CAN’T say that the new H1N1 swine flu vaccine is safe, or that it has been thoroughly tested because it only has been tested for a few weeks.

    On the other hand CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated to prevent a deadly pandemic. This is completely inconsistent and irrational logic.

    Come on CDC, you simply can’t have it both ways.

    actually, anonymous, take a look at what you’ve said: the H1N1 VACCINE is similar to the seasonal flu shot and that the H1N1 VIRUS is so different from previous seasonal influenza strains.

    The similarities is the way in which the vaccine was created; thus, as the seasonal flu vaccine is safe, so is the H1N1 vaccine.
    The differences is the actual virus, which means that the current general population does not have any previous immunity to the H1N1 virus, as they may to seasonal flu. In comparison, the H1N1 flu, which has killed over 4,000 people world-wide according to WHO, is more dangerous than the average seasonal flu.

    And that’s from just analyzing what you’ve said, anonymous.

  100. #100 Corina Becker
    October 21, 2009

    woops, apparently I don’t know how to quote with simple html tags. Everything from the beginning of post 99 to “Come on CDC, you simply can’t have it both ways” is a quote.

    sorry for any misunderstanding or confusing about that.

  101. #101 Antigone
    October 21, 2009

    Coming to this late, Greg, but since I didn’t see your question about age of diagnosis addressed:

    The diagnostic procedures that are the gold standard of autism diagnosis (ADOS and ADI) are normed to be used, at the very youngest, at 18 months. There are versions in development to be used younger, which are being tested in research programs, but they’re not published or normed yet.

    Even at 18 months, you’re going to pick up the more severely affected kids for the most part – there are a lot of kids you can say at at that are are showing some concerning signs or are at risk, and would be helped by early intervention even if possible delays wind up not being ASD-related, but it’s really hard to make a really solid diagnosis at that age. 2.5-3 is when you start really being able to make a solid diagnosis, and even then, there are some kids you’re not going to be able to pick up until later.

    If you wanted to postpone vaccinations until you were really absolutely sure there were no early risk signs, you’d be looking at 3 or 4 at the earliest for most kids. Seems like you’d be putting way too many kids at way too much risk, just to cater to the crazies.

  102. #102 flim flam
    October 21, 2009

    sanctimommy melinda only wins if she had an unassisted water lotus birth attended by dolphins in the sea. Nothing like a rotting organ hanging off a newborn to aid in the all important one time only “bonding” experience.
    Interestingly in my adventures lurking on MDC ( not a place for the sane) a lot of the mommies who go for the super extended bitty seem to end up on the forums discussing tooth decay in their kids. some connection perhaps?.
    Considering they’re all for the antivax lunacy a lot of the forums seems to be about how sick their kids are (allergies, autism, failure to thrive etc). the vaccination forums are a hive of conspiracy theories and insanity.
    Something that really annoys me is the whole delayed vaxxing. There really isn’t some magic third way, you’re either vaxxed or you’re not, they seem to assume some sort of protection while they’re engaging in their stoopid made up schedules, “oh we’re delaying MMR for little moonflower” little moonflower has zero protection in the meantime while sanctimommy and daddy get to feel all superior to us sheeple herders at the same time as being total parasites.
    Why don’t all you anti medicine wackaloons go buy an isolated island somewhere and you can live in homeopathic paradise , grazing on natures plenty, just like in the olden days when people didn’t get cancer because they were too busy dying in childbirth , watching their babies die from “harmless” childhood illnesses and managing to live to the grand old age of 35, if they were lucky.. it would be the study they’ve all been screaming for. Sort of like survivor only with more idiots.

  103. #103 Informed :)
    October 21, 2009

    WOW!! you medical-minded-brainwashed-by-the-BIG-PHARMA idiots are really, really mean people….and NOT quite as smart as you think, since you’re being taught from books written by those who are brainwashing you :( How sad it is for those of you who are so “educated”

  104. #104 the bug guy
    October 21, 2009

    -sarcasm mode one-Yeah, we have to be careful about all that book learning.-sarcasm mode off-

  105. #105 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 21, 2009

    Well, just out of curiosity, “Informed”, what are the sources of your superior ways of knowing? Please, do enlighten me.

  106. #106 Chris
    October 21, 2009

    Oh, yawn. It is the Pharma Shill Gambit.

    So “Informed” is that what you think will work versus evidence?

  107. #107 Chris
    October 21, 2009

    Wait, that is “Informed:)”, with a smiley at the end of the nickname. Was that a Poe?

  108. #108 Uncle Glenny
    October 21, 2009

    Just got back from getting my flu vaccine.

    They had two jabbers, but only one person handling paperwork. Guess where the bottlneck was? I showed up 5 minutes before the scheduled start and was assigned number 144; it took over 3 hours.

    I spent 15 minutes standing in line in front of Suzanne Somers’ book.

  109. #109 JohnV
    October 21, 2009

    Ohhh so book learning is bad.

    Now it all makes sense.

  110. #110 cole slaw birdzynski
    October 21, 2009

    Orac,

    You are so full of ___t. You know that, by and large, mainstream cancer treatment is a failure. Ask any oncologist. They know their job is to kill the patient, and they do so willingly, all the while telling themselves they are good doctors. We have been using the same cytotoxic chemotherapy since the 1950’s. Medical science has advanced. Cancer treatment has not. The people know it.

    Suzanne Sommers has sold 25 million books, Orac. How many have you sold? The ditzy TV blond is actually an intellectual powerhouse, Orac, and she could run rings around your few puny neurons, and you know it. How many off the cuff TV interviews have you done ORAC? She is a natural at it.

    The game is over before it started: Suzanne 1000, Orac zero.

    nuf said.

  111. #111 craigspr
    October 21, 2009

    That was so worst…I don’t know what to say

    http://www.craigspr.org

  112. #112 Cath the Canberra Cook
    October 21, 2009

    Corina and others: scienceblogs commenting system is, umm, dodgy. To blockquote you have to put each paragraph in the tags separately. (ie <blockquote> one paragraph in here </blockquote>)

  113. #113 ohboy...
    October 21, 2009

    Is it bad I read that in a Gene Wilder voice?
    Is it worse that I added “I said Good day!!!!” in a Homer Simpson voice?

    …I heard it in Fez’s voice…

  114. #114 Badger3k
    October 21, 2009

    “Good day to you sir” – wow. A Victorian-style flounce out for a drive-by moron. Well, ok, it could have been later, but I think of the Victorian times when I hear that kind of speech.

  115. #115 History Punk
    October 21, 2009

    “Suzanne Sommers has sold 25 million books, Orac. How many have you sold?”

    Well, Hitler has sold more books than me, so clearly my anti-fascist opposition to mass murdering Jews, Roma, Serbs, and the mentally disabled must be wrong. After all, a best selling author could not possible be wrong, eh cole slaw birdzynski. Moron. Jesus Christ, I am learning disabled yet smarter than you.

  116. #116 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 21, 2009

    I’m calling Poe on 110, for two reasons: the ‘nym making fun of Somers’ expert Stanislaw Burzynski, and the idea that doing more TV interviews = smarter, which I think anti-vaxxers have to recognize is a stupid basis on which to presume expertise.

  117. #117 Chris
    October 21, 2009

    cole slaw birdzynski:

    You are so full of ___t. You know that, by and large, mainstream cancer treatment is a failure. Ask any oncologist.

    Orac is an oncologist.

    osb continues:

    We have been using the same cytotoxic chemotherapy since the 1950’s.

    So have you been living in a cave? You really ought to go up to the top of this blog and click on the “cancer” tag, and read some of the stuff Orac has written over the past few years. You might want to try Cancer Research and Clinical Trials and Medicine and evolution, part 12: Using evolution to develop adaptive chemotherapy to start.

    Now osb goes on with:

    Suzanne Sommers has sold 25 million books, Orac.

    Argument from popularity is a very lame tactic. Who really cares?

    Now these are the real questions you need to ask: How many years has Suzanne Sommers spent in medical school? Has she passed the medical board exam in her state? How many surgeries has she performed? How many credits of Continuing Medical Education has she earned?

  118. #118 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 21, 2009

    At the top of this page that I’m commenting on is an ad for Somers’ new book! I lack the know-how to take a screen shot, unfortunately.
    I’m torn between dismay that this piece of shit is being advertised on Science Blogs, and amusement that a chunk of the publisher’s advertising budget is going to “the enemy”.

  119. #119 Marilyn Mann
    October 21, 2009

    “if my brain can handle it, I will be reading Somers’ book over the next few weeks”

    I admire your public spirit. I don’t think I would make the sacrifice, myself.

  120. #120 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 21, 2009

    Aha! If you don’t see the ad, just refresh the page, and it will appear after a few times.

    Anyway, that’s great market research, guys!

  121. #121 Tina Budde
    October 21, 2009

    I think Suzanne Somers is trying to make money but if that not be the case and she really believes her therapy is helpful then so be it, great. It worked for her, we are each individuals and what works for some does not work for others. We are all entitled that freedom of choice of medical treatment which I hope will be preserved with the new US medical insurance outlines and not wind up with medical dictatorship. I’m an optimist and I think I do alot of unconventional treatments on myself for lymphedema, they work for me but I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone else in the hopes it would hurt them. People do what they see fit.

    Tina of Lymphland International Lymphedema Online

  122. #122 Tina Budde
    October 21, 2009

    In my above statement I left out a word and did not notice until now, I hope it would NOT hurt anyone if they copied what they did. Suzanne has alot of guts to put out the book. I would be afraid of if someone tried it and got hurt. I know my conscience would bother me for life if that happened.

    Tina Budde

  123. #123 Julia
    October 21, 2009

    I noticed someone commented on a press release of that Dr.Khalid Mahmud from Reuters. But no one wanted to commented on it except to make partial fun on his website, and that was of the original comment.

    Well I was thinking of getting Suzanne’s book, and thought to go there as this was a doctor endorsed by her, and read everything here (that mattered).

    Have you all seen this guy’s Credentials? This Doctor is not just any old doctor, and he agrees with some of what I’ve heard Suzanne was saying.

    This is the part of the release that the girl left out as she was too busy looking for problems with the doctor:

    “Dr. Mahmud who is quadruple certified in Oncology; Hematology; Internal Medicine and Anti-Aging Medicine, and former member of FDA panel on devices and radiological health, believes that by changing or altering certain natural substances ever so slightly, to then administer them as replacement for its natural counterpart has been leading to dangerous risks that assist in causing
    cancer for unsuspecting clients. This is backed up by studies pointed out in his book……..”

    Many here are going on about many things that they think they know about, while the rest of the world is passing you up such as this doctor who has “counseled” the FDA itself. I bet he know’s about things that I have been suspecting but only had questions about. Suzanne Somers has interviewed him.

    I’ll be getting her book, maybe I’ll get his too. I left out the other parts of the press release, you all should read it and learn something.

  124. #124 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    Aha! If you don’t see the ad, just refresh the page, and it will appear after a few times.

    I can’t replicate this on my end.

  125. #125 FreeSpeaker
    October 21, 2009

    Let’s see…two blonde BOOBshells, Susie Somers and Jenny McCarthy…brings to mind the old joke…what does a dumb blonde call hair coloring? Artificial Intelligence.

  126. #126 Tsu Dho Nimh
    October 21, 2009

    She says that doctors urged her to take chemotherapy.

    Often there is a discussion of “what to do IF” the biopsy is positive … charitably, I’ll assume she mistook this for being urged to get chemotherapy immediately before the results were in.

  127. #127 Marilyn Mann
    October 21, 2009

    I submitted a question for Somers to the Larry King show.

  128. #128 bparton
    October 21, 2009

    Suzanne Sommers has sold 25 million books, Orac.

    All of which were ghost written, I might add.

  129. #129 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 21, 2009

    I just tried refreshing your page again – 3 tries and I got it. Maybe it only appears in Canada?

    Also, the qualifications of the doctor mentioned in #123 sound impressive, but are not that unusual. In Canada, at least, most Hematologists are also certified in Internal Medicine, because Hematology is a sub-specialty of Internal Medicine. Many are also certified in Medical Oncology. A physician trained in Hematology is eligible to take the Internal Medicine exams, and most do. Medical Oncology overlaps a great deal with Hematology, as well. I don’t know how much extra training you would need to qualify for the Oncology exam,but it’s unlikely to be more than a year or two. In addition, in the US, the board exams allow entry to exams by Practice Eligibility, so that with sufficient experience, you wouldn’t even need to take extra residency training beyond Internal Med and Hematology.

    Oh yes, the Certification in Anti-Aging Medicine. AFAIK, this is not a recognized medical specialty. I don’t know who would certify a candidate in this field, but I’m pretty sure it’s not the American Specialty Boards.

  130. #130 bparton
    October 21, 2009

    @coleslaw

    You are so full of ___t. You know that, by and large, mainstream cancer treatment is a failure. Ask any oncologist. They know their job is to kill the patient, and they do so willingly, all the while telling themselves they are good doctors. We have been using the same cytotoxic chemotherapy since the 1950’s. Medical science has advanced. Cancer treatment has not. The people know it.

    The people know it? WTF?? I’d be terminally ill right now or perhaps dead if it weren’t for advances in the treatment of breast cancer. I had the most aggressive type of breast cancer you can get, but because they caught it early and I had treatment (and wonderful oncologists, God bless them), there is NO chance of recurrance. This was all 9 years ago and I am leading a perfectly normal lifestyle and I’m grateful for every minute of it!

    God, WHERE do these people come from?

  131. #131 flim flam
    October 21, 2009

    Once more for the hard of thinking and reality impaired ( you know who you are, maybe you don’t…) Orac is AN ONCOLOGIST. This means he does actually know what he’s talking about, unlike the google scholars who don’t even think of laughing at Dr Nick (honestly, if you’re a quack surely you need to be aware of popular culture? how is everyone who meets him not shouting “hi Dr Nick”!). Seriously you Somers groupies need to get hold of some history books for a bit of insight into the horrors of cancer treatment in the all natural olden days instead of lapping up the NWO/lizard people/conspiracy fest at whale.to and prison planet. I give up, might just get me a nice tinfoil hat and see if i can chelate out the bad skeptic toxins.

