cancer is no where near "under conrol". check the rates from the 50's till now, world wide or by country its the same, they are up probably 1,000%. Dr.'s used to come from miles aroun to see chilren with cancer because it was so rare, now every neighborhood has a few.
A lot of that is from better diagnostic techniques. Any statistic about the increased incidence of cancer compared to 60 years ago needs to take into account that today we have a greater awareness of the need to get certain tests and we have more advanced ways of interpreting the information gained from them.
to me its not that not that hard to see - we are bathed in electromagnetic fields 24/7 by all the electronic devices, cell phones, cell towers, etc, we are constantly in contact with chemicals in our processed foods, pesticides on our vegetables and fruits and grains, hormones in our meats and dairy, there have been hundreds of above ground nuclear tests done since the atomic age and the radiation from Chernobyl was detecable around he world for 2 years via the jet stream. so many people are on Rx drugs that have awful side effects, pahramcuticals are one the biggest causes of death in the US.
we come in contact with cancer and other viruses on a daily basis, our immue system defeats them. all of the above adds up and certain people are susceptible to different stresses. an increase in enviornmental stresses equals an increase in cancers.
http://http://wildmonkeysects.com/data/20050207_israel.pdf
From:
The Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rechovot, and the Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, ISRAEL.
The Pediatric Outpatient Clinic, Hasharon Region, Kupat Holim, ISRAEL.
p. 3 "The study indicates an association between increased incidence of cancer and living in proximity to a cell-phone transmitter station."
published International Journal of Cancer, 2004
700% icreased risk, it would be a lot of people dying already but cancer is more under control than ever, (hey it's Europe with their crappy healtcare system)
Not really. Buying 7 lottery tickets increases your chance of winning the lottery by 700%, but it doesn't turn it into a sure thing. If the risk of developing a rare disease increases by 700%, it will still be a rare disease.
Buying seven lottery tickets does not increase your chance 700%. You just have seven chances at whatever the odds are for one ticket essentially.
Buying seven lottery tickets does not increase your chance 700%. You just have seven chances at whatever the odds are for one ticket essentially. Sure the probability changes a little but the change is miniscule probably like 1 in a jabillion to 1.0000000000000001 in a jabillion.
Ok, so far, I've read only this one:
Again, this "study" does nothing but to illustrate my point.
Even a statistic with a sample size of 622 individuals is NOT VALID. Doesn't matter where it's been published, 8 cases of cancer (even worse, of DIFFERENT TYPES of cancer), are absolutely not representative. especially when the 622 individuals live in the same area.
Who's to say their cancer wasn't caused by them drinking water off of a contaminated main, or any other possible common cause to their area?
That's why a proper scientific study has to be conducted, before taking that BS as gospel.
A statistic is never scientific proof of anything. Statistics just show the possible causes or consequences of something. A properly conducted scientific study shows "THE" causes or consequences of that something.
Buying seven lottery tickets does not increase your chance 700%. You just have seven chances at whatever the odds are for one ticket essentially. Sure the probability changes a little but the change is miniscule probably like 1 in a jabillion to 1.0000000000000001 in a jabillion.
classic. you ask for proof and then say it is not valid. unless you are a scientist with contracdicting research, your opinion counts as much as mine to what is "valid" or not.
i don't care if it causes cancer in one person, it still causes cancer and if you are the unlucky SOB that gets it from one of these things then its not so insignificant anymore, is it?
and your question just provd my original point that these STRESSES on the immune system, wether they themselves cause cancer or not, make you vulnerable to cancer as well as other things.
like i said before, you come in contact with cancer viruses on a daily basis, your body defeats them. if your immune system is compromised, then you are at risk.
either way, it is not debated that cell phones, cell towers and pesticides cause cancer. you make a valid point about that they could have gotten cancer from some other source like water. i wasn't going to bring it up since it didn't mention it before, but water fluoridation is linked to at least doubling in bone cancer. fluoride is used in pesticides, SSRI Rx drugs, fumagation pesticides for grains etc, fluroide is mined at phosphate mines along with uranium and other radioactive elements- so yes there are toxins all around us all the time. which proves my original reply that CANCER IS NO WHERE NEAR UNDER CONTROL and it is not simply from better detection methods.
In my 46 years of life, I have NEVER heard any credible source say that cancer is caused by a virus. You should read a little about cancer causes before making that kind of statements.
What is the association between HPV infection and cancer?
Persistent HPV infections are now recognized as the cause of essentially all cervical cancers. It was estimated that, in 2010, about 12,000 women in the United States would be diagnosed with this type of cancer and more than 4,000 would die from it. Cervical cancer is diagnosed in nearly half a million women each year worldwide, claiming a quarter of a million lives annually.
HPVs also cause some cancers of the anus, vulva, vagina, and penis (2). In addition, oral HPV infection causes some cancers of the oropharynx (the middle part of the throat, including the soft palate, the base of the tongue, and the tonsils) (2, 3).
