FYI Suzanne Somers admits to lumpectomy and radiation

Suzanne Somers had a hysterctomy because she was experiencing bleeding and hyperplasia.  Her HRT regimine was basically a reckless self experimentation, not designed by anyone was any formal training in that area.  It likely caused the hyperplasia.  It's her body, and she is free to experiment with it, but she downplays the risks of bioidentical hrt.

Hi Beesie,

Well, no, the friend was not an "occult" stage 4, not at all. She was clean and clear, by multiple scans and follow up tests. She became metastatic during treatment. Still, not reassuring in the least.



Blackcat: Not that we don't need skeptics to question all modalities, but the links that are posted are not neutral analysis of alternative and complementary models. A little digging reveals the editors and bloggers on these sights are sponsored or have ties to large Pharmaceutical enterprises and institutions. I question everything, allopathic and alternative, but I have to say, what this doctor says is not completely accurate, it seems to be more of an editorial.

Omaz, yes of course they are. But even Adjuvant Online has to classify according to certain parameters. Whether we like it or not, we are grouped and subtyped within certain parameters. SS' friend had identical stats.

wondering 7:  I feel the need to correct your statement in your opening thread.  Suzanne Sommers has never NOT admitted that she had a lumpectomy and radiation.  It was written about in detail in her book "Knock Out", which I read from cover to cover as a part of my education on bc awareness and looking at both conventional and alternative methods.  

Regardless of what one might think of her philosophies and treatment protocols, she has opened the door on alternative medicine and allowed those of us who are interested to see another side of the coin in treatment options.  I applaud her for taking that stand at great risk to her personal reputation, which we all know has suffered as a result.  The conventional medical community has done everything possible to discredit her and the doctors that she interviewed in her books.

Everyone should have the option to seek a treatment that they feel is in their best interests.  If the conventional medical community is so dead certain that alternative treatments offer no value whatsoever, then why don't they support trials and studies to prove that fact instead of assaulting anyone who would promote such a theory.  The goal is to find a cure for disease, and in doing so, everything possible should be done to achieve that end result.

PS:  The article you are referring to was in the October issue of "Life Extension", a monthly magazine from an organization that promotes holisitc and complementary treatments for disease, as well as offering its members discounts on supplements.  I've been a member for many years, and never has it been suggested that this is a multilevel marketing program, or has it operated on that level. 

Why does Big Pharma not do the research needed to prove its products work?

I'll answer my own question.  Because Big Herba is making way too much money.  Why spend the money on research if you don't have to, if you have so many trusting individuals who so "bravely" fight the big,bad medical industrial complex and funnel their money the big Herba way?  They're laughing all the way to the bank!  

thenewme:  Yeah....I feel totally confident after reading all those studies funded by the same pharma companies that sell the products...NOT!

This thread would be more interesting if those who post actually read Knockout instead of relying on Orac to think for them.

Life Extension magazine is a well-known quack site.  Even if it it weren't such an obvious commercial site, their AFFILIATE MARKETING program should be a red flag.  

I respectfully disagree.  The LEF, and its research, showed me there were, indeed, different ways to do things to help myself rather than just put toxins/destroyers into my body.  Yes, they sell supplements.  Do you have to buy their supplements?  No.  But that doesn't invalidate their research.  They are one of the few organizations who actually cite every single claim they make.  I used to spend quite a bit of time on PubMed trying to prove any one of their claims to be unsubstantiated to sell products.  Never could find that ... there was always corroboration in the research of what they said.

So IMO, don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.  Don't buy their supplements ... it's a free country (so far, anyway ... LOL), but don't discount their articles.  Their research is not clouded by pharmaceutical companies, etc.  And the supplements they do sell reflects the current research.  So I don't blame them for trying to manufacture products that support the research ... we all have to make a living.  But don't toss the research just because LEF sells supplements. 

xxoo

Melissa

Orac rocks.. not only a brain but a great sense of humor... seriously folks, SS has rocks for boobs.  give me the real thing please.

peace and love, apple / Mary Magdalen (really)
Diagnosis: 4/10/2008, IDC, 5cm, Stage IV, Grade 3, 4/9 nodes, mets, ER+, HER2+

Carcharm,

Before, after or during the BC?

1. How much do you think SS pays for her 80 supplements per day?  She probably keeps her supplier fed and clothed...on his yacht.

2. ZEDA...I CAN'T EVEN READ WHAT YOU WRITE.  IT GIVES ME A HEADACHE. THEREFORE I CANNOT COMMENT ON YOUR REMARKS.

3. For someone who has had a lumpectomy, radiation and hysterectomy (and how many surgical alterations and injections on her face, buttocks etc?)  I think it is an oxymoron to define her as "alternative".  She actually uses a "complimentary" approach to her health....as do most of us here.

My memory defintely fails me at times Black-cat but, you're definitely correct...no chemo here!  I dont really need to depend on memory though, I just need to click on your name and scienceblogs.com is linked in nearly every post. 

you no what sucks is that its not heter

Let's stick to the topic, please.

Impostive wrote:

Johannes Mueller, physiologist, also of the 19th century, microscopically discovered "tailed bodies" of cancer cells that were described as medullary fungus.  He believed that tubercles and cancer cells were germs from the outside that had made their way into the body.  (According to Neoplastic disease: a treatise on tumors, 3rd ed., J. Ewing, 1928)

You made this up.  Johannes Mueller was only given a paragraph in this book and it is in the first chapter which is the history of cancer.  NOWHERE IN THIS PARAGRAPH ARE THE WORDS "TAILED BODIES" , NOR DOES HE POSTULATE THAT WHAT HE SEES IS A MEDULLARY FUNGAS.  Why would you make this up?    He only saw that cancer was a cluster of cells with nuclei and nucleoli.  "tailed bodies of cancer cells" HA HA HA  That's a good one. I  have looked at hundreds of cells under a microscope and the only cells that I have seen tails on where sperm cells.  Tailed bodies of cancer cells.  Ha Ha I have to remember that one. That statement sounds like one of Robert Young's greatest hits.

He believed that tubercles and cancer cells were germs from the outside that had made their way into the body

Wrong again.  Germ cells are not germs from outside influences. He simply said that he thought that cancer originated from germ cells within the tissues. He is refering to  anatomy and not pathogens. Human  anatomy is the structure of the body.  You misunderstood (or rather Robert Young did) this because you do not know basic biology terminology.  See what I mean about needing a foundation of the life sciences.

Here's a link to the book. I have the link open to the page on Mueller. It's page 21 paragraph 3:

http://www.archive.org/stream/neoplastictumor00ewinrich#page/20/mode/2up

Impositive wrote:

Throughout the centuries, many doctors and researchers have linked cancer to a microbe.  For time's sake, I will only mention a few here.  One doctor I've mentioned in a prior post is Dr Thomas Hodgkins (pathologist), from the early 1800s. (The same for whom Hodgkins cancers were named)  According to the book Microbe Hunters, Paul DeKruif. 1926, Dr Hodgkins believed, based on his research, that cancer tumors were parasitic cysts.

Wrong again. Here's a link to the index from the back of the book Microbe Hunters and Hodgkins ain't in it.

Thanks for the heads up on the book, though. I'm reading it. I find the history of microbiology fasinating. Don't try to claim the author of the book believed in the fungal theory because he rants about what great men Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch were. Louis Pasteur proved pleomorphism did not exist and if you believe that cancer is a hybrid human and fungas cell you are basically stating that Pasteur and Koch did not know what the heck they were talking about and were idiots.  Robert Young has trashed Pasteur many times.  He states that he has single handily proved Pasteur wrong because Robert Young has seen fungas morph into cancer.  I've never seen Young state that Koch's postulates were rubbish, though. Weird.

http://books.google.com/books?id=pH24vLpivRgC&printsec=frontcover&dq=microbe+hunters&hl=en&src=bmrr&ei=G19TTZqBIpGWsgPomsS2BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Impositive wrote:

Today according to the National Tuberculosis Center, tuberculosis is a disease causes by bacteria, Mycobacterium tuberculosis.  Anyone reading this thread enough knows what "myco" is. 

You don't know what myco means or you would not have used it out of context. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that you are ignorant of the word's complete definition and did not try to deliberately twist this information around to fit your arguement.

Mycobacterium

The Latin prefix "myco-" means both fungus and wax; its use here reflects the "waxy" compounds that compose parts of the cell wall

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mycobacterium

Mycobacterium is so named because the cell wall has a waxy appearance. This is all about structure and not fungal related.   

I see the same theme throughout your postings. You don't understand what you are reading and you are learning theories of biology, micobiology and human physiology from bogus books written by a man that does not understand these sciences.himself.

I'm not even going to comment on the your Big Pharma paragraph.   I recognise 2 people in your list of sources and I certainly would not use them to back up my arguement. One was an absolute crackpot that not only believed that cancer was a fungas but also believed that HIV was the government unleashing biological warfare to rid the world of homosexuals. He wrote a book or two on this theory.   I'll check them out tomorrow if I have time.