  132. #132 Travis
    October 21, 2009

    I came to this party a bit late today but I did have a good laugh at a couple of the posts that said Orac does not know how to do research, and that he should talk to an oncologist (was that a faker or someone being serious?). Considering what he does he seems to have some knowledge of both.
    Of course, there is no reason to suspect those who brought up these points have any knowledge of oncology or research methodology. But a little ignorance has never stopped anyone from having an opinion.

  133. #133 Tsu Dho Nimh
    October 21, 2009

    @1 … she can’t even act!

    @49 … Yes! I believe there is a sanctimommy scoring panel somewhere. Organic cotton washable fabric wiping squares (replacing BigCharmin) and DIY washable menstrual pads (replacing BigTampon) are what the real winners of this “more earth momma than thou” competition are using.

    @56 … for the WIN!

    @99 the H1N1 vaccine is similar to seasonal influenza vaccine, and therefore “safe” …. CDC officials are screaming that H1N1 is so different from the seasonal influenza strains that have circulated in the past few decades that a national alarm must be sounded and everyone needs to be so afraid that we all should get vaccinated They can both be true. The virus is “just another influenza variety”, which makes vaccine production by the same method used to produce “seasonal flu vaccine” just another vaccine.

    Who is getting the sickest from it and who is most at risk, on the other hand, is because of the differing pathogenicity of this variety of influenza. The distribution is unusual, and an unusually high number of those who are hospitalized are requiring extremely aggressive treatment.

  134. #134 Orac
    October 21, 2009

    I just tried refreshing your page again – 3 tries and I got it. Maybe it only appears in Canada?

    Please, please, please send me a screenshot!

  135. #135 Brad
    October 21, 2009

    The Knockout ad came up on the second refresh Yeah, I’m in Canada too, does SciBlogs geographically target ads?

  136. #136 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 21, 2009

    Thank you, Brad!
    I feel so ignorant…

  137. #137 new mom
    October 21, 2009

    I read on a poster at my OBGYN’s office that breastfeeding can actually reduce a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer. It said that the longer she nursed her children, the less likely she’d ever get it. It said that after 5 years of nursing(accumulated) the chance of ever getting it was almost nonexistent… does anyone have any data on that?

  138. #138 flim flam
    October 22, 2009

    New mom, it’s a bit more complicated than that. Breast cancer is not a punishment for bottlefeeding, as much as the santimommies wish it was ( you don’t breastfeed?!! OMG!! not only will your baby turn into an allergy ridden obese moron but you will get teh cancer!!)
    Although i have no doubt orac can explain it much better than me, if you have the genetic propensity to breastcancer, breastfeeding your children into adulthood won’t stop you getting it. The research does seem to show some protective effect though.
    Anecdote alert!! one of my great aunties breastfed all her kids (ten of them) which adds up to a whole lot of bitty years, this did not prevent her dying of breast cancer.

    Also, there have been a number of cases in the media recently here in australia of women who developed breast cancer whilst they were pregnant. Interestingly pregnant women have received modified chemotherapy protocols with some success, and despite OMG teh toxins! their babies seem to do ok. Again, orac is the go to guy for this information and i apologize if i’ve made any heinous errors.

  139. #139 Orac
    October 22, 2009

    Breast feeding does indeed reduce the risk of breast cancer.

  140. #140 Chris
    October 22, 2009

    On the large scale, but due to the variability between individuals it is not a guarantee.

  141. #141 Pablo
    October 22, 2009

    Chrissy Snow was on Thom Hartmann today. I listened to about 30 secs before I turned it off in disgust.

    Here was her thing. She says, “These doctors, I could go with them if they could tell me that by using these approaches (surgery, radiation, chemo), that they could cure my cancer. But they won’t say that.” That’s all it took for me to give up.

    You know why they won’t say that? Because they aren’t going to lie to you. Shoot, mention the word “cure” and they start to squirm, mainly because it is such a vacuus word. No, real doctors will say things like, “There is a 90% chance that it will go away for at least 5 years” and such things, but that is because this is true.

    Meanwhile, Chrissy’s implication is that those people she has in her book apparently WILL claim that they can cure you. That includes good old Dr. Nick, who’s procedure not only doesn’t cure you, it actually kills you faster.

    So to summarize:

    Traditional Doctors: Bad, because they tell you the truth
    Doctors in her book: Good, because they will lie to you!

  142. #142 Kemist
    October 22, 2009

    On the large scale, but due to the variability between individuals it is not a guarantee.

    Nothing is a guarantee, except, of course, dying before you develop it.

    And I am stealing that word sanctimommy (can we have the male version too ?). It perfectly describes the way my brother in law behaves – and they use those nasty cotton washable diapers too, to the little one’s discomfort. Those things aren’t nearly absorbent as the disposable kind, which means that poor baby’s behind is permanently wet, with rashes – despite very frequent changes of both diaper and clothing (the things almost always leak) and application of two kinds of cream.

    While understanding that breastfeeding is better for all sorts of reasons, I’m getting increasingly annoyed with breastmilk talibans like him.

    It’s like you’re deliberately making your child sick or brain damaged if your dare use a bottle – that’s the way my brother in law put it to my mother one day, that my sister could have somehow been “better” had she been breastfed (personnaly he would have slept on the sofa if he’d dared speak those words in front of me – I’d have felt the insinuation that I’m damaged goods insulting). My mom shot back that she seemed good enough for him.

    He even managed to make a friend, who had mastitis after her daughter was born, feel guilty. Since he has read the Googles and therefore knows better than his doctor, he also thinks that the flu vaccine is dangerous and won’t be getting it, despite being in close contact with a 6-month old – after all, such a harmless natural thing as flu wouldn’t hurt a magical breastfed baby, wouldn’t it ?

  143. #143 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 22, 2009

    Kemist:

    Congratulations! You have the BIL from Hell.
    If there were justice in this world, your BIL would get swine flu and diaper rash at the same time.

  144. #144 Molly, NYC
    October 22, 2009

    Kemist – Wow. Can you get your sister and her baby out of there?

  145. #145 Anek
    October 22, 2009

    As the anti-vaccine memes spread among the low IQ subset of the population the quantity of easily preventable diseases will rise and remove their offspring from the gene pool, thus raising the national IQ.

  146. #146 Adrienne
    October 22, 2009

    They know their job is to kill the patient, and they do so willingly, all the while telling themselves they are good doctors.

    I had no idea killing people via chemotherapy was such a lucrative profession. Oncologists must have a much easier time in their medical training than other doctors, given that the latter have to learn the intricacies of keeping patients alive instead of killing them.

  147. #147 D. C. Sessions
    October 22, 2009

    Anonymous@69:

    Hate to break the news to you, but the experience in the southern hemisphere is that 2009H1N1 is putting a lot more young healthy adults in ICU on ventilators. I’d call that “different.”

    The vaccine is essentially identical to the seasonal vaccine, and the virus is immunologically enough different that nobody under 50 has any prior experience with similar strains — so they’re much more vulnerable.

    In other words, the CDC can “have it both ways.” Then again, they know what they’re talking about (not too surprising, since it’s their job) and the confusion is at your end.

  148. #148 Dangerous Bacon
    October 22, 2009

    Kemist: “breastmilk talibans”

    Hey, I caught them in concert the other night. Awesome drummer.

    Just don’t sit too close to the stage.

  149. #149 Dianne
    October 22, 2009

    the way my brother in law put it to my mother one day, that my sister could have somehow been “better” had she been breastfed

    If you’ll pardon the advise based on knowing nothing but that about your sister, may I suggest that she might be better if she underwent a drastic weight loss plan? Specifically that she lose the (at a guess) 170 or so pounds of dead weight currently known as your brother in law? I hear divorce attorneys can work wonders that way.

    Seriously, I know nothing about the relationship but what you’ve said but if it’s as bad as it sounds they really should be thinking about how to resolve the issues…including resolving them by splitting.

  150. #150 Richard Eis
    October 22, 2009

    There should be an intelligence test to own a computer and use the internet.

  151. #151 Dianne
    October 22, 2009

    I had no idea killing people via chemotherapy was such a lucrative profession.

    It has its problems, though. More and more people are having the audacity to survive! Ungrateful twits. Don’t they know they’re supposed to die off gracefully instead of hanging around demanding follow up five and more years later? It’s almost as though survival were better now than 10 years ago. Nah…Suzanne Somers says it’s not so it can’t possibly be so.

  152. #152 a
    October 22, 2009

    I hope this bitch actually gets cancer and dies from it. It’d make for delicious karma for all the bullshit she’s feeding gullible people.

  153. #153 Patrick
    October 22, 2009

    The anti-vaccine movement is unforgivable, in my opinion.

    If it was only a few people, it wouldn’t be a big deal, but if we cross that herd immunity threshold then people who *did* get vaccinated are at risk as well, since no vaccine is one hundred percent effective.

    Putting yourself at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? Fine by me. Putting your children at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? Less fine, but nothing I or the government can (or should) do about it. But put my family at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? That’s when the gloves come off.

  154. #154 Pablo
    October 22, 2009

    Putting yourself at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? Fine by me. Putting your children at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? Less fine, but nothing I or the government can (or should) do about it. But put my family at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? That’s when the gloves come off.

    Word!

    Actually, I can say that when it was me personally, it still wasn’t as much of a big deal. But that all changed the minute my son was born. At that point, they are putting HIM at risk, and that, my friend, is where I draw a line.

  155. #155 Scott
    October 22, 2009

    Putting your children at risk because you’re crazy and paranoid? Less fine, but nothing I or the government can (or should) do about it.

    This bit, I disagree with. The government can and does take action to protect children from parents who are a threat to their children for various reasons. (And in particular, mental illness can be sufficient justification.)

    I tend to take the view that vaccine refusal for “philosophical” reasons, or failure to get the recommended schedule (e.g. due to forgetfulness), constitute child endangerment and neglect, and should be treated accordingly. For that matter, I’d say the same thing about refusal on religious grounds, but I accept that I’ve already lost on that one.

  156. #156 Andrew Dodds
    October 22, 2009

    Adrienne 146 –

    Yes, and those (conventional) doctors are clearly not as effective at it as alternative doctors, because it takes them much longer to kill their patients. Indeed, sometimes their patients die of something else.

  157. #157 Scott
    October 22, 2009

    It occurs to me that I should clarify the bit about mental illness in 155.

    Patrick referred to “crazy and paranoid.” That would qualify as mentally ill. The following bit about vaccine refusal is not meant to imply that vaccine refusers are mentally ill, or to equate them in any other way aside from them being potential cause for government intervention to protect children.

  158. #158 jypsy
    October 22, 2009

    Jenny McCarthy recommends Suzanne’s book –
    “JENNY SAYS: Go out and get Suzanne Somers book called Breakthrough.”
    http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/suzanne_somers_has_just_carpet_bombed_th.php

  159. #159 jypsy
    October 22, 2009

    Jenny McCarthy recommends Suzanne’s book –
    “JENNY SAYS: Go out and get Suzanne Somers book called Breakthrough.”
    http://www.oprah.com/bi/jenny-mccarthy/blogs/We-did-it.html

  160. #160 Corina Becker
    October 22, 2009

    @133 about #99

    sorry for the confusion, but as I stated in #100, I was quoting and apparently it didn’t go through as a quote.

  161. #161 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 22, 2009

    jypsy@158:
    Suzanne Somers is endorsed by “Dr. Mahmud who is quadruple certified in Oncology; Hematology; Internal Medicine and Anti-Aging Medicine, and former member of FDA panel on devices and radiological health”
    Not only that, she’s endorsed by Jenny McCarthy who is certified in – um – uh – showing her tits?

    Good enough for me!

  162. #162 LibraryGuy
    October 22, 2009

    Orac, with all due respect, I think you’re reading way too much into Ms Somer’s little story. Keep in mind that she’s not trying to tell a factually accurate story of her medical experience-she’s trying to SELL A BOOK.

  163. #163 whistle blower?
    October 22, 2009

    !!!MAJOR NEWS!!! Finally admitted Swine Flu Cases Seriously Overestimated!

    Go see for yourself…

  164. #164 Chris
    October 22, 2009

    Go see for yourself…

    Where, idiot? Next to the story of the first child to die of swine flu in our state?

  165. #165 whistle blower?
    October 22, 2009

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/10/21/cbsnews_investigates/main5404829.shtml

    SIMPLE MISTAKE CHRIS…DONT BE A BULLY…HERE’S UR URL

  166. #166 Chris
    October 22, 2009

    From that link:

    Swine Flu Cases Overestimated?
    CBS News Exclusive: Study Of State Results Finds H1N1 Not As Prevalent As Feared…. By Sharyl Attkisson

    R..i..g..h..t —- Consider the source, here is another link for you: CBS News’ resident anti-vaccine propagandist Sharyl Attkisson dives into breast cancer crankery

    Also, “person who does not know how to use the shift-key”, what does that yellow journalism have to do with Suzanne Somers?

  167. #167 whistle blower?
    October 22, 2009

    I have two questions for you Chris..

    1. What do 90% of these comments have to do with Suzanne Somers?

    2. Who needs a shift key when there’s a CapsLock?

  168. #168 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 22, 2009

    Orac, with all due respect, I think you’re reading way too much into Ms Somer’s little story. Keep in mind that she’s not trying to tell a factually accurate story of her medical experience-she’s trying to SELL A BOOK.

    What difference does that make that matters? If I write a book in which I tell libellous anecdotes about someone, I will get nowhere with the protestation that I was just trying to sell the book. If anything, my case will go worse with the court because I essentially just admitted a financial motivation for my wrongdoing.

    A patsy for the Scientologists got slapped down hard for just such shenanigans. In 1978 William Arnold, once a respected theatre critic, wrote a purported account of the life of Frances Farmer, which was marketed as an authentic biography and which contained many shocking salacious allegations about Farmer’s treatment for her mental health problems – most famous among them the claim that she had been subjected against her will to a transorbital lobotomy. (It’s worth noting that in his acknowledgements, Arnold thanks the President of the Church of Scientology, Heber Jentzsch, and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), an anti-psychiatry group which Scientology claims to be a separate entity but which was described by them to the IRS as a Scientology group and covered by a tax agreement between Scientology and the IRS.)

