Good nutrition and calorie limitation are an important part of our defense against certain diseases, including coronary artery disease, type II diabetes and a variety of degenerative conditions.

The argument for a link to cancer prevention is not as strong, i.e. regarding various antioxidants and vitamins, particularly in regard to the promotion of megadose therapy. And I don't recall anyone ever proving that junk food produces "weak" cells.

Dieting and exercise are never going to be as popular as a magic pill (herbal, vitamin or pharmaceutical). But their benefits should not be underestimated.

Every eleven months, we have a new cell structure, and we get a new set of bones every two years. An entirely new body is recreated every seven years.

Why does everyone here seem to hung up on studies and science and proof? Use common sense! If you put crap into your body, your body will become crap. It's the old "you are what you eat" adage...and it's literally true.

Why does there have to be a scientific study for everything that should just be instinctively known? I feel sometimes like people have lost their instinct in this overly technological world.

Scientific studies produced "safe" drugs like Celebrex and "safe" food additives like aspartame.

I agree on megadosing. Your body can only use so many vitamins and the rest are either stored or excreted in the urine. In the case of the fat stored vitamins, megadosing can indeed be dangerous. In the other case, it's just a waste of money.

"Why does everyone here seem to hung up on studies and science and proof?"

There's no other way to accurately gauge what works, and what is worthy of entrusting our money and our health.

Science is imperfect and constantly being revised in accord with new information. Oversight and monitoring of drugs can obviously be improved.
Imperfections in the current system don't signal that we should cease reliance on well-designed and controlled research studies, any more than we should rescind our laws because some criminals don't get caught.

The alternative to the scientific method is to rely on commercial promotion and dubious personal testimonials, a recipe for disaster.

I don't rely on instinct too much. My body instinctively seems to want to oversleep and overeat, and complains when I overdo it in the garden. :)

PLEASE, let's not have another useless Faith vs. Science argument! It's as useless as arguing Politics!

LOL about the gardening, Eric. There's something you and I have in common.

Heathen, don't worry...I'm not preaching Faith vs. Science, by any means, just common sense.

I think people rely too much on technology these days and think that scientists and physicians are the end all and be all of reliable information. I'm a proponent of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" club. Sometimes the old remedies just work better, and don't cause as many side effects.

I know people think they are too busy or whatever other excuse they use, to take care of their bodies. I look at it like this...I take care of my car. I take care of my house. It's all very expensive, so don't I deserve the same consideration? Are good foods like fresh fruits and veggies harder to prepare and more expensive? Definitely! But if I can spend $20 to get my nails done, I can surely spend another $20 to buy something to eat that's going to keep them healthy.

Most people don't think about health until they get sick. I try to learn how NOT to get sick. It's not working right now. I'm fighting a virus that someone brought into the office. But I'll use my herbs and drink my Russian tea, and I'll be well long before other people in the office who rush off to the doctor to get antibiotics that don't work.

So why do we use herbs if we're constantly trying to prove they're ineffective?

I don't think anyone is saying herbs aren't effective. However their is a great proponent here saying herbs are better than dr's. I'll get a herb to fix something instead of going to a dr. when i could very well have a heart condition.

btw scientists also made wonderful things like
penicillin
ibuprophen
stadol(labor drug)
hydrogen peroxide
sulfur(another antibiotic)
viagra

etc etc etc these are the only off the top of my head and they work reasonably well.

Well, I use herbs... got a garden full of them. I drink mullein tea like it is going out of style (amongst others. BUT the thing that gripes me, and maybe others I dunno; is that so many people think that just because they are herbs and not western pills, that they are perfectly safe. This is not so...truly. MOST of western pills came from plants and THEY have side affects.... But so many people think that because something is good for one thing, it is good for everything and perfectly safe. To me, science helps find out things like... well...don't take grapefruit with certain meds, because it can cut the meds efficacy in half!
Things like that... little facts that are always good to know. I always keep in mind that sometimes the "old ways" WEREN'T perfect! For example, some of the wierd things that were done to fight the plague...
Oh, I read the other day that Egyptians used dung mixed with other awful stuff to cause abortions... EEEEK! Probably near killed the poor woman too!
Either way, if you have a closed mind towards science, you are also hurting yourself... I try to keep an open mind for everything...with an eye to common sense!

I don't have a closed mind toward science. I just am always willing to try the alternative medicine until I can see that it doesn't work, then I'll go with prescriptions, not the other way around. Using alternatives as a "last ditch effort" is against my way of thinking.

I've learned from experience that most things run their course in 1-2 weeks, and herbal remedies sometimes shorten this time, sometimes not. My rule of thumb is that if I'm not better in 2 weeks, I see a doctor.

I have a cold right now, but if I were to start running a fever over 102 for more than two days, I'd definitely be seeing a doctor. Or if it went into my lungs, and I suspected pneumonia, I'd be at a doctor, even though it may just be flu or it may be a viral pneumonia he couldn't treat. I haven't had to go that route for over 15 years.

But when I do go to an M.D., I demand tests, and I refuse to even fill a prescription until that test result comes back. For example, with strep throat, they give you a test, but give you antibiotics in the meantime, because a strep culture takes so long to process. By the time the test, which you paid good money for, comes back, you're cured. It's ridiculous.