It has been estimated that HPV infection accounts for approximately 5 percent of all cancers worldwide (2).
Are there specific types of HPV that are associated with cancer?
Both high-risk and low-risk types of HPV can cause the growth of abnormal cells, but only the high-risk types of HPV lead to cancer. About 15 high-risk HPV types have been identified, including HPV types 16 and 18, which together cause about 70 percent of cervical cancers (4, 5). It is important to note, however, that the great majority of infections with high-risk HPV types go away on their own and do not cause cancer (5).
1. It must establish a CERTAINTY. In other words, the word "may" has no place in a scientific paper.
2. It must be peer reviewed (and statistics, by their very nature, aren't)
3. It must take into consideration all variables.
4. It must explain the mechanisms of a given phenomenon. In other words, saying "we have statistical proof that cell phones may cause cancer" is nowhere near enough. The study must fully determine, on a cellular level, the mechanisms by which cell phones cause cancer. If it doesn't, it's BS.
And 5. The burden of proof lies always with the proponent, never with the reviewer. Meaning NOBODY needs to prove those "studies" are wrong. The authors of those studies need to prove they're right.
Yeah, I had a friend who was a chemist and worked for a major pharmaceutical company. He mentioned that once and said they injected the mice with nearly 1000x the typical dosage amount and did it repeatedly over months and a few got cancer from it.
I may be off with the 1000x amount, but I remember it was an astronomical amount.
Rev.
if something causes cancer, it causes cancer.
While I had agreed with your reasoning so far, and I still agree with you that the posted studies do not firmly support redcoat's position, you have some odd notions about what the scientific method (if there is such a singular thing) is.
Science works based on principles of induction, which by definition do not give certainty. If you want a less technical answer, consider all the false scientific hypotheses, theories, and "facts" that have existed. They were considered true in their day, but now we know better. This happens daily. There is no certainty in science.
Peer review is one (very excellent) way to remove bias, but it's not really necessary. Scientific inquiry can progress without it. Early scientists conducted research, sometimes very successfully, by applying the most rigorous methods they knew or could imagine.
Again, no. If you're willing to be serious about this, you'd see that it's quite impossible to account for all variables. It's also completely unnecessary in almost all cases. It's generally advisable to take account of all relevant variables. Learning to distinguish between the two is key.
I hate to get rude, but your statements about science are getting worse with each example. This is gloriously untrue. Good scientific studies show meaningful correlations all the time. There is no statement about the mechanism at work, in general, when showing correlations.
With any study taken completely out of context, I might agree with you here. But studies are not any more without context, history, placement within wider theories, etc. Where the burden of proof generally lies (and its placement is often debatable) depends upon the specifics of what study you're talking about. Such a burden can be greater or lesser, as well, depending upon how odd its findings strike the greater community.
It strikes me as though you're confusing a "complete scientific theory of everything" with a published study. A CSToE might possibly need to adhere to many of your points above, but the very possibility of such a theory has been a point of debate for hundreds of years, nevermind the practicality. Again, I have to say I agree with most of your conclusions here, but disagree strongly with your methods and assertions about science.
+1. ALL science is THEORY and HYPOTHESIS. nothing is fact.
Thanks for the conspiracy nut compliment. The Rockefeller's have funded cancer, viral and vaccine research for the last 100 years. oh but vaccines are good for you and the Rockefellers are American patriots....
Thanks for the detailed reply, IP. I think our disagreement may be primarily a semantic one, but there may be a little substance here as well. Now that I think of it, if you're replying to redcoat, you may have the properties of a proper scientific explanation in mind, whereas I was interpreting matters more broadly. The practice and body of science is more than just explanation, if you look at it closely enough, though explanation may be its ultimate goal.
Read it again. It wasn't a compliment.
Oh, come on now. Don't swing to the opposite extreme, either. Observational facts form the basis of scientific inquiry. They are not immune from criticism, but to say they don't exist is silly.
A person who flies in airplanes has a 100% higher chance of dying in an airplane crash than those who never fly. Yet people still fly...
Not true. Depends on what the plane crashes into.
if an airplane crashes exactly on the border between two countries, which country do you bury the survivors in?
Edit: off topic referring to myself.
Looks like I'm gonna have to hit the books again...
that is not the extreme but rather the reality. observational facts are a constant, someone's interpretation of those facts becomes science. everything in science has been "law", as inodoro put it, that is until something completely unkown is discovered that shifts the paradigm - the unknown unknown-variable if you will. that is the history of the scientific method.
That's never a bad thing, though. It's when we're done learning that we're in trouble. And on an unrelated note, in writing at least, you have better command of the English language than most natives. Don't worry; most of us natives who worry about such scientific/philosophical inquiry debate the meanings of basic terms as well.
And yo don't even have to make the trip to the library...:rockin:
i have no desire to convince anyone of anything. i know what i know.
Enter your email address to join: