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 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.

  2. #2 julia
    October 25, 2009
  3. #3 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.

  4. #4 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.

  5. #5 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.

  6. #6 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.

  7. #7 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.

  8. #8 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?

  9. #9 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?

  10. #10 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?

  11. #11 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.

  12. #12 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.

  13. #13 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? 🙂

  14. #14 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.

  15. #15 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.

  16. #16 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.

  17. #17 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???

  18. #18 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.

  19. #19 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.

  20. #20 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.

  21. #21 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….

  22. #22 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.

  23. #23 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.

  24. #24 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.

  25. #25 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!

  26. #26 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.

  27. #27 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???

  28. #28 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.)

  29. #29 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.

  30. #30 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.

  31. #31 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)

  32. #32 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…

  33. #33 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.

  34. #34 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!

  35. #35 JohnV
    December 30, 2009

    Orac is that you just having fun with us?

  36. #36 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.

  37. #37 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.

  38. #38 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.

  39. #39 T. Bruce McNeely
    January 1, 2010

    Holistickid:

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

  40. #40 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!!!

  41. #41 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.

  42. #42 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.

  43. #43 holistickid
    January 1, 2010

    Your all morons!!!!!

  44. #44 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.

  45. #45 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.

  46. #46 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.

  47. #47 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.

  48. #48 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.

  49. #49 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.

  50. #50 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??

  51. #51 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.

  52. #52 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.

  53. #53 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?

  54. #54 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.

  55. #55 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………

  56. #56 Chris
    January 1, 2010

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

  57. #57 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!

  58. #58 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???

  59. #59 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.

  60. #60 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!!!!!

  61. #61 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?

  62. #62 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???

  63. #63 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.

  64. #64 holistickid
    January 6, 2010

    answer my question!!!!!

  65. #65 holistickid
    January 6, 2010

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

  66. #66 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).

  67. #67 Chris
    January 6, 2010

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

  68. #68 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.

  69. #69 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.

  70. #70 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.

  71. #71 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?

  72. #72 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?

  73. #73 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?

  74. #74 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.

New comments have been temporarily disabled. Please check back soon.