Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 23
  1. aapold's Avatar
    Posts
    292 Posts
    Global Posts
    834 Global Posts
       #1  
  2. #2  
    Yep... might as well go back to smoke signals...

    Actually, that probably will do it too.... we're all screwed...
    If you like my Themes, please donate! Thanks!

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com

    http://wiseguyandbeyond.blogspot.com
  3. #3  
    Experts say cellphones are possibly carcinogenic

    By MARIA CHENG, AP Medical Writer 1 hr 11 mins ago

    LONDON An international panel of experts says cellphones are possibly carcinogenic to humans after reviewing details from dozens of published studies.

    The statement was issued in Lyon, France, on Tuesday by the International Agency for Research on Cancer after a weeklong meeting of experts. They reviewed possible links between cancer and the type of electromagnetic radiation found in cellphones, microwaves and radar.

    The agency is the cancer arm of the World Health Organization and the assessment now goes to WHO and national health agencies for possible guidance on cellphone use.

    The group classified cellphones in category 2B, meaning they are possibly carcinogenic to humans. Other substances in that category include the pesticide DDT and gasoline engine exhaust.
  4. #4  
    We've known for a long time that it's posibly true that maybe one could get cancer possibly from using a cell phone. Sometimes. Maybe.
  5. #5  
    My one teacher said woman get breast cancer because phones are in their purces/bras and guys get testicular because it's in our pockets.
  6. #6  
    hocus pokus bull !!!
    ĦṔ-Ḷṫ-Ŧḯη
    Here is a direct link to webOS Doc for all carriers
    http://www.webos-internals.org/wiki/...octor_Versions
    P.S. if i have helped you and you are thankful please hit the thanks button to the right---->
  7. #7  
    Well don't leave me in suspense... Who said it?
    thats right
    no no I mean who was the organization that said it?
    absolutely
    now you are getting me angry, look pal, are you going to tell me or not, I'll give you one last chance, do you know who said it or not?
    yes definitely I know for sure Who said it.
    who then?
    of course.
    arrrrghhhh
    who is a well respected scientific organization
    I dunno, enlighten me why dont ya?
    Who really knows what they are talking about.
    you starting to get philosophical on me, wise guy?
    I'm being serious now.
    believe me, so am I
    who knew it was possible to get cancer from a cell phone
    Dr Phil?
    No I am telling you who
    ok great tell me
    Who thinks you should not put your cell phone in your pocket or next to your ear
    look pal, maybe thats good advice, but are you finally going to tell me who said this?
    I just did

    .

    .

    .

    (all joking aside, I am taking WHO seriously on this issue. I am not keeping my cell phone in my pocket anymore and am using a wired head set as much as possible rather than putting the phone next to my head)
  8. aapold's Avatar
    Posts
    292 Posts
    Global Posts
    834 Global Posts
       #8  

    That's Doctor WHO to you
  9. #9  
    Let me put it this way. Drinking water, breathing, eating food of any kind, talking on your phone, watching TV, and living cause cancer. You can live and risk cancer or kill yourself and never get cancer. Your choice. Lol.
  10. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #10  
    The little boy WHO cried wolf... and SARS... and avian flu... and swine flu...
  11. #11  
    Crying wolf? Swine flu caused killed 17,000 people worldwide before it was finally contained.
  12. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #12  
    How many people does the regular seasonal flu kill?
  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    How many people does the regular seasonal flu kill?
    If you look across the board at all the flu virus strains, the H1N1 (swine flu strain) is by far the most deadly. While this current H1N1 pandemic only killed 18,000, the last H1N1 pandemic (Spanish Flu) killed 50 million. Thats 25-50 times times the pandemic death toll of other strains like H2N2, or H3N3.

    Influenza pandemic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Personally, I am glad, not irritated, that the WHO took the very aggressive measures it did on controlling swine flu, because it had not, the previous epidemiology of this virus would have predicted far more deaths worldwide.
  14. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #14  
    So maybe you can help me understand this then. If H1N1 was so deadly then why was the 2009 flu season, the season in which the new strain of H1N1 hit hardest, only half as deadly as the normal flu season? And why did JAMA publish an article claiming this H1N1 was half as likely to cause hospitalizations among children and adults?

