Susan G Komen

Options
12346

Comments

  • Member_of_the_Club
    Member_of_the_Club Member Posts: 3,646
    edited August 2011

    I am fairly certain that when i posted this was in teh complimentary forum.  I am starting to get very confused because several times I have posted in threads that have been moved.  It is not my intention to post in the alt section.  I wish they wouldn't do this.

     A lack of Vitamin D is a problem.  It isn't the sole cause of cancer, my levels have been fine.  But the sun does cause cancer as well.  Hence the dilemna. We need some sun but too much can cause cancer.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited August 2012

    It's statements like this:

    "The only thing that will PREVENT all cancers is the sun."

    That brings scorn, to alternative treatments, when some of them, do have value.  This "absolutism" is distracting from a discussion of what could be of value.

    Thanks again to the Moderators for making Alternatives a forum apart from Complementrary and Holistic.   

  • luv_gardening
    luv_gardening Member Posts: 1,393
    edited August 2011

    I love discussing and looking into alternative therapies, but there's no such thing as alternative logic.  It amazes me that some alternative web sites throw out all logic or grossly exaggerate things, but most alternative advocates I know are smart enough to know the difference between sites that are written intelligently and those that make no sense or twist the facts.

    I'd like this BCO Alternative forum to follow the rules of logic even if we do consider ideas outside of mainstream medicine.  Lack of proof isn't proof of lack, but it helps to back up our statements if possible or give a reason for the idea we're following up if we want to be taken seriously.

    Alternative doesn't have to exclude good logic and we don't have to always take an opposing stance for the sake of it. 

  • jyg
    jyg Member Posts: 198
    edited August 2011

    Leia wrote:

    "Most people in Europe and elsewhere STILL smoke. And they are not dropping like flies. It is just statists, like jyg that claim that. A claim I just reject."

    The following are more than statistics from Europe. They represent deaths of real people:

    In developed countries smoking causes 90% of lung cancers in men and up to 86% of cases in women. Lung cancer is the leading cause of death from cancer among males. In the USA lung cancer is the leading cause of death among women.

    About 26% of all deaths from any form of cancer in the EU are caused by smoking.

    16% of deaths from CVD in men and 5% in women are due to smoking. The numbers dying in the EU from CVD due to smoking rose by 13% between 1990 and 2000.

    Of all deaths in the EU in 2005 caused by COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) more than 64% were attributable to tobacco.

    Mortality from COPD is 14 times higher in cigarette smokers than in never-smokers. Lower respiratory diseases are also partly caused by tobacco use.

    In the European Union over 650,000 Europeans are killed every year because they smoke, which accounts for one in seven of all deaths across the EU, and over 13 million more are suffering from a serious chronic disease as a result of their smoking.

    Today, tobacco use rates are decreasing among European men while they are increasing among women, particularly in eastern, central and southern Europe. Tobacco use is also growing fast in low-income countries.

  • Lynn18
    Lynn18 Member Posts: 416
    edited August 2011

    Sorry, removing my posts since this is alt. forum now

  • suzieq60
    suzieq60 Member Posts: 6,059
    edited August 2011

    Sorry, I thought I was on a different thread - yes this one has now been moved

  • MsBliss
    MsBliss Member Posts: 536
    edited August 2011

    Have any of you read Pink, Inc? It is eye opening. Not a pretty picture. Most charities put less than 25% of their funds toward the primary cause--Bono's (U2) charity put less than 2% toward it's primary cause, paying minor staff and administrators 6 figure salaries. Komen is not alone, they all do this. Don't kid yourself, Charity is Big Business.

  • Leia
    Leia Member Posts: 265
    edited August 2011

    "SunflowersinMa wrote:

    It's statements like this:

    The only thing that will PREVENT all cancers is the sun. That brings scorn, to alternative treatments, when some of them do have value. This "absolutism" is distracting from a discussion of what could be of value."

    You are right, to call me out on this. From the studies that I have read, exposure to the sun only cures 75% of all cancers. I get carried, away.  
     
