Recent Comments:
Children of smokers at higher risk of stroke and heart attack
The Cardio Blog
Mar 8th 2007 7:10PM Thanks, Fred. I appreciate your kind words and the fact that you are checking in.
Dissention in the beta carotene ranks
The Cancer Blog
Dec 7th 2006 10:15PM Jim,
Thanks for your comments. Regarding the smoking/beta-carotene link, I re-read my post after viewing your comment. You're absolutely right, this connection has been known for a long time, just not by me. So, I apologize for my type-o, but what I meant was that this particular connection was new information To Me. However, the discovery of the lack beta carotene possibly being ineffective as a cancer fighter is new to, as far as I know, everyone.
Again, sorry for the confusion and thanks for pointing that out.
-Chris
Pink boxing gloves strike again
The Cancer Blog
Nov 29th 2006 3:33PM Sheree,
Sounds like a great thing you have going on. I'll check out the website right after I post this!!
MRI mammograms
The Cancer Blog
Sep 11th 2006 6:47PM Michelle,
Thanks for posting the link. And, I have to say that I do agree with you, I should have linked back to the article, but for whatever reason I didn't.
As for the 280% vs. 280 times, yes, there's definitely a difference. My bad on that. But, be it 280% or 280 times more effective, the point remains -- and that is to demonstrate the efficacy of MRI mammograms. Still, I stand corrected and appreciate you pointing that out.
MRI mammograms
The Cancer Blog
Sep 11th 2006 2:17PM Em,
The information on the Kentucky Study Came from a reputable medical news feed -- I'll leave it at that. In the information that I READ (pay close attention to that word), the figure of 280 is what was promulgated by the researchers. Like I said to you before, I am not simply making this information up. I am relying on the information put forth by medical journals, research studies, etc. That all being said, this is not MY information. So, if the numbers do not "add up," or something seems a bit suspect, then who do you think is responsible for that incorrect and/or questionable data? The person who published the results of the study or the person who published a blog post on those results?
So, on a going forward basis, if you think something doesn't feel or sound right, by all means do your own investigation into the data. I actually encourage you to do so. But, as you do, know that you will eventually come across my source(s). And, upon reading the extent to which the researchers went to obtain that data, you will realize that they too don't just make this stuff up.
Does that all add up for you now?
MRI mammograms
The Cancer Blog
Sep 8th 2006 2:40PM Michelle -- thanks for correcting my typo. I meant to write that Medicare DOES cover MRI mammograms, but only certain insurance companies do.
Em -- The 280 came from doctors at the University of Kansas. This was their figure. I'm not just making this stuff up, you know. Regarding your biobpsy comment, you're correct, it does require stabbing someone "in the flesh." I just don't see what your point is (but I somehow get the feeling that you'll tell me).
