08-11-2012, 08:40 PM
101
Re: Negative aspects of breast screening
Originally Posted by mesco m
->
You are not just placing facts in the public domain, you are insisting that the alternatives you propose are right. In my opinion your alternatives are not to be trusted.
By the way has any one from here bought your products?
2) No profit is possible if the sale price = the cost price.
Now what do you find difficult to understand there.
When you have the same confidence in the quality of information you provide I'm sure you'll be sufficiently proud to attach your real name to your posts.
08-11-2012, 09:02 PM
102
Re: Negative aspects of breast screening
Originally Posted by mesco m
->
Would you like to explain under what circumstances you were banned from "Diabetes Daily". Preferably without links to more vitamin promotion.
What is happening at the moment is that there is no connection between research and practice.
They go on researching the same things over and over and no one ever puts the findings of the research into practice.
Particularly when the solution is CHEAP and READILY AVAILABLE and TOTALLY SAFE in amounts the human body NATURALLY creates itself.
When you know How Vitamin D Inhibits Inflammation and also The natural levels of Vitamin D human DNA evolved to function best with how can you keep quite when people are not applying this information?
It beats me how any honourable person can stand aside and not comment when others are becoming ill with serious conditions like Diabetes simply because they are deficient in one of the cheapest most readily available supplements?
When you understand how magnesium is a cofactor that enables Vitamin D to switch from the storage to active hormonal form it shouldn't take a genius to work out that there will be a significant inverse association between magnesium intake and risk of type 2 diabetes
Do you think this is the kind of information DIABETICS need in order to control the progression of their condition?
Do you think that forums devoted to helping diabetes would welcome this kind of information?
Of course not.
It's about at sensible as trying to tell people over 50 that if they want to live longer and retain their cognitive function they should invest £10 in a pot of 5000iu/vitamin D3.
08-11-2012, 09:30 PM
103
Re: Negative aspects of breast screening
Originally Posted by mesco m
->
You also say that, in your opinion women should not have a mammogram unless they suspect there is something wrong. In some cases that would be far too late.
You need to be able to show that aggressive Breast Cancers respond well to early diagnosis and treatment and that the rate of overdiagnosis
50 year old woman attending a screening has a 5.5% probability of being accurately informed she has breast cancer. If she doesn't attend a screening she has a 1 in 1000 chance (0.1%) of being diagnosed with breast cancer in the next year.
If these are accurate then not attending a screening appears a no brainer - or am I missing something?
The big difference is that the more mammography screening you have the greater the radiation load and when combined with other unavoidable sources of radiation exposure the greater the risk. So more mammography more Breast cancer.
I'd bet that Cervical smears, although perhaps not fun, are not in themselves harmful. With Mammography the crucial aspect is the ability of the radiographer to interpret accurately the image and as the evidence shows that to be something of a toss up 50<>50 it's a bit of a gamble.
I wouldn't expect there to be any link between an increase in the number of smears and an increase in the risk of cervical cancer.
It's more likely that the more smears a woman had the more likely a cancer would be detected and treated so survival would be improved.
08-11-2012, 09:52 PM
104
Re: Negative aspects of breast screening
Originally Posted by Aerolor
->
Please don't try to tell me or anyone else that early detection is not or no longer a priority - that is simply not true and it is dangerous to say that.
Of course they know what they are doing when then tell people to eat those foods that promote the disease.
If diabetes UK are on the right track we would expect to see lower diabetes incidence year on year.
Since 1996 the number of people diagnosed with diabetes has increased from 1.4
million to 2.9 million. By 2025 it is estimated that five million people will have diabetes.
They really are doing extraordinarily well at increasing diabetes incidence aren't they. No sane person could possibly imagine they were trying to prevent incidence could they?
In order for Vitamin D to function as human DNA evolved we have to correct not only Vit d levels but also magnesium, omega 3 and melatonin as well as ensuring the trial participants stick to an anti inflammatory lifestyle and diet. There are simply too many variables for the type of placebo controlled double blind trials health professionals prefer to be feasible.
29-11-2012, 07:24 PM
105
Re: Negative aspects of breast screening
Looking from my logical point of view as thats what I believe I ama very old but logical person.
Why do you have to write a book about Vit D on here Ted when
the story line was Mammograms. To me its like writing lines in the
Bible about Communism.
Why do you think anyone on here wants to even buy Vit d or anything
from you now as most of us feel better if we slit our wrists now
than entertain you in anyway.
Why do you insist on going on for page after page defending the small
interest you have in any other peoples feelings or thoughts when yours
are so magnificent and better than anyone elses.
A god like figure like yourself should not have anything to do with
mere intelligent females like we are, end of story in my mind.
Or as the great Yorkshire saying goes "theres nowt so queer as folk"
or in this case Ted.
|
|