    Yet, that is why I have a multi-faceted cancer prevention strategy. Again, I maintain my 81 D3 level. (Just sent off the latest blood test, see how I am doing; will know in a week) Again, with the Omega3's the FOCC. My (almost) total non-processed food diet.  
     
    I hope this contributes to the discussion.  


  • impositive
    impositive Member Posts: 629
    edited August 2011

    I have had melanoma twice and many many basil cell carcinomas so this subject is a little touchy for me. Just wanted to give my two cents.  I believe abuse  of the sun can contribute to skin cancer by damaging the skin and leaving it vulnerable but what's far worse are the commercial moisurizers and sunscreens that are promoted as "cancer preventatives."  Sun is our friend and as Leia says the source of all life.  I no longer abuse the sun but I don't avoid  the sun either.  We all NEED the sun.  What I DO avoid is the use of the above mentioned products.  I just posted this study on another thread but thought it was worth posting here.    

     http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2630214/?tool=pubmed

    Mice were irradiated for 20 weeks (twice a wk) then given topical applications of moisurizers such as Eucerin Original Moisturizing cream (5 days a wk for 17 wks).  This increased tumors by an average of 69%. Thats average...the study with Dermovan moisurizer increased the percentage of mice with squamous cell papillomas by 342%!!! 

    Maybe we should stop looking at the sun and start looking at the things our docs and others are promoting as "preventatives."

  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited August 2011

    leia and impositive, thanks for sharing that information, i will incorporate these things into my plan too....i have gathered that 45 minutes minimum sun a day. starting with 15 minutes and building up to 45.has therapeutic value..would you recommend more or less, based on your findings?, thanks, nerida.

  • impositive
    impositive Member Posts: 629
    edited August 2011

    thats-life-, I think it varies from person to person depending on your skin color.  Based on your photo, you and I appear to have the same coloring.  It's important not to burn so in our cases just work up to that point like you said, start with 15 minutes and go from there to reach your maximum exposure without burning. I have figured out that if I lay out by the pool, 30 minutes on each side is my max.  If I am just out walking, with only my arms and lower legs exposed, an hour walk is just fine for me.  When I set out at my son's baseball games, I get out my umbrella after 45 minutes.  I have just learned what works for me without getting a sunburn.

    The sun just has so many benefits.  I live in the mid-west and have the winter blues when there is no sun. The warmth and energy just make me feel good!  I have often wondered if the reason we are sick more in the winter is because of low vit D levels.  I just don't understand where the logic comes in when they tell us to stay out of the sun and slather on those chemical sunscreens.  Of course too much of anything is not good so use moderation but get some sun ladies!  We (and everything around us) depend on it.

  • Leia
    Leia Member Posts: 265
    edited August 2011

    thats-life-, sun exposure is definitely in moderation. I've read that 20-30 minutes of sun exposure between 10AM and 2PM will generate 10,000 IUs of Vitamin D3. Which is optimal. And the beauty of getting your D3 from the sun is that your body will take the optimal amount and then just shut down. It's had enough.

    Although, in our society, none of us ever get enough. We're never in the sun. 

    Not only am I a typical cubicle worker, I live in Seattle. Although, I did read somewhere, recently, that D3 comes from the UV-B rays, as well. That is, the rays when it it cloudy. Although, I don't have a source to quote to you, tonight.

    So, I just mostly rely on natural D3 supplements.  And as I said, my recent level was 81. Which is optimal for me, being a cancer survivor. For people that don't have cancer, the recommended level is 50-60. Well, in the Alternative universe. Unfortunately, for most of the population, their D3 level is 10. And the MIC says that your level is "normal" if it is more than 20.

    But then, doctors do not order D3 levels, routinely. They see no benefit from it. Because the docs mostly treat sickness and prescribe drugs and chemo; they do not promote health. 

    impositive, you are so right. The "sunscreens" themselves can cause cancer. As that study you cited. And as you said, we just can't abuse the sun. It is all moderation. And a varied approach. 

    D3 is a big gun, in my anti-cancer arsenal. But equally there are the Omega3's. The FOCC. And lately I have added the Ubiquinol/CoQ10.  

    I'm a CPA, so I'm in to "bottom line" type of answers. Bottom line means, what works.  The reality. And for me, the bottom line is Alternative treatments. That is the bottom line, that works for me.

    Again, I just want to state that I have never felt better in my life. My life went through a paradigm shift when I started the FOCC. It did take six months to a year, for me to really notice it,  and actually it is still continuing. For me, it was I didn't realize how bad I was feeling until I started feeling so much better. And it continues to this very day. Today, even. 

    Of course, there are no "studies" on the benefits of the FOCC. Because there is no monetary benefit, for anyone.  So that is why noone hears about it. 

    The D3? That is becoming known. These studies that I read, where 75% of people with cancer were helped by adding D3. And the current Big Pharma answer? They want to try to isolate some element of the natural D3, from the sun, so they can turn it into a pill and patent it, and charge all of us $Billions.  While the FDA is currently trying to "regulate" all supplements, including D3 and turn them into "drugs." So that no natural supplements will ever be available, again. Again, for the benefit of Big $Pharma. I have links I can send to people or post here. 

    Although, for my part, I will just repeat .... I feel GREAT. From doing all that I've said. Today.

    Yet I HAVE had two cancers. The Leio cancer and the 2cm IDC breast cancer. But with no further treatments with either cancer, beyond the initial surgery.

    Those two cancers that I got were my wake up call.  I had to change, my lifestyle. And I have. And 7 and 5 years later after my cancers, no recurrence. 

    Just relating what I have gone through. 

  • thats-life-
    thats-life- Member Posts: 1,075
    edited August 2011

    Onc tested my vit D level, it was 20 ish...she prescribed 4x d31000 IU tabs a day...but im using the sun too, much more relaxing :)

  • MariannaLaFrance
    MariannaLaFrance Member Posts: 777
    edited August 2011

    I wrote this on another thread, but just to add to the sunscreen information...

    If any of you has taken Retin A for acne, you will recall that your doctor always told you to avoid the sun while taking Retin A (Isotretinoin or Isotretenoic Acid).  Retin A is a chemically derived form of topical Vitamin A. Much like Accutane, but for the exterior of your body.

    THe purpose of avoiding the sun?  Well, with topical application or large doses of Vitamin A (as in Accutane), you will tend to burn. Badly.

    Now, pull out some of your commercial sunscreens.  One of the first ingredients you will note is Retinoic Palmitate, or Retinyl Palmitate.  THIS IS VITAMIN A DERIVATIVE.  By applying this type of sunscreen, you are actually opening yourself up for "bad" sun exposure, more burns, and taking in the harmful rays in large quantities. 

    So if you are taking in more than the very much needed 10-20 minutes of direct sunlight a day, it's very important to get a "Block" or "physical barrier" type of sunscreen, a la 1970s style.... Zinc Oxide. Sure, it's messy, and doesn't blend in very well, but you won't be applying pure Vitamin A to your skin for optimal skin damaging moments.  If you are interested, PM me, and I will send a list of some of the sunscreens I have found that do not contain Retinal Palmitate. 

    And, just for kicks, you will find Retinyl Palmitate in many cosmetics as well, so buyer beware.

  • impositive
    impositive Member Posts: 629
    edited August 2011

    MariannaHB, thank you, I had never paid attention to the ingredients, before bc. Retinyl Palmitate...I'll be on the look out. 

  • elmcity69
    elmcity69 Member Posts: 998
    edited August 2011

    wow, i didn't know that about the Vitamin A deriviative. thanks for posting, M.

    sunscreens have always confounded me. i'm extremely fair, burn easily, and with the BRCA2-melanoma link, i don't mess around. but finding a more natural sunscreen is tough. did manage to find "kiss my face" suntan oil, SPF 30, which is quite nice, but at $13 for a small bottle...

    great discussions of natural makeup on the natural girls thread. i'm already coaching my 13yo to look at natural first, instead of the usual junk.

    j

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited August 2011

    Here's an article about evil (imo) sunscreen:

    7 Surprising Things You're Not Supposed to Know About Sunscreen and Sunlight Exposure

    http://www.naturalnews.com/032815_sunscreen_chemicals.html#ixzz1T2wvYlQ7

  • impositive
    impositive Member Posts: 629
    edited August 2011

    Laura, that article pretty much says it all.  It's maddening to me that the very thing my derm told me to do has possibly caused my skin cancers.  Before this year, I had not have ANY sun exposure since 1994. I slathered on sunscreen before going outdoors, yet I have had numerous basil cells and 2 melanomas!

  • Leia
    Leia Member Posts: 265
    edited October 2011

    Well, today I was at Safeway buying some veggies and other stuff. Got to the check-out counter with my debit card and it came up, first, "Did I want to make a donation to Komen for the 'breast cancer cure?'"

    I hit NO. But then, walking out, they were selling sugary treats, cupcakes and cookies, with all of the proceeds going to "Breast Cancer Research."

    I metaphorically threw up my hands.

    In the alternative cancer universe, where I live, sugar is one of the primary causes, of cancer. Not the only one, by far, but a primary one. And here these people are, selling sugary snacks so they can do  "Breast Cancer Research."

    This is just ... wrong. What nonsense. What they are selling to prevent cancer causes cancer. And just like chemotherapy that kills your immune system will "cure" you. That doesn't even make any sense. If chemotherapy kills your immune system, how could your body EVER fight the cancer?

    It doesn't  

    How did we get to this place?  

    Right is left and up is down. In the world we live in, now. 

    Well, I know what I'm doing for myself.  Taking the steps to maintain my own health. The D3 the FOCC. Thermograms, going forward and not mammograms. A plant based diet. 

    At the end of the day, you do just have to cut through all of the Noise. As some recent posts have said this mania about sunscreen. When it is the sun that is the most healing, of all. High Vitamin D levels Prevent Breast Cancer. 

    I have learned to listen to myself. My first step was October, 2006. When I went and had a breast CT scan prior to the start of my Whole Breast Radiation. For my 2cm IDC, removed surgically, with wide margins. After all of that they gave me the paper to sign, approve treatment. 

    I stared at that paper; ultimately, I refused to sign and walked out. One of the BEST days of my life!

    Back in 2006, I knew nothing about Vitaimin D3. I knew nothing about the FOCC. I knew nothing about the benefits of a plant based diet.  But I did know, intuitively that this whole breast radiation was wrong. 

    Today with actual knowledge I know it IS wrong. As are most of the other "cancer treatments."

    Komen has no interest in curing cancer.  They are just after the $$$$$$$.

  • digger
    digger Member Posts: 590
    edited October 2011

    Hey Leia,

    Congratulations for skipping those big, bad sugary treats and not giving a penny more to the medical industrial complex whose sole goal is to take your money.

    Did you pick up your cigarettes at Safeway as well along with your healthy veggies? Oh wait a minute, I remember.  The tobacco industry is just concerned about you, and not your money.  Smoke away hon!

    Sorry, just hard to take anything you say seriously while you continue to smoke up a chimney and chastise everyone else for not following your au-naturelle plan (again, I didn't realize that cigarettes were natural and plant-based, but maybe they are in your world).

  • Ang7
    Ang7 Member Posts: 1,261
    edited October 2011

    I have to agree with digger~

    It is hard to read about your healthy plan if you still smoke.

    Of course, we all have those bad habits...

    I think changing the bad habits is what will help in the long run.

    Just my opinion.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited October 2011

    I ignored the fact that Leia smokes. I read what people post and cherry pick the information that I feel is right for me. Still, I hope you do kick the nasty habit Leia. I'd hate to see all your hard work eventually go down the drain one day because of it.  Remember, as we get older, the body is way less forgiving.

    Hugs,

    Sharon

  • Leia
    Leia Member Posts: 265
    edited October 2011

    digger welcome back. I missed you. 

    So, it seems the last three comments concern my smoking. I can't be healthy if I smoke. No matter what else I do.

    Wrong.

    Did you know that only 6.9% of smokers get lung cancer?

    http://lungcancer.about.com/od/Lung-Cancer-And-Smoking/f/Smokers-Lung-Cancer.htm

    The highest percentage for smokers getting lung cancer in this article from the American Cancer Society was that 24.4% of male "heavy smokers" get lung cancer.  