The problem with most people now days is they want quick fixes for everything. They don't want to let an illness run its course, because they can't be out of work with illness, or with a sick child. So we take too many antibiotics, and we're developing no immunities to anything, plus we're breeding strains of "super germs" that no antibiotic will be able to kill. Just as any medical researcher and they will tell you this is true.

I've found that garlic will cure most bacterial infections, and will help shorten the length of most viral infections, so why should I pay $75 to see a doctor and no telling how much for a prescription? I'm one of those unfortunate working people who has no health insurance.

I only take herbs from companies that are proven to be reliable and who do conduct research. I don't buy my herbs from Wal-Mart. In fact, I use fresh or dried when possible. I would name the brand I prefer, but I can't, so let's just say it comes in a brown bottle.

To address what was said about strep throat: most commonly physicians suspecting strep infection based on clinical signs and symptoms will do a rapid strep test, which gives results in just a few minutes. If it's positive antibiotics will be given. If negative and the diagnosis is uncertain, the physician will wait the 24-48 hours it takes for bacterial culture results (a separate, more accurate test) to come back before beginning treatment.

Antibiotic therapy serves both to lessen the severity/time course of the disease and more importantly, to prevent unusual but serious complications like rheumatic fever, kidney damage etc.
Since antibiotics are generally given for 10 days for strep infections, one would not be considered "cured" until that time period had elapsed. And having negative test results in 24-48 hours would permit a decision to stop unnecessary antibiotics.

**Antibiotic therapy serves both to lessen the severity/time course of the disease and more importantly, to prevent unusual but serious complications like rheumatic fever, kidney damage etc. **

Yep, that's the spiel you hear from the health care profession. It's crap, unfortunately. If you have a viral infection, antibiotics do NOTHING to help you. As for it preventing advantageous infections, an antibiotic can't work on a germ that isn't there, so there is no use for preventive antibiotics. It's this kind of thinking that is making our immune systems weak and the germs stronger. Plus the wide-spectrum antibiotics that would be used for this would also kill good germs, causing diarrhea, and other unnecessary side effects.

**Since antibiotics are generally given for 10 days for strep infections, one would not be considered "cured" until that time period had elapsed. And having negative test results in 24-48 hours would permit a decision to stop unnecessary antibiotics.**

Yep, stop taking what you just spent $100 for and let it sit in your cabinet. Why not just wait it out for two days and see what happens? Take some garlic caps in the meantime to keep it at bay until the test results come back? How many people have tons of antibiotics sitting around unused in their medicine cabinets because they didn't finish the course, or they had a reaction, or some other reason? This is what's making drug companies rich, and us less resistant to disease.

This thinking has worked for me for 15 years. If you're so paranoid that you just HAVE to have antibiotics every time you get a sniffle, you will one day wake up sick with a bug that nothing can kill. It's happening right now. Even the researchers that develop new antibiotics are saying that if current trends continue, there will be a supergerm they will not be able to fight that will cause a major epidemic one day. Not to say this will be in our lifetimes, but there's only so far antibiotic medicine can go. Overuse of antibiotics is a major problem in this country. People like you are part of the problem.

**Antibiotic therapy serves both to lessen the severity/time course of the disease and more importantly, to prevent unusual but serious complications like rheumatic fever, kidney damage etc. **
Yep, that's the spiel you hear from the health care profession. It's crap, unfortunately. If you have a viral infection, antibiotics do NOTHING to help you"

Strep is not a virus, it is a serious bacterial disease. Rheumatic fever which leads to permanent heart damage and a lifetime of poor health is caused by strep. It used to be common problem, now, due to antibiotics, seldom seen.

Okay, so what is to be accomplished here? I think we are talking apples and oranges... each speaking about common sense... okay, I will air MY common sense gripe... if People got OFF their behinds and got some EXERCISE, there would be HALF the colds and flus out there, due to their immune systems being enhanced by exercise... yet, if you do a search on this forum, people are always looking for a quick herbal diet fix. HALF of the serious medical problems in the US are from being obese... yet people would rather take HERBS before getting off their behinds and getting some exercise... Herbs make a quick fix, just as well as western pills.
P.S.... My BF who HAD Hep C. took milk thistle at MY insistance... well, after he developed breasts, the doc told him that blood pressure meds and MT combined to produce breast growth.... so no more Milk thistle with BP meds! Of course, those searching for a quick herbal breast enhancement will rush to try this!

Heathen, calm down! If you'll look at my original post, it was in support of healthy diet. Regular exercise should definitely be part of that. I do agree with you on the exercise. I actually have a treadmill I use every day, not just keep for looks.

And yes, some herbs do interact with prescription drugs. It's all chemicals, and chemicals interact.

Judy, where did I ever say that strep throat was a virus? I know what it is, because I've had it several times. The first three times, I went to a conventional doctor and got conventional medicine. The next time, I tried to treat it myself, and after having a temp of 103 for two days, went to a doctor and got antibiotics. I know how serious it is, that's why I don't play around with it, but I won't argue anymore about whether I'm right or wrong, it's just pointless. Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

I give up. My original intention was to start a discussion about eating right, and it got pulled way off track by these OBVIOUS health care professionals who are determined to undermine everything we say. I say go get a life, take care of your patients the way you want, and leave us to our own devices.

bruggirl, I'm a little puzzled. You say you've had strep infections on several occasions and were treated with "conventionl" medicine (presumably antibiotics). Then when you developed another infection you decided to let things run their course for two days, got good and sick and then went to a physician for antibiotics. So I'm not sure why you're complaining about useless antibiotic therapy.