    Well, some time later, Arnold went to court to bring suit against movie producers who made a movie about the life of Frances Farmer, including the alleged lobotomy. Arnold claimed that the producers must have been basing their movie on his book, for which they had not paid him. How did he knew they must have been basing it on his book? Because they were including things – like the lobotomy – which Arnold had made up for the book. Arnold now claimed that his book was “fictionalized” and that it never was intended to be taken as non-fiction, but the judge’s decision stated otherwise: “Shadowland was presented to the public as a non-fiction work. Any reader of the book would have concluded that the book presented a true account of the life of Frances Farmer, the result of Arnold’s investigative journalism. The book itself purports to be a true story. It was released to the public as a non-fiction work. All of the promotional materials and reviews of the book treated it as non-fiction. [Plaintiffs] at no point prior to this litigation ever suggested publicly that the book was in part ‘fictionalized.’ This is not to say that Shadowland is indeed a truthful account of the life of Frances Farmer. The evidence introduced at trial established that portions of the book were fabricated by Arnold from whole cloth despite the subsequent release of the book as non-fiction.”

  169. #169 Neal
    October 22, 2009

    Suzanne Somers is a health warrior fighting big pharma and the corrupt mainstream medical establishment.

    I would never let my wife take synthetic hormones, and when the time comes, she’ll follow Dr. Jonathan Wright’s advice. He has a new book coming out that contains a foreword by Suzanne Somers. Check it out here…

    http://www.stayyoungandsexy.com/

  170. #170 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 22, 2009

    Orac, with all due respect, I think you’re reading way too much into Ms Somer’s little story. Keep in mind that she’s not trying to tell a factually accurate story of her medical experience

    In other words, she’s making shit up and presenting it as her own experience. Where I live there’s a short succinct term for this, and it stats with “L” and rhymes with frying.

    -she’s trying to SELL A BOOK.

    Oh, WELL then…

  171. #171 Kemist
    October 22, 2009

    Kemist – Wow. Can you get your sister and her baby out of there?

    Well, he isn’t abusive, he’s just being an asshat, and the baby is healthy and mostly well-cared for. She has even received her scheduled immunisations on time, despite my sister expressing doubts on them (I guess my showing her a video of a baby with whooping cough helped in that regard).

    As the anti-vaccine memes spread among the low IQ subset of the population the quantity of easily preventable diseases will rise and remove their offspring from the gene pool, thus raising the national IQ.

    The thing is, that’s not the case for most of them – under vaccinated kids often have relatively educated – and smart – parents. My BIL is a very smart and normally quite rational person – his problem, like many such people, is that he doesn’t understand that he is not a doctor, and that there are many things he does not know. Like most people who have no contact with life sciences, he thinks he can have a valid expert opinion on a complicated subject with a couple hours of Google U.

    Biology seems so simple a subject, especially when you’ve stopped studying it since high school.

  172. #172 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 22, 2009

    I would never let my wife take synthetic hormones, and when the time comes, she’ll follow Dr. Jonathan Wright’s advice.

    Got this all planned, have you? Does the little woman know?

  173. #173 Kemist
    October 22, 2009

    I would never let my wife take synthetic hormones

    What in pastafarian hell are “synthetic hormones” ? I’ve got a PhD in molecular endocrinology and somehow I’ve never heard that.

    Look, to an ER+ cell something is either an estrogen or it isn’t (althought some compounds – SERMs – can modulate response according to tissue type).

  174. #174 Uncle Dave
    October 22, 2009

    T. Bruce wrote;

    “Got this all planned, have you? Does the little woman know?”

    Yea, damn good question!
    Does she get to make other decisions for herself?

  175. #175 Kemist
    October 22, 2009

    @Dianne

    It sounds worse than it is. He and my sister simply think that they are the best at everything, and seem to think no people ever successfully raised children before them. They also frequently flaunt their superiority to people around them.

    It makes for a lot of tension between them, my parents and many of their less successful friends.

  176. #176 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 22, 2009

    Suzanne Somers is a health warrior fighting big pharma and the corrupt mainstream medical establishment.

    Either that, or she’s a not-very-bright Hollywood actress who got duped by quacks who feed their wallets and egos by getting suckers to buy into the delusion that their expensive therapies treat illness more successfully than mainstream medicine.

    Reality begs to differ.

  177. #177 Dangerous Bacon
    October 22, 2009

    Neal says “I would never let my wife take synthetic hormones, and when the time comes, she’ll follow Dr. Jonathan Wright’s advice.”

    That would be the Jonathan Wright that Suzanne Somers is enamored of, and (it would appear) the same Dr. Jonathan Wright who was president and co-founder of the American Quack Association back in the ’80s (according to Quackwatch, the AQA (which became defunct a couple decades ago) was created to make fun of anti-quackery advocates and to promote the image of alt med practitioners). Quackwatch has some interesting things to say about Dr. Jonathan Wright:

    “(Wright) began practicing “nutritional medicine” in 1973 at his Tahoma Clinic in Kent, Washington…Wright also operates the Meridian Valley Laboratory, a facility that does many nonstandard tests. From 1993 through 1998, Wright helped lead the National Health Federation, a group whose primary goal is to abolish government regulation of health-care activities.

    In the early 1990s, Wright achieved considerable notoriety battling the FDA. The dispute surfaced in July 1991 when law enforcement officers seized 103 bottles of L-tryptophan from the For Your Health Pharmacy, adjacent to Wright’s clinic. The FDA had banned the marketing of L-tryptophan after it was implicated in an outbreak of eosinophilia-myalgia syndrome, but Wright continued to prescribe it…according to an FDA affidavit, FDA investigators observed mold in some glass vials at the pharmacy and were informed that the products had been made at a laboratory adjacent to Wright’s clinic. Further investigation indicated that Wright and the pharmacist were co-owners of the laboratory and clinic and that a clandestine manufacturing facility was being constructed in a vacant business next to the pharmacy [4]. When the investigators went to the laboratory, Wright would not permit them to conduct a full inspection… In December 1991, an FDA inspector posed as a patient and was diagnosed with an Interro device, a computerized galvanometer that measures changes in the skin’s electrical resistance and depicts them on the screen of a monitor. (The reading on the screen is determined by how hard the probe is pressed against the patient’s finger; the harder the pressure, the less skin resistance and the higher the reading. The FDA Center for Devices and Radiologic Health has said that such devices are “adulterated and misbranded” and can have no legal medical use [5].) The inspector reported that the woman who operated the device probed points on one of his fingers while selecting items on the screen that were said to represent substances to which he might be allergic. The woman explained that the height of a vertical bar that appeared when she probed his finger would indicate whether or not he was sensitive to the item being tested. After the test was completed, a printer next to the monitor printed a list of foods, chemicals, and other substances, with numerical values corresponding to readings on the Interro screen. Then he was given several homeopathic medicines, instructions for using them, and an article saying that they would result in dramatic relief of his allergic symptoms.”

    Yessiree, this guy indeed sounds like quite the brave medical maverick who should be viewed as a leader in American cancer care.

    The story of Wright’s wrangles with the FDA make interesting reading. The Quackwatch account also mentions a bit about Wright being interviewed on Larry King’s show at the time of his FDA troubles. Wonder if Larry will recall that when Suzanne Somers starts in with glowing tributes to her list of preferred “maverick” cancer-fighting docs.

    By the way, this should surprise no one, but Suzanne Somers is also an antifluoridationist who thinks we’re being given cancer through drinking fluoridated water.

    Is there any nincompoopoid quackery that this woman does not believe in?

  178. #178 Dianne
    October 22, 2009

    !!!MAJOR NEWS!!! Finally admitted Swine Flu Cases Seriously Overestimated!

    If this story is accurate, doesn’t it imply that H1N1 influenza is far more virulent than previously thought? The “probable” cases which turn out not to be are far more likely to be people who were seen as outpatients and sent home than those dying in ICUs (whose cases will be confirmed in order to start anti-virals.)

  179. #179 Julia
    October 22, 2009

    Uhhh, to the dyslexic bimbo @161 saying “Good enouph for me!”……. Well it’s not Suzanne endorsed by Dr. Mahmud, it’s the Doctor being endorsed by her – get it right.

    #129… before you minimize his credentials, you ought to see his website for a full picture as he has them listed there; he has plenty of noteworty acomplishments, including being Former Medical Director of Oncology at his Hospital N. Memorial Medical Center and Chief of Medicine there as well. I also don’t think that counseling the FDA as he did is something to gloss over; unlike what some may think who side with Suzanne; I do think the FDA is heading in the right direction and they do mean well, they were helped along with some of the new information that has been coming out since at least 2001, so they are turning around.

  180. #180 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 22, 2009

    Julia:
    If you take a look at my name on post 161, you will see that my name is very likely to be a guy’s name (which it is). Therefore I would prefer that you refer to me as a dyslexic bozo instead of a dyslexic bimbo. Thanks.
    BTW, I took a look at Dr. Mahmud’s website. Bioindentical hormones and non-surgical liposuction. ‘Nuff said…

  181. #181 Informed :)
    October 22, 2009

    @Kemist…

    She has even received her scheduled immunisations on time, despite my sister expressing doubts on them (I guess my showing her a video of a baby with whooping cough helped in that regard).

    Isn’t it true Kemist that whooping cough vax is administered for the first time at 2 months? And isn’t it true that whooping cough can kill an infant..UNDER the age of two months… if he/she is older than that then it’s not deadly?

    People seem to like to pick on other people here so I guess I will pick on you for misspelling immunization… Which in all actually we can’t even use that word at all since vaccines don’t really even provide immunity.

  182. #182 D. C. Sessions
    October 22, 2009

    Isn’t it true Kemist that whooping cough vax is administered for the first time at 2 months? And isn’t it true that whooping cough can kill an infant..UNDER the age of two months… if he/she is older than that then it’s not deadly?

    No.

  183. #183 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 23, 2009

    Which in all actually we can’t even use that word at all since vaccines don’t really even provide immunity.

    Well, Demrofni, what do you call it when the immune system has been primed to respond to the antigens of an infectious agent? Or are you going to say that we can no longer call it “the immune system” because it doesn’t “really even provide immunity”?

  184. #184 Uncle Glenny
    October 23, 2009

    “informed giggle, giggle, I don’t really know what I’m talking about” tells us:

    People seem to like to pick on other people here

    I wouldn’t want to disappoint you.

    so I guess I will pick on you for misspelling immunization…

    What a culturally deprived ‘tard.

    Which in all actually we can’t even use that word at all

    Word salad.

    since vaccines don’t really even provide immunity.

    Empirically wrong.

  185. #185 Chris
    October 23, 2009

    “Informed :)” is not very well informed.

  186. #186 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 23, 2009

    Immunization or immunisation? Either is correct. I think that immunisation is the British spelling.
    Also, injecting a vaccine causes antibodies to be raised against the vaccine antigen. Memory cells are also kept in reserve to produce antibodies when the body is again exposed to the antigen. This by definition is immunity.

    “Informed” – You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. (I just finished watching The Princess Bride – highly recommended!)

  187. #187 Miss Grace
    October 23, 2009

    I’m a long-time lurker, first time poster and while I love this blog I cannot let the breastfeeding comments pass without comment as I think some posters are guilty of applying the same emotionalism / anecdota is data / personal issues that they so rightly criticise in anti-vax and cranks, to this subject.

    Yes Melinda is clearly a loon but breastfeeding to 2 years old is the World Health Organisation’s global recommendation – and they would be basing it on the evidence relating to benefits for the mother and the child including nutrition.

    As Orac says breastfeeding is strongly associated with lower breast cancer risk – and the longer you breastfeed the higher the benefit (though it is association rather than cause and must be taken in context of a lot of genetic and lifestyle factors).

    The breastfeeding Taliban? Come on guys… If someone is so rude to judge you for the way you feed your child (through choice or circumstance) then you should tell them to FUCK OFF and mind their own business – but this does not detract from the fact that breastfeeding is the way babies are designed to be fed. Feeding to 5 years old – yes, a little creepy but their business and no-one else’s – and that’s still a small child you are talking about. I don’t know what the breastfeeding rates in the US are like but over here in the UK they are tiny – less than 10% of babies are breastfed at all after the first few months and a minority after the first few weeks. Breastfeeding a pre-schooler is pretty fringe behaviour. I live in the most breast-feeding friendly place in UK (organic food eating, liberal, quack loving north london) and I am the only person I know breastfeeding a baby of the advanced age of 11 months.

    And Melinda – Cot Death does have an association with vaccination – unvaccinated babies are at much higher risk. This is according to Professor George Haycock of the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths.

    Anyway – please continue ripping the shit out of Suzanne Somers – I am appalled that some plastic bimbo with no medical training has so much influence. Even my hippy dippy mother knew that the best way to treat her breast cancer was with good old surgery and radiotherapy. She’s been clear for 13 years and trust me, it is nothing to do with her diet and lifestyle.

    (goes back to lurking)

  188. #188 Informed :)
    October 23, 2009

    Here’s something to chew on for a while: The most famous and influential doctor in America will NOT be giving his children H1N1 vax.
    Negative feedback (is there any other kind on this blog?)welcome…..

  189. #189 Anonymous
    October 23, 2009

    This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself.

    In his article published on LewRockwell.com, Bill Sardi details 18 reasons why you should not vaccinate your children against the flu this season. Here are nine of them:

    1.The swine flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly.

    2.This is the first time both seasonal and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. Can you trust them this time?

    3.Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Why would you sign a consent form for your children to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead?

    4.This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. The vaccines that have been tested are not the same vaccines your children will be given.

    5.Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. Meanwhile, veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.

    6.Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated.

    7.Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain.

    8.Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu.

    9.Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease.
    For even more reasons — 18 in all — please review the full article on LewRockwell.com.

    Sources:

    LewRockwell.com September 16, 2009

    Living Wisdom E-Newsletter, September 2009

    New York Times September 18, 2009

  190. #190 Anonymous
    October 23, 2009

    This year it is more important that you protect your children and loved ones from the flu vaccines than influenza itself.

    In his article published on LewRockwell.com, Bill Sardi details 18 reasons why you should not vaccinate your children against the flu this season. Here are nine of them:

    1.The swine flu is simply another flu. It is not unusually deadly.

    2.This is the first time both seasonal and pandemic flu vaccines will be administered. Both seasonal flu and swine flu vaccines will require two inoculations. This is because single inoculations have failed to produce sufficient antibodies. This is an admission that prior flu vaccines were virtually useless. Can you trust them this time?