    Hmmm. That means that 75.6% of heavy smokers do not get lung cancer. Again, hmmm.

     What is the difference?  Not to mention that the chance of getting lung cancer from smoking at the max is 25%. 

    Personally I've known two people that have had lung cancer and neither of them smoked. And one died. He was 35. What is up, with that.

    My point, tobacco is a known carcinogen. It can cause cancer. As can countless other carinogens in our environment.  Primarly, Sugar which digger dismisses. 

    I would be better off, if I did not smoke. Yet I enjoy it. And it helps me maintain a lower weight. Obesity is one of the primary causes of cancer. Obesity causes way more cancers than tobacco.

    Yet tobacco is an easy target.

     I stand by my healthy eating practices. Which I think counter my tobacco carcinogen. And all of the other carinogens in our lives. 

    You people posting don't smoke, yet you digger,  got breast cancer.  And you never smoked. Why is that, do you think? 

    I am just trying to say what is right for me. The FOCC the D3.  And I am totally healthy, even though I smoke. 

    Sure, ignore me, I don't care.  I am doing what is right, for me. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited October 2011

    Leia, smoking harms nearly every organ of the body, not just the lungs. You are using cigarettes to maintain a low weight.  No health conscious person would support this "weight loss plan" or base their decision to smoke in part (or entirely) on some statistics gathered by The American Cancer Society. Don't you know who they're in bed with?

    In the 1930's, when health concerns surrounding cigarettes began to get public attention, tobacco companies took defensive action. They portrayed doctors in ads openly promoting cigarettes. They took advantage of the public's trust in physicians in order to quash concerns about the dangers of smoking.  Do you know how many bodies are in the ground too soon because of those deceptive ads? Digger is right. The tobacco company is not your friend.     

    Also, many of the medical conditions associated with obesity are a result of sedentary lifestyle and bad food choices. Obesity has been labeled "disease" by the medical community. This label was designed to discourage overweight  people from trying to restore their health. The more people who remain dumb, fat and sick, the more surgeries and medications for conditions like diabetes, heart  disease and cancer will be in demand.   

    By continuing to smoke and not properly addressing your weight issues, you are increasing your chances of needing radical medical industrial treatments down the road. Of course, the body has the ability to heal itself, but only when we continuously feed it what it needs; do our best to avoid exposing it to things that could harm it; get enough fresh air and exercise, avoid toxic relationships etc, before irreversible damage is done. Simply eating healthy is really not enough. 

    Similarly, Komen needs to stop pinkwashing and  stop trying to justify why partnering with corporations that produce carcinogenic products is somehow not harmful. Again, health conscious people are not buying the nonsense misinformation that this organization and others are trying to sell. 

  • sweetbean
    sweetbean Member Posts: 1,931
    edited October 2011

    Hear, hear Princess123!  I fully agree.  Leia, I am truly happy that you have been healthy and happy on the D3 and FOCC.  That is great.  However, your posts often come across as very condescending to anyone who has had conventional treatment (perhaps that is not what you intend, but that is what happens.)  Couple that with your fairly strange defense of smoking and it is hard to take your message seriously.    You definitely do your body and your message a lot of harm by continuing to smoke.  Princess is right - tobacco companies are not your friend and while many people who don't smoke get lung cancer, many lung cancer patients are smokers.   Your last post made it sound like public health officials have been ganging up on the poor, defenseless tobacco industry with their mean ol' statistics.  

  • digger
    digger Member Posts: 590
    edited October 2011

    Actually, Leia, I think I got cancer, as a non-smoker, because of smokers like you. Kinda strange, you are, promoting your healthy lifestyle while not giving a darn about anyone else around you that you're infecting with your nicotine lifestyle.  I'd say whatever, but you're hurting all of us. 

    And just to clarify, I'm not saying this to all smokers, because I know it's an addiction and really hard to kick.  But when we've got real gems like Leia here telling us what we should do and how we should be healthy, while at the same time she's endangering everyone her, it's hard to igore.

    Keep healthy, Leia.

