Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Gold Price Monitor -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: long-gone who wrote (82183)	2/17/2002 12:27:40 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116805

Generations have witnessed the rise in breast cancer among young and old to epidemic proportions. It is a national emergency. I don't recall its urgency in the 1920's when people were living quite long enough. I believe they had doctors then who could diagnose it. What you are talking about is a statistical certainty about a cause. We know a statistical increase has a modern cause. The only quesion is what is it? There is an increase in occurrence amongst people 40 to 60. Not just a death rate due to people who have lived a long, long time. When you know you can talk. It has a cause. Do you know what it is? Is it really multi-variant? Do you know how you would investigate this over a 20 year period? You need a control group. Do you know where to get one, where ALL other things are equal? One thing I do know is that the test of scientific method is taught in psychology, strangely enough, and sociology. But not in science! Statistical validity is the province of these so called non-sciences. Too bad. I have the odd course in this branch of lies, so having to judge the validity of studies for marks I became keenly aware of what people know from numbers and what is so much blather. PhD or nay. They don't scare me. When you can talk, you will know. EC<:-}

To: long-gone who wrote (82183)	2/17/2002 1:39:55 AM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116805

We say that when we speak of many cures the disease is hopeless. By the same mark, when we speak of many causes, we know not the one true source of it. Multi-variant environmental cause is an excuse for we don't know. If the environment of today is the cause of something amiss in our system then we must patch the ozone layer, reduce stress, stop birth control, stop eating so much meat, increase fibre, get more excercise, avoid petroleum products, drink natural water, live in the country, wear sun block, avoid radio waves, get less sleep and strengthen the immune system with injections of some kind of thing. Or die. There is something wrong in the many causes, multi-variant symphony. It is an escape into a muddle. A cover story to confuse. Smoke causes lung cancer. Simple. It's environmental. But the environment is out of whack extremely here. It's easy to see. Even in Shakespeares time they theorized smoking could cause cancer and heart disease. They thought it was responsible for many ailments. I guess there is really nothing new under the sun. What could be cause of a cancer in a sexual organ? Could it be related to the reduced sex drive and fertility of the male, a similar curve? Could what causes the one, cause the other? It's no good to say the natural environment is causing cancer amongst the predisposed because - what is a natural environment? And how suddenly did we breed this melange of so many women predisposed, in a few generations, if it is only genetics the cause? The organism has selected suicide it would seem. Hardly good evolution. My prejudice is for the more complex environment being the cause. Or, parts of that new complex environment being long term insidious and deleterious to human health, much like smoking is. It finally gets you, despite the body's many defenses. The most likely suspect for a slow out of control cell mechanism, is a weakened immune system and a long lived substance of a foreign nature, in intimate contact, irritating the system, like smoke or silica in the lung. The most likely suspect is a bad poison that should not be there in a finely tuned delicately balanced sexual drive system, which normally operates in the parts per trillion. Here is a substance, estrogen-like in the parts per billion at the least, that is totally foreign to the body, and it never breaks down or is flushed because of its resemblance to the natural hormone. Allergies, Immune system attack? Why not? EC<:-}