More JPANDS lies---Godwin, here we come

New one: My daughter was told at school in her "sex ed" class that Nuvaring causes cervical cancer.

I told her, "Only if the ring is coated in HPV and even then, you've gotten the shots."

Yay, Wacko Christian Fundies with the lying and scare tactics and abstinence-only "education"! Whee!

Cult Christian manly men

There is such an animal?

The funny thing is that Hitler banned abortion, and wasnt very enthusiastic about contraceptives. He wanted women to squeeze out as many Aryan supermen as possible. I honestly think Hitler would have had a positive view of the Christian Right, despite them not being German. I mean, they both hated the same kinds of people.

Hopefully, this isn't too far off topic.

You indicate that "the jury is still out" on whether oral contraceptives and estrogen therapy cause cancer, yet the American Cancer Society have both listed in their list of known carcinogens. From what I have read, I am leaning toward agreeing with you, but as a layperson, how do you know who to believe?

When you have 2 opposing views and both views are being given by people that have MD behind their names, how do you know?

Like many questions in medicine, there is no black and white answer. Oral contraceptives do not appear to increase cancer risk.

Hormone replacement therapy may increase some cancers in some women some of the time.

I hope that's crystal clear for ya.

As physicians, we weight the risks and benefits for each patient based on what data we have.

Okay, I'll let it slide this time. Oral contraceptives do not appear to increase cancer risk even though the IARC has them listed as a group I carcinogen. (again, I don't disagree with you. I honestly don't know enough to agree or disagree, but, if the ACS is wrong about this, what else are they wrong about?)

As a patient or as a caregiver for a patient, I look at all the data that I can find, I try to find doctors that seem to be well informed and not just riding out their time pushing pills until retirement and then I make an informed decision based on all the evidence that I can gather.

I guess the point is, it is hard for the average person to know what is good information and what is bullshit when you can't take the word of an organization like the ACS at face value.

Sorry for the tangent.

If "10" physicists "each" wrote one essay, those who purchased a book titled 100 Essays Against Einstein were cheated of 90% of the money they paid. Under the circumstances, however, there probably weren't a lot of vocal complaints...

Bill, you are somewhat misinformed, but I can help.

See here first: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_2X_What_are_the_risk_…

Also

The liststhemselves say nothing about how likely the agents are to cause cancer. Carcinogens do not cause cancer at all times, under all circumstances. Some may only be carcinogenic if a person is exposed in a certain way (for example, ingesting it as opposed to touching it). Some of these agents may lead to cancer after only a very small exposure, while others might require intense exposure over many years. Again, you should refer to the agencies reports for specifics.

Not all carcinogens are to be avoided at all costs. The lists include many commonly used medicines, particularly some hormones and drugs used to treat cancer. Tamoxifen, for example, increases the risk of certain kinds of uterine cancer but lowers the risk of recurrence (return) of breast cancer, which may be more important for some women. If you have questions about a medicine you are taking that appears on one of these lists, be sure to ask your doctor.

Also listed under group I carcinogens are "Alcoholic beverages", "salted fish", and "wood dust".

Yes, I read that and do understand it. Thanks.

@PR Butler. Apparently fact-checking is not the author's strong suit. I don't have ready access to the volume.

Given the position of those who commissioned the piece, no one was going to argue.

This is what those who invoke Hitler here don't understand---THAT was a conspiracy, and it was in no way secret, as secrets don't work...controlling the message works, but only if you have access to the machinery of a totalitarian state.

There is no vast medical conspiracy in the US---besides being patently ridiculous, we all have our own individual needs an desires without a central organizing force.

PalMD -

Actually, depending on the wood and it's age, sawdust can be an extremely dangerous carcinogen. The older the wood, the more crystallized the resins become, the more dangerous the dust. Also, the harder the wood, the more carcinogenic the saw dust. Treated woods or recycled woods with stain or other finishes are really bad too.

I believe that the reason harder woods and more crystalline resins are more dangerous, is that the dust produced is extremely fine and barbed. While not on the same level as asbestos, sawdust is not something to laugh at. Newer soft woods aren't too bad, but even with those, it is a good idea to wear a low grade respirator if you work with them on a regular basis (I do).

Carcinogens are a funny sort of beast, that I think are greatly misunderstood by most people. There are a good many foods that contain carcinogens. Not the least being anything smoked or containing smoke flavoring. But when we are consuming them in our food, for the most part they just go right through with the rest of the waste. The fact that something happens to be a carcinogen, does not automatically mean it's going to cause cancer.

Exactly.

Pretty much like UV exposure...