FYI Suzanne Somers admits to lumpectomy and radiation

You make it so easy, impositive

Impositive wrote:

I really do appreciate all the work you put into this but attacking my character really just reveals yours.

I was raised by a pack of rabid wolverines in the Yukon Territory. 

Impositive wrote:

I would hate to squelch your laughter but maybe you should read on in J Ewing Book on neoplastic disease where it says J Mueller described the cells he saw as elongated, or "racquet shaped" cells. (Picture a racquet shape in your head...they are round with a handle...tail).  It goes on to say that there was urgent demand in the search for specific characters in the tumor cells and that different men disagreed. For instance, Virchow disagreed because he saw the same "tailed corpuscle" (which for those who might not know, is a "tailed free floating cell") in the normal bladder epithelium (which is basically the lining of the bladder).

Uh, no, a corpuscle cell does not have a tail.  I don't know where you are getting the information that a corpuscle cell has a tail, but it is wrong,trust me on this one. Yes, it is indeed a free floating cell.  

I have a good educated guess  as to what that "tailed corpusle" was and why they saw different anatomical shapes but I am not going into it here at length because it would be too confusing.  From the text's description I think they were looking at transistional eptithelial cells.   Again, this is all anatomical and has nothing to do with fungas.

To put it in a nutshell this chapter deals with the history of neoplastic diseases and this excerpt is from the beginning of the histology section.  The date of the above event is 1838.  The "tailed corpuscle" idea was discarded with "endogenous cell formation".

Impositive wrote:

Now...if you have fungal cells in your body, they can disseminate (metastasize).  Also your body is working hard to eliminate them. This could be the reason they were found in the lining of the bladder by Virchow

Again, I don't think you are understanding what you are reading. There is no mention of fungal cells found in the lining of the bladder by Virchow.  However, there is a chapter on the history of studies done trying to prove that cancer was a parasite but all were futile.  This book was written in 1922. It was written for physicians and the language is very outdated, thus it is not an easy read and I can see why you are so confused. You don't have the fundamentals of high school biology down and you are trying to decifer a book written for physicians 90 years ago. This was not a good source for you to cite.

Impositive wrote:

I dont know in what capacity you have viewed cells under a microscope but it's obviously not to the extent that these gentleman did, as they all saw the "tailed body", they just disagreed on what it meant in the search for cancer.

Do you understand the year this happened was 1838 which was a hundred and eighty-three years ago. According to this text the microscope was invented in 1824.  Do you want to put some more thought into that statement?

Impositive wrote:

I'm glad you've decided to read Microbe Hunters.  I think you'll find that I'm right there as well

Ok, where in the text am I going to find out that you were right and right about what?

Impositive wrote:

You also say Louis Pasteur proved pleomorphism didnt exist.  Please give your reference for this statement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnther_Enderlein

First paragraph, second sentence states:

His hypotheses about pleomorphism and cancer have now been disproved by science and have only some historical importance today.

paragraph four:

Theories on pleomorphism and the origins of diseases

He caused more sensation, however, when he developed and published his concepts about the pleomorphism of microorganisms. The concept of pleomorphism was quite controversial at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. Eventually the monomorphism concept of Louis Pasteur was accepted by the scientific community.

The term pleomorphism comes from the Greek pleion = more, morphe = figure, and was apparently created by French chemist and biologist Antoine Béchamp (1816-1908). Similar concepts were known in ancient times as concepts of abiogenesis but these were disproved during the 18th century

Impositive wrote:

could go on and talk about Koch's Postulates, mycobacteria and Alan Cantwell, the MD you call a "crackpot." 

You do understand that Koch's Postulates proves pleomorphism dosen't exist?

Mycobacteria has nothing to do with fungas.  The prefix myco in this case has an anatomical meaning, which is  waxy appearance. I thought I made this clear in my prior post.

Alan Cantwell was a dermatologist that claimed that HIV was biological warfare unleashed by the government to rid the world of homosexuals.  He also said that cancer was a fungas.  Nuff said.

this is ridiculous.  no need to lie

impositive you said  "I just need to click on your name and scienceblogs.com is linked in nearly every post."

That is simply untrue.  totally untrue. I just read quite a few of Blackcat's posts and saw only one mention of Orac..  Maybe you should check again. ..  you should read more science blogs.. just a suggestion to get a grasp of how things work.  It's fascinating.

I shouldn't really get into this match, but i really hate falsehood... i really hate it.. It's a cancer of the persona.

Nasty. Just nasty. Unbelievable that a sister breast cancer sufferer would expend that much time and energy to post a "gotcha" to another sister. One has to wonder what the motivation is for black cat's continuous attacks on another sister who holds a different opinion. This really is getting ridiculous

i keep on reading this crap and keep wondering why??????

Re: "continuous attacks on another sister who holds a different opinion."

See, that's the thing.  Correcting misinformation isn't "attacking."  

As much as some people like to think it's about "different opinions" or "matters of interpretation," there are others of us who prefer to think of breast cancer treatment information in more of a scientific, evidence-based, factual context.  

I too am sorely disappointed in what certain parts of BCO have become lately, with the bullying and attacking, but I get the sense that sometimes bullies can get so caught up trying to claim victim status that they don't realize they're so clearly projecting their emotions:

"Psychological projection or projection bias is a psychological defense mechanism where a person subconsciously denies his or her own attributes, thoughts, and emotions, which are then ascribed to the outside world, usually to other people. Thus, projection involves imagining or projecting the belief that others originate those feelings. "  (from Wikipedia)

Apple, you're right maybe you shouldn't get into this match.  I dont appreciate being called a liar. Maybe my computer is different from everyone elses (not) but it you scroll up and click on black cat's name, you will see her last few posts.  BEFORE her incredible "fact finding" posts, quite a few more showed up but at this very moment... her last 16 posts are displayed.  Seven of them are one-liners and seven of them are posts that include Scienceblogs.com.

Really Timothy? You too? 

Impositive, I am out of town and responding to you at the business center on a sheraton computer in the lobby.  The last 3 responses that I have sent have been erased. I really want to comment on this.

How can you criticise Big Pharma for making money when Suzanne Sommers is laughing all the way to the bank on her book earnings - is she by chance donating that money to bc research - probably not.

No question about it - Suzanne Somers is a genius.  In the MARKETING department.  It's too bad she didn't have the integrity to stick to her Big Thigh enterprise.

"How We Did It: Suzanne Somers and Alan Hamel, Co-owners, Somers Licensing Cos.

Millions of women love and trust Suzanne Somers. That, as Somers and her husband, Alan Hamel, realized long ago, is the definition of a market niche, one they now have 500 (and counting) ways to exploit."

"I'd just bought a pair of Manolo Blahnik shoes for $560. Like any wife, I'm thinking "How am I going to tell my husband I spent almost $600 on a pair of shoes?" I was in my dressing room in my underwear, and I thought, this is the perfect time to show him. So I walked out in a bra and panties and my new high heels, and I watched my husband's eyes go up from the shoes to my legs. And he said, "Great legs!" And I thought--that's the commercial. We'll pan up, showing my legs, using my husband's voice to narrate "Great legs!" We ended up selling over 10 million ThighMasters."

ETA - "...like any wife...$600 shoes..."  Bwaaahahaha!   Completely out of touch with reality, I'd say.

Nothing at all wrong with making a profit, IMO.  The problem is misrepresentation.  The problem with SS, in my mind (and that of every credible expert I've seen mention her), is that she's completely and utterly unqualified, unprepared, unscientific, and irresponsible in her cancer treatment misinformation. 

Selling exercise products is one thing, and I wish her all the financial success she finds with that.  Selling snake oil to cancer patients is quite another thing in my book. 

What about her use of bio-identical hormones?  Anyone doing that, or care to discuss it here?

What are bioidentical hormones?

thenewme:  I see that you concur with my BS who simply says "estrogen is estrogen".

 I think the biggest difference (aside from the fact that many don't like the synthetics because they are made through the harmful treatment of horses) is that they are compounded specifically for the individual, and the individual is tested to see where their levels are prior to being prescribed BRHT.  SHRT is a one size fits all approach and is usually prescribed without any hormone testing whatsoever.  The end result is that in most instances, you are not getting a proper balance with synthetics.

I had all my hormones tested before I went on bioidenticals and my doses were adjusted and compounded to suit my needs.  Those included thyroid, estrogen, progestrone, DHEA, and Vitamin D-3.  Two months after beginning the new meds, I was feeling ten times better than before.  That was all the evidence I needed.  Now, of course, I am off of them, with the exception of the thyroid, because of the bc diagnosis.

The bioidentical program has not been in existence long enough to have any clear cut evidence that it works better than synthetics with regard to protection against bc, but some physicians do believe that a balanced hormone level in the body does give added protection.  Until I know more, I am not willing to risk taking them because of my HR/PR ++ status.