    http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/304...0-427185a375a0
  15. aapold's Avatar
    Posts
    292 Posts
    Global Posts
    834 Global Posts
       #15  
    My best friend died from Swine Flu two years ago. He was 41, in terrific shape, and had everything going for him. It was very quick... from not showing up for a friday gathering, to a text message a few days later saying he was sick with what they thought was "double pneumonia" and not sure when it would be ok, to getting a message from his family that his lung collapsed and finally that he passed away, in a span of less than two weeks.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by aapold View Post
    My best friend died from Swine Flu two years ago. He was 41, in terrific shape, and had everything going for him. It was very quick... from not showing up for a friday gathering, to a text message a few days later saying he was sick with what they thought was "double pneumonia" and not sure when it would be ok, to getting a message from his family that his lung collapsed and finally that he passed away, in a span of less than two weeks.
    I'm really sorry for your loss aapold!
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    So maybe you can help me understand this then. If H1N1 was so deadly then why was the 2009 flu season, the season in which the new strain of H1N1 hit hardest, only half as deadly as the normal flu season? And why did JAMA publish an article claiming this H1N1 was half as likely to cause hospitalizations among children and adults?

    Clinical Characteristics and 30-Day Outcomes for Influenza A 2009 (H1N1), 2008-2009 (H1N1), and 2007-2008 (H3N2) Infections, September 8, 2010, Belongia et al. 304 (10): 1091 €” JAMA
    The rate of hospitalization is not what we were talking about, but rather mortality, and while both seasonal and pandemic HiNi cal kill, there is evidence that the pandemic is more deadly and also kills at an earlier age than the seasonal variant. Which is consistent with aapold's friend's tragic experience. here are a couple references which back that up. But I agree with you that both the seasonal and pandemic H1N1 are serious diseases.

    Preliminary Estimates of Mortality and Years of Li... [PLoS Curr. 2010] - PubMed result
    Complications and Outcomes of Pandemic 2009 Influe... [J Infect Dis. 2011] - PubMed result

    But thats only part of the problem. The main difference between the seasonal and swine flu was the fact that it was a pandemic strain, with the potential for rapid worldwide spread. Like I said, the last pandemic H1N1 outbreak killed 50 million people, and thats a conservative estimate. Even so, many have called it the worst medical holocost ever, surpassing the number of people killed by the black plague in europe (as mentioned in the reference of my last post). Given that history, can you blame the WHO for taking aggressive measures to control the spread this time around?

    Personally I am thankful for what they did, and feel that they helped keep the spread from getting worse. Also, I think that they created a greater awareness and agressiveness in diagnosing these cases as well as anti-viral and supportive treatments. I am sure that this helped both the pandemic and seasonal variants of this disease. But I sense in you a lingering bitterness at them for doing that? If thats true, why?
  18. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #18  
    Even talking about mortality, the study in JAMA concludes:

    In this population, individuals with 2009 H1N1 infection were younger than those with H3N2. The risk of most serious complications was not elevated in adults or children with 2009 H1N1 compared with recent seasonal strains.
    The Spanish flu was a century ago. I would venture to say that health care in the poorest of countries has vastly improved over the last century. Don't you think? I appreciate that we can never be sure that we're fully prepared for the next pandemic, but at some point the Spanish flu pig won't fly anymore. Anyway, wasn't the claim about H5N1 that it could produce strains that are worse than H1N1? We heard an H5N1 outbreak would kill millions, maybe over a hundred million people. And that was just a few years ago. Why was H1N1 then so much more of a risk? Why are the estimates always wildly inflated? At what point in your mind do they lose credibility? At what point do we ask whether these claims are politically and/or economically motivated?
  19. #19  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    I appreciate that we can never be sure that we're fully prepared for the next pandemic, but at some point the Spanish flu pig won't fly anymore. Anyway, wasn't the claim about H5N1 that it could produce strains that are worse than H1N1? We heard an H5N1 outbreak would kill millions, maybe over a hundred million people. And that was just a few years ago. Why was H1N1 then so much more of a risk? Why are the estimates always wildly inflated?
    I've been looking at the WHO information page on H5N1 and don't see the speculations that you attribute to the WHO there. Their recommendations seem pretty straightforward to me:WHO | Avian influenza

    But I appreciate that you took the time and effort to provide good references from a reputable journal like JAMA, and I certainly take heed in the findings. And reading your reference, which is at odds with my references, also in reputable journals, I am more convinced now that the differences in lethality between the seasonal and the pandemic forms of H1N1 are not that significant, but rather each virus is potentially lethal in nature. But this does nothing to diminish how the increased transmissibility of the pandemic form makes it so much more potentially dangerous.

    You bring up how the last pandemic with H1N1 the Spanish flu, was 100 years ago and imply things have changed since that catastrophic epidemic occurred. Well things have changed. The most important being that back in 1920, you couldn't just step onto an airplane and in a matter of a few hours spread a pandemic flu strain from one continent to the next, they did not have air travel back then. What hasn't changed? Well aapold's friend's tragic experience reminds us that since 1920, we still have not developed a cure, and young healthy people can still rapidly die from viral infections, despite being in the best intensive care our modern age has to offer.

    So without a cure and the potential for even easier spread of a lethal pandemic disease, this just makes organizations like WHO even more valuable, if you ask me. I'm not a viral expert but let me give you an analogy on work I do with another lethal disease (cancer) which might help you better understand why I think WHO is on the right track with viral pandemics:

    When I am trying to diagnose a cancer, say a melanoma, I realize that if I miss the diagnosis, then its a good chance the patient will die, a very good chance. For that reason, I am perfectly satisfied to over-diagnose a mole that has any suspicious features at all, and to biopsy it. Sure it costs a lot more money initially to do this, and its a bit painful for the patients, but in the overall scheme of things, its worth it. So instead of having an 80% accuracy rate on what I biopsy and send to pathology, like with most of my putative diagnoses, I only have about a 10% accuracy rate when I send in a melanoma. And I am proud of the fact that I am making 9 mistakes for every right diagnosis when I am trying to find a melanoma. Thats because the overall cost is so high if I fail to catch the melanoma. I think any doctor who has a higher rate than that for melanoma is not doing their job correctly.

    In the same way, I am happy that CDC or WHO makes mistakes when they overpredict the possible severity of an outbreak. If they make a mistake 9 times out of ten, thats not so bad in my opinion, because you don't want to take a chance of missing something that could be catastrophic.

    And who catches the fallout if we are not cautious enough? Literally it is organizations like WHO and the CDC, not the outspoken opponents like you. If we had a huge pandemic and you or some other pundit was wrong, you guys would just fade into the woodwork and move on to criticize something else, while everyone in the world suffers from a tragedy they were led to believe was not going to happen. I think therefore that there is a difference in accountability and responsibility that makes it easy to criticize an organization, without having to assume the blame if you are wrong. WHO and other centers like the CDC unfortunately do not share that luxury.
  20. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #20  
    I believe this is the article I was thinking of: PRESS CONFERENCE BY UN SYSTEM SENIOR COORDINATOR FOR AVIAN, HUMAN INFLUENZA

    In reading up on this, the WHO did back off from those statements but even the numbers they provided later were very high. Are those numbers possible? Honestly, I don't know. What I do know is they have somewhat of a record of what seems like over-estimation followed by a continual revision of the numbers downward to more closely reflect what's already happened (after the money has been spent, of course).

    Believe me, I very much appreciate the work you do but I don't think it's completely analogous in this case. It's important to tell people the risks melanoma poses and how to spot suspicious moles. It's also important to tell them what their risk factors are and how to reduce their own risks. It's even important to be overcautious when diagnosing and treating melanomas.

    What isn't important, or even advisable, is to scare people with exaggerated claims about their risks. It isn't advisable because health care costs. It costs individuals. Not just money but time and emotional stress. Further, it isn't advisable because people look to medical professionals for real answers, not scare tactics. If they continually get scare tactics, they let their guard down, often to below what would otherwise have been appropriate had they been given better information. If anyone is, as you say, suffering from a "tragedy they were led to believe was not going to happen", isn't it possible they will be led to believe this because of false past predictions. Lot's of people truly believe in Harold Camping before May 22; not so many now.

    Now imagine how a person would feel if they learned they were being over-treated so that their doctor had more financial resources to provide for charity cases. Case in point, what did Canada do with their excess H1N1 vaccines? Not saying that's definitely what's going on but the statements made by the WHO make me wonder.

    I'm sorry that you have the impression I live to criticize. I didn't even mean to give the impression that I don't think there's a need for organizations like the WHO or that they do good work. I don't believe I said that at all. But I do see a trend of "crying wolf" and I also see political activism that makes me distrusting of why they're crying wolf.

    On a side note, I wish my dermatologist had the work ethic and professional integrity you appear to.
    Last edited by groovy; 06/04/2011 at 12:35 AM.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions