CrossFit Discussion Board  

Go Back   CrossFit Discussion Board > In Sickness and In Health > Health and Medical Issues
CrossFit Home Forum Site Rules CrossFit FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Health and Medical Issues For other than injuries

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-29-2007, 05:57 PM   #1
Garrett Smith
Member Garrett Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 2,264
Angry Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Pulled from WFS http://drbenkim.com/secret-history-war-cancer.html , he has a worthwhile newsletter BTW:
Quote:
***
Andrew Nikiforuk's Review of The Secret History of the War on Cancer, written by Devra Davis, PhD, MPH.

In 1936, the world's cancer experts assembled in Brussels to talk shop. The gathering heard a lot about workshop hazards and environmental toxins. A British scientist, who had studied identical twins, argued that cancer wasn't inherited, but mostly the product of early chemical exposures in life. A meticulous Argentine showed how sunlight combined with hydrocarbons could sprout tumours on rats. Others explained how regular exposure to the hormone estrogen prompted male rodents to grow unseemly breasts. Everyone agreed that arsenic and benzene were workplace killers, too.

Since then, the cancer establishment has retreated from the truth faster than Canada's commitment to a greener country. What began as sincere investigation into the economic root causes of a complex set of 200 different diseases, at the turn of the 20th century, quickly degenerated into a single-minded focus on treatments after the Second World War, argues Devra Davis, one of North America's sharpest epidemiologists (her previous book, When Smoke Ran Like Water: Tales of Environmental Deception and the Battle Against Pollution, was a finalist for the National Book Award).

In the process, industry and its propaganda hit men have used every opportunity to discredit, dismiss or disparage information on cancer hazards in the workplace or at home. So let me warn comfortable readers here and now. This courageous and altogether horrible book is about as unsettling as it can get. It painstakingly documents such a persistently foul pattern of deceit and denial that I often wanted to throw it against a wall and scream.

Furthermore, Davis's hair-raising investigation - in what is easily the most important science book of the year - will rob you of any lingering, Disney-like fantasies you might have entertained about the nobility of cancer fundraising campaigns. And if you have lost a relative or friend to a malignant tumour (odds are you have), Davis will make you weep again, knowing that fraud and outright criminal neglect have turned a 40-year-long medical war into a questionable $70-billion charade.

Even Davis can't hide her own disbelief at times: "Astonishing alliances between naive or far too clever academics and folks with major economic interests in selling potentially cancerous materials have kept us from figuring out whether or not many modern products affect our chances of developing cancer." She then diligently documents, for example, how some of the world's most prominent cancer researchers, such as the late Sir Richard Doll, the epidemiologist who was instrumental in linking smoking to health problems, secretly worked for chemical firms without disclosing these ties when publishing studies.

Davis, a modern scientist committed to moral clarity, knows her stuff and then some. After decades of front-line battles against air polluters, she now heads the world's first Centre on Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute. She too has smelled and felt cancer firsthand, having lost two parents and many friends, including the comic Andrea Martin*, to the disease. She shines, in short, with a burning indignation about the abuse of power in medicine.

Her angry history of the way free and open discourse on cancers in the workplace has become as elusive as meaningful political debates reveals the rot with the bluntness of a chemo treatment. When men who bottled liquid lead as a gasoline additive in the 1920s started to drop like flies, General Motors blamed the workers and called lead a "natural contaminant." When dye-makers at DuPont got bladder cancer from working with benzidine in the 1930s, the company, like an errant spouse, first denied the findings. Then they refused to record cases. Finally, they suppressed or delayed publishing the results.

After inhaling tar and poisonous fumes from coke ovens, black steel workers succumbed to waves of lung cancer in the 1950s. Yet industry argued that blacks were just more vulnerable to lung-consuming tumours. It took an enterprising study of dying Mormon coke-oven workers to challenge the lie. Damning studies on the health of asbestos workers couldn't find a home in the 1930s, and to this day, Canada shamefully remains an exporter of the lung destroyer.