    3.Adjuvants are added to vaccines to boost production of antibodies but may trigger autoimmune reactions. Some adjuvants are mercury (thimerosal), aluminum and squalene. Why would you sign a consent form for your children to be injected with mercury, which is even more brain-toxic than lead?

    4.This is the first year mock vaccines have been used to gain FDA approval. The vaccines that have been tested are not the same vaccines your children will be given.

    5.Over-vaccination is a common practice now in America. American children are subjected to 29 vaccines by the age of two. Meanwhile, veterinarians have backed off of repeat vaccination in dogs because of observed side effects.

    6.Modern medicine has no explanation for autism, despite its continued rise in prevalence. Yet autism is not reported among Amish children who go unvaccinated.

    7.Researchers are warning that over-use of the flu vaccine and anti-flu drugs like Tamiflu and Relenza can apply genetic pressure on flu viruses and then they are more likely to mutate into a more deadly strain.

    8.Most seasonal influenza A (H1N1) virus strains tested from the United States and other countries are now resistant to Tamiflu (oseltamivir). Tamiflu has become a nearly worthless drug against seasonal flu.

    9.Public health officials are irresponsible in their omission of any ways to strengthen immunity against the flu. No options outside of problematic vaccines and anti-flu drugs are offered, despite the fact there is strong evidence that vitamins C and D activate the immune system and the trace mineral selenium prevents the worst form of the disease.
    For even more reasons — 18 in all — please review the full article on LewRockwell.com.
    Sources:
    LewRockwell.com September 16, 2009
    Living Wisdom E-Newsletter, September 2009
    New York Times September 18, 2009

  191. #191 new mom
    October 23, 2009

    @187

    Just curious, are homebirth rates very high? I’ve heard that midwife attended homebirths are extremely common there.

  192. #192 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 23, 2009

    @188

    You haven’t given his name. I wonder why?

  193. #193 Uncle Dave
    October 23, 2009

    @Miss Grace
    “Feeding to 5 years old – yes, a little creepy but their business and no-one else’s – and that’s still a small child you are talking about.”

    I beg to differ here. It becomes other peoples business like educators when these children begin to attend school by age 5. It is a free country of that you are correct, however these individual are not just defending thier practice they are endorsing it.
    It becomes more than a bit creepy, it becomes a developmental issue during this time. 3 years of age is generally the age at which the child should be leaving babyhood and be stepping into childhood.

    Again, prolonged breast feeding (past age 2) is more of a maternal psychological issue. Benefits to the child as far as health goes were likely acquired earlier in the child’s breast feeding regimen before the age of 2. There will always be individuals that reside within the flat section of the gaussian distribution curve in any area and I believe that this is one.

    A coworker used a breast pump (during the day at work in a separate private room) for approximately the first 1 year or so of her sons life. The room was close enough that a few times a day I could here the small breast pump operating. Had she decided to to this practice for another 2-3 years it would have eventually been my business as well, seeing that breast milk was kept in a shared refrigerator, and I could hear that breast pump running while I was working.

    Again, if you can remember in your now adulthood memories of “standing next to mommy” and being able to breast feed your in unique class to say the least.

  194. #194 Pablo
    October 23, 2009

    While I agree a lot in principle with Miss Grace (parents of 11 mo olds think alike?), the one place where I was going to disagree is what Uncle Dave brought up. When you are trying to pull your child out of school so that you can satisfy your emotional need to breastfeed, then you are indeed making it others’ business. If it were just for the child, she could pump while he/she is at school.

    And while it is true that the WHO recommends 2 years of breastfeeding, that is because they are considering everyone in the world, including third world nations. In those places, absolutely breastfeeding is going to be the best and safest approach. Parents there don’t have access to high quality formula, or safe, convenient baby foods. In more advanced nations, it is not as relevant. The AAP, for example, only recommends a single year of breastfeeding, because that is enough for the healthy development of babies in the US. Moreover, they don’t insist on exclusive breastfeeding at all. Our pediatrician discussed strategies for a gradual weaning as he is approaching 1 year.

    In the end, I think we all agree that everyone should breastfeed if they can. However, we also have to respect the fact that not everyone can breastfeed, for a large number of reasons. This is where I think the “breastfeeding taliban” comment comes in, referring to those who don’t understand that fact. They also fail to acknowledge the fact that there are diminishing returns as breastfeeding gones on longer, and that at some point, the benefits to anyone are negligible (and certainly not worth disrupting other aspects of normal development to do it).

    As I said, I also have an 11 mo old. My wife is only nursing him now at night before he goes to bed, and he gets a bottle (or cup) with formula for his other milk. She had to do that because she has been drying up and he wasn’t getting enough from her. So we started supplementing with a bottle of formula after nursing, but have basically switched to the bottle full time.

  195. #195 Dianne
    October 23, 2009

    This thread is drifting severely. Is Orac developing his own never ending thread a la pharyngula?

  196. #196 Miss Grace
    October 23, 2009

    Dianne – apologies for contributing to the drift. Melinda started it!!!

    newmom – no, about 4%. There is a govt led drive to make it higher but we’re in the middle of a severe shortage of midwives.

    Uncle Dave / Pablo – I suppose it is part of a bigger issue about where society intervenes on non-conventional parenting practices and where we define psychological effect / effect on others and that is a subject for another day. My view is that the number of people breastfeeding school age children, at least in the UK, can probably be counted on the fingers of one hand. And all of them have a TV documentary crew following them around…

    Anyway Suzanne Somers is a FUCKING nutjob and I hate the right wing view pushed by idiots who contend that disease is ALWAYS lifestyle related and that if you live the ‘correct’ lifestyle and buy the right products you will not get cancer. Only people who deserve it, avoid it. HATE it. I have nothing more to add as i am not a scientist.

  197. #197 Uncle Dave
    October 23, 2009

    @Miss Grace

    Agreed.
    Let this one go!! Bring me the head of Melinda!!!

    Sorry, that is likely an Orac line.

    As for Somer’s, I prefer the American Psychiatric Association’s clinical label of
    “Self absorbed celebrity sleezbag”

  198. #198 Pablo
    October 23, 2009

    I want one last comment before letting it go, but I promise to get back to Suzie Thighmaster…

    Miss Grace – the reason tv crews follow the women breastfeeding 5 year olds is because they recognize, like most people, that these women are total nutjobs, and that makes good tv.

    And speaking of nutjobs, how about that Suzanne Somers?

    (told ya we’d get back there!)

  199. #199 Dianne
    October 23, 2009

    apologies for contributing to the drift.

    My comment wasn’t meant as a criticism. It’s definitely interesting drift.

  200. #200 Gwen Frazier
    October 24, 2009

    By the way, Somers discussion of being misdiagnosed with “full body cancer” sounds rather fishy to me

    Exactly what I thought after the doctor diagnosed me with stage 4 recurrent breast cancer and I was told only 18 months to live if I didn’t agree to aggressive chemo cocktail and radiation, and even then,according to ONC my future wasn’t very bright. Pretty fishy now, since I refused treatment and turns out mass wasn’t spreading or penetrating, had just increased in size and the only answer I got fourteen months later as to why with a supposed four months left of my life, it had not spread as predicted, was that “I was just blessed.” Um..huh. So..yes,sounds fishy alright, if you mean the impending death diagnosis which I now believe was dead wrong, as metastatic breast cancer normally does kill you in about 18 months, treatment or no treatment.
    As for your comment about “Pressure to take chemotherapy just doesn’t sound right” Where do you get your information? The pressure on cancer patients to take these drugs is relentless and non stop and the cancer establishment and associates are ‘fear tactics specialists’ in making this happen. They never stop, ever. I applaud Suzanne Somers. Treatment should be an individual choice.

  201. #201 Julia
    October 25, 2009

    To the dyslexic bimbo at @180; my comment on Dr. Mahmud was on his existing credentials; seems like your problems are a bit more complicated as you appear to be “search incapable”. For your convenience I’ve pasted the link, there’s a bit more than bioidentical hormones.

    Also you seem to know a lot about bioidentical hormones as your judgment seems to be swift on them; tell me:

    What do you know about Premarin and its side affects?
    What about the chemical structure of Premarin?
    What do you know about bioidentical hormones, specifically, how it’s atomically structured?
    What is the difference between Premarin and its bioidentical counterpart?
    Why the difference if it does exists?
    How do the molecules of each differ than the ones of natural Progesterone produced by your ovaries and adrenal glands?

    If you can answer these questions accurately, than you’re going to find that what you said in your last posting to me didn’t have a foundation but it was a mere dismissal not knowing what you were talking about OR you didn’t want to see what you don’t care to believe. Cheap shots are easy to deliver as I’m proving here and I have seen you dish it out; but the real challenge is to give merit to what you easily spill – with or without any contemptible language.

    If you use the scientific method, and reasonable conclusions, you will have a better chance to decipher what is wrong from – not wrong. Not everything Suzanne Somers believes is right, but not challenging your own pre-conceived notions will leave you a puppet to misinformation.
    Speaking of,
    Misinformation and fallacies are not always easy to spot, but it’s often the ones that speak the loudest on it and are ‘slightly’ clever, with an ax to grind or ulterior motives; that are the same ones who end up creating a mockery of the very truth they proclaim to hold. That would be those you listen to most who got you here in the first place. You are fighting a fight for them as they depend on your ignorance through no fault on your own perhaps; having you skew and defame character rather than winning a fair discussion.

    You are probably not a bad person bozo, you may be a victim of some kind instead; hope you can find yourself out of your dilemma, That will require honesty and self-reflection. That of course will not be encouraged.

  202. #202 julia
    October 25, 2009
  203. #203 Chris
    October 25, 2009

    This is no doubt part of the drift but I wanted to interject about people’s cut-off points after which breastfeeding is no longer appropriate.

    I agree that no mother should interrupt her child at school to breastfeed, and I worry that children in Western countries who are still breastfeeding at that age are not being taught other coping skills. Soothing via breastfeeding at that age might translate to lazy parenting but I don’t think it is necessarily about the mother’s emotional needs.

    I was able to breastfeed with relative ease (after the initial adjustment period) and then it became just one of the things I did as a mother. Sometimes it was lovely, sometimes it was a pain, sometimes it was because my child was hungry, sometimes it was to soothe him. I imagine it would have been the same had my child been bottlefed.

    My breasts, while sexual in other contexts, were not at all sexual in that context, they were conduits for food, just as a bottle would have been.

    I nursed both of my sons until they were around 2.5, but I also introduced a variety of foods and a variety of soothing methods, until breastfeeding was just one tool I could use to soothe/feed them.

    Looking at breastfeeding from that context, as a feeding/soothing method, it is no different than someone bottlefeeding a 2.5 year old, or offering them a pacifier. If you wouldn’t be weirded out by someone cuddling a 2 year old and giving them a bottle, you shouldn’t be weirded out by a breast serving the same function.

    Sure, there are some women who make a BIG DEAL about nursing, calling attention to their activities and sanctimommying it up, but most breastfeeding women are rather matter of fact about the whole thing and don’t deserve to be lumped in with the crazies no matter how old the kid they are breastfeeding is.

    Back from the drift:

    It drives me nuts that anyone who does their research and concludes that the best decision is to get the vaccines/the chemo/follow a doctor’s advice is a sheep and that the people who live on the fringe are brave souls who know better and are saving the world.

    Sure, there have been voices in the wilderness who have saved humankind from craziness, but there have also been voices in the wilderness who were just whackjobs.

    Somers and her ilk should wander out into the wilderness where their voices belong and leave the rest of us alone.

  204. #204 T. Bruce McNeely
    October 25, 2009

    Julia:
    I have no dilemma. Suzanne Somers is a know-it-all twit who knows nothing. I do not have the confidence in Dr. Mahmud that you have. The only victimization I’m experiencing is being patronized.

  205. #205 ildi
    October 25, 2009

    Looking at breastfeeding from that context, as a feeding/soothing method, it is no different than someone bottlefeeding a 2.5 year old, or offering them a pacifier. If you wouldn’t be weirded out by someone cuddling a 2 year old and giving them a bottle, you shouldn’t be weirded out by a breast serving the same function.

    I’m continuing the topic drift; to me, the issue of breastfeeding at an older age (i.e. past six-nine months or so) becomes a question of what is acceptable public vs. private behavior. For example, some toddlers/young children masturbate to sooth themselves. Damn successful method, but huge no-no in public. Same in our culture for breastfeeding a toddler. General rule that I would put out there; if they can walk and can ask for the boob, probably better to keep it as a private family behavior.

  206. #206 Wren
    October 25, 2009

    Ildi,
    Your “general rule” makes little to no sense. My son could “ask” for it by signing at 7 months and could walk at 9 months. Guess he should have quit then. My friend’s son didn’t walk until 17 months, so he could be breastfed in public nearly twice as long as my son? I am currently nursing my 2 year old daughter and will continue to do so until she is ready to wean. I am not pulling out my breasts in public 20 times a day to nurse her now and in fact rarely nurse her in public or any time other than first thing in the morning and last thing at night but the option is still there other times and if she needs it, emotionally or physically, she will be allowed to nurse whether we are in public or not. If you have an issue with that, look away. I don’t plan to nurse he to school age (which will be just after her 4th birthday here) but if I somehow did, I’d never pull her out of school to do it. I can’t imagine very many women would even consider it even if they were still nursing.

    As for Suzanne Summers, she appears to be rather misinformed and I hate to think of her book persuading people not to take medications they need and suffering as a result.

  207. #207 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 25, 2009

    A coworker used a breast pump (during the day at work in a separate private room) for approximately the first 1 year or so of her sons life. The room was close enough that a few times a day I could here the small breast pump operating. Had she decided to to this practice for another 2-3 years it would have eventually been my business as well, seeing that breast milk was kept in a shared refrigerator, and I could hear that breast pump running while I was working.

    OMG!!! You could actually *hear* the small motor sound through the wall? Clearly, the selfish cow was aiming to vex you, electing to pump in a room adjacent to yours, as opposed to the well-appointed, sound-proof private nursing lounge which all employers are obliged to provide to their female workers. Wow, dude. Tip o’ the nursing bra flap to you for enduring that hell on earth for a whole year. And breast milk in the shared refrigerator? Icky!!!! What if some got into your food????? Oh! The horror!!!!

