I was referring to the mammograms Frank. That is the industry's means of prevention - a regimen of blasting ones self with radiation every other year. So how is it not a recruitment tool? Its a viscous cycle of madness.

I haven't had an Xray since I was a kid. None for the fam either and I will continue to avoid them. No annuals. I don't need a doc to tell me to quit drinking coke to lower my triglycerides.



'Imposing their beliefs'?? I'm not even sure what that means outside of politically correct logical fallacies. How does one 'impose their belief on others? Is that the same as having an opinion?



C'mon Frank - you know how the routine goes. For pete's sake our family doc dumped us because we refused to give our kids the MMR vaccine. Start straying from accepted procedure and things get a lot more difficult. I'm good friends with docs in the big managed care facilities. It's a bottom line business orientation. An assembly line of 'care' - what a laugh. That's what they tell me. (now before my statement is taken out of context - of course this doesn't apply to every facility/doc/system)



Does anyone claim smoking dope or sniffing glue 'cures' cancer?



No argument there. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />



BUT THAT WASN'T MY POINT!! :wall head bang: My point was less people doing routine mammograms at an earlier age is a good thing in the opinion of many medical professionals - not just me.

But it doesn't have to be that way. And it certainly isn't about cost. Eastern Bloc and less medically 'advanced countries are the ones that defer to thermography and incidentally have lower death and incidence rates. Which is why its undoubtedly a question of material interests vs morality, which is why, in my opinion, it is quite appropriate to call our prevention methods a form of soft eugenics.



Again that's not what I said. I said mammography - blasting one's self with radiation, is an ill conceived idea of prevention.



I don't have to. There are plenty of people (and some I know personally) that refuse chemo and beat cancer just fine - if they aren't swat teamed by the medical dictatorship. (If that isn't imposing one's beliefs I don't know what is)



The big 'Race for the Cure' non profit channels its funds back to the drug companies for R&D on treatment - not causes.

Yes Rueben - I am a troll. I've never owned a Montero, and have been a member of this board since 02 with the sole purpose of arguing with you.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

Is this not a fine coincidence? <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Some good points Phil, and that is what that article I read had to say as well. I basically have decided not get any testing done, unless I'm experiencing problems of some sort.

Yes, but you need to be a bit more specific when you use the "early detection" umbrella, since it also includes the self exam.



I won't attempt to argue the risk/reward of that, since there are 2 opinions - which should leave the choice to the patient and her physician.



I'm reminded of my father-in-law - a physician - who once told me that "any doctor who practices medicine on himself has a fool for a patient". I would imagine the same should apply to folks who aren't doctors, only perhaps more so..... but then, there is that idea of personal choice, so do what you think's right for you.



If you think that the medical testing industry has promoted mammograms for purely capitalistic reasons, do you not link the latest recommendation with a drive to reform healthcare so insurance rates can be lowered in order to provide more immediate care to a greater number of people for the (supposed) same overall cost?



Maybe your doctor was trying to tell you something...... did you get another opinion from a qualified person? Or were you convinced that the vaccine causes autism.... by your own "research"?



No, and neither do they claim that mammograms "cure" breast cancer.... they can detect it, though. A lot of things are suspected of being cancer causitives, but some have not been proved - only suspected. As always, there a risk/reward ratio that should be considered.



Now, that may be true...... or not..... so let's just leave it there. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/cheers.gif" alt="" />

I have a feeling my friend is going to be dead at 40 because he works on a military base painting with CARC (chemical agent resistive coating) When I was still employed there the weekly paper had 1 painter every few editions usually young and very sudden. I can only imagine with this obama care how he might have to deal with the new standard of putting off any real tests because he is too young to qualify. Harmful or not Bret, sometimes its worth the little extra piece of mind when you cant feel for it. Rad poisoning isn't a 100% guarentee of cancer either. I mean I know guys in their 70s who all they do is demill ancient tech that gave off radiation like old night vision. These guys wear the minimal protection too. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/baby.gif" alt="" />

Sounds like your young friend needs a copy of every MSDS of every product they use in his back pocket for insurance reasons, esp if it only disables and doesn't kill him. That's whistleblower stuff there, esp if the employer isn't providing adequate PPE.

<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> Come on Phil, admit you got a laugh out of that <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />



Do you think we should have intervened if this mother fed this boy hot dog sh!t 3 times a day?

'little apparent basis' ...against the genocidal 'no comment' consensus

...I'm just sayin.