I saw Suzanne Somers on TV today. All that silicone has gone to her brain.

[MajorChode]

She was hyping alternative medicine for cancer and hawking her new book critical of chemo. She's had so much plastic surgery she won't need a mask for halloween. Her book would probably already be delegated to the bargain bin had Oprah not put her on. That's another person that should just go away. She's turned into nothing more than an enabler to frauds of all description. Some celebrities are just so batshit crazy they really are a danger. This article lists several other batshit crazy celebs that need to be thrown from a helicopter for the good of society.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/suzanne-somers-new-target_n_328063.html

[Name removed]

1. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BrklynLiberal]

2. I have my suspicions of the medical establishment and big pharma too.

Sometimes when they start heavily criticizing someone, I start to feel that the person must have hit a nerve and they are trying to save face, and business too, of course.

[MajorChode]

3. There's a lot that's very wrong with both

But that doesn't make Suzanne Somers any less of a snake oil salesman.

[KT2000]

4. I'm with you on that n/t

[SemiCharmedQuark]

5. Some of these people are dangerous. Just today, I was posting about

Mercola and his support for a "Dr." Simoncini. Simoncini argues that cancer is caused by fungi and can be cured by a direct injection of baking soda into the tumor and that people should avoid chemo.

He had his license rescinded and was convicted of wrongful death and swindling in Italy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

29. It's definitely a stretch to say baking soda "cures" cancer, but there is some science behind it.

Cancers thrive in acidic environments. Baking soda is alkaloid. So, on a chemistry level, that makes sense.

Don't know about the fungus part though. First I've heard of that. Chemo is "effective" in the same way that bombing an entire Iraqi village to kill one "terrorist" is effective. Sure you kill the bad cells, but a lot of good ones along with it. Unlike the war in Iraq, chemo might be a necessary evil in some cases, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look for a better approach that doesn't create so much "collateral damage".

[BrklynLiberal]

40. Well said...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

51. There's no science behind it.

Cancer don't thrive in acidic environments. Cancers thrive at pH 7.3-7.4 or there about.

That's called "physiological pH."

Why? Because that's the pH of pretty much everything in our body, excepting our digestive system. And no about of baking soda changes that.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

53. I'm hoping to see the source. I'm wondering if it's the same guy that is twisting Otto Warburg's

work into evidence that the body's diseases are caused by pH imbalance or if this is something new.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

54. Oh, he'll probably just call you a shill for John Deere tractors.

Or some damn thing.

[Sebastian Doyle]

57. If baking soda was made from MonSatan Frankencorn

You would say it cured EVERYTHING.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

65. No, it wouldn't.

For the reasons explained above.

If you have any argument with the basic biochemistry explained above, by all means present it.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

52. Can you please provide a source for that?

[Salviati]

6. Just understand that there is a big differance between questioning the buisness practices

of the pharmaceutical industry and questioning the underlying premise of science based medicine. One is healthy, and is necessary if we are truly going to reform health care in this country. The other leads to magical thinking and the rejection of all the progress we've made in human health since the dark ages. E.g. I just found out that Bill Maher has more or less claimed that he doesn't believe in the germ theory of disease... that's just insane in this day and age. Honestly, what's he going to believe next? That the stimulus is working because the omens he's read from a disemboweled dove told him so?

Sometimes people are criticized because what they are claiming is just too profoundly wrong and dangerous to let stand.

[Whisp]

31. well at least he doesn't believe in a white bearded guy hovering in the sky...

watching each of our billions of every individual moves and thoughts we have - so i can leave him alone with his germ theory.

[laughingliberal]

154. It is not just the business practices of the pharmaceutical industry I question

Although, I suppose we could argue that suppression of data on adverse reactions to their products is a business decision. That said, there is some ground between believing every new miracle which comes out of pharmaceuticals and rejection of all progress. Traditional and alternative medicine have some truth and some dangers. IMO, they both justify a "buyer's beware," approach.

[Raine]

77. Agreed nt

[medeak]

110. my terminal mom was cured with pancreatic enzymes and more

15 yrs ago and still no reoccurence. Dr. Gonzales of NYC via John Hopkins was villified in press but received grant from American Cancer Institute as curing pancreatic cancer. There's no money in many "alternative" therapies and thus don't receive funding for study. I don't donate to the American Cancer Society anymore as they only fund pharmas and chemo industry.

[earth mom]

7. You guys are out in full force today-any alternative cure and you guys go ballistic.

Good thing that this is still a FREE country and the pharma giants and corporate whores from the health INDUSTRY can't dictate their crap to everyone.

A huge UNREC to yet another stupid fucking thread. :evilgrin:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

9. Sorry. Baking soda still doesn't cure cancer.

[DemBones DemBones]

15. No, but what does cure cancer?

Has anyone ever been truly cured of cancer or has mainstream medicine just prolonged their dying? I know a long-time survivor of ovarian cancer and a long-term survivor of kidney cancer but I also know a woman who's now dying of ovarian cancer a year after treatment and knew other people who died of ovarian and kidney cancer just months after completing treatment. All of these people received the best medical treatment. I could go on and on, have known a lot of people who died of cancer, including family members, so I know how awful the treatment can be. Is it worth it for the patient? That depends on the individual's wishes, doesn't it?

I don't think Sommers has cured her cancer at all but she has lived longer than many women who had chemo and radiation and she avoided the nasty side effects, as she wanted to do. She took a risk and lucked out. She shouldn't say she knows how to cure cancer -- if she is saying that -- but should M.D.s say they know how to cure cancer when what they're really talking about is possible increased survival rates? Medicine can do a lot today but curing cancer is not on the list. I wish it were.

[MajorChode]

24. It sounds as if you're talking in circles

First you ask if anyone has been cured of cancer, then you provide two anecdotal examples of just that. No cancer treatment is 100% effective for 100% of the people in 100% of cases, and I don't know of any legitimate doctor that has claimed otherwise as you imply.

[Contrary1]

25. No. This poster is referring to long-term survivors.

I, too; am a long-term survivor. That does not mean I was "cured". I even corrected my primary physician when he referred to me in that way.

I have no evidence of disease. That is quite different than a cure. I had 6 surgeries, chemo, enrolled in a clinical trial for a breast cancer drug study, and took Tamoxifen for 5 years. I even requested radiation, but was told it would be of no help to me.