Certainly antibiotics are overprescribed, partly because patients demand them for respiratory-type infections that are usual viral in nature, and for which most antibiotics are not effective. It's the physician's responsibility not to give in to inappropriate requests, and the patient's responsibility to understand their role in appropriate health care.
As I suggested earlier, if an infection doesn't seem like classical strep throat it's generally considered OK to wait the 1-2 days for culture results to come back before starting antibiotic therapy (one exception might be in the case of a school child who could spread strep to others if not on antibiotics). Suffering with unusually nasty signs and symptoms (like high fever) and trusting to garlic to do the job could have unpleasant consequences.

If you want to go off on tangents and air general grievances about "conventional" health care, don't be surprised if others have different points of view.

Bruggirl... it is hard to tell what people are meaning by their computer message... I wasn't yelling at you, I was kinda yelling at the world... Menopause makes me cranky! :o)
We have had some bitter useless quarrels in here... probably will have many more...

Eric,
Please tell me where I said that antibiotics are "useless"? I said they were useless against VIRUSES, which you know very well is true. See, there you go twisting my words and trying to make me sound stupid, which I'm not, so I'm not going to even bother to continue this discussion. You're obviously on a mission, and I won't be a stepping stone along your way.

As for the taking two days with garlic, I didn't know I had strep throat, how could I? Not being a health professional with access to the tests, I thought I had a bad cold and sore throat, as most people would. The fever convinces me it was something more serious.

Let's just agree to disagree and move on.

"Eric, Please tell me where I said that antibiotics are "useless"? "

You've stated that garlic "will cure most bacterial infections" (I'm a big fan of garlic, especially in Italian cooking, and appreciate its vampire-fighting and mild platelet-inhibiting actions, but it's never been shown to be much of an antibiotic), downplayed the value of antibiotics in treating your own strep infections and preventing serious complications, and said this:

How many people have tons of antibiotics sitting around unused in their medicine cabinets because they didn't finish the course, or they had a reaction, or some other reason? This is what's making drug companies rich, and us less resistant to disease.

If you prefer to experiment with garlic, it's your choice - but accept that others will point out the hazards involved in letting treatable infections "run their course" (incidentally there are a number of antibiotics (more specifically, antiviral drugs) that are effective in treating viral infections).

I'll be happy to take our area of general agreement (antibiotics are often overprescribed) and move on from there.

You can do whatever you want to your body. no biggie. However their are very good reasons antibiotics are prescribed. to stop you from spreading it to others, generally happens in 24 hours.

Ear infections is another good thing antibiotics take care of. Especially if your a young child and you get it because of the way the ear canal is done. Stops the fever and the pain if you get it fast enough. STops hearing damage. Yeah are they over pescribed sure.

Why use conventional medicine first. Well for one thing it generally works quicker, so you can be on your feet and back to doing what you want. And no i dont' think whats wrong with most of our society is because were fat and lazy and overeat. Its a whole lot more complex than that. Also conventional medicine has a bigger success rate then alternative therapies. ANd sometimes nothing you do will save ya.

I'm reasonably certain nitro glycerin will work a lot better for you in the amounts prescribed by a dr then grinding up your own foxglove to get a questionable amount of naturally occuring digitalis. Basically you know the measurement in conventional medicine vs that of herbal and or alternative medicine. Herbs aren't constant with the amounts that they have. Pharmaceuticals will let you know you have x amount.

and why is conventional medicine slammed so much here? Yes their are stupid medicial professionals. Ok their are stupid herbalists too.... Alternative medicine or for that matter homeopathich medicine, isn't without its quacks.

Moonwolf "And no i dont' think whats wrong with most of our society is because were fat and lazy and overeat. Its a whole lot more complex than that"
My answer is "Really? You are probably right... Humanity always has kind of done better when it had to struggle, so when Americans are given everything.... there is no more reason to really stay ALIVE. We have become a nation of people who sit and wait to be entertained. For example, and I fit neatly into this category, computers are not just for information anymore, but quick and easy entertainment!
I learned in Psych 101, Westerners have too much time on their hands....and it shows by all the anti-depressants we have to take. Funny, exercise is a great anti-depressant!
We care more about whether we have to pay a little more to fill the tanks of our giant gas guzzling SUV's than whether our 8 year old, sitting on the couch, is obese.
The dumbing down of America has been completed... we are incapable of doing what is needed to just lose 10lbs.

OH for crying out loud.

dumbing down of america? please..... And whether or not a 8 year old is obese come on. NO i frankly don't care whether or not a 8 year old is considered obese. Could be a whole host of reasons or our recent perceptions on what the heck is obese. Whether or not that said 8 year old thinks its safe to go outside, whether or not that said 8 year old is a jock type or a nerdy type( and yes its starts about then and even earlier).

And what is the deal lately with suv's being evil. Its a pretty decent vehicle for a family with 4 or more members. 2 adults plus 2 kids plus their assorted crap and probably friends for carpools maybe even family pets.

ANd frankly i'm kinda sick of the america is evil, selfish, and greedy jazz. Ok so we like video games and all sorts of other technological lazy inducing who ha's. However, Theirs plenty of materialistic i wanna people i know that are good generous people.