Benzene, a true-blue leukemia-maker that can cause workers to bleed out, has been the subject of 100 years of deceit and denial. When Myron Mehlman, a toxicologist with Mobil Oil, told Japanese officials in 1989 that gasoline with 5-per-cent benzene was damned dangerous and shouldn't be sold, the company fired him. Davis reports that ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Shell have invested $27-million in China to "contradict earlier claims that link exposure to low- and mid-levels of benzene to cancers and other diseases."

In 1986, researcher William Fayerweather put together a computerized system for tracking the health of every worker at DuPont's chemical plants. Davis found that "neither he nor his system any longer work for DuPont." She reports that men and women who produced computer chips for IBM are now dying young from cancers of the breast, bone marrow and kidney.

While China now leads a global economic boom, it's also exploring new opportunities for cancer. Even its secretive, Ottawa-like government now concedes that the country's industries use the nation's rivers as industrial urinals. Not surprisingly, China now lists cancer as its number-one killer.

Many of Davis's findings simply stunned me. Consider the invasion of computerized imaging technology (CT scans) in modern medicine. Since its invention in the 1970s, CT scanning has become a $100-billion industry that creates nifty three-dimensional images, yet exposes patients to radiation. CT scans have become such a favoured technology that one in every three scans recommended for children is probably unnecessary.

In the last 25 years, the amount of radiation zapping North Americans from scanning and the like has increased fivefold. Now ponder this stunner: "Modern America's annual exposure to radiation from diagnostic machines is equal to that released by a nuclear accident that spewed the equivalent of hundreds of Hiroshimas across much of Russia and Eastern Europe." Most physicians don't know that a typical CT scan equals 400 chest X-rays. A group of researchers at Yale now estimate that radiation from CT scans of the head and abdomen will kill 2,500 people a year.

Davis also presents some disturbing data on aspartame, cellphones and Ritalin. Armed with what a prominent toxicologist would later describe as "uninterpretable and worthless" studies on aspartame, Donald Rumsfeld, then CEO of Searle & Co. (since acquired by Monsanto), used his formidable political contacts to gain government approval for the food additive in 1981. Yet the U.S. Air Force still reports that aspartame "can cause serious brain problems in pilots." Despite whatever malarkey you might have read, cellphone users still have double the risk of brain cancer and folks under 18 years of age really shouldn't be using them. Ritalin, the drug to slow kids down, can rearrange an individual's chromosomes, yet in some school districts more than 10 per cent of the students are now on the drug. As Davis notes, "Highly profitable industries have no incentive to ask whether the products on which they depend may have adverse consequences."

Each and every chapter in this book offers a uncomfortable revelation. Pioneering research on the deadly effects of tobacco and environmental hormones by the Nazis secretly found its way to many of U.S. corporations producing the same questionable goods. The American Cancer Society spends less than 10 per cent of its billion-dollar budget on independent studies. The great Wilhelm Hueper, the bold pathologist who wrote the book on "occupational tumours," suffered one indignity after another for simply reporting the dangers of uranium mining. And on it goes.

So, the strange reality of cancer fighting truly reads like one of Kafka's nightmares. Most of the 100,000 chemicals commonly used in commerce have not been tested. Their proliferation in the workplace has created a cancer epidemic and a medical-business industry to treat it. Given the toxic nature of many cancer treatments, including radiation and chemotherapy, Davis claims that cancer researchers and cancer physicians are dying in record numbers.

Davis not only sheds light on this darkness, she also opens many hopeful doors. She celebrates tough, rural, blue-collar mothers who have taken on the companies that have riddled their children with cancer-makers. And she welcomes groups such as Health Care Without Harm, a novel coalition focused on getting toxic products out of hospitals.

But her remarkable and disturbing history ultimately illuminates another hidden hydrocarbon holocaust. Our frightful addiction to fossil fuels has not only fouled the atmosphere but given us a wealth of chemicals, plastics and technologies that increasingly undoes the health of millions with cancers. It, too, has given us rich armies of PR men employing "the same expert public relations strategies that kept us tied in knots on tobacco."