I hope with everything that I went through we killed all the cancer, but I am not cured.

Just hopeful.

[MajorChode]

27. Now you're getting into an issue of semantics

For that, one has only to look at the dictionary to reasonably assume that you fit that definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cured

That doesn't mean you won't develop tumor growth again. It just means the one you had is almost certainly gone or has at least been rendered harmless to the point where you have been restored to health.

From what I gathered from the previous poster's comments was he was questioning whether all modern cancer treatments simply prolong the inevitable and that is most certainly false. Some cancer treatments are very effective and the patient is left with the same expectation of a full and complete life as anyone else. He also appears to suggest that doctors are guaranteeing success and I know of no legitimate doctor who has done so.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. I'll try to explain my meaning more clearly.

my anecdotal examples of a long-term ovarian cancer survivor and a long-term kidney cancer survivor do not provide evidence that their cancer, or any other cancer, is cured. the best we can say is that their cancer has not recurred so far and that they have lived longer than expected for patients with those cancers.

we know that the surgical removal of carcinomas is of benefit because tumours grow and metastasize if left in situ. radiation seems to help some people and chemotherapy seems to help some people, but maybe those people would have lived without any treatment. we simply don't know.

my friend with kidney cancer has survived nineteen years so far and all she had was surgery; no radiation, no chemo. her m.d. prescribed a lot of vitamin supplements and told her to eat lots of broccoli, sweet potatoes, other foods that fight free radicals. did they help? who knows. as far as is known, they didn't hurt. my friend with ovarian cancer who's a long-term survivor had traditional treatments but the first surgery was botched. they didn't grade her cancer at the time. so she survived despite medical care.

not all doctors say 'this will cure your cancer," but some do say that. in other cases, it's implied in their words and actions so that many patients are afraid to question the treatment options.

of course the alternative medicine practitioners should not say they have a cure for cancer but if a cancer patient 1) doesn't want the awful side effects of traditional treatment and 2) wants to drink herb tisanes, rub mayonnaise on their head, or whatever, in the hope it will help, i think s/he should go for it.

in the end, nobody gets out of here alive. we don't want to accept it but it's true. i support taking care of yourself, getting flu and pneumonia vaccinations if you're in a high-risk group, wearing seat belts, etc., but i also support people's right to refuse medical treatment they consider risky or not worthwhile.

[MajorChode]

35. You're assuming that all cancers respond the same to all treatments and that's not true

What works very well for one cancer may not work at all for another. Lots of cancers are relatively easy to treat with very high success rates, but failure to get treated is as good as a death sentence. That's why charlatans like Suzanne Somers are so dangerous. They convince people to go to quacks who only prey on people when they are at their most vulnerable. Even otherwise reasonable people will grasp at straws if someone gives them false hope. The very best you can say about Somers is she is a dingbat that takes advantage of other people's ignorance. The worst you could say about her is she's a fraud and a snake oil salesman that fleeces desperate people for a few dollars each so she can maintain her Malibu Mansion lifestyle.

[DemBones DemBones]

36. I am not assuming that at all.

We seem to have an incurable communication problem. :shrug:

[closeupready]

79. Lots of things people could say about you and your misogynistic attacks on Ms. Somers' appearance.

n/t

[MajorChode]

114. Give it a rest

Men quite often have plastic surgery also and I would have said the same thing if the gender roles were reversed. I'm sure you were quite gleeful to exercise your self-appointed role as the DU thought police, but this time you've failed miserably and done little more than embarrass yourself. If you lighten up a bit on the righteous indignation, you might have a bit more fun and live a little longer.

Cheers!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

49. Chemotherapy.

[Sebastian Doyle]

58. In the same sense that

amputation cures ingrown toenails.

[Forkboy]

59. It saved my mother's life.

Your hyperbole is ridiculous.

[Sebastian Doyle]

62. I'm not saying that chemotherapy isn't sometimes a necessary evil

But when you kill millions of cells wholesale, you'll obviously kill the bad ones, but a lot of good ones with it.

I was responding to the implied arguments from our local pharma lobbyists and MonSatan shills, that anything that doesn't come from our labs and increase our profit margins is hereby decreed "anti-science quackery" because we say so

And even chemo is not always effective. Glad to hear it worked for your mom. Not so much for one of my closest friends :evilfrown:

[unapatriciated]

137. Chemo is nasty and does not work in all cases.

In my son's case it was the last resort. He was thirteen at the time and is now 31.
Unfortunately there are shills on both sides.
Two years ago (weary of his constant pain) my son went to a doctor who practiced alternative medicine he took him off of all his medication that had controlled his dermatomyositis for over ten years.
He was told his illness was due to diet (he had a miracle juice that he sold him) and chemical imbalance. He also wanted him to go to Mexico for oxygen therapy. My son relapsed under this quacks care and almost died.
Yes there is truth to diet and some alternative therapies and a good doctor such as the one who treated my son for years will recommend those therapies as a supplement to traditional medicine.

btw the guy with the miracle juice promised my son he could cure him and end his pain (something his regular doc could not promise)..he almost did permanently.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. More like in the sense that penicillin cures staph infection.

Chemotherapy cures cancer. Not always, but often.

That's why people use it, silly.

[SidDithers]

138. Amputated limbs don't grow back...

healthy cells killed by chemotherapy are replaced by new ones.

Sid

[Robyn66]

147. Not true

I am a cancer survivor and I had chemotherapy. My hair fell out but it is growing back. I feel healthier now than I have in years. Chemo saves a lot of lives, that was an uninformed statement you made.

[Raschel]

170. Hi Robyn, I'm a survivor and had chemo too. I wouldn't have been able to have surgery without it.

I kept up my regular school schedule while taking some of the strongest chemo. My hair grew back fine and I'm feeling good too! :fistbump:

[EmilyAnne]

182. My uncle, my aunt and myself are all cancer survivors. He had colon, she had ovarian and I had

cervical.

We are all survivors due to chemotherapy, surgery and radiation.
We next door neighbor survived breast cancer after surgery, chemotherapy and radiation.

[Zoeisright]

80. My husband is a survivor of 25 years now.

And he had chemo and radiation and is doing great.

Yes, there were bad side effects. They are caused because the fastest growing cells in the body (cancer cells, hair cells, lining of the digestive tract) take up the chemo and die.

Yes, people are cured of cancer. And it's not happening with baking soda or alternative medicine.