Ok so a lot of americans are fat. whoopee. That can and i say can lead to heart disease. However diet is just one factor. Others like genetics(yeah the fact were able to keep many people alive that would have died out plays a part), stress(many physically active people croke for no apparent reason of heart disease)stress. on and on and on.

Yes should we all eat better. yes. Is it something to obsess over no. Something to slam america over. NO. So what if were fat. We are also smart, stubborn, kind, got lots of fire power and doo dads that only require a button to use that fire power saving lots of our men and women in the military and all sorts of other positive thigns that i can't think about right now.

btw why do i care more about the friggen gas prices and i drive a fuel effecient mini van that gets as much miles per gallon as our old mercury cougar did. It cuts into my husbands paycheck and the ability to put groceries. so yeah its a lot more personal than some random so called overweight 8 year old thats really not my problem. WHy despite the it takes a village to raise a kid fad saying nowadays on parenting. It really isn't any of my friggen business. Obviously she's getting fed. NO other really serious problems then darn it i'm gonna mind my own business. I've got 3 kids of my own to take care of.(hence the minivan)

sorry my own personal rant and i'm on pms. Plus this american is fat and lazy and evil is starting to become something of a pet peeve. Their are bigger issues to worry about.

Wow! When I read Bruggirl's original post I was impressed. I thought her comments very relevent and thoughtful. Still do. What happened here? It certainly ended on an ugly note. The majority of Americans DO have terrible eating habits and DON'T get enough exercise. Antibiotics are misused all the time, whether by the Docs prescribing them or the patients not following instructions. It's a very real problem. Ah well, truth hurts maybe?

Relevant to this discussion is a new study that shows that a diet very high in fruits, vegetables and fiber does not offer special protection against breast cancer recurrence. Link.

Of course there's still evidence suggesting that a healthy diet lessens the risk of some types of cancer, and will certainly guard against obesity and all the health problems that entails. But it's a vast oversimplification to view diet in isolation and think that avoiding "junk food" will keep us from getting cancer (while overlooking genetics, smoking and other risk factors).

I like Michael Pollan's concise proposal for a healthier diet. It runs something like "Eat less. Mostly plants." :)

I don't believe it was suggested that we should overlook genetics, smoking or other risk factors. I think smoking fits directly into the "garbage in, garbage out" statement. Genetics obviously play a major role in out health, however- simply being aware that your Father had heart disease should be a major reason to avoid those things associated with heart disease, i.e. unhealthy foods and smoking. Using our bodies as they were meant to be used results in healthy muscle and bone. I'm not talking about running marathons or taking up body building, but simply taking a brisk walk regularly. Unfortunately in today's World we are bombarded by toxins from all angles, from the air we breath to the food we eat to the products we use on our bodies. It only makes sense to control what we put into our bodies as well as we possibly can to minimize the threat of Cancer or other diseases.

Personally, I think the body often overcomes cancer cells without any medical intervention. Cancers are caused by a variety of things, including genetics, viruses, long-term stress, or exposure to certain substances.

I do agree that attention to nutrition is important. Adequate rest is also important. Avoidance of stress, or release of pent-up stress, is important. People can take charge of their own lives, health and well-being.

I may go to a doctor for advice or treatment. However, I will not rely upon a doctor to be in charge of my health. That is my job.

Modern medicine can overcome some illnesses. Modern medicine has also wreaked havoc in some peoples' lives. The first "epidemic" of breast cancer has been proven to have been caused by the overuse of X-rays in the medical profession's zeal to detect breast cancer. They were using dosages of X-rays in mammograms which were far too high.

My mother took a cholesterol lowering statin drug without being aware that the drug had the potential to cause heart damage. She learned about the dangers of that particular drug after she had been taking it for years. Was her subsequent quadruple bypass surgery a result of her high cholesterol, or a result of damage done by the drug? Perhaps it was a combination of the two.

The dumbing down of America is an issue in my mind. Education is empowerment. Reliance upon "experts" is not adequate. People who do their "homework" make informed decisions, which is a much safer strategy regarding one's health and well-being.

I learned this concept from a medical doctor who told me that the medical profession, as a whole, is often too narrow-minded. He also stated that there are fads in medicine, just as there are fads in every other aspect of culture.

There are different types of cancer - while a diet with somewhat more fruits and veggies may or may not reduce the risk of breast cancer, there are other dietary components that might.

Ginseng has a pretty strong risk reduction benefits according to a number of studies.

Here is a link that might be useful: Preventive effect of ginseng intake against various human cancers:

Antibiotics are natural - they are from molds. The statins are originally from red yeast rice and oyster mushrooms. High doses can have side effects (like anything). But the idea that these are not natural is what THEY want people to believe. When something from nature or 'alternative' medicine is shown effective, they change the law so they control it.

Here is a link that might be useful: A serving of Oyster Mushroom has more statins than a pill.

" The first "epidemic" of breast cancer has been proven to have been caused by the overuse of X-rays in the medical profession's zeal to detect breast cancer. They were using dosages of X-rays in mammograms which were far too high."

I think this is a misunderstanding. Certainly mammography has detected many early carcinomas that would otherwise not have been found, and some might have inaccurately termed this an "epidemic", but there has not been a finding of an "epidemic" of breast cancer cases caused by mammography. It should be emphasized that the procedure carries an extremely low theoretical chance of radiation-induced cancer, and for those at risk of breast cancer, not getting a mammogram is potentially much more harmful than avoiding one over radiation fears.