Davis knows that changing medical perspectives and priorities, from treatment to prevention, will be an enormous task. But she does not despair. In fact she ends her book with a simple Talmudic story. Faced with a complicated assignment, a group of workers rhyme off the usual excuses: They haven't got the tools or they haven't got the energy. But a good rabbi (sounding much like Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings) sets them straight: "It is not for you to complete the task," he says. "But you must begin."
***
__________________
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Saliva, Blood, and Stool Testing
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 08:16 PM   #2
Aileen Reid
Member Aileen Reid is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth  Western Australia
Posts: 485
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Interesting. Thanks. Personally I try to minimise as many "bad" things as possible. Fortunately Perth has clean air and still a fair few wide open spaces. I spent my first 25 years in NZ which is even cleaner and wider. My main concerns are the food I eat, all our furniture, office spaces etc and in my job - pesticides.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-2007, 08:46 PM   #3
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Yes, the incidence of cancer in certain professions is well know. We studied dies, coal tars, smoking, radiation and a whole host of other sources. Heck, it's WHY we have tests like the Ames tests to test chemicals, especially food products and chemicals from manufacturing companies like DuPont, for carcinogenic activity. It's not like these chemicals and foods and whatever are getting out without people testing them.

Chemotherapy? Yeah, it's bad. But what are you going to use to solve the problem? It kills rapidly proliferating cancer pretty quickly. Yeah, those other chemo drugs are bad. What else are you going to use to kill that cancer? Now, admittedly it has gotten better to the point where you can usually dose specific places with hundreds of times more concentrations of chemicals than just dosing the whole body which works less because the chemo drugs are diluted. CT scans may 'kill' 2500 a year.. but what about the people it lets you accurately diagnose? The pictures it takes are exceedingly accurate so diagnosis can be quick and fast whereas you may have to put someone under a knife to get other diagnoses or possibly make other guesses that could be wrong because you can't look at the tissues in question? Okay.

I mean if people want to criticize they can go right ahead, BUT they're not helping unless they offer alternative solutions.

Last edited by Steven Low : 11-29-2007 at 08:49 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 09:20 AM   #4
Ben Kaminski
Member Ben Kaminski is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Cincinnati  OH
Posts: 875
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

I totally agree, Steven. All complaining, and little help.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 01:34 PM   #5
Tom Rawls
Member Tom Rawls is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol  VT
Posts: 224
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

did you see the article re the study suggesting that working the graveyard shift increases risk of cancer?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...JI9JgD8T7KKNO1

it's a jungle out there.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 03:02 PM   #6
Aileen Reid
Member Aileen Reid is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Perth  Western Australia
Posts: 485
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

My partner works rotating shifts. I have to say I'm not overly fond of it. He came to bed at 5:30 am this morning and I got up at 6:15am.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-2007, 10:30 PM   #7
Steven Low
Member Steven Low is offline
 
Steven Low's Avatar
 
Profile:
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: silver spring  maryland
Posts: 12,221
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Rawls View Post
did you see the article re the study suggesting that working the graveyard shift increases risk of cancer?

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...JI9JgD8T7KKNO1

it's a jungle out there.
Confounding factors, IMO.

I've recently been doing a few night shifts for volunteering work 7PM to 7AM in the emergency room. You should see what these people eat... including me sometimes, lol. Most of the drinks I see are coffee and soda, and the food is essentially pretty much what the cafeterias serve which is fried foods.

I'm sure there's a lot of other random stuff you can find like this IF you look carefully. Point being looking for incidence rates is GOOD which can tell you that something is occurring. Now look for REASONS instead of blaming it on "starting after dark."

Well, I personally like night shifts because I'm good at staying up. So I don't want an increased cancer risk if at all possible.

Last edited by Steven Low : 11-30-2007 at 10:35 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2007, 06:35 AM   #8
Jacob Levin
Member Jacob Levin is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Columbia  SC
Posts: 168
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Steven,

There are a host of new ways to look at the cancer problem. My mother's currently recovering from breast cancer, and from the chemo and radiation therapy she had afterward. She's developed a condition in her brain that's leading to frequent memory loss. I don't entirely understand it, but apparently it's pretty common with chemo and radiation therapy.

Her new doctor recommends a vegan diet, with emphasis on eating raspberries as a primary treatment option. Apparently - and this is anecdotal, I don't have any sources to cite - he experimented with adding raspberry juice to a petrie (sp?) dish filled with cancer cells, and the juice eliminated the cancer in a few days.

I've heard plenty of other anecdotal evidence to support "non-traditional" cures to cancer, most of them simply revolving around healthier lifestyle habits with emphasis on certain foods. If I remember right, Garrett, isn't this sort of thing a specialty of yours? You can probably give us a lot more information than I can, and I know I'd be interested in reading it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2007, 09:02 AM   #9
David Wells
Affiliate David Wells is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Loveland  CO
Posts: 31
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

In response to midnight shift causing cancer:

I worked a midnight shift for five years. It was probably the worst thing for a persons health besides smoking in my opinion. I would get so tired and rundown I would be willing to do anything to feel better. After I changed shifts to afternoons I lost about 20 lbs without much of a change of lifestyle. This was before I started doing crossfit.

I suppose some people get used to working a midnight shift, I just got used to feeling like crap. the cancer link is probably do to the poor diet but I imagine the lack of sleep contributes greatly. I would recommend anyone who works midnight shift make plans to do whatever it takes get a job to be able to sleep at night.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2007, 09:29 AM   #10
Garrett Smith
Member Garrett Smith is offline
 
Profile:
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Tucson  AZ
Posts: 2,264
Re: Head still in the sand re: Cancer???

Jacob,
I do deal with this sort of thing in my practice.

One major thing to take away from the article is the amount of toxicity that people are being subjected to. Companies are buying off regulatory agencies and not paying for the damage to people that they cause. Doctors are refusing to test for toxicity--not that they do the right tests anyway most of the time, nor are they even taught much about this connection in medical schools. I'd go so far as to even say that this issue is underemphasized in naturopathic medical schools. Much like people don't want to believe most of the crap in the grocery stores is bad for them, people really don't want to believe that they are living in such a toxic world and/or have a really toxic job!

This stuff is so obvious to me in practice with some simple questioning. I have a patient with liposarcoma who was painting houses for most of his life (and still won't stop). I have another patient who had his FIRST round of gynecomastia in 3rd grade--that's when he started working in his parents' plant nursery (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, etc.). Are those exposures likely the only cause of the problem? Maybe, maybe not. Are they likely a major contributor, especially if their physiology is especially sensitive to those particular toxins? Most likely.

People are told and want to believe that this stuff is safe and that the government is out to protect them. It's very sad. They are not, nor do they have the time or funding to be (especially when private industry can "fund" them so well). Protect yourself--if you have a hunch that something is toxic, it likely is. Minimize or eliminate your exposure to it.

Also, I have never seen anyone who has been working the night shift for a long time and appears close to healthy. Bless the souls of those who do it, but it sure is a health hazard.
__________________
RepairRecoverRestore.com - Saliva, Blood, and Stool Testing
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Running in the sand Blair Book Fitness 10 11-07-2007 08:46 AM
Sandbag sand? Jason Billows Equipment 14 03-14-2007 12:48 PM
Sand Bags Fiona Muxlow Equipment 16 07-26-2006 11:19 PM
Sand alternative for sand bag Eugene R. Allen Equipment 16 04-22-2005 04:55 PM
SAND BAGS Zach Even - Esh Equipment 4 03-09-2005 08:00 AM


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
CrossFit is a registered trademark of CrossFit Inc.