  • elmcity69
    elmcity69 Member Posts: 998
    edited October 2011

    leia,

    you speak as if you are an authority on medicine. if this is true, surely you know that smoking causes not JUST lung cancer, but also: pancreatic, kidney, bladder, esophageal?

    so the stat about "heavy" smoking causing lung cancer in blahblahblah miniscule amount of folks doesn't cut it.

  • elmcity69
    elmcity69 Member Posts: 998
    edited October 2011
  • Leia
    Leia Member Posts: 265
    edited October 2011

    Princess123 wrote:

    "By continuing to smoke and not properly addressing your weight issues, you are increasing your chances of needing radical medical industrial treatments down the road."

    What weight issues are you referring to? I'm 5'3" and weigh 130 pounds. That is about 15 pounds overweight. If you go by the measure that you should weigh 5 pounds for every inch above 5'.  

    I don't have any weight issues.  ?

    Then, you said,

    "Of course, the body has the ability to heal itself, but only when we continuously feed it what it needs; do our best to avoid exposing it to things that could harm it; get enough fresh air and exercise, avoid toxic relationships etc, before irreversible damage is done."

    I do that. I walk, 60 minutes a day. I divorced my husband that was causing me great stress 15 years ago and have been in a happy relationship for 12 years.  And then you said:

    "Simply eating healthy is really not enough."

    I think it is 80% of it. We disagree.

    Digger, you said:

    "Leia, I think I got cancer, as a non-smoker, because of smokers like you." 

    Hmmm, the "second hand cancer" canard. Something that can never be proven. OK, well there is me. I grew up with two smokers, both of my parents smoked. And I became a smoker at 21. I am now 57. So, I don't know how many "smoker" years that I have had but it is phenomenal. Hundreds, maybe.

    Yet I'm still alive. And feeling great. And as recently as 2010 I had a Chest/Abodmen/Pelvis CT that was entirely negative. No lung cancer, no pancreatic, kidney, bladder or esophageal cancer, Mammos negative in the past two years; even the Thermography negative, last month.

    Why is that?  

    You people say because I smoke I can't promote a healthy life style. Well, that is your opinion. In my view, just because I smoke does not negate the 90% of other healthy things that I do. Which I am relating, here.

    Smoking has become the boogeyman. For all of the totally unhealthy practices that make up our society, today.  Sugar, processed foods, sitting around all day ... and toxic medicine. 

    sweetbean said, "public health officials have been ganging up on the poor, defenseless tobacco industry with their mean ol' statistics. "

    No, sweetbean. public health officials have been ganging up on the real cancer cures. Last night I just watched "Cut, Poison, Burn." About the horrible state of our Medical Industrial Complex "treatment" of cancer. The cures that are out there, denied by the "public health officials." Instead, just the promotion of more and more chemotherapy and tamoxifen and other "treatments" that just kill you. 

    Someone said that I come across as condescending or something. And I'm probably guilty of that. But I personally witnessed a woman who had Leiomyosarcoma, my first cancer. She had been doing great, even had a child with the disease. Then, they discovered the Leio. So, she started chemo and was dead, within one year. Her son was 2 years old. And her last year, was hell.

    So, I feel strongly about this.  This is not right. She might have died, anyway, with the Leio cancer, but she might have lived 2 or 3 years and her son might have known her. Now, he doesn't. 

    I don't why you are all fixating on that I am a smoker. And so that makes whatever I say, invalid. That makes no sense. 

    But in the end, as I've said, I feel great. With none of these other "treatments" that they wanted me to do, for my 2cm breast cancer. Ultimately, that is my point. I will always look to my own self healing. And not rely on anyone else.  

  • digger
    digger Member Posts: 590
    edited October 2011

    Leia, seriously, nobody cares, you know?  I mean, snaps for you that you feel healthy, but beyond that, what's the point of your posting this stuff?  Is it applause that you're looking for?  Congratulations?  A pat on the back?  Why is it so critical to you to tell some anonymous people on an Internet board that you feel great, particularly given the fact that it's important for you to rely on yourself (I'm kind of sad for you aboout that...would be nice to have some real time people to communicate with)?

Categories