    Seriously, Uncle Dave, unless your job involves microsurgery, ordinance disposal or something equally delicate, and barring some fatal allergy to human milk proteins, you, sir, are a deplorable ass.

  208. #208 ildi
    October 26, 2009

    Thread seems dead enough to continue to derail…

    I am currently nursing my 2 year old daughter and will continue to do so until she is ready to wean…If you have an issue with that, look away.

    I surely plan to… you may have a fetish about what is “natural,” but in a society where we are crowded upon one another, it doesn’t hurt to keep certain private activities just that – private. That said, I would most certainly prefer that you attach her to your tit to sooth her rather than let her scream in public.

    In a similar vein…

    Seriously, Uncle Dave, unless your job involves microsurgery, ordinance disposal or something equally delicate, and barring some fatal allergy to human milk proteins, you, sir, are a deplorable ass.

    Maybe you don’t work in a poorly soundproofed office setting, Jennifer? If that’s so, I envy you. Could it be that the company Uncle Dave works for is the deplorable ass?

  209. #209 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 26, 2009

    Ildi,
    most companies in the US are, sadly, deplorable asses when it comes to providing nursing/pumping lounges for their maternally inclined employees. That this situation exists, and is generally unsatisfactory, is not excuse for male co-workers getting all ooged out over the necessity for a working mother to pump in less than ideal locations. Such an attitude seems coupled with a failure to appreciate that the mother is probably not too jazzed herself about her pumping location. Pumping in a broom closet, perched on a bucket, or pumping while straddling a toilet trying not to let your gear touch *anything* in the bathroom stall, or pumping in an office cubicle with male coworkers sniggering outside the door and prank calling you are some concrete examples of these ‘less than ideal’ circumstances, experienced by me or some of my friends. Point being, it’s a challenging task without having to deal with thoughtless berks who seem to have no qualms about passing judgement on a matter of personal choice that only becomes ‘your problem’ in the most hysterically exaggerated sense.

    Wear a fucking iPod, bring a thermal lunch box to work, and give a girl a break, huh?

  210. #210 ildi
    October 26, 2009

    is not excuse for male co-workers getting all ooged out over the necessity for a working mother to pump in less than ideal locations

    “male” coworkers? So, it’s ok if it’s a female coworker who’s bothered, or you’re assuming only male coworkers would be bothered by the noise of a pump being run several times a day? As far as getting “ooged out,” I assume you’re referring to keeping the breast milk in the fridge? Maybe she keeps a big-ass cooler in there and is hogging up more than her share of said office fridge, so it’s office politics rather than any oogishness?

    Wear a fucking iPod, bring a thermal lunch box to work, and give a girl a break, huh?

    Again, it’s his fault that she doesn’t have proper facilities? What if he isn’t allowed to wear ipods or take his breaks each time she’s pumping? On what are you basing your contention that his problem is hysterically exaggerated? Is it so hard to consider that he may not be the bad guy here, or are you only able to empathize with the poor put-upon working mother?

  211. #211 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 26, 2009

    “male” coworkers? So, it’s ok if it’s a female coworker who’s bothered, or you’re assuming only male coworkers would be bothered by the noise of a pump being run several times a day?

    Mea culpa. I was still dealing with the sentiments of Uncle Dave (presumably male) and his ilk, but after I hit ‘post’ I thought ‘damn, I should have made that gender neutral’. So, to clarify: No, the behavior under discussion would not be any more ‘ok’ if engaged in by a female coworker; and no, I don’t have any reason to believe that certain noises (say, of a small cycling motor) would be *empirically* more annoying to a man than to a woman.

    As for the rest of your rebuttal, look, there’s a lot about Uncle Dave’s work environment that we can only guess at. I’m basing my current reaction to his thoughts on the information he provided. I’m sure you can think of all kinds of ameliorating circumstances that would validate his position, but the fact that HE did not include any such qualifiers suggests that either there are none or that he though them inconsequential to the conversation. I can only conclude that he felt his anecdote, as presented, would be sufficient to garner sympathy, and that is precisely what I’m objecting to, because it just isn’t.

    If Uncle Dave returns to this thread and provides further information, e.g. that he spends his days handling sweaty old sticks of TNT, or that the coworker in question made up a robust ‘pumping song’ to the rhythm of her motor, or gave rousing, high volume motivational speeches to her breasts, which she addressed as “Bertha” and “Mabel”, then I will cheerfully offer him my apologies. Lacking that, I can, again, only conclude that he is either:
    a) endowed with hypersensitive hearing
    b) easily distracted by any and all ambient noises
    or
    c) distracted by this noise specifically because he’s ooged out by the biological reality it signifies.

    Same deal with the fridge. His stated complaint is not that the milk was taking up too much room, but that it was in the shared refrigerator, and that it would have become “his business” had it persisted longer than one year. Again, mitigating circumstances may indeed exist, but as it stands I can’t seem to muster much empathy for poor, put-upon Uncle Dave and his forced, albeit extremely peripheral, awareness of the by-products of his colleague’s reproductive life.

  212. #212 Dianne
    October 26, 2009

    or gave rousing, high volume motivational speeches to her breasts, which she addressed as “Bertha” and “Mabel”,

    Thank you for that image.

  213. #213 Jennifer B. Phillips
    October 26, 2009

    Yikes! Blockquote fail up there at 211. The only very slightly indented text is ildi’s, quoted from 210. All the super-ultra indented text is mine.

    Thank you for that image.

    It’s fun to imagine that speech, isn’t it? :)

  214. #214 Dianne
    October 26, 2009

    It’s fun to imagine that speech, isn’t it? :)

    Yep! My coworkers are just lucky I didn’t read this thread about 5 years ago.

  215. #215 Chris
    October 27, 2009

    Oh, crud… I didn’t want to get into this (I really only used the breast pump while my newborn was in the Intermediate Infant Care Ward at the hospital — there was a pump room, and I rented a pump to use at home until he was able to come home… circumstances leading to his hospitalization prevented me from going back to work)…

    But Jennifer saying this brought up a silly memory:

    Same deal with the fridge. His stated complaint is not that the milk was taking up too much room, but that it was in the shared refrigerator,

    Anyway, while I was still working there was a woman who did have a baby and worked in our area. Back then the women’s restroom did have a “lady’s lounge”, an actual large room off to the side that was big enough for a couch and chair (later it was decided they were unnecessary and turned into more office space!).

    She kept the milk in the office fridge near the coffee table. One time a guy pulled the little bottle out of the fridge and asked if it was milk or cream for the coffee. When he was informed that it was breastmilk he looked aghast and put it back quickly!

    Ah, yes… that was the same coffee table next to for the CAD workstations and their printer. This printer rolled out three foot wide bits of paper and required lots of toner, that was kept in gallon jugs nearby.

    The guy I sat next (he had come recently from a stint at a satellite office and was not used to our new digs) emptied the coffee, and like a good guy made more coffee.

    In the old area we kept a couple gallon jugs of water for that purpose since the nearest water source was far down the hall. In the new digs it was available just a across the hallway, but he did not know this.

    Without looking he picked up a jug of toner and put it in the coffee maker. Hot boiling toner smells terrible, and ruined the coffee maker. He did go and buy a new coffee maker.

    How is that for thread drift!?

    Oh, for the record… I am a slightly different “Chris” from above. My medically fragile developmentally disabled child self weaned at just over a year old (he actually like to walk around an sip from a sippy cup). My second son was breastfed until he was two (I could not wean that child, he refused to take a bottle during the weekend when I was laid up with a stomach bug!)… and the same with daughter (who I did cut off at age two, even though she did ask until she at least 30 months old!). Other than my oldest (who has lots of different issues, which started almost at birth), they are fairly normal and well adjusted.

  216. #216 jill
    October 29, 2009

    Until you have walked a mile in her shoes can you judge her or her credibility. First of all for this blog to questioned rather she was actually “misdiagnosed with metastic cancer” can easily be verifiedl It is of obvious she had her neck cut by the “incision” site seen on the new’s interview.

    When you recieve the possibility of having cancer, you do go on a mission to find out all the avenues available to you. Even conventional medicine is subject ot “errors” in it’s studies. I only wished that Somers would have used some of her money to invest in studies since her 2000 diagnosis because it is obvious that is the only way the medical community will accept some of her findings. Don’t dismiss her just because she an actress, she is a Survivor that her Credibility.

  217. #217 NJ
    October 29, 2009

    she is a Survivor that her Credibility.

    Great! I survived a car crash; therefore I am credible as an accident reconstruction expert.

    I was on an airplane once. Now I have credibility as an aero engineer.

    I have drunk wine. So my opinion on how to how to grow grapes is as valid as anyone who has spent their life becoming expert.

    Isn’t this fun???

  218. #218 Antaeus Feldspar
    October 29, 2009

    Until you have walked a mile in her shoes can you judge her or her credibility.

    Incorrect, grammatically and otherwise. The world would be impossible to navigate if one could never judge the credibility of someone’s stories without having undergone the same experience.

    In reality, one can get some very strong markers of credibility by looking at things like: does this person make basic errors in the field where they are purporting to have expertise? Somers certainly makes basic errors; she tells her readers how angry she got at her doctor for saying that she should have told them she was taking steroids. She claims she never took steroids and how could they possibly think she’d take steroids? Except she thinks, for some reason, that injecting cortisol into her vagina doesn’t count as injecting steroids. Cortisol is a steroid.

    The medical community is unlikely to ever accept her “findings” because her “findings” are unlikely to ever be anything but garbage. The useless ravings of a faded actress who wanted to be the discoverer of the Fountain of Youth and Cure For All Cancers but failed.

  219. #219 Scientizzle
    October 29, 2009

    jill, your comment has several glaring innanities.

    1. Surviving cancer does not grant one a medical education sufficient to understand diagnosis or treatment of cancer, let alone the science behind cancer treatments.

    2. If one cannot judge the credibility of a source bacause one is presumably lacking in at least one life experience the source has attained, how can any source ever be judged? This is mind-numbingly stupid. You likely know nothing about the life experiences of the people criticizing Somers here, so how can you criticize anyone commenting in this thread? I presume you’ve never criticized a government official holding a post you’ve never yourself been elected for? Don’t you see how stupid this standard is?

    3. Somers claims a “misdiagnosis” of “full-body cancer” when the presumed facts, as presented by Somers, indicate that her docters were wrong about a reasonable preliminary diagnosis–a diagnosis that was corrected by the doctors in question upon further proper scientific testing. The presence of a scar indicating a neck incision consistent with a biopsy that would determine whether is was cancer or something else. That’s what doctors should do…

    4. When cancer was ruled out, her symptoms were determined to be the result of a fungal infection. The risk factors of disseminated coccidioidomycosis (Valley fever) include advanced age and weakened immune system. A weakened immune system would be one of the expected side effects seen in a person who takes large doses of cortisol and other steroid hormones, as Somers has repeatedly bragged about. That Somers hasn’t the medical knowledge to even know that cortisol is a steroid (as she admitted), or that such steroids may depress immune function (which very well could have precipitated the fungal infection in question), is reason enough to consider her opinion on medical matters wholly uneducated and unqualified.

    5. That conventional medicine sometimes has “errors” in its studies is not in dispute; as science is a self-correcting enterprise, the errors will be discovered by other scientists and doctors and corrected. What’s clear is that Somers’s claims lack any good science. At all. Ever. How is that better?

    In conclusion, jill, anyone willing to take medical advice from someone with no science or medical credentials (and demonstrable ignorance about basic medical facts) is a fool. Sadly, I may know and love one or more of those fools who may listen to this woman because she’s famous and tells a story (however inaccurate) that plays right into the medical ignorance of the average layperson.

  220. #220 Robert
    October 29, 2009

    Enough of this nonsense, modern medicine saves lives, even Somers agrees:

    Taken from a Larry King Aired March 28, 2001 – 9:00 p.m. ET

    SOMERS: No. In April — last April. And this is something women should know. I had my mammography, like I go every year. Because my sister has breast cancer, and, so I have been very diligent about it and I went to have this annual mammogram, and he said, you are fine, I see nothing. I thought I didn’t think so.

    I was getting dressed and the doctor knocked on the door and he said you know, you have very cystic breasts; there are lumps and bumps all over the place; I got this new, state-of-art ultrasound machine, I paid half a million dollars for it, why don’t we put you on that?

    I said OK. And I got on, and, with that machine, they found a tumor, 2.4 centimeters, which is fairly large, that was hidden deep in my breast and did not — was not detected by the mammogram.

    KING: Amazing machine.

    SOMERS: Amazing. The machine saved my life; the doctor said that at this size, by next year, if I had waited until my annual next year, he said it probably would have been too late, so I mean my life was saved because of this machine

    To Suzanne, and all you other purists who wont get your hands dirty from modern medicine, where do you think that machine came from, it came from painstaking years of cancer research. Research dollars are not only spent on finding a cure, but spent on developing better diagnostic equipment for cancer detection. Without modern equipment, early detection is not possible.

    And what of our brave Suzanne, she refused radiation and surgery, and her holistic approach to medicine has kept her cancer free for years. Oh I’m sorry, she had the surgery and radiation. It was only after the quack doctors saved her life, that she decided that holistic medicine was for her. Thus, to sum up.

    Modern Medicine detected her cancer
    Modern Medicine treated her cancer
    Modern Medicine cured her cancer
    In her new book, Suzanne denounces Modern Medicine

    I gather Suzanne’s motto is “do as I say, not as I do”

    As a stage four cancer survivor and currently cancer free, I implore all those with cancer to seek the care of a qualified medical provider.

    Good Luck to all with this awful disease.

  221. #221 dick
    November 25, 2009

    How many times would you take your car to A garage that keeps telling you that it’s “fixed” when it isn’t, & a few months latter, “IT’S BACK!” Twice, three times or more. No! You would find another garage. Right? CHEMO & RADIATION DOES NOT WORK! IT NEVER DID! It’s just people have to do something, so they go with the flow, hoping for a “cure” or to be the “lucky one”. Millions upon millions have died & millions more will die from cancer & related diseases as long as they use a “cure” like CHEMO & / OR RADIATION! How long have they been using it????? 40 / 50 / 60 years & it’s getting worse. If it is so “good”, why are we still dieing from cancer?… Why does it keep coming back?…Get your heads out of the sand, “sheeple”. The last few months left to live & your “know it all” doctors rape pillage & plunder your body with their quackery CHEMO / RADIATION to the extent that you wish for death BECAUSE YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE LIFE OR “MONIES” LEFT TO GIVE. TISK, TISK, the doctors will say & in the very same breath say “NEXT”! A large number of European countries haven’t used CHEMO & / OR RADIATION IN YEARS & have an excellent “cure” rate….What does it tell you when our own PRESIDENT OF THE U S OF A GOES TO GERMANY FOR “the CURE” [ & lives for another 18 years because he “Ronald Regan BECAUSE HE DOES NOT TRUST BIG PHARMA TO HELP HIM & DOES NOT WANT TO LET THE American public know & expose all their lies [BIG PHARMA] & loose all the millions of dollars they contribute to the American government as “donations” so they can continue to make “BILLIONS UPON BILLIONS of dollars on worthless helpless procedures. Face the fact, BIG PHARAM THRIVES ON “SICKNESS”! THEY CAN’T MAKE ANY MONIES IF we ARE WELL.so they keep us alive until we are out of money & then we die…If you think I am wrong,,,,GO & ASK YOUR DOCTOR FOR A LIST OF NAMES OF PEOPLE HE HAS CURED OF CANCER….IT WILL BE A VERY VERY “SHORT LIST” IF ANY NAMES AT ALL OUT OF THE MILLIONS THAT THEY PROFESS TO HAVE CURED…..LIARS, KILLERS & THEIVES IS BIG PHARMA! YOU BELIEVE IN H1N1 FLU VACINE TOO, DONT YOU?…..I LMAO AT YOU….

  222. #222 Holistickid
    December 29, 2009

    I really can’t believe the comments I’ve heard in this blog. Every one except for the few holistic oriented people much have no common sense. people we are living organism and we can’t be exposed to as many chemicals as we are exposed to. Health is COMMON sense but in an industrial age where we process all our foods and stick as many chemicals in them as possible how are we not suppose to be sick. Our meats are pumped up with hormones and antibiotics. The very definition of and antibiotic means anti-life HELLO!!! Chemical plants sending heavy metals into out atmosphere while dentists put mercury the most toxic non-radioactive substance into our mouth but EPA wouldn’t let them put mercury in landfills. We pump our bodies up with drugs that have very toxic sideeffects. The list goes on and on from car fumes to pesticides herbicides, insecticides, deodorants, cosmetics, fast foods, genetically modified foods, microwaves. But yet when you go to get treatment for a disease that these things created yet they want to get you another toxin???? How dare you attack someone who would choose not to ingest known toxic material and keep this stuff out of their body. Heavy metals are a problem I should know I was in a wheel chair from mercury, lead, and a host of other toxic materials and I had to work to regain my knees back to walk. It was a slow but effective process of detoxification and nutrition, now im pain free and walking again. And I have every right not to ingest toxic material just like every on else who descides to respect their bodies.

  223. #223 Chris
    December 29, 2009

    Holistickid:

    How dare you attack someone who would choose not to ingest known toxic material and keep this stuff out of their body.

    I am always amazed at those who come and comment over month after the latest comment (which is a month later than the previous comment), and yet failed to read the initial blog posting.

    Why, Holistickid is it okay to take coffee with all its myriad of chemical content directly up the bum? That is a major part of Gonzalez’s cure for cancer. Did you miss that?

    Ms. Sommers ingests several hundred supplement pills per day. This is not like eating real food, this is taking pharma created pills and swallowing like they are food. If you read other entries on this blog about her, you will realize that one of the things she was taking was a steroid, which very nearly killed her.

  224. #224 Vicki
    December 29, 2009

    Holistickid: First, you have my sympathy for the heavy metal poisoning, and I’m glad you’re walking again.

    That said, that mercury and lead are poisonous doesn’t mean that everything is poisonous, or even that everything is artificial. Lead is natural, and it took people a long time to figure out how dangerous it is.

    Some of the dangerous things out there are alive. If I have the wrong bacteria growing in my body, damned straight I am going to take an antibiotic. Under most circumstances, we humans are a good habitat for bacteria–many billions of them, mostly helpful or harmless. But sometimes it really is them or me. I can kill the invaders, or risk being crippled or killed myself.

    You are a free adult, and have the right to avoid any foods you choose to avoid. But you should be making an informed choice, based on the effects of things. There’s stuff out there in the environment we don’t know enough about, because of how fast new chemicals are being introduced–but that’s not in medicine, it’s random plastics and industrial processes, and in the water supply. I’m a lot happier with a studied, tested, medicine like aspirin than with random stuff in a “suppliement” that doesn’t even have to be tested for safety unless it starts killing people.

  225. #225 holistickid
    December 29, 2009

    I never said I do not believe in emergency medicine. I do not oppose drugs I just oppose drugs when there is an effective alternative that HAS been studied and has been tested but you have to realize that western medicine isn’t interested in nutrition or detoxification. If I needed to take an antibiotic and it was appropriate then yes I would take it. But its the over prescribing I’m against. A drug will NEVER make you a healthier person overall in the long run. And Vicki coffee enema is used to purge the liver of toxic material but that being said I believe there are many other ways of cleansing the liver. All we are saying is that there is a real problem if toxicity here from a combination of environmental issues. Then on top of it we eat a really crappy diet. Then on top of that our farmers have depleated the soils so much their crops are becomming sick allows for the pests to invade. Our emotional stress on a daily basis is on a all time high. All these things play on our bodies and your right eating organic is not medicine but it is less toxins that are going into the body. I understand that organic still is not were it is suppose to be reguarding nutrition wise. Still when you follow a holistic lifestyle then you body can start to heal. Health is complete common sense and western medicine has nothing to make us healthy just drugs when we become sick. This is so funny because practicing medicine is so dangerous “HELLO PRACTICING HEALTH ISN’T SUPPOSE TO BE DANGEROUS!!!” This is the exact reason they are still searching for the cure a patented cure that will never come. The only thing that will cure you is your own body pure and simple but you need to provide the right environment for healing inside the body. Also a large marjority of the practitioners of natural medicine would agree that 150 supplement a day might now be the best thing and your right its never as good as the real thing but you can’t get real food like you use to. People you need to wake up our health problems are on the rise cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autism, MS, alzheimers. There is a cause to all these problems and its what I stated here but there are also many other things I have not listed. When medicine stops trying to cure the effect of all these disease and start finding the cause and eliminating it then we will have a true health system not a disease management system. And by the way asprin is not a safe drug there have been many lawsuits about it included with the liver killer tylenol. If things don’t change soon mark my words this system will kill off our population!

  226. #226 Poogles
    December 29, 2009

    Dear FSM! That was a whole lot of alt-med spewing there! I’m not really great at picking out all the logical fallacies and outright misinformation in comments like that, but I did have a couple of things to say:

    “I do not oppose drugs I just oppose drugs when there is an effective alternative that HAS been studied and has been tested but you have to realize that western medicine isn’t interested in nutrition”

    You know what they call “alternative” medicine that has been shown to work, don’t you? Medicine! And western medicine is very interested in nutrition (you’ve never had a doc harp on you for not eating well? maybe you need better doctors), especially when it comes to diseases/disorders that are directly effected by nutrition (obesity, diabetes, deficiencies etc).

    “And by the way asprin is not a safe drug there have been many lawsuits about it included with the liver killer tylenol”

    No drug is 100% safe. If it is strong enough to have a desired effect, it is almost guaranteed to have undesirable side effects. No one claims otherwise. And the changes in Tylenol’s recommended maximum doses has more to do with user error than anything “bad” about the drug itself – people taking the idea that Tylenol is “safe” (which it is, in general, when taken correctly) to mean they can take as much as they want, and not realizing they’re double-dosing when they take cold syrups on top of it, etc is why they recommenddations have been called into question. Not because Tylenol is a “liver killer.” And I don’t know much about the aspirin reference without looking it up, but my guess would be something along the same lines as Tylenol.

    Not that it really matters, I’m almost 100% sure I won’t change your mind, I just felt like getting in a little tiny bit of practice at pulling apart some pretty dumb/typical alt med arguments.

  227. #227 holistickid
    December 29, 2009

    I still don’t see where your saying health comes from. All you have said is “THESE DRUGS ARE TESTEDBY SCIENCE.” the threory of trying to control the body is wrong and has brought us to this point of all this disease. Western medicine works directly against nature and natural medicine works with nature becuase nature has the ability to heal itself. There is no silver bullet even in natural medicine so for someone to say that something cured a certain disease they are wrong. Nutrition, Herbs, homeopathy, body work, chiropractic, acupuncture, energy work, biofeedback, whole foods only bring balance to the body and allow the body to unleash its healing potential. Now tell me how vaccines with mercury and a host of other toxins, drugs, surgery, chemo, radiation,CT scans(high radiation),dye injections from MRI works with nature. it doesn’t so this means the very medicine that they are giving us and yes I’m going to say this western medicine is the direct cause of these epidemics we are seeing. Lack of holistic education and the use of the barbaric practices. I’m stating the theory of western medicing is wrong and need to be seriously overlooked because its killing us. Remember you’re part of nature to so how are you sererate from it???

  228. #228 JohnV
    December 29, 2009

    “Chemical plants sending heavy metals into out atmosphere while dentists put mercury the most toxic non-radioactive substance into our mouth but EPA wouldn’t let them put mercury in landfills.”

    Lets do a quick fact check. Just for fun, we’ll just look at toxins produced by 2 bacterial species:

    LD50-Compound-Organism

    0.001 g/kg-mercury chloride/rat
    0.0001 g/kg C. perfringens enterotoxin/mouse
    0.000015 g/kg C. perfringens Theta toxin/mouse
    0.000005 g/kg C. perfringens Delta toxin/mouse
    0.000003 g/kg C. perfringens Alpha toxin/mouse
    0.0000004 g/kg C. perfringens Beta toxin/mouse
    0.000000001 g/kg C. botulinum neurotoxin A/primate

    That’s neat, you can’t even get your fear mongering right. From just two species of bacteria we see that they produce at least 6 substances that are anywhere from 10-100,000 times more toxic than mercury chloride. I can’t find a value for dimethyl mercury but it is more toxic that mercury chloride. Still not as toxic as all of the above Clostridial toxins.

    (Bacterial toxin data from Bacterial toxins: a table of lethal amounts. Microbiol Rev. 1982 Mar;46(1):86-94.)

  229. #229 Vicki
    December 29, 2009

    Holistickid–

    You are trying to control the body. You just want to use different, and mostly less effective, methods. Picking foods for their effects on your health or mood is controlling the body. So is getting a flu vaccine, or taking aspirin when I have a headache. So is applying pressure to a wound. Yoga is a way of controlling the body.

    There is nothing wrong with self-control, which is what we’re talking about (we are physical beings, animals, and there is no sharp division between “the body” and “me”). But you have to do it within the physical universe. Some methods work better than others. And the details may depend on the individual body. (For example, for a given person, one painkiller or anti-seizure drug may work better than another. There are people for whom ordinary, natural foods–wheat, peppers, celery, or soybeans–are hazardous.)

    And some things don’t work at all. Yoga can be useful, for calm, flexibility, and balance. Meditation seems to help some people. Prayer is useless, and homeopathy is either useless or sometimes harmful (because those diluted-to-nothing formulations may be packaged in lactose or alcohol).

    I am not claiming to be separate from nature. In fact, I think one of the problems with “alternative” medicine is that it tends to ignore that we are animals, and live in an environment full of other organisms, which are not there for our benefit. Every other animal, plant, fungus, and microbe is trying to survive and reproduce. Sometimes that benefits us, sometimes it harms us, and often it does neither. But the organisms that cause malaria and influenza are as “natural” as your favorite plant.

  230. #230 holistickid
    December 29, 2009

    First off if you understood anything about quantum physics you would know that nothing is physical and matter itself does not exist. This means we are not physical beings we are mind, spitit, soul, consiousness first then the body. We are informational energetic vibrational conciouss frequency. And about your strugle to survive darwin theory these fungi microbes parasites could not live in a healthy body. If you provide the environment for these fungi and microbes to live in then they will. Your going into germ theory and germ theory doesnt make sense just because you absorb a microbe or virus doesn’t mean you get sick it’s about how strong your immune system is. Reguardless of what you say drugs don’t adress the cause of the condition they only adress the symptom. This is so funny because you are debating with me about toxins and I dont care if something is less toxic than something else its still toxic!!!!! And as for homeopathy you still must not understand quantum physics because if you did you would understand homeopathic remedies better and the transfer of information from one substance to another. Pure and simple drugs don’t make you healthy and like i said I’m not anti drug but there is a time and place for everything as well as drugs. I work on making the WHOLE body healthy individual aspect of it. As for your influenza virus “natural” theory first off if you believe a virus is a living organism you have antoher issues it is a particle of DNA or RNA with negative information encased with a protein case. You know if you want to toxify your body and radiate youself thats fine but when you come down with cancer or some kind of disease you can say I told you so. People don’t die any more from natural cellular division and for someone to call a heart attack a natural cause it’s not its a man made cause. Your theories broken and will have no place in society here in the near future if western medicine hasen’t killed us off first.

  231. #231 Chris
    December 29, 2009

    holistickid:

    First off if you understood anything about quantum physics you would know that nothing is physical and matter itself does not exist.

    Oh, goody. Show us how well you understand quantum physics. The word quantum was used to describe the counting of what? (it is a one word answer)

  232. #232 Poogles
    December 29, 2009

    Wow. He’s really laying it all on – homeopathy, quantum physics, toxins, germ theory denial, attack of “Western Medicine” etc. Sure this isn’t a case of Poe’s Law? So sad when you can’t tell the difference…

  233. #233 the bug guy
    December 29, 2009

    Wow, now we know what you get when you cross Deepak Chopra with Bill Maher.

    holistickid, it’s clear that you don’t understand quantum physics and that you’ve bought into the new age mysticism that’s been bouncing around.

    And sorry, being healthy will not prevent all microbial infection and disease. Never has and never will.

    Do you avoid eating all plant products? If you don’t, you’d better, because you are consuming TOXINS!!! with each bite. Plants produce a huge variety of protective chemicals that are toxic in high enough doses. About the same proportion of these plant protective chemicals are as carcinogenic as synthetic pesticides. We even breed plants for these chemicals, such as capsaicin.

