JayB Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I nominate Foraker to dispense the vitrolic, hyper-verbose tongue lashing in my stead since I too busy to do so today. Must include the word "flocculent." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Flockulent baa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Flockulent baa I thought you were giving up flock-for-Lent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 I nominate Foraker to dispense the vitrolic, hyper-verbose tongue lashing in my stead since I too busy to do so today. Must include the word "flocculent." I would never presume to match your loquaciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomagik Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 You know what? I can't help it F*** you all! Do any of you assholes read???? I never claimed that flouride in my toothpaste caused my cancer. I said that getting a non-hereditary cancer at age 23 is not normal and there are many REASONS (read - plural) why cancer rates are higher in this country than elsewhere. Which they are. Damn, sometimes I wonder why I bother with this site at all. I get congratulated for being a survivor and then made to sound like an idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about. You're all a bunch of wankers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Have yourselves a nice, tall, cool glass of flouride and let me know how you feel afterwards. It's well known toxicity is hardly a conspiracy theory. I prefer only two chemicals in my water: Hydrogen and Oxygen. Did you mean elements? Drop a kilo of elemental sodium into the bathtub with you and let me know how you feel afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
counterfeitfake Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 You know what? I can't help it F*** you all! Do any of you assholes read???? I never claimed that flouride in my toothpaste caused my cancer. I said that getting a non-hereditary cancer at age 23 is not normal and there are many REASONS (read - plural) why cancer rates are higher in this country than elsewhere. Which they are. Damn, sometimes I wonder why I bother with this site at all. I get congratulated for being a survivor and then made to sound like an idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about. You're all a bunch of wankers. Would you relax? You're acting like having your ideas questioned is a personal affront. Like we should believe anything you say on the topic just because you are a cancer survivor. You can't just say "cancer rates in the US are higher than elsewhere" and expect everyone to swallow it. Why don't you tell us what your research has turned up on this topic? If you know more about this than we do, then educate us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-spotter Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Better yet, drop some pellets of sodium into a giant bottle of Diet Coke and put the video on YouTube. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dechristo Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 You know what? I can't help it F*** you all! Do any of you assholes read???? I never claimed that flouride in my toothpaste caused my cancer. I said that getting a non-hereditary cancer at age 23 is not normal and there are many REASONS (read - plural) why cancer rates are higher in this country than elsewhere. Which they are. Damn, sometimes I wonder why I bother with this site at all. I get congratulated for being a survivor and then made to sound like an idiot who doesn't know what she's talking about. You're all a bunch of wankers. [flouridefreehug]mmmmmm...there, there now, every ting gonna be awright...[/flouridefreehug] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayB Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Better yet, drop some pellets of sodium into a giant bottle of Diet Coke and put the video on YouTube. Sodium is present in 100% of all tumors that have occurred since the origin of life. Naturally the table-salt industry has endeavored to conceal this fact from the public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomagik Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 when you are diagnosed with cancer at 23 years old you start wondering why... Anyone who ever has anything bad happen to them wonders why, and often the second thought is "who can I blame?" This "fluoride is bad for you" is voodoo science. Just like power lines and cancer: no matter how many studies fail to find a correlation, some people will still believe the high voltage towers are why junior had to go through chemo. Let me repeat, totally insensitive wankers. I never asked who I could blame for getting cancer, please don't put words in my mouth. I simply asked, hmmm I'm 23, why do I have cancer. Maybe you should get some cancer yourself and see how you like it when people attack your intelligence for trying to figure out why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 motomagik: You must at least admit that the context of your previous message implied that there might be a causal link between some cancers and flouride. The point of my previous post was to dispel that particular notion, not to imply that you are somehow unintelligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomagik Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/images/pdfs/cs_world_map.pdf Okay, here's one... You'll see that North America is the highest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motomagik Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_Global_Cancer_Statistics_2002.asp And another... note how North America had the highest incidence of most cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Google flouridation and you'll come up with a bunch of websites outlining the many adverse health affects of flouridation, and the lack of evidence that it helps prevent tooth decay. Personally, I prefer to take responsibility for my own chemical injestion and health rather than trust government, thank you very much. This is interesting. I heard a piece on NPR about science being usurped by popular culture. This was one of the examples given in the discussion. Scientists are too busy working on real work to take time to debate the misinformation on the net. If you want the truth, you should be looking at peer reviewed medical journals, not reading a website that anyone could have authored. On the other hand, it is good that you are taking responsibility for chemicals that you ingest. Think about that next time you take a swig of a beer, wine, or any other alcoholic beverage and you notice that there is no ingredient list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 scholar.google.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenderfour Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_Global_Cancer_Statistics_2002.asp And another... note how North America had the highest incidence of most cases. The article is very clear on "diagnosed cases". The incidence of diagnosed cases will be higher in countries with adequate health care systems. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 "The incidence of diagnosed cases will be higher in countries with adequate health care systems." adequate? Isn't the US near the bottom of the industrialized nations? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Are you guys saying that in a perfect world, each country would have the same incidence of cancer? Seems to me, in a statistical model, somebody has got to have the most. Edited January 8, 2007 by robmcdan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 i'm detecting a pattern here.... get any topic up and take a sides! spray aimlessly until either side is pissed off,back off and start discussing, cooool!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 (edited) Followed by the guy who jumps in the thread to let us know how much he dislikes the thread. Edited January 8, 2007 by robmcdan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buckaroo Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Don't worry Moto, there's plenty of us out here that agree with you. The US is inundated with toxins. It's part of industrialized life but I think it's also a corporate greed thing. Riding the cancer train. It's just good for business both in sale of the chemicals and treating the cancer caused by them. Like the Dow chemical ad. "We make possible the film used in breast cancer exams, Dow chemical "for life"", yeah, and you create the chemicals that caused the breast cancer in the first place. And the gov is in on it because it's p-owned by the corps. Just look at aspartame. Approved by the FDA after it had more complaints in it's trial period than any others in history. And look who coerced it through the approval process, none other than deathskull himself Donald Rumsfeld when he was with Searl(?). Nuff said. So can you really trust the "studies" that say fluoride is safe? You have to believe that science can not possibly be corrupted. Which is always in question when BIG money is involved. Fluoride, Chlorine, Amalgam (mercury), aspartame, DU, agent orange. Hey, like the lawyers that argued in court that agent orange isn't toxic. Bring out a 55 gallon drum of the stuff and invite them to take a dunk in it. And "big cancer" never ever addresses the cause, they only cure the symptom. Just like the rest of the US healthcare system and why it's so hella expensive, always the symptom, never the cause. More money to be made that way. Doctors don't now jack about diet and nutrition but they damn sure know which pharmaceutical will mask or treat the symptoms. The only upside to all the crap is it might be strengthening the gene pool's general tolerance/resistance and immune system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octopuswithafez Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Distilled rainwater and grain alcohol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucK Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 Thanks for those links Motomagik. Inspired me to check out some of this stuff. Here is a good page that discusses the geographic variations of cancer incidence. Particularly applicable quote: "In developed countries, the probability of being diagnosed with cancer is more than twice as high as in developing countries. However, in rich countries, some 50 per cent of cancer patients die of the disease, while in developing countries, 80 per cent of cancer victims already have late-stage incurable tumors when they are diagnosed, pointing to the need for much better detection programs. The main reasons for the greater cancer burden of affluent societies are the earlier onset of the tobacco epidemic, the earlier exposure to occupational carcinogens, and the Western nutrition and lifestyle. However, with increasing wealth and industrialization, many countries undergo rapid lifestyle changes that will greatly increase their future disease burden." Here's another good graph (shows distribution of various types of cancer) And here is one more interesting article (a little more brief and more to the point of geographical variations). Hmmm... that link seems to need some sort of registration, so here is the text: "Regional Variation in Cancer Incidence Incidence of cancer varies dramatically between geographic regions (Fig. 2); as some cancers are more common in people in the developed world (for example, breast and prostate), others occur more frequently in people who live in developing countries (for example, cervical and stomach). Cancers of the lung have high incidence in both developed countries and areas undergoing economic development such as China.[1] Although these regional differences might be explained by genetic differences among populations, variations in lifestyles, environmental exposures and medical practices such as screening are also likely to be important determinants of cancer risk. This assumption is reinforced by migration patterns that show that incidence of cancer among migrants changes to more closely reflect the rates in the adoptive country. This has been observed with the incidence of colon cancer in Japanese people emigrating to Hawaii and San Francisco.[2] Additionally, the incidence of prostate and breast cancers are low among Chinese people in Asia, but increases have been observed when these people move to the United States of America.[3] Dramatic increases in cancer incidence have also occurred within countries that experienced massive economic development in the past 50 years.[1] For instance, younger generations of Japanese (born after 1930) now have a similar if not greater incidence of colorectal cancers than their US Caucasian counterparts.[4] So as lifestyles also change in developing countries, we are likely to see a significant rise in the incidence of cancers that have previously been associated with developed countries, such as breast, colon, prostate and lung cancers." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 8, 2007 Share Posted January 8, 2007 when you are diagnosed with cancer at 23 years old you start wondering why... Anyone who ever has anything bad happen to them wonders why, and often the second thought is "who can I blame?" This "fluoride is bad for you" is voodoo science. Just like power lines and cancer: no matter how many studies fail to find a correlation, some people will still believe the high voltage towers are why junior had to go through chemo. Let me repeat, totally insensitive wankers. I never asked who I could blame for getting cancer, please don't put words in my mouth. I simply asked, hmmm I'm 23, why do I have cancer. Maybe you should get some cancer yourself and see how you like it when people attack your intelligence for trying to figure out why. You forgot they don't like to figure anything out here. It requires thinking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.