[sudopod]

104. Cancer is a real nasty fucker of a disease.

Healthy people don't get chemotherapy.

[MajorChode]

12. P.T. Barnum was so right

[closeupready]

75. You don't get it. First, you start off a thread with your misogynistic swipe at Ms. Somers. Now,

you are essentially calling anyone who doesn't agree with you an ignorant moron.

I'm just like, who are you, and why the fuck should anyone care about your bullshit?

For all we know, your avatar is an actual photo of your personality.

[MajorChode]

115. See post #118

Have a nice day.

[snooper2]

149. making fun of somebody's plastic surgery is not misogynistic FYI

I know you really REALLY want it to be, but it's not...

It's just people with too much money and not enough fucking brains.

[neverforget]

13. It really sucks that smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella and chickenpox are now

preventable. :eyes: when has alternative medicine cured/prevented mass outbreaks of disease?

[paulsby]

26. most alternative medicine is crap

but just remember that much of what turns out to be acceptable medical practice started out as alternative medicine.

there are lot of procedures, supplements, etc. that are part of conventional medicine NOW, but once were purely "alternative"

again, MOST of alternative medicine IS crap. of course most art, most music, most literature, etc. is kind of crappy too.

[closeupready]

30. Amen. "LIES! LIES, PEOPLE! DO NOT LISTEN TO THE LIES!!! DAMMIT! DAMMIT! LIES I SAY!"

:rofl:

I'm with earth mom. Another unrec for yet another stupid fucking thread.

And probably another rich source of members to add to my Ignore list. :evilgrin:

[Starbucks Anarchist]

67. When Suzanne Somers and Jenny McCarthy receive medical training, I'll listen.

Until then, they're idiot celebs.

[The Midway Rebel]

8. Enabler of fraud? I could very easily crush you with my thighs of steel...

thanks to my Thigh Master(TM)!

[SemiCharmedQuark]

10. "The actress had to apologize recently when her offhand comment that chemo had likely killed actor

Patrick Swayze, rather than his pancreatic cancer, made tabloid headlines."


Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/suzanne-somers-new-target_n_328063.html

[cynatnite]

11. Alternatives do have benefits, but I don't agree with her on chemo either. n/t

[Raejeanowl]

14. This Was The Most Telling Quote

From your link above:

"Celebrities are easy to pick on," Somers says. "But I don't have an agenda. I'm just a passionate lay person. And I'm using my celebrity to do something good for people."

The fact that she keeps her infomercial and bookselling career boat just barely afloat with all this bushwah is somehow just incidental, right, Suzanne?

Unfortunately, unqualified practitioners and "well-meaning" spokespersons tend to muddy the informational waters and undermine what good or credibility there might be to some alternative therapies or supportive care for cancer healing.

[MajorChode]

16. Yes, I saw that

The really funny part is that some folks reject the medical "INDUSTRY" because of their assumed profit motive, yet they will wholeheartedly accept the counsel of a dingbat hawking a book with an obvious profit motive that promotes other charlatans who also have an obvious profit motive. I guess the scientific process is just too hard for some to grasp and they are drawn to pseudo scientific frauds like a moth to the flame.

[closeupready]

32. There is the issue of access to health care. When health costs bankrupt upper middle class people,

you kind of wonder (as the middle and upper middle class people most of us literate people on DU are) what goes through the minds of those who are actually poor and have no health insurance?

Not like they can just go to a primary care physician. So they rely on folk remedies.

Blame it on health insurance companies, not Suzanne Somers, for Christ's sake. :eyes:

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Trouble is that oncologists make big bucks

off what they're selling, too. Sure doctors go into medicine to help people but they also go into it for the money, as anyone who's known a few doctors socially knows.

[Raejeanowl]

18. You're Right, Of Course

But somehow I trust they are selling me their expensive education and extensive credentials to have a somewhat more expert opinion about it than a dilettante who will just move on to her next moneymaking career project.

[MajorChode]

19. Be that as it may, they are selling things that have proven effectiveness

What Somers is promoting is pure quackery, and this isn't the first time she's done it. The last time she was on Oprah (who is herself a promoter of quackery) she was touting the effectiveness of shoving some sort of cream up her cooch and taking 60 pills per day. Now she's talking up some quack doctor that has already been convicted of fraud.

[DemBones DemBones]

22. Do they? I have my doubts, though I don't

think Somers has cured herself. See my post #26 for more about my reservations about cancer treatment. I'd run through some of it again but I really need to hit the sack now.

[BrklynLiberal]

42. and groups like the American Cancer Society...sad to say..would disappear if cancer did.

Sadly, the main purpose of most of these groups..may be to cure the disease...but also to stay in existence..

Cynical..but that is how I feel.

[Lorien]

178. Plenty of physicians back her up

she consults every forward thinking expert out there to get the information that she includes in those books.

[Contrary1]

20. She claims to have been "cured" of breast cancer...

That alone is enough reason for me to dismiss her, along with any other Hollywood Hotties who make the same claim.

There is no cure for breast cancer yet. It is either cut or burned out by chemo and/or radiation with the hope that it eradicated. Somers had radiation, but not chemo. Maybe it got it all, maybe it didn't. Or maybe her alternative treatment took care of it. Who knows?

But to say she is cured? As a breast cancer survivor I have a big problem with that. I am 12 years without evidence of disease, but I would never refer to myself as being cured.

Because there is no cure.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. Exactly. There is no cure, not from homeopaths or M.D.s,

or anybody else. It's not known why some patients live so much longer than others. Congratulations on 12 years without a recurrence. I hope your record continues. :)

[Contrary1]

23. I concur with your hope, obviously.

And thank you. :)

[Zoeisright]

83. Wrong. There IS a cure.

And my husband is living proof of that. TWENTY FIVE YEARS and no sign of recurrence. The insurance companies don't even care anymore, and that's really saying something in this day and age.

[SidDithers]

33. I think it's hilarious that there are Suzanne Somers defenders on DU...

how anyone with half a brain can take her seriously is beyond me. :rofl:

Sid

[DemBones DemBones]

37. Who's defending her? Some of us are just saying modern medicine

has its problems, too. Vioxx, DES, and thalidomide come to mind right away but there are many more examples. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria are a problem caused by doctors' overprescription of antibiotics. MRSA is a growing threat, no pun intended. But I stay with mainstream medicine because it's based on real science, even if some of it turns out to be bad science.

As a scientist, of course I think chiropractic and homeopathy are silly but the placebo effect is real and chiropractic "adjustments" apparently feel good although there is no way they are actually repositioning bones. Doctors used to take advantage of the placebo effect by prescribing sugar pills. Sure it was dishonest but cheap and it helped a lot of people by suggestion. Just seeing a doctor often helps people. A physician friend calls it the shaman effect.

[Liberation Angel]

41. I will defend her.

My father went through the same treatment and beat the cancer.

Medicinal herbs heal.

Many folks do not know that a major chemotherapy is based on an herbal treatment that destroys white blood cells (Periwinkle - google it). But that destroys the immune system.
Other medicinal plants BOLSTER the mmune system (which gets destroyed by chemo and radiation treamtent ) instead so that the body can heal itself.

And yes cancer can be completely beaten.

The cancer treatment is often (maybe not always) worse than the cancer itself.

[BrklynLiberal]

44. Yep. Guess that is why they call it a "practice"...

[snooper2]

150. It makes you wonder if there are any Kirk Cameron supporters

:rofl:

[closeupready]

34. Surprise surprise! Ignored checked in.

:rofl:

[GoneOffShore]

48. Teh ignored will be showing up in droves soon.

[closeupready]

74. Yes, it's that kind of thread. A fair number already have.

:D

[Forkboy]

76. Considering all the people you put on ignore, how is that a surpise?

[alarimer]

38. Anybody who believes that woo-woo nonsense is a fucking idiot.

I am tired of coddling anti-vaxxers, homeopathic alternative medicine bullshit and the like.

You buy into that shit, YOU ARE A FUCKING IDIOT.

Of course she can spend her money however she likes but woo-woo nonsense actually kills people. Fuck her.

[SidDithers]

55. +1...

My patience and tolerance for woo has evaporated.

Sid

[Liberation Angel]

39. I support her efforts 100%. My father benefitted from the treatment she went through.

and survived without chemo or cancer surgery beating his cancer completely (he died at 84 of natural causes.

He followed the same course of treatments recomended by Somers (but way before she was advocating them).

I support what she is soing 100%. Everyone I know who died of cancer was either killed or practically killed by the treatment and not by the cancer itself.

The news on cancer screening this week also says screning has been overhyped and does little good (probably because if vancer is detected they kil you with treatment).

I know there are exceptions.

Bt there are exceptions to the exceptions.


Check out the alternative treatments which bolster the immune system and not destroy it (autumn olive, turmeric even mushrooms).

Eating a Mediterranean diet or Indian (curry) could save your life!

[undeterred]

43. She was on Thom Hartman's radio show today

and he wasn't making fun of her.

[Cleita]

60. I thought what she said about chemo testing made a lot of sense.

Watching my mother suffer through it, not to improve in any way before she died made me believe that they were just hoping it would work.

[undeterred]

61. Chemo and radiation therapy are philosophically absurd

and experientially horrific. Its a wonder they sometimes work.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

68. Have you got a better way to cure cancer there?

I'd sure like to hear it. Just like McCain's idea about catching bin Laden.

[undeterred]

72. There are biological therapies available

to treat some cancers. It basically involves stimulating the patient's own immune system to attack the cancer. Interleukin-2 would be an example.

[Zoeisright]

84. I'll bet you've never had any experience with either.

They save lives. Anybody who says anything different is ignorant.

[undeterred]

106. You have no idea.

[bobbolink]

70. Or.....they were making a huge profit from the drugs used.

[bobbolink]

69. He also didn't base his support or rejection on her APPEARANCE.

What the fuck is with so-called "progressives" who feel such a strong need to bash a woman's appearance, as if that has anything what-so-ever to do with what they are saying???

I'm so fucking sick of the woman-bashing on DU!

[closeupready]

82. Sooooooooooo with you. 100 fucking percent.

So sick of this shit here.

[bobbolink]

169. thank you. It's damned time we look at the ways we are LIKE the RW, and

determine it's time to mature.

I appreciate your sentiments! :hi:

[MajorChode]

119. So every negative comment about a woman's appearance is misogyny, eh?

I guess if you go looking for it desperately enough, you'll find it, but I don't really see how it meets any sort of standard for reasonableness. Quite a bit of it just seems like a personal attack from those who may disagree with the central point of discussion, yet have no intellectual arguments to offer.

Meanwhile the attacks on male sexuality and genitalia around here are quite commonplace and can only be classified as misandry, yet I rarely see a complaint from the thought police patrols. I guess there must be two sets of standards at work.

Kinda funny how that works, eh?

Have a nice day.

[bobbolink]

167. Disagreeing with a person's CONTENT because of appearance IS most certainly

not only sexist, in this case, but so like what the RW does.

Forget debating the merits of their case, just degrade them for their looks.

Fails all logic classees, and you'd get nowhere in debates with this tactic. Which should be obvious to you, but you would rather now come after me.

SMall man.

[PSzymeczek]

112. Thom is polite

to a lot of people who don't really deserve it.

[Lorien]

179. Maybe Thom Hartman isn't a foaming at the mouth misogynist. ny

[ZeroLight]

45. Heading back to the mothership

Maybe she's one of those moonbat Scientologists.

[mitchum]

46. She's The Really Stupid Sheriff

[GoneOffShore]

47. I'd recommend twice if I could

To quote Tim Minchin - Alternative medicine has either not been proven to work or proven not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that's been proven to work? Medicine.

The anti science and victimology is strong on DU today.

Sock puppets and indigo tail chasing snakes abound.

[SidDithers]

139. indigo tail chasing snakes!...

:rofl:

Sid

[GoneOffShore]

163. I surprised that it hasn't shown up in this thread

With allegations of patriarchal bias and moon violation.


Or one of its sock puppets.

[Gravel Democrat]

50. Just as silly as saying that THC (pot) kills cancer cells...

oh, wait a second...

There's evidence of that!

Marijuana Cuts Lung Cancer Tumor Growth In Half, Study Shows
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070417193338.htm

Active Ingredient in Marijuana Kills Brain Cancer Cells
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/hscout/2009/04/01/hscout625697.html

THC Gives Cancer Cells the Munchies Too
http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2009/04/thc_gives_cancer_cells_the_mun.php

Imagine the whooping and hollering if those headlines appeared a decade ago...

Oh wait a second, some did!

And the whooping and hollering was *loud*, I was watching

Alternative treatments saved me from going to a dermatologist once a week for dry ice
"treatments" that only put dollars in the dermatologists wallet. They weren't real interested
in what actually did help. Go figure.

It's almost as if there's a thought police. It's (was) a free country. Somers should be applauded
for thinking outside the box but some don't like that a little bit

[Liberation Angel]

56. They do !!!

Damn hippes and starlets with their hollywood wiles and craxy ideas!

The leaf of the tree shall be for the healing of the nations (Apocalypse)

Does the Christian Apocalyptic Prophet John prescribe reefer?

Ask a Rasta!!!

[mucifer]

63. almost all kids with cancer died before effective chemotherapy and radiation

and stem cell transplants. From the Sloan-Ketteing Cancer Center:

Today, 85 percent of children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) will be cured, a striking improvement over the 0 to 10 percent cure rates of the 1960s and 50 percent cure rate of the 1980s. For patients who fail chemotherapy, T cell depleted transplants developed at the Center, have led to higher cure rates following related or unrelated transplants.

http://www.mskcc.org/mskcc/html/14405.cfm

I don't know the stats about adults. But, kids should be followed by pediatric oncologists and not suzanne summers.

[Zoeisright]

87. +1000

People who haven't experienced the disease first hand don't know a damn thing about it, although they sure do open their mouths a lot. The stats prove that cancer CAN be cured and IS being cured. With traditional medicine, not alternative crap.

[MajorChode]

143. That's what's so mindless about her bullshit

She would have you believe that just because chemo has a low success rate with certain types of cancers or those already in advanced phases, that we should all go and see a witch doctor instead of an oncologist.

[bobbolink]

66. Criticizing women's appearance makes your whole argument false.

Go take your hatred of women somewhere else.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

71. No, his argument remains correct.

His comments about Somers' freakish appearance are neutral as to the correctness of his post.

[closeupready]

73. Thank you - yes, that really is ugly, isn't it. What are people thinking here anymore?

n/t

[bobbolink]

81. Sexism has always been rampant at DU. It's all that young testosterone of computer geeks.

There have been many efforts to combat it, but it falls on deaf ears.

DU is worse than what we women faced in the 50s and 60s. :cry:

[cynatnite]

88. You said it.

:hug:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

89. So have false claims of sexism.

Somers is being judged on the content of her character.

She's ugly on the inside. Her hideousness is just the evil bubbling out of her.

[MajorChode]

122. You said it

:toast:

[closeupready]

90. I'm so sorry - it's very clear that is what is going on, in part here.

And others just pipe in with swipes and low blows. This is not the site I signed up for anymore. What, did Free Republic close its doors?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

91. You really think words on a message board are worse than what women faced in the 50s and 60s?

[closeupready]

92. Are you missing the larger point here?

I mean, you do get what she's saying, yes, or don't you?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

93. Her larger point of sexism alive and well in today's world? Yes.

But saying that DU (she specifically said on DU) is worse than what women in the 50s and 60s dealt with is ridiculous. True, women in the 50s and 60s didn't have to suffer sexism on messageboards. Instead, they were being beaten and raped (although marital rape didn't exist then) by their husbands and there was nothing they could do about it because that's the way it was.

[bobbolink]

95. the poster demonstrated the boys attitude very well, yes?

[SemiCharmedQuark]

96. Boy's attitude? Sorry. Try again.

I dislike hyperbole.

[bobbolink]

98. I'll say it again... THE BOYS ATTITUDE.

Maybe you can get it this time.

Dismissal is what it's all about, and you succeeded at that just fine.

THE BOYS ATTITUDE.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

99. Once again, I hate hyperbole.

I've been called a spic online. I don't claim that this is worse than the fate of Mexicans in the 30s. People get called n***er online. They don't claim that it's worse than slavery.

[bobbolink]

100. Obviously, you hate a lot of things.... it shows. THE BOYS ATTITUDE.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

101. Really? I'm pretty sure that the only thing I said I hated was hyperbole.

Capital letters don't make your arguments any more true.

BTW: Did you know that there's a thread in LBN about grocery stores moving to abolish plastic bags?

[Name removed]

103. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

107. Yes, don't respond to substance or the main point; respond to the distraction.

n/t

[laughingliberal]

158. yes. nt

[mitchum]

173. Sure...to someone who only exists on a message board

[Canuckistanian]

109. What's with the "sexism" accusations?

I don't see anyone attacking her because she's a woman.

They're criticizing her because they think her ideas on cancer are unproven and possibly dangerous.

I myself don't care if she's a man or woman, celebrity or scholar. I just think her ideas are wrong.

[bobbolink]

111. BWHAHAHAHA!! You don't see the sexism, so it must not exist.

There are now several posts explaining it in quite simple terms.

If you want to understand, you will. If you want to dismiss us, you will.

It's Right There In The Open, For All To See.

[MajorChode]

124. Just because YOU are offended, doesn't mean something would be considered offensive...

by a reasonable person.

Cheers!

[bobbolink]

166. True. But I'm not typing to a "reasonable person".

Just someone who is taking great pride in being tough and hard.

Ever so progressive.....

[proteus_lives]

151. Wow, really?

"DU is worse than what we women faced in the 50s and 60s."

That sort of ridiculous statement kills your point.

[cynatnite]

86. It was obvious, wasn't it? n/t

[bobbolink]

97. Very. yet, there is no real consequences, is there?

Yet, can you imagine the equivalent being said about blacks, Jews, or gays, etc?

Doesn't that put it in perspective?

[Raine]

78. Good for her

all options should be explored, conventional medicine didn't do my mother any good ... after all that crap treatment cancer still killed her. x(

[Capn Sunshine]

85. Just from my perspective

I've seen chemo end three lives prematurely. As in "it's a bad reaction to the chemo. We couldn't reverse the damage." The Doctors always mention the risks with chemo, and they are substantial.

But it works, what, 20% of the time? So right on for those people.

[Shell Beau]

102. I am failing to see what Suzanne Somers plastic surgery

or what she looks like has to do with her opinion on cancer treatments. Could you explain further please.

[bobbolink]

105. .

:applause:

:yourock:

[Shell Beau]

108. .

;)

[MajorChode]

116. When someone has so much plastic surgery they start to look like a freak....

I start to suspect they have some serious mental health issues. YMMV.