    Homeopathy…oy, again, you are the one that doesn’t understand quantum physics, or regular physics, or even introductory chemistry.

    You’re use of the word theory also shows that you don’t understand it, either. But go ahead, reject all western medicine. It has had nothing to do with the dramatic increase in life expectancy over the last century.

    Finally, something more serious. Please, get away from what you’ve been reading and find some serious, science-based material. The evidence supporting modern medicine is there, it’s clear and it’s convincing.

  234. #234 holistickid
    December 30, 2009

    I have a few things to ask about this then why are we seeing a rise in almost every disease?? Why is it that when EPA did analysis and a large number of overweight people their fat biopsy found a number of chemicals in the fat cells (chemicals in 100% of fat cells)? Why did they the EPA say that there are an estimated 20,000 chemicals in the environment that our bodies can’t metabolize. If any one can acutally answer why we are seeing an increase in disease then please step up and let me know your theory of the causes of disease. If any one in here can tell me that chemicals, stress, electromagnetic stress, drugs, nutritional deficienties, Processed foods don’t cause illness then tell me what does. I pray for every one of you who believe the system we have is just fine but you have some serious issues with GOD. OMG now im going to get a number of blogs with the issue of GOD and just let you know im not religious incase you try to attack my religion. You need to remember we are all spirits having a human expierence not humans having a spiritual expierence. I don’t care what you say our earth is polluted our food system had gone to hell our emotions are at an all time high and all holistic health is doing is adressing these issues. Why can’t you think outside of the box for once and understand were trying to support the human organism and not suppress it. Also for you longevity theory you might want to do your reasearch and find that the people that are living longest in the world now are non-industrialized nations not the USA. WE’RE ALL FAT how is this being healthy. Also you need to understand that the first longevity sensus was done during a large flu epidemic back in the 1800’s when the life expectancy wasn’t as high because of it. Get your facts straight and if you think drugs make you live longer then go take a handfull of them!

  235. #235 JohnV
    December 30, 2009

    Orac is that you just having fun with us?

  236. #236 holistickid
    December 31, 2009

    If your talking to me no I’m not orac and no I’m not messing with you. I’m serious about what I’m talking about here so if anyone can answer my question please do.

  237. #237 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    Do you have a point? Because you are just spouting nonsense.

    I asked you a simple question. You mentioned “quantum” like you knew what it was. I simply asked that when the term was formalized what it meant in terms of measurement. The answer is one single word. You verbal diarrhea did not contain that word. Please try again.

    Oh, and dude, you are showing you do not have a clue with phrases like “number of chemicals in the fat cells.” Water is contained in fat cells, it is a chemical (it consists of one oxygen atom and two hydrogen atoms), then there are the phospholipids, and of course several other chemicals that make up the world.

    Have you ever considered taking a basic class in chemistry and biology? That might make the world more coherent, and perhaps even you might become more coherent.

  238. #238 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    holistickid:

    If your talking to me no I’m not orac and no I’m not messing with you. I’m serious about what I’m talking about here so if anyone can answer my question please do.

    Try the equivalent from you local community college (in alphabetical order, because that is how college catalogs are organized):

    Survey of Anthropology
    (Formerly ANT 100) Survey of the physical
    and cultural development of human beings.
    Includes evolution, archaeology, social structure,
    material culture, human ecology and
    communications.

    Biological Anthropology
    (Formerly ANT 201 – Physical Anthropology)
    Intro to biological and cultural evolution of
    humans with evidence from fossil and contemporary
    populations. Examines physical
    and biological variations of humans past and
    present. Emphasis on developing a working
    vocabulary of anthropological terms.

    Survey of Biology
    (Formerly BIO 100 – Biological Principles)
    Intro to biological principles and concepts; cell
    biology; application of biological knowledge to
    problems of society; and development of an
    awareness of science. Lab included. For nonscience
    majors. Prereq: Eligibility for MATH
    084 and ENGL& 101 or ENG 101 (C).

    General Biology
    Emphasis on common plant and animal
    activities, energy pathways via respiration
    and photosynthesis and metabolic activities.
    Stresses other physiological differences
    between animals and plants. Lab included.

    Chemistry Concepts
    (Formerly CHE 100 – Chemistry & Society)
    Stresses a humanistic approach to chemistry
    and de-emphasizes mathematical problemsolving.
    Reveals chemical principles, facts
    and theories through practical applications,
    computer graphic illustrations and experiments.
    Includes lab.

    Intro to Chemistry
    (Formerly CHE 101 – Chemistry [S] or Fundamentals
    of Inorganic Chemistry [N,C])
    Fundamental inorganic chemistry, including
    bonding, stoichiometry, gas laws and acid/
    base topics. Of particular interest to Health
    Science and Biotechnology students. Lab
    included. Prereq: One year of high school
    algebra or MATH 085.

    Intro to Physics
    For non-majors. Study basic laws of physics
    through inquiry and learn to use the scientific
    method to predict, test, analyze and extend
    experiments demonstrating key concepts of
    physics. Perform and author experiments
    and effectively document observations, experimental
    designs and analyses

    Technical Physics 1
    Includes force, linear and angular motion;
    work, energy, and power; rotation, torque, and
    power transmission; friction and the analysis
    of basic machines; structure of materials and
    the properties of solids. Prereq: MATH 111.

    ……………………………………..

    Actually, take a full four years of real physics to even start to talk about quantum physics (at lease do one Young’s double slit lab!).

    Your questions can be answered with a minimum of academic preparation (a minimum of a year of high school biology, chemistry and physics, which can also be accomplished by signing up for the above community college classes). If you are truly serious about learning about the real world, you would actually sign up and become formally educated.

  239. #239 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2010

    Holistickid:

    What kind of dressing would you like for your word salad?

  240. #240 holistickid
    January 1, 2010

    Once again you didn’t answer my question. Then what is the cuases of these diseases???? Don’t tell me is genetics because epigenetics disproved the idea that genetics are a cause of a disease. Can you seriously sit there and tell me that pollution has no effect on the body. I still don’t understand why you would attack someone who just doesn’t want to be around these substances because they has been found to be toxic to humans. You people had some real learning to do and get this you will die from these things im talking to you about. Its not going to be a fast death it will be a slow painfull death filled with back pain joint pains and many other issues like what older people are going through today. Theres nothing you can tell me I would still need a wheel chair today if it wasn’t for holistic medicine . This is after I spent months in western medicine quackery and they told me I couldn’t be helped. I think you are the ones who are quacks not us your system is killing the rest of us with you nanochipped mercury laced vaccines. Go take a handfull of prescription drugs and tell me how you feel after that. Reguardless your system is fading away and holistic medicine is here to stay and it;s only going to get bigger and that makes me sleep better at night know people like you will not be treating us with poisons any more!!!

  241. #241 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2010

    Holistickid:
    Nobody with any sense is going to answer your “question” because we can’t find it among all that blethering and abuse.

  242. #242 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    holistickid, you are suffering from a severe lack of real education. You will get the answers to all your questions if you follow these simple steps:

    1) Locate the community college closest to where you live.

    2) Find the website and register a student number.

    3) Find out where the testing center is in the community college, and what hours testing occurs.

    4) Go in and take the English and Math Compass tests, these will determine what level of classes you are qualified to take. Going by your writing, I would say you may need at least two remedial English classes to get up to college level.

    5) Sign up for both the remedial English classes, and at least one of the introduction to science classes listed above.

    Good luck.

  243. #243 holistickid
    January 1, 2010

    Your all morons!!!!!

  244. #244 Kristen
    January 1, 2010

    @243

    Wow, the people on this thread are “morons”, yet you are the only one who has resorted to name calling.

    I don’t think you need college classes, you are still in High School. From your writing that is the impression I get. And if you have graduated, I feel sorry for the state of the American school system.

  245. #245 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    Don’t despair, you might find that after learning actual science (and some English grammar), that reality is much more interesting than the fantasies you have been spouting about.

    In the latest Skeptoid, Brian Dunning found out that story behind very tall humans in the Americas was much more interesting than the legends:

    There were cultural practices that can account for all the strange skeletal remains I described. They liked to mutilate the bodies of their slain enemies. One method was the disarticulation of the limbs of a corpse, so that its bones could be hung up as a sort of wind chime. Once finally laid in the ground, the separated bones gave the appearance that this person must have been seven or more feet tall.

    Jawbones often received similar treatment. Holes were bored into them to accommodate leather thongs, and to non-expert railroad crews, such jaws appeared to have sockets available for a second row of teeth. Like we often find on Skeptoid, the true explanation is almost always far more interesting than any you can come up with when you stop your investigation prematurely, as I did when I did my original episode. The PT Barnum explanation was pretty humdrum and dismissive. The real reason the bodies appeared to be 7 feet tall, and that the skulls appeared to have a second row of teeth, gives a much more engaging view into history.

  246. #246 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    Kristen:

    And if you have graduated, I feel sorry for the state of the American school system.

    Perhaps he was homeschooled, or even severely learning disabled, but there is always hope. The community college system has been very accommodating to my disabled son, which is how I know they have remedial English classes (and even disability services).

    Even the best educational system can only do so much if the student is not willing to learn. Holistickid will have to figure out on his own that his lack of science education is a hindrance. Perhaps he does not want to do the work, since looking for easy answers in the alternative medicine world is so much easier.

  247. #247 Militant Agnostic
    January 1, 2010

    Holistickid blathered

    you nanochipped mercury laced vaccines

    Are the NWO nannochips included in the seasonal flu vax or they only available in the H1N1 vax? I have only received the seasonal flu vaccination so far and I was wondering if I had missed out on the nannochip.

  248. #248 holistickid
    January 1, 2010

    Canadian scientists reported to find nano particles in the tips of the H1N1 needles. Still the idea of injecting your self with toxic chemicals year after year is just our right not a smart idea. This is information off of mercola.com

    1) Vaccines contain many chemicals and heavy metals, like mercury and aluminum, which are in-themselves immuno-suppressing. Mercury actually causes changes in the lymphocyte activity and decreases lymphocyte viability.

    2) Vaccines contain foreign tissues and foreign DNA/RNA which act to suppress the immune system via graft-vs-host rejection phenomena.

    3) Vaccines alter our t-cell helper/suppressor ratios … just like those seen with AIDS. This ratio is a key indicator of a proper functioning immune system.

    4) Vaccines alter the metabolic activity of PMNs and reduce their chemotaxic abilities. PMNs are our body’s defenses against pathogenic bacteria and viruses.

    5) Vaccines suppress our immunity merely buy over-taxing our immune system with foreign material, heavy metals, pathogens and viruses. The heavy metals slow down our immune system, while the viruses set up shop to grow and divide. It is like being chained and handcuffed before swimming.

    6) Vaccines clog our lymphatic system and lymph nodes with large protein molecules which have not been adequately broken down by our digestive processes, since vaccines by pass digestion with injections. This is why vaccines are linked to allergies, because they contain large proteins which as circulating immune complexes (CICs) or “klinkers” which cause our body to become allergic.

    7) Vaccines deplete our body of vital immune-enhancing nutrients, like vitamin C, A and zinc, which are needed for a strong immune system. It is nutrients like these that primes our immune system, feeds the white blood cells and macrophages and allows them to function optimally.

    8) Vaccines are neurotoxic and slow the level of nervous transmission, and communications to the brain and other tissues. Now we know that some lymphocytes communicate directly with the brain through a complex set of neurotransmitters. Altering these factors will also depress our immunity.

  249. #249 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    Really, holistickid, Mercola is not considered a valid source of information. Also, cut and pasting from his (and other) websites is considered bad form.

    Truly, you really need to work on your lack of education. It would keep you from being hoodwinked so often.

  250. #250 holistickid
    January 1, 2010

    Ok then I ask you how to stay healthy then??? I’ll ask this question once again, what is causing this spike in disease rates we are seeing? We did not see these disease rates in our population before we became industrialized and many diseases didn’t even exist untill this happened. I ask you what is causing this??

  251. #251 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2010

    What spike in disease rates?
    I saw this list in one of your previous comments: cancer, heart disease, diabetes, autism, MS, alzheimers.
    Cancer – some types are increased, some are decreased. Most of the real increase is from smoking, with much less through industrial exposure and a small percentage through envionmental exposure. The apparent increase is through more people living to old age, where cancer becomes more frequent.
    Heart disease – death rate and incidence is actually going down.
    Diabetes – increase in Type II mostly due to obesity.
    Autism – probably not a real increase, mostly due to reclassification of what we used to call “retarded” and “obsessive” disorders.
    MS – I don’t know that there is an increase. Possibly more cases are being diagnosed due to better diagnostic methods – MRI scans etc.
    Alzheimer’s – used to be diagnosed only in people under the age of 65. Older demented people were thought to have had strokes or were simply called senile. Also there are a lot more demented people around because more people live for a long time.
    And don’t believe anything Mercola says. To paraphrase Julia Sweeney, Joe Mercola is full of shit.

  252. #252 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2010

    Addendum to previous comment:
    I briefly looked up MS and found the incidence has increased over the last 50 years, mostly in women. There are a number of possible factors including cigarette smoking, obesity, hormonal alterations due to BCPs and pregnancy later in life, and Vitamin D deficiency. No “smoking gun” as yet. I also am convinced that more cases are diagnosed with imaging studies. 50 years ago the dianosis of MS was entirely clinical, which could certainly miss milder or remitting cases.

  253. #253 Scottynuke
    January 1, 2010

    When it come to automatically disqualifying a commenter from serious consideration for further discourse, a mercola reference is only trumped by whale.to, right?

  254. #254 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    You are spouting nonsense. You should probably work on your lack of education in history.

    I keep healthy by being fully vaccinated, eating a balanced diet with lots of good vegies and fruit (actually the New Year’s Eve dinner we had cheese fondue, and the broccoli and pear were particularly good when dipped in cheese), regular exercise (which includes lots of gardening, with an emphasis on an edible garden).

    I am about to ask and answer some questions for you. Here is a handy reference, load it up on your computer and try to keep up. Will you need help on how to read a table?

    What was the average lifetime a century ago compared to now? Has it gone up or down? From page 8, on the table labeled “No. 1421. Expectation of Life at Birth, by Race and Sex: 1900 to 1997″ the answers are (for all persons):
    1900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.3
    1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76.5

    Now about those disease rates that have risen? What diseases? Do you have actual data? Does your community still have an active sanitarium for those who have tuberculosis or leprosy (Hanson’s Disease)? Our local TB sanitarium has been turned into a parochial school that goes from preschool through high school(it was the one that Betty McDonald wrote about in her book The Plague and I, the title taking the form of her first book The Egg and I). Do you know many people with trichinosis, or cholera, or other diseases that were fairly common a century ago?

    Now look at the next page at the table labeled “No. 1423. Specified Reportable Diseases: 1912 to 1997.” There is limited information on certain diseases, but I will try to get representative information. The numbers are a rate of disease for every 100000 persons.

    Tuberculosis:
    1930 . . . . . . . . 101.5
    1997 . . . . . . . . 7.4

    Syphilis:
    1930 . . . . . . . . 185.4
    1997 . . . . . . . . 17.4

    Gonorrhea:
    1920 . . . . . . . . 175.4
    1997 . . . . . . . . 121.4

    Malaria:
    1920 . . . . . . . . 173.0
    1997 . . . . . . . . 0.8

    Typhoid:
    1912 . . . . . . . . 81.8
    1997 . . . . . . . . 0.1

    Diphtheria:
    1912 . . . . . . . . 139.0
    1997 . . . . . . . . Less than .05

    Pertussis:
    1925 . . . . . . . . 131.2
    1997 . . . . . . . . 2.5

    Measles:
    1912 . . . . . . . . 310.0
    1997 . . . . . . . . 0.1

    Acute Polio:
    1912 . . . . . . . . 5.5
    1950 . . . . . . . . 22.1
    1997 . . . . . . . . Less than .05

    HIV/AIDS (not known before 1985):
    1993 . . . . . . . . 40.2
    1994 . . . . . . . . 30.1
    1995 . . . . . . . . 27.2
    1996 . . . . . . . . 25.2
    1997 . . . . . . . . 21.9

    Another interesting table is on page 12, its title is “No. 1429. National Air Pollutant Emissions: 1900 to 1997.” You can see the rise of pollutants starting in 1900, but you will see that starting at about 1970 several have gone down. It seems environmental rules have improved air quality, especially for the amount of lead.

  255. #255 holisitckid
    January 1, 2010

    Alright this is my last comment in this blog site you people have been so brainwashed by western mainstream science. You people are so stupid it’s really not that funny. Yes obesity is on the rise your right and cancer, diabeties, heart disease, arthritis, back pain, gastrointestional disorders, hypertension and many other chronic disorders are assiciated with obesity. So if obesity percentages are going up and these diseases are assiciated with obesity how can the percentages be going down? You people need to get a life but I still pray for every single one of you. Health is common sense people wake up!!!!! Just know that when you start developing a disease there are holistic alternatives that support your body not like your toxic drugs, surgery, radiation, chemo and that’s all you really have. kinda sad………

  256. #256 Chris
    January 1, 2010

    So adding thirty years to the average lifespan between 1900 and 1997 is considered unhealthy?

  257. #257 Antaeus Feldspar
    January 3, 2010

    2) Vaccines contain foreign tissues and foreign DNA/RNA which act to suppress the immune system via graft-vs-host rejection phenomena.

    holistickid, think about this logically for a second.

    If no one got vaccines, people would still be exposed to “foreign tissues” and “foreign DNA/RNA” every second of every hour of every day. Someone sneezes into the air; the microscopic droplets hang there; you happen to be nearby and you inhale — presto, you have just exposed your immune system to “foreign tissues”, “foreign DNA/RNA”.

    Now, let me ask you this: what happens then?

    If your answer is “the immune system automatically gets suppressed from its exposure to this foreign material,” then what you’re saying is that the human immune system isn’t worth a damn. The function of the immune system is to deal with that foreign material; to say that “the immune system automatically gets suppressed” is to say that the human immune system is absolute trash which cannot handle anything thrown at it and thus serves no function whatsoever.

    The evidence shows, however, that the human immune system does deal effectively with many threats, so let’s look a little more specifically with which threats it deals with effectively.

    The immune system deals more effectively with threats it’s already prepared for. Logical, right? Something completely new that it’s never encountered before – it’s unlikely to have any way to deal with that, right away. But if it survives its first encounter with a threat, it’s better prepared, the next time.

    The amount and the strength of the challenge to the immune system also matters. Some “challenges”, in fact, are not really “challenges” at all. For instance, a live virus may pose a threat, but a dead one does not. Either one, however, allows the immune system to prepare for further encounters with the same kind of foreign matter.

    So it seems like the worst luck one could possibly have, with regards to the immune system, is to encounter a very dangerous infectious agent for the first time when that agent is alive and at full strength. It would be much more fortunate to encounter a dead example of such an agent, before ever encountering a live version! That way, the immune system would be as prepared as possible to fight off any live examples of the agent it encountered later, right?

    That’s what a vaccine is. The foreign matter in vaccines doesn’t suppress the immune system and leave it vulnerable to threats, it trains the immune system and makes it more resistant to threats.

    You refer to “graft-vs-host rejection phenomena … suppress[ing] the immune system” but in fact you have it exactly backwards. When someone needs a transplant organ to live, placing the transplant organ in their body doesn’t weaken the immune system; we weaken the immune system so that it doesn’t kill the transplant organ and with it the recipient!

  258. #258 holistickid
    January 5, 2010

    MORON!!! Nature has everything that we need!!!! Humans are the problem!!!! I want to ask you who’s smarter nature or humans???

  259. #259 Chris
    January 5, 2010

    Honey, humans are part of nature. A destructive part of nature, but part of this planet. Like it or not.

    Also, do the planet a favor and do not use certain endangered natural products. It is despicable that sharks, a rare orchid and other things in nature are being driven to extinction to make “natural cures”. More information in this blog, http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=432 and companion podcast, Green our SCAM.

  260. #260 holistickid
    January 5, 2010

    Your right we are apart of nature and I’m so glad you said that because I’ve been trying to get you people to say that we are part of nature. Nautre doesn’t need drugs or pollution, harmful radiation, harmful chemicals, GMO foods, unhealthy fats, electromagetic radiation, heavy metals, extreme emotions, chemical sweeteners and I could go on. Nature is PERFECT!!!!! Humans are part of nature and this is what we are trying to tell you. Your perception is that humans are not part of nature but we are. Nature has everything that we need and if you say that it doesn’t then I don’t know what your problem is. Our modern science is so far away from nature how can you use non-natural substances to cure natural process. It doesn’t work and it will never work. So keep doing walks and fundraising but let me ask you this, has the chronic disease industry grown to big so you can’t cure the disease. Imagine how many people would be out of the job in all the chonic disease industries. Have you ever heard of to big to fail????? In order to heal nature you need nature pure and simple!!! Or you could go the western medicine way of using human made chemicals to heal nature but we see how that’s gone!!! Not one chronic disease cured!!! NOT ONE!!!!!

  261. #261 Chris
    January 5, 2010

    holeykid:

    Nautre doesn’t need … electromagetic radiation,… extreme emotions,

    You seem to be in a manic mode, perhaps you really should avoid those extreme emotions.

    Um, dude… nature needs light. If we did not have the electromagnetic radiation from the sun there would be no life.

    Do you live in the basement without any windows, and electricity in total darkness? Wait, how do use the computer?

  262. #262 holistickid
    January 5, 2010

    You completely don’t get the difference between electromagnetic radiation from nature and the electromagnetic radiation from electrical equipment. Every living entity produces electromagnetic radiation that is suitable for life force energy. Did I ever say I stayed in my basement???? No I didn’t I get sun just like nature requires. I don’t get more sun than I need, but I bet you believe the sun causes skin cancer dont you? I still don’t see your argument for what your talking to me about. you still haven’t given me a cause for what is the causes for modern day CHRONIC disease?????? I’m talking about the lifestyle diseases!!! If you can please give me some evidence for what you believe causes Chronuc disease please do. If you can’t then please shut your mouth!! So chris if you can’t tell me these things what is your point???

  263. #263 Chris
    January 6, 2010

    Dear little child, the light from the sun is electromagnetic radiation. The fact that you do not understand this shows the depth of your ignorance.

  264. #264 holistickid
    January 6, 2010

    answer my question!!!!!

  265. #265 holistickid
    January 6, 2010

    What is the cause of chronic disease???????

  266. #266 Chris
    January 6, 2010

    You have not presented a cohesive statement, much less a real question. All you have shown is the depth of your ignorance. There is no question to answer.

    My point is that you are an ignorant fool. You should stop, realize you are an idiot, and then decide to correct that problem. Find a real way to address your ignorance by educating yourself, perhaps through your local community college system (or actually doing the homework you are assigned in your middle school, because your postings seem to be those of a twelve year old).

  267. #267 Chris
    January 6, 2010

    Which chronic disease? Give us specifics, not your random ramblings.

  268. #268 holistickid
    January 6, 2010

    I have figured out the reason why you have no idea what I’m talking about. It’s because you have NO idea what causes disease in the first place. Chronic disease like cancer, arthritis, diabeties, MS, Alzheimers, dementia, digestive disorders, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue, heart disease. Everything I have told you about pollution, vaccines, electromagnetic stress(electrical), geopathic stress, emotional stress, heavy metals, chiropractic misalignment, energetic imbalances, informational imbalances, Low fiber diets, fast foods, processed foods, non-organic foods, pesticides, toxic water supply( drugs/toxins in the water supply), Drugs and smoking, Alcohol, household chemical cleaners, toxic paints, toxic cosmetics, flouridated toothpaste, PHARMA DRUGS, chloninated pools/spas, car exhaust, lack of nutrition in our foods, perfumes, colognes, lotions, and all of our modern day products. We expierence everyone of these on a daily basis how could this not effect out health. This is the causes of chronic disease!!! There is never one cause for disease, there are contributing factors that send the body out of homeostasis and leads to these issues.

  269. #269 Scientizzle
    January 6, 2010

    New subhead for this article: Holistickid carpet bombs this thread with napalm-grade stupid about everything

    This person is one giant perseverating naturalistic fallacy.

  270. #270 holistickid
    January 9, 2010

    You say that your educated but I really think you people have been brainwashed. You completely throw common sense out the window for your so called “education”. Pretty sad……… Even a child could understand these issues.

  271. #271 Antaeus Feldspar
    January 10, 2010

    You say that your educated but I really think you people have been brainwashed. You completely throw common sense out the window for your so called “education”. Pretty sad……… Even a child could understand these issues.

    Yeah, and a child could understand how Santa Claus flies all over the Earth in a single night. Doesn’t mean the child is dealing with reality, does it?

  272. #272 Anonymous
    January 12, 2010

    @28.

    Where does that leave my young, non-smoking, healthy-food-eating, happy-new-mother colleague who had a double mastectomy earlier this year? Was she just not doing enough to protect herself from breast cancer? If she’d only eaten more immune-system boosting foods she’d be fine? Fuck that kind of victim blaming.

    I guess you haven’t heard yet about the link between breast cancer and birth control?

  273. #273 holistickid
    January 14, 2010

    Hey anonymous let me ask you this! You say your co-worker was young, non-smoking, healthy food eating……. Well let me ask you if this new mother was ever told the cause of her cancer???????? Do you know if she was vaccinated as a child with toxic chemicals? Was she given repeated anit-biotics in her life like most people are? What was her eating habbits/nutrition from a baby through adulthood? Has she ever gone to fast food for an extended period of her life? What was her parents profession before and after she was born? Did her parents work in an industrial industry? Was she eating organic so she wasn’t absoring pesticides, insecticides, and herbacides? What type of stress has she ever been under before this cancer? Has she ever had any type of surgery to block lymphatic drainage? What type of lotions/doedorants/perfumes/makeup/everday products does she use and are they filled with chemicals? Does she live in an industrailized city with lots of pollutants/ heavy metals? Had she ever done street drugs in her life? Is she exposed to chemical cleaners on a daily basis? If she getting enough fiber in her diet? Is she taking a bioavailable multivitamin? What are her nutirition levels?!! Has she ever have any augmentation to her breast? Do any of her friend smoke and could she be getting second hand smoke? Does she drink tap water or plastic bottled water? Does she use a microwave? Does she drink? What major industrial industries is she living around? What are her sleep cycles like? Does she exercise regularly? had she ever smoked in her life? Does she drink products/ sodas that say they are diet that have aspertame an excitotoxin? Has she been put on any drug suppressive therapies? How much is she exposed to electrical electromagnetic radiation? How much sun is she getting? Is she becomming deficient in vital nutrients because of lack of sun? How often does she cook her foods? How often does she eat raw vegetables from a pure source? how clean is the air she is breathing? Is she getting the proper ratio of omega 3-6-9 fats? Is she even getting omega-3? How is her home life from what you know if it that might effect her stress levels? WAS SHE TAKING BIRTH CONTROL PILLS? How much fish does she eat tanted with mercury? If you would like me to go on I could go on forever. Just because you eat organic doesn’t mean you will be disease free. There are so many components that lead to modern day chronic diseases you have to look at everyone and understand that in the body they all interact with each other. I bet she also went through some type of chemotherapy or radiation therapy with the double mastectomy which will add to her toxicity problems as well radiate her blood and tissues. It will also block nutrient absorbtion that will eventually lead to more cancer. If you look up the real facts for breast cancer survival after 5 year the cancer cure rate is 1% and the placebo after 5 years is 3%. I’m not saying right at 5 years but sometime after 5 years 99% of people being treated by chemo, radiation and surgery will have a return of cancer. At that point I guess you all would still radiate yourself and toxify your self with more chemo toxins!!! Good luck with that one!!! So for you anonymous I feel badly for your colleague but untill you give me more information I’m afraid you don’t know much about you colleagues disease. How could you expect to cure any disease if you don’t know the causes?

  274. #274 Anonymous
    January 16, 2010

    @holistickid (#274)
    No need to preach to the chior. I agree with you 100%.
    That was a quote from message #28. That’s why I started it with @28 and following that was what he said, a blockquote. Anything that has a dotted line along the left side is a quote from a previous comment. My only comment was asking if he was aware of the link between birth control and breast cancer.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.