By the way, apollog, who are "THEY"?

Why, it's the tongue-in-cheek hypothetical THEM, of course. ;) Half of them are doctors and pharmaceutical company lackeys. The other half are touchy-feely granola types that also make a false distinction between natural and artificial based on arbitrary criteria. THEY all commit crimes against reason, for different reasons.

You are generalizing, Eric. That isn't like you!

I have no citationns to provide. However, I have read two studies which conclude that early mammograms caused numerous cases of breast cancer. I recall that one study was written by a UC Berkeley microbiologistaround 2000 or 2001. He had much more to say about X-rays, stuff which could make a person's hair stand on end! I do have copies of his study, but I have no idea where I have them filed. I moved in 2002, which resulted in some filing chaos.

Why do dental offices provide lead shields, when taking X-rays? It is because science does know excessive doses of X-rays can cause cancer. A dentist has no way of knowing how many X-rays any individual has had in life. Therefore, they provide shielding as best they know how.

I used to be dental assistant. I took X-rays of the patients' teeth. I stood behind a shield, when shooting the films--standard practice.

Of course radiation exposure carries some degree of risk.

As I mentioned previously, the risk related to mammography is very low, and has to be balanced against the risk of undetected breast cancer.

I have never heard of any study, published or otherwise, showing that there was ever an "epidemic" of breast cancer caused by mammography, and a PubMed search turns up nothing to back this claim. This sounds like more scare tactics like the kind found on many alternative and anti-medical websites, to go along with their dire (and baseless) warnings about vaccines, fluoridated water etc.

Eric, your need to be arbitrary often tries my patience. My statement was that early mammograms are known to have caused breast cancer. Your post is about modern mammagrams--apples and oranges. The X-ray dosage for mammograms was moderated a number of years ago, because science discovered the error in prescribed dosage!

Science does make errors. People all too often suffer the consequences. Early radiation treatment for cancer literally caused second and third degree burns. Those dosages have also been seriously modified. Burns and secondary cancers were the result of early radiation overdose. Nowadays people don't suffer burns, their hair falls out or turns white.

Am I totally against radiation? No. One of my dogs underwent a series of radiation treatments to prevent a cancer of her inner ear from spreading to her brain. The cancer was surgically removed at a vet clinic. Subsequently, this dog was treated in a human hospital, because the hospital had the only sophisticated radiation equipment available. I'm sure, Eric, you will be aghast and find this information totally unacceptable to your belief system.

The hospital treated the canine patients on the QT. The canine patients were taken in through the back door of the hospital, after hours. They were heavily sedated so that they would not move during the radiation sessions.

One day as several canine patients were being wheeled out on gurneys, a group of people, who were in a waiting room which was running way behind schedule, saw the dogs. The people were terribly shocked. They thought they were looking at dead dogs. I stopped to explain that the dogs were all radiation patients, and had been knocked out for the procedure. They would come out of the anesthesia within a couple of hours. The looks of relief on the faces of those people was humorous. Every single person marvelled that the dogs would likely survive their various cancers because the owners and the hospital were willing to go the extra mile. People came up to the gurneys and touched various dogs, asking what sort of cancer was being treated, the age of the dog, etc. I will always remember the experience. It was special.

My dog was thirteen years old at the time. She did suffer predicted ramifications of the radiation for six months subsequent to her final treatment. However, she lived to be sixteen years old. She died of old age--not cancer.

To repeat: "I have never heard of any study, published or otherwise, showing that there was ever an "epidemic" of breast cancer caused by mammography, and a PubMed search turns up nothing to back this claim."

If you have any documentation for such a claim, please share it with us.

Well, I don't know if I would characterize it as an epidemic induced by mammograms, but this paper puts today's odds of inducing cancer vs. detecting it at 1:10 for women with a close relative who was diagnosed in their 30s. Those odds get worse (ie, more cancer risk, less benefit) for women less likely to have cancer. If the early mammograms used more radiation and they were less effective at spotting cancer, then the number of cases detected was lower and the number of cases induced was higher.

I don't know that it was ever 1:1, where the number of cases induced by mamograms equaled (or exceeded) the number of cases detected by mamograms. But that diagnostic procedure does add to the rates of breast cancer, and did so to a greater degree in the past.

Here is a link that might be useful: Risk factors for induction of breast cancer by X-rays

I'm getting a far different message from the paper you cite.

First of all, on the point you raise about detection rates in women with a family history of breast cancer, the authors say essentially that in women 40 and older (the population for whom annual mammograms are recommended), for every case of cancer theoretically caused by radiation in a mammogram, anywhere between 36 and 124 breast cancers are detected (depending on whose studies are cited). It does not say anything about a lower risk/benefit ratio in the past ever causing a breast cancer "epidemic" due to mammograms.

The American Cancer Society has this to say:

"To put dose into perspective, if a woman with breast cancer is treated with radiation, she will receive around 5,000 rads (a rad is a measure of radiation dose). If she had yearly mammograms beginning at age 40 and continuing until she was 90, she will have received 20 to 40 rads. As another example, flying from New York to California on a commercial jet exposes a woman to roughly the same amount of radiation as one mammogram."

No, it doesn't say that there was a lower benefit/risk ratio in the past. However, there have been continual effort to improve the sensitivity of the film or digital detection system and lower the dose of radiation used. Assuming that the procedure has become more accurate using a lower dose compared to when the procedure began, then the favorable risk/benefit ratios now were less so when the technology was first developed.

As far as the 36-124 cases detected per case induced - yes and no. Depending on which model is used, the figure is higher - With one model, it is 36 for one group, higher for others. But the text also states that these estimates were created using uncertain estimates, and that they should be divided by 2, 3, or 4: This could reduce 36 cases detected for every case induced to 9 cases detected for every case induced. And given the fact that not all cases can be treated to remission even when detected early, the number of successes might drop from that 9 to 5 or 6.

Another factor that appeared pretty prominent was the increasing benefit with age - probably because a women is more likely to have cancer when older, and the (possibly decades long) lag-effect of the radiation may not become apparent if the older patients end up dying of unrelated causes.

While it is true that the amount of radiation from a mammogram is equivalent to the whole body dose from flying across country, this statistic is misleading in terms of spatial and temporal intensity of radiation. First, a mammogram is not spread out across the entire body (as exposure in a plane is), it is concentrated. You cannot assume that a dose of radiation spread over a large area of the body will not have different effects than when the same amount is concentrated. If I expose my entire skin to 5 minutes of solar radiation, it may have no apparent effect. If I focus a fraction of that energy on a spot with a magnifying glass, it will become destructive quickly.

Also, the temporal intensity affects the carcinogenic potential - the body has some capacity to repair the DNA damage from ionizing radiation. You cannot assume that the effects of a dose of radiation that occurs in a split second are the same as when that same dose is spread out over many hours. While theoretically, one base pair mutation could cause cancer, in practice, lone mutations are usually repaired. On the other hand, when a cell is faced with many mutations, it is far more likely to become cancerous, assuming it does not die.

Yes, the mammogram dose is a fraction of what is given in radiation therapy. So what? We are talking about chronic effects and long term risk of cancer to otherwise healthy women. If some one has a potentially lethal disease, then the acceptable risk changes. Then a dose that causes immediate sickness (and dramatically increased long-term risk of cancer) might be considered if it will get a person to the five year mark.

Another article in the BMJ(see link) concluded: "Randomised controlled trials of the effectiveness of screening mammography have found that it significantly reduces mortality in women over 50 but that the benefit is smaller, and the associated harm is greater, in younger women In the United States many organisations have issued guidelines on screening for women aged 40-49, some groups recommend that they should be screened regularly and others that they should not."

Here is a link that might be useful: Americans say 40, Brits say 50!

apollog: No matter how you try to interpret that paper (and how many "ifs", "I don't know"s and assumptions you toss into the mix), it does not indicate there was a significant problem in the past with breast cancer induced by mammography (much less an "epidemic"), and it does not criticize current recommendations for regular mammograms for women 40 and over. The authors main point seems to be that in young women without a family history of breast cancer, regular mammograms may not be a good idea (nothing startling there, that's the feeling among breast cancer specialists in general. The statistics they provide actually highlight the value of mammograms in detecting cancer. "In the NHSBSP (National Health Service), benefit (of mammograms) continues to exceed radiation risk regardless of which of these sets (of data) is adopted."

A search on "mammogram induced breast cancer" provided this info and much more.

"But if it had been expanded and continued, it had the potential to have produced mammogram-induced breast-cancer at the rate of about 243000 cases every ..."
www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/PBC/chp28F.html

* * *

"The most common method for early detection is mammography. A mammogram is an X-ray picture of your breast that can reveal tumor growths otherwise undetectable in a physical exam. Like all x-rays, mammograms use doses of ionizing radiation to create this image. Radiologists then analyze the image for any abnormal growths. Despite continuous improvements and innovations, mammography has garnered a sizable opposition in the medical community because of an error rate that is still highÂ

Many critics of mammography cite the hazardous health effects of radiation. In 1976, the controversy over radiation and mammography reached a saturation point. At that time mammographic technology delivered five to 10 rads (radiation-absorbed doses) per screening, as compared to 1 rad in current screening methods. In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI.

According to Russell L. Blaylock, MD, one estimate is that annual radiological breast exams increase the risk of breast cancer by two percent a year. So over 10 years the risk will have increased 20 percent. In the 1960s and 70s, women, even those who received 10 screenings a year, were never told the risk they faced from exposure. In the midst of the 1976 radiation debate, Kodak, a major manufacturer of mammography film, took out full-page ads in scientific journals entitled About breast cancer and X-rays: A hopeful message from industry on a sober topicÂ"
www.newstarget.com/010886.html

Your first link trumpets its efforts in

"offsetting 50+ years of
lethal deception from
the International
Nuclear Mafia"

This suggests a certain lack of balance, if not outright nuttiness.

Your second link is a purveyor of false health scares over favorite alt med targets like fluoridation of water and vaccination.

Their statements contain obvious errors of fact (like suggesting that mammograms only reveal breast cancer and don't prevent it. The fact is that mammography reveals many lesions before they have a chance to become invasive cancer, and so prevention is a strong part of its benefit). Their recommendations are not backed by the overwhelmingly majority of research and the consensus of the medical community, including the American Cancer Society.

Even if you take these sites and their fear-mongering at face value, they do not show any breast cancer "epidemic" due to mammograms, past or present.

Well, from what I just read the thread that started out on cancer turned to other subjects, kinda.

I do feel there are organic cures for cancer. Your doctors however, don't seem to know them. They are trained by Big Pharma and versed in Big Pharma techniques. These techniques DO NOT CURE CANCER. They treat the tumors, kinda.

The right vitamin regime and herb regime will probably keep a person from every getting cancer, I totally believe this.

My cancer is thanks to Agent Orange. I was a Marine in Viet Nam. I have researched much lately on cancer and have found a wealth of helpful info. Since I was diagnosed some months ago my white cell count has come down about 14,000. I can only attribute this to my diet. I am at stage 2 and feel I can stay here with diet and maybe even go backwards.

Cancer needs a low oxygen and acid environment to grow. Change both those factors and you STOP the cancer. There are regimes to take.

Anyway, there is my 2 cents.

patriotsniper, I wish you the best in overcoming your illness.

I think however that you are being steered down the wrong road on treatment, likely by a bunch of websites that promote unproven and debunked therapies (like essiac tea), and which harp on the idea that there are simple cures that Big Bad Medicine is ignorant of and/or doesn't want you to know about.

Consuming herbs wisely and partaking of a nutritious and balanced diet are part of healthy living. We can still get cancer regardless, due to a host of factors including genetics and infectious organisms (such as viral hepatitis and human papillomavirus).

The idea that "low oxygen and acid environment" cause cancer or that some intervention can reverse them and cure cancer is incorrect.

"While proponents of (the cancer-acid environment) myth argue that avoiding certain foods and eating others can change the bodys pH level, these claims stand in stark contrast to everything we know about the chemistry of the human body. Acid-base balance is tightly regulated by several mechanisms, among them kidney and respiratory functions. Even slight changes to your bodys pH are life-threatening events. Patients with kidney disease and pulmonary dysfunction, for example, often rely on dialysis machines and mechanical ventilators (respectively) to avoid even small disruption of acid-base balance."

eric, thanks for best wishes.

However, I do feel you are incorrect. The Cancer foundations, FDA, etc..etc... are all part of Big Pharma and to quote from there propaganda is what Big Pharma wants. None of those organizations are in the business of curing cancer. There idea of a perfect world is to get everyone on a chronic cancer were they can make a profit until you die. Big Pharma has taken over the No 1 Position for making money in this country. This position for most of our lives was shared by the paper industry and real estate. Drugs are King.

Cures for many things have been around for centuries. Western medicine is about about the money, period.

Curing cancer is on a par with getting us off gasoline. There is no desire from the people making the money for us to change. Change must come from individuals who do their own research without a hidden agenda and share. Big Pharma will do all in its power to besmirch these individuals.

All the medical websites on the internet promote Big Pharma. That is there job.

Big Pharma IS NOT THE SOLUTION.

>> "While proponents of (the cancer-acid environment) myth argue that avoiding certain foods and eating others can change the bodys pH level, these claims stand in stark contrast to everything we know about the chemistry of the human body. Acid-base balance is tightly regulated by several mechanisms, among them kidney and respiratory functions. Even slight changes to your bodys pH are life-threatening events.

It is true that the pH of the blood is something that the body will spend incredible resources to conserve - but it does this at the expense of other tissues. The opponents of the 'alkalinizing diet' love to attack the notion that diet doesn't affect blood pH - which is true, but irrelevant. There are hundreds of studies that show that changing the pH of the diet can have profound effects on the body, even in the absence of any change to the blood.

Consider the article "Diet acids and alkalis influence calcium retention in bone" (Osteoporos Int., 2001;12(6):493-9). That study found that "The acid-forming diet increased urinary calcium excretion by 74% when compared with the base-forming diet (ppatriotsniper: you may want to check out flavonoids to turn off some some of the switches that dioxin turns on - one way that dioxin is toxic is by stimulating the aryl hydrocarbon receptor, and many plant compounds can block or reduce this. The compounds in green tea and black tea have been researched in this regard. Not sure that it would reverse an advanced cancer, but it is something to check out.

Those Swiss researchers are way out in left field when it comes to blaming "acid-forming diets" and pH changes for osteoporosis.

"The idea that protein, particularly animal protein, is problematic for bones is a myth, says bone researcher Jane Kerstetter, PhD, RD, professor of nutrition at the University of Connecticut. "Protein does not dissolve bone. Just the opposite."

Bones are about 50% protein. Bone repair requires a steady stream of dietary amino acids, the building blocks of body proteins.

"Adequate calcium and vitamin D cast a protective net around bones, but protein comes in a close second," Kerstetter says."

If you want to help prevent osteoporosis through diet, control salt and caffeine intake, and limit soft drinks.

apollog: "It is true that the pH of the blood is something that the body will spend incredible resources to conserve - but it does this at the expense of other tissues."

The body doesn't have to spend "incredible resources" to maintain body pH with usual Western diets. It's part of
normal homeostasis. Fears about "acidifying diets" are akin to worries about our needing to "cleanse" our liver or kidneys to "flush out toxins". Our organs do a fine job of taking care of these matters by themselves, if the brain would just leave them alone. :)

apollog: "Decades of an acidifying diet can deplete the cells of calcium, magnesium, and other essential nutrients. Osteoporosis, hypertension and heart disease are clearly linked to such acidifying diets"

Where's the evidence body pH has anything to do with these conditions?

"how can you tell us that they can't be linked to cancer if you don't have the studies to prove it??"

See brendan's comments in your "Syner(g)ies" thread. They who make the claims are the ones obliged to prove them. It's the way science works.