Hope that clears things up a bit.

[bobbolink]

117. Oh, it's very clear, alright. Many of us have been very clear on this attitude since the 60s.

If you were actually to think about it, you would see the similarity in your statement to the kind of crap the RW is throwing at Obama.

Now, fume on that for a while....

[MajorChode]

120. No, I don't see the similarity

I did see the humor in it though.

I wonder how many more posts before you start calling me Hitler?

Cheers!

[bobbolink]

121. Dearie, you are the one who started a whole thread with sexist insults.

And now you're getting paranoid?

That doesn't become you.

[MajorChode]

125. Fail

Please do continue. The entertainment value alone is well worth it.

:popcorn:

[bobbolink]

165. Your sensitivity and compassion for women's issues is underwhelming.

From what does your hate stem?

[Heddi]

176. how late are the libraries in colorado open

or are you at a "friend's house" this time, like the last time when someone noticed your late-night public library postings?

[bobbolink]

185. Stalking again?

Are you the one who sent me the nasty package?

[Heddi]

186. Dear, this thread is the only time I've interacted with you

in the 8 years I've been on DU. I assure you I'm not stalking. But I find it interesting how late the libraries are open in your neck of the woods, and how generous they are with their free internet time.

[bobbolink]

188. You have NO business snooping into my private life. THAT is the mark of a stalker

and an abuser.

Your "hidden" agenda against me is quite thin, and I suggest you back off.

One thing I absolutely will NOT tolerate is a bully. I've been a victim enough in my life to be willing to take any more of that.

GOOD BYE

[Heddi]

175. Dont' most libaries have time limits

that people can be on the public computers? Usually it's a 45 minute limit so that everyone gets their share.

[Shell Beau]

142. It clears up quite a lot.

[DemBones DemBones]

126. the menz don't like women to get old but they don't like

women to have plastic surgery, either. damned if we do, damned if we don't.

[MajorChode]

145. Speaking of double standards

You're not trying to stereotype men are you?

Isn't that just a bit sexist?

Imagine if you had said that all black men prefer white women.

Try looking in the mirror sometime. Ugly isn't always on the outside.

[OhioBlue]

113. I saw her on TV too. Thought it might be interesting,

but seemed like she was just pushing book sales.

[spoony]

118. Why isn't "widespread screening for prostate cancer" wise?

"The issue goes beyond alternative medicine. Tennis great John McEnroe has been advocating widespread screening for prostate cancer, which Brawley and others say is not necessarily wise."

I wouldn't have thought the American Cancer Society would lump a guy encouraging people to get cancer screenings with these alt med people. What am I missing?

[texastoast]

123. How rude

Suzanne might not be the the brightest star in the galaxy, but I've never seen her be as mean and rude as I find your post.

Go read a book on manners and kindness if you want to get people to listen to you.

[DemBones DemBones]

127. it wasn't just the OP either.

you should have seen the charming comments in the deleted subthread at the beginning of this thread, comments made by the OP and a guy pal.

'ignore' is a wonderful feature.

[texastoast]

129. I'm so embarrassed

The OP's profile says Texas. Oh. I hope he's an import.

[MajorChode]

128. Believe it or not, I really don't spend a lot of time caring...

what overly sensitive people think about me. I'm sure you think you're performing some type of public service, but I really don't see as how you're doing much of anything. If you really want to make a career out of policing up all the rudeness around here, don't forget to check all the pots while you're calling out the kettles. The one right above is an excellent example.

Some people deserve disdain, and last time I checked rudeness never killed anyone. I can't say the same about what she's doing in the name of profit. If you think my questioning her mental faculties is worse than what she's doing, you may want to give some thought to some serious soul searching.

[texastoast]

130. You can get your point across

Without sounding so hateful. At one time in her life, she made a lot of people laugh and a lot of guys just slather all over themselves. I doubt you will find many DUers agree that I'm overly sensitive. I just found the tone of your post exceptionally offensive.

Further, while you ridicule what she says, you cannot guarantee that chemo will save any more people than her methods will. Too many factors other than just the mechanics of chemo play into the success. Many alternative methods work better than Western methods.

[MajorChode]

131. So finally we get to the true heart of your contention

You happen to agree with her and think she deserves a free pass because she made people laugh 30 years ago, yet instead of coming out with that first, you instead choose the route of personal attack.

You might try being a little more honest if you want to get people to listen to you.

Cheers!

[texastoast]

132. Not at all

I'm not sure if she is wrong or right. But I'm very sure your post was mean and hateful. Now off to ignore you go.

[MajorChode]

133. Music to my ears

[closeupready]

134. You've now had, what, at least half a dozen people call you on your low swipe at Ms. Somers, and

you STILL can't find it in yourself to apologize.

There we go.

[MajorChode]

140. When you come up with something that I actually need to apologize for, I'll be glad to

There are lots of folks on DU that like to play thought police and pretend to be offended over the silliest shit. If they actually did have such a sensitive disposition, I doubt they would be able to turn on the TV or walk outside without their head exploding.

Thanks for the kick, BTW.

[buffalowings]

135. silicone

Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about Maurice Sandik.

[ipaint]

136. It takes a 2 sec. search to find out why somers didn't have chemo.

"Let's get one thing straight here. It is not amazing that Somers is still alive after having "rejected chemotherapy." As I explained at the dawn of this blog, Somers had a stage I tumor with a favorable prognosis. If Somers is going to play the gambit of "I rejected chemotherapy and I'm still alive," perhaps now is the time to go into more detail than I've ever gone into before about her case. Indeed, I did the research for my talk at TAM7 in July; so I might as well get some more use out of it and spread it beyond the 150 or so people who heard my talk.

To put it briefly, from what I can find from publicly available information on the Internet (I've never read one of Suzanne Somers' books), Somers had a tumor that was treated by lumpectomy (excision of the "lump" or tumor) and a sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy, whic was negative. For those not familiar with the SLN procedure, it was a procedure developed to determine whether a woman's breast cancer has spread to the axillary lymph nodes (the lymph nodes under the arm) without actually removing all of the axillary lymph nodes. The SLN biopsy was developed as a strategy to decrease the possibility of lymphedema after breast cancer surgery and still get the necessary information. Basically, an SLN biopsy is preformed by injecting a radioactive dye and a blue dye (usually Lymphazurin Blue) into the breast. The dyes are then taken up in the lymphatics and head towards the axilla, where they lodge in one or more lymph nodes. This is (these are) the sentinel lymph node(s). The concept behind the procedure is that the sentinel node is the first lymph node a tumor cell that broke off from the tumor and got into the lymphatics would "see" and lodge in. In other words, the dye mimics the pathway that tumor cells take to metastasize to the axillary lymph nodes. If the sentinel node is negative, it's a highly accurate indication that the rest of the lymph nodes are negative, and no further surgery is needed. Best of all, the risk of lymphedema from the procedure very, very small, far smaller than it is for axillary dissection (removing all the lymph nodes). Since the purpose of axillary dissection was far more diagnostic (to find out if the lymph nodes are contain tumor and, if so, how many), this is a good thing. If the sentinel lymph node contains tumor, then axillary dissection is needed, but far fewer women now undergo the procedure.

Why do I mention this? Because Somers underwent, as far as I can tell, fairly minimal surgery for a favorable, estrogen receptor-positive cancer. She also underwent radiation, although she now states that she would not have opted for radiation. As I described so long ago, however, surgical excision is curative for most small breast cancers. Radiation therapy reduces the risk of local recurrences (recurrences in the breast), and chemotherapy and antiestrogen therapy (like Tamoxifen) reduce the risk of systemic recurrences (recurrences elsewhere in the body). In other words, chemotherapy and radiation are "icing on the cake" after surgery. Indeed, there is a website known as AdjuvantOnline.com that allows physicians to calculate the estimated risk of recurrence and the estimated benefit of chemotherapy and, if appropriate, antiestrogen therapy. Given when Somers had her cancer diagnosed (2000) and because I know that she had a stage I tumor, i entered data for her assuming a tumor between 1-2 cm in size, mainly because most tumors under 1 cm would not warrant adjuvant chemotherapy. Here is a blowup of the slide from my talk showing Somers' data:"

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/10/suzanne_somers_has_just_carpet_bombed_th.php


If your going to make a scientific claim that could potentially kill thousands of people if your wrong, scientifically prove it or shut up. Belief isn't proof and individual unscientific observations aren't proof.

How come somers isn't telling folks the facts about her own experience. Why in light of the fact she didn't need chemo is she claiming not only that she rejected the option but anyone within earshot of her voice should too, after they $buy$ her book of course.

More quackery for a buck. It must work well for her this is the second time she's used this type of anti science scheme to milk the public. Give it a couple years and she'll be touting some other unproven personal vanity theory as medical advice for everyone.

[MajorChode]

141. I was thinking the same thing about her treatment

Thanks for the additional info.

[Robyn66]

148. Thank you!

As a Breast Cancer survivor I couldn't have put it better myself!

[snooper2]

153. bravo post!

:hi:

[lib2DaBone]

144. She has written some very good books on ACOA - Adult Children of Alcoholics

http://www.adultchildren.org/

(snip)
Many of us found that we had several characteristics in common as a result of being brought up in an alcoholic or other dysfunctional households.

We had come to feel isolated, and uneasy with other people, especially authority figures. To protect ourselves, we became people pleasers, even though we lost our own identities in the process. All the same we would mistake any personal criticism as a threat.

We either became alcoholics ourselves, married them, or both. Failing that, we found other compulsive personalities, such as a workaholic, to fulfill our sick need for abandonment.

[MajorChode]

156. I think it's great that she has

She should be using her celebrity status to promote worthwhile subjects. However, this is not the first book she's written on quackery.

[Robyn66]

146. There will be people who will die because of her

When I had breast cancer and went to Dana Farber in Boston my doctors told me I needed chemotherapy to have a 90% chance of not have a reoccurance. That is all I needed to hear. I trust my doctors unconditionally. That is why I went to the best hospital. I was very fortunate to be able to do that.

I truely feel for the people who can't afford doctors who try these alternative quack methods just to try and do SOMETHING

[MajorChode]

152. I'm not so sure it's just people who can't afford doctors

These types of frauds are more than happy to take money from anyone. The head quack that Somers is touting charges a lot of money for his treatments. It's hard to imagine that someone would go to him because they couldn't afford conventional treatments. And the suggestion that some have offered that "alternative" treatments don't receiving funding is just asinine. The American Cancer Society funded the head quack that Somers wrote about for many years and only dropped him when he could never prove their effectiveness.

[Robyn66]

159. I'm sure you are right but I can't understand why anyone would do that

I will never forget that day in the doctors office sitting on that table, leaning against my husband and seeing the surgeon come through the door and almost casually say "its cancer"

Literally the first thought I had was I WANT TO HIT THIS WITH EVERYTHING POSSIBLE AS HARD AS POSSIBLE

So I don't understand people who don't feel that way.

[MajorChode]

160. I don't either, but I can understand how people are very vunerable in that situation

And I'm sure they feel that they are doing the best thing. That's why quacks are some of the most despicable people on this earth, and particularly those who sell cancer quackery.

[Robyn66]

162. It really breaks my heart.

Because one of the most terrifying words in the English language is CANCER! It is too too bad for people who make bad choices like that.

[Name removed]

155. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thelordofhell]

157. If marijuana was legal, chemo would be better to handle

[MajorChode]

161. Agreed. It's a godsend to chemo patients

[thelordofhell]

164. My great grandmother went through chemo

Her, my father, and me had little plants in our windows so she could get some relief and eat something. Laws be damned, I wanted my great grammy to live!! And she did for 15 more years without cancer, she passed in her sleep.....as should we all.

[InvisibleTouch]

168. I did not see the interview, but...

...it sounds like I would agree with her. I would never recommend chemo to a person with cancer. I've never seen it do anything other than harm.

Apparently her methods worked for her. Instead of dismissing them outright for arbitrary reasons ("she's had all that plastic surgery"), maybe people could stand to pay attention and learn.

[GoneOffShore]

171. sorry that this has dropped

Somers and her woo merchant friends really need to stop peddling death.

[ConnorMarc]

172. Lets Examine What Happens With Chemotherapy (and other similar treatments)

The basic premise of the procedure is to bombard the area or body with tons and tons and tons of radiation. I repeat...RADIATION. Essentially, or hopefully killing it....along with all your other healthy cells in your body. And hopefully you're lucky enough to survive it.

That's it.

Really now...how much sense does that make?

And so-called thinking people want to bash folks like Suzanne Somers and/or alternative medicine

Can someone pull up the survival numbers under these treatment?

With all the technology, science and brain-power attributed to medicine and such...there HAS to be a better solution than this.

Thats all I'm saying.

[ulysses]

187. RADIATION, I TELLS YA!

Really now...how much sense does that make?

I'm still here. It makes a lot of sense to me.

With all the technology, science and brain-power attributed to medicine and such...there HAS to be a better solution than this.

Why? It's been a hell of a lot worse in the not-so-distant past.

[mitchum]

174. When are the Landers sisters going to come out in favor of faith healing?

They can join their sisters of the dye bottle Somers and McCarthy in their anti-science crusades

[Lorien]

180. It's always about appearance, isn't it? nt

[mitchum]

183. Well, that's the only reason they have careers, isn't it?

[Lorien]

177. My doctor loves Suzanne Sommers and highly recommends her books

the books are filled with sound information with is supported by numerous university studies (check her footnotes). You should read one before you spout so much hatred and misogyny here on DU.

[ipaint]

181. Seeing one of the doctors (Blaylock) in her book on

Alex Jones Prison Planet show fills me confidence. :sarcasm:

As far as another one of her "cure cancer" doctor$ Gonzales-

Nicholas Gonzalez is a controversial doctor practicing in New York. He has been promoting for years a largely dietary treatment for cancer including an individualized organic diet, large amounts of supplements, and pancreatic enzymes. He is a case study in why we need rigorous science to decide which treatments are safe and effective, of the lure of quack claims, the power of bias, and the inadequacy of our current regulations.

Dr. Gonzalez has managed to have a thriving practice despite, in my opinion, violating the basic standard of care and medical ethics. He has done so partly by riding the wave of so-called “health care freedom” which confuses (I think deliberately) the public about the nature of standards in medicine.

The Gonzalez treatment, which is based on prior claims made by James Beard and William Kelley, lacks plausibility or basic science support. While you can find studies to show that an individual supplement may have some effect that potentially could have some clinical effect, you have to extrapolate wildly and recklessly from such information to clinical claims. Such information is at best a source of hypotheses – not treatments.

Dr. Gonzalez did publish a case series of his treatment for pancreatic cancer, which is a particularly deadly form of cancer with a 1 year survival of only 2%. He reports that in his case series of 11 patient their average survival with his treatment was 17.5 months. That is very impressive, if true. Proponents used this data to support the Gonzalez treatment and dismiss critics, while science-based physicians pointed out the fatal weaknesses of case reports – namely they are not controlled, and therefore are subject to a host of biases.

To resolve the dispute a prospective trial was planned, and the results of this trial have now finally been reported – four years after the trial was complete. Kimball Atwood gives a thorough discussion of the trial itself at Science-Based Medicine, so I won’t go into detail about the trial’s history. Suffice it to say it was controversial. There were significant ethical concerns about studying an implausible treatment with inadequate pre-clinical justification in a disease as serious as pancreatic cancer. Most curious and disturbing is, considering the results, the four year delay in making the results public. This is a scandal, in my opinion.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=883



These sites go in-depth into the bogus Gonzales trial that supposedly backs up his claims that 130-175 capsules (enzymes and nutrients) per day and regular coffee enemas is an effective alternative therapy for pancreatic cancer.

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=883

The Gonzalez protocol: Worse than useless for pancreatic cancer

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/09/the_gonzalez_protocol_worse_than_useless.php


Some of Somers past quackery-

"Oct. 31, 2006 - We have to admire Suzanne Somers's persistence. She doesn't give up--even when virtually the entire medical community is lined up against her. Three years ago, Somers wrote a best-selling book called "The Sexy Years" in which she promoted so-called bioidentical hormones as a more natural alternative to hormones produced by drug companies for menopausal women. Somers, now 60, claimed that these individually prepared doses of estrogen and other hormones, sold via the Internet or by compounding pharmacies, made her look and feel half her age. As the popularity of bioidenticals soared, major medical organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists grew so alarmed that they mounted publicity campaigns to convince Somers's readers that these alternative treatments, which are usually custom made for each patient, haven't been proven safe or more effective than traditional hormone therapy for symptoms like hot flashes.
Inside, she calls bioidenticals "the juice of youth" and also promotes the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) who thinks menopausal women should have as much estrogen in their bodies as 20-year-olds. Now, even some of the pro-bioidentical doctors Somers quotes in her books are screaming foul. "Many of the claims throughout the book are scientifically unproven and dangerous," three of these doctors assert in a letter sent a few weeks ago to Somers's publisher, Crown. "By mixing quotes from qualified physicians ... with those of a person with no medical or scientific background, this book will further confuse women and we believe, may potentially put their health at risk."

From the point of view of being a cancer surgeon, though, what really irritates me about this is that Somers reportedly had an estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, yet she's taking a lot of estrogen and advocating the same for postmenopausal women. Whether they are "bioidentical" or not, taking large amounts of estrogens after having been treated for an ER(+) breast cancer without the input of a medical oncologist is a very bad idea. A prior history of breast cancer is almost an absolute contraindication to HRT. Indeed, HRT is only used in menopausal women with breast cancer for the most severe and debilitating menopausal symptoms, only after all non-estrogen treatments have failed, and only then with a great deal of angst and trepidation on the part of the physicians prescribing it. Fortunately for Somers, assuming she had stage I breast cancer, without her chemotherapy she could expect a 90% chance of survival from surgery and radiation alone, as Dr. Moran and I have pointed out for breast cancer testimonials in general. Even if taking her "bioidentical" estrogen were to increase her chance of cancer recurrence by, say, 25%, it would still leave a nearly 2/3 chance that her cancer won't recur. Somers has very likely increased the odds of her breast cancer recurring, but it is still more likely than not that it won't. However, her hormone advocacy is nonetheless not without its price; Somers has had to undergo a hysterectomy for postmenopausal uterine bleeding, which was likely to have been a consequence of her prolonged ingestion of large doses of estrogens. My concern is that other women with breast cancer who may read Somers' book and follow her lead in taking "bioidentical" estrogen to "rejuvenate" themselves may not be so lucky in avoiding cancer recurrence.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/from_the_ridiculous_to_the_sublime_a_jou.php

[AngryAmish]

184. Alternative cures for cancer are the sole reason Steve McQueen is making fantastic movies to this da