Efforts to alter blood pH through diet will be fruitless (unless you actually poison yourself with some toxic chemical) and will not prevent or cure cancer through acid-base alterations.

The Story of Essiac Tea below is for the benefit of anyone interested.

On a fateful day in 1922 Canadian nurse Rene Caisse happened to notice some scar tissue on the breast of an elderly woman. The woman said that doctors had diagnosed her with breast cancer years before. However, the woman didn't want to risk surgery nor did she have the money for it.

As luck would have it, she had met an old Indian medicine man who told her that he could cure her cancer with an herbal tea. The woman took the medicine man's advice, and consequently she was still alive nearly thirty years later to pass on this herbal remedy to Nurse Caisse.

About a year later, Rene Caisse was walking beside a retired doctor who pointed to a common weed and stated: "Nurse Caisse, if people would use this weed there would be little cancer in the world." Rene later stated: "He told me the name of the plant. It was one of the herbs my patient named as an ingredient of the Indian medicine man's tea!" The "weed" was sheep sorrel.

In 1924 she decided to test the tea on her aunt who had cancer of the stomach and was given about six months to live. Her aunt lived for another 21 years, cancer free.

Rene Caisse (pronounced "Reen Case") later gave the tea to her 72-year old mother who was diagnosed with inoperable cancer of the liver, with only days to live. Her mother recovered and lived without cancer for another 18 years.

In the ensuing years Nurse Caisse refined and perfected the original "medicine man's" formula. She tested various herbal combinations on laboratory mice and on human cancer patients. She eventually reduced the tea to four herbs: burdock root, sheep sorrel, slippery elm and turkey rhubarb. She called the formula Essiac, which is her surname spelled backwards.

Rene Caisse devoted over fifty years of her life to treating thousands of cancer patients with Essiac. So effective were her free treatments that in 1938 her supporters gathered 55,000 signatures for a petition to present to the Ontario legislature to "authorise Rene Caisse to practice medicine in the Province of Ontario in the treatment of cancer and conditions therein". Unfortunately, due to the machinations of the Canadian Medical Association, the bill failed to pass by just three votes.

WHAT DID DOCTORS SAY ABOUT RENE CAISSE'S TEA?

Rene Caisse operated her cancer clinic under the supervision and observation of a number of doctors. Based on what those doctors saw with their own eyes, eight of them signed a petition to the Department of National Health and Welfare at Ottawa, asking that Nurse Caisse be given facilities to do independent research on her discovery. Their petition, dated at Toronto on October 27, 1926, read as follows:

To Whom It May Concern:

"We the undersigned believe that the 'Treatment for Cancer' given by Nurse R.M. Caisse can do no harm and that it relieves pain, will reduce the enlargement and will prolong life in hopeless cases. To the best of our knowledge, she has not been given a case to treat until everything in medical and surgical science has been tried without effect and even then she was able to show remarkable beneficial results on those cases at that late stage.

"We would be interested to see her given an opportunity to prove her work in a large way. To the best of our knowledge she has treated all cases free of any charge and has been carrying on this work over the period of the past two years."

Initially, Rene was not aware of the control that the medical/pharmaceutical establishment had over governments. After the petition was delivered to the National Health and Welfare Department, she was continually threatened with arrest until she finally withdrew from public view. Unlike Nurse Caisse, the medical establishment was more interested in making money than in helping people. Essiac was cheap. It could cut into the lucrative profits from radiation, chemotherapy and surgery--treatments that often did more harm than good. Essiac is non-toxic. Rene said, "Chemotherapy should be a criminal offense."

The story of Rene Caisse's struggle to make Essiac an official cancer treatment was told by Dr. Gary Glum in his book CALLING OF AN ANGEL: ESSIAC, NATURE'S CURE FOR CANCER. In a telephone conversation Dr. Glum stated that people who take Essiac on a regular, preventive basis do not get cancer. Dr. Glum interviewed JFK's personal physician, Dr. Charles Brusch, who stated: "I know Essiac has curing potential. It can lessen the condition of the individual, control it, and it can cure it."

Dr. Ralph Moss was appointed to the Cancer Advisory Panel that evaluates alternative cancer therapies for the government. On his web site and in his book CANCER THERAPY, Dr. Moss points out that each of the herbs in Essiac has been scientifically shown to contain anticancer substances. In his "Cancer Chronicles" [www.ralphmoss.com/essiac], Dr. Moss notes Essiac's rising popularity by comparing Essiac's low cost to a $150,000 bone marrow transplant.

ESSIAC--MORE THAN JUST A CANCER TREATMENT

Dr.Frederick Banting, the co-discoverer of insulin became interested in Essiac and even offered Nurse Caisse research facilities to test it. According to Rene, Dr. Banting stated that "Essiac must actuate the pancreatic gland into normal functioning". Even today diabetics are using Essiac to improve their condition and many have gone off insulin entirely.

As it turns out it is exceedingly easy to swing your blood pH. If you want it up hyper ventilate, if you want it down then hold your breath.

Sounds like a short-term fix, especially the not breathing part. :)

There are people who chronically hyperventilate, sometimes for physiologic reasons or as part of panic disorder or a hyperventilation syndrome. Even in the chronic hyperventilators the pH is usually near normal, because the body compensates (your kidneys excrete more bicarbonate to keep the pH in balance).