OT: Angelina's Double Mastectomy

[popinjay999]

I can't believe this, she had both breasts removed, and she didn't
even have cancer! She had some friggin gene, that they said MIGHT
lead to cancer. What a bunch of crap, and it's so sad that so many
people believe every word from the quacks in the medical
establishment. This is both tragic, and criminal.

She should have got a second opinion. And a third, and a fourth, etc.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:7bb0a984-8814-4153...@g5g2000pbp.googlegroups.com...

> I can't believe this, she had both breasts removed, and she didn't
> even have cancer! She had some friggin gene, that they said MIGHT
> lead to cancer. What a bunch of crap, and it's so sad that so many
> people believe every word from the quacks in the medical

> establishment...

You sure say some stupid shit.

Jim

[popinjay999]

On May 14, 11:30 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

She had both breasts removed, and SHE WASN'T EVEN SICK! That's crazy.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:70ecbcd0-65e3-45c9...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups.com...

From someone who thinks they know how to play odds, that's some really
stupid shit.

Jim

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 15 May 2013 06:51:35 +0000 (UTC), Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:

>popinjay999 <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>news:70ecbcd0-65e3-45c9...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups
>.com:

>I heard she had an 80% chance of getting cancer, but now has a 5%
>chance. She now has the odds on her side.

She had the odds on her side but nothing on her front. Or one might
say her front is odd.
--

Pepe Papon

[Clave]

"Vince" <vi...@hush.ai> wrote in message
news:XnsA1C0F2...@94.75.214.39...

> popinjay999 <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:70ecbcd0-65e3-45c9...@k8g2000pbf.googlegroups
> .com:
>

> I heard she had an 80% chance of getting cancer...

87% by her own account. It killed her mother not that long ago.

Jim

[da pickle]

You really say some stupid shit sometimes.


On April 27, I finished the three months of medical procedures that the
mastectomies involved. During that time I have been able to keep this
private and to carry on with my work.

But I am writing about it now because I hope that other women can
benefit from my experience. Cancer is still a word that strikes fear
into people’s hearts, producing a deep sense of powerlessness. But today
it is possible to find out through a blood test whether you are highly
susceptible to breast and ovarian cancer, and then take action.

My own process began on Feb. 2 with a procedure known as a “nipple
delay,” which rules out disease in the breast ducts behind the nipple
and draws extra blood flow to the area. This causes some pain and a lot
of bruising, but it increases the chance of saving the nipple.

Two weeks later I had the major surgery, where the breast tissue is
removed and temporary fillers are put in place. The operation can take
eight hours. You wake up with drain tubes and expanders in your breasts.
It does feel like a scene out of a science-fiction film. But days after
surgery you can be back to a normal life.

Nine weeks later, the final surgery is completed with the reconstruction
of the breasts with an implant. There have been many advances in this
procedure in the last few years, and the results can be beautiful.

[popinjay999]

On May 14, 11:44 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> From someone who thinks they know how to play odds, that's some really
> stupid shit.
>
> Jim

Yeah, right, cut and burn, cut and burn, 85%, whatever the doctors
say. You are the one saying some stupid shit, this is INSANE! It's
our DIET, stupid!

In 1991, 215 per 100,000 Americans died of cancer. In 1900, it was 64
per 100,000. In the 1800s, even less. It's a disease of our modern
establishment.

[popinjay999]

On May 14, 11:51 pm, Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:

>
> I heard she had an 80% chance of getting cancer, but now has a 5%
> chance. She now has the odds on her side.

What a bunch of crap. Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Cancer
Society, they will NEVER cure cancer. They don't want it cured.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 15 2013 5:46 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> > I heard she had an 80% chance of getting cancer, but now has a 5%
> > chance. She now has the odds on her side.
>
> What a bunch of crap. Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Cancer
> Society, they will NEVER cure cancer. They don't want it cured.

80% chance of cancer WHEN? you've got a 100% chance of cancer by the age
of 100. so what?

never, ever get optional surgery ... EVER.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

Jesus Christ, they weren't your tits, get over it, Dr. Clown.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 15 2013 6:59 AM, fffurken wrote:

> Jesus Christ, they weren't your tits, get over it, Dr. Clown.

she can have her head surgically removed for all i care. so can you!

mo_ntresor

[Mossingen]

"mo_ntresor" wrote in message news:q9ac6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

___________________________________


That's kind of what I was thinking. Seems like she would have got cancer
already if she was going to get it. Of course, I'm sure that she thought of
that before making the decision, and she sure made a tough one, but I don't
think there are circumstances where I would have done that if I was
otherwise healthy.

[risky biz]

Looks like I'm going to have to read that story after all.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:4f4e75ea-1b66-4883...@vx13g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> On May 14, 11:44 pm, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> From someone who thinks they know how to play odds, that's some really
>> stupid shit.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Yeah, right, cut and burn, cut and burn, 85%, whatever the doctors
> say. You are the one saying some stupid shit, this is INSANE! It's
> our DIET, stupid!

Diet gave her a defective set of genes?

You sure find some creative ways to be stupid.

Jim

[johnny_t]

On 5/15/13 4:43 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> In 1991, 215 per 100,000 Americans died of cancer. In 1900, it was 64
> per 100,000. In the 1800s, even less. It's a disease of our modern
> establishment.
>

Or it could be we are simply living long enough to get cancer compared
to 1900. 48.3 years 1900 for a woman, Well over 80 years today for a
woman.

[johnny_t]

On 5/15/13 4:46 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> What a bunch of crap. Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Cancer
> Society, they will NEVER cure cancer. They don't want it cured.
>

What a bullshit line of argument. All research in all fields would
never succeed because you know, nobody ever wants success just the
status quo. Cuz that is where the money is. LOL.

[johnny_t]

On 5/15/13 8:46 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> That's kind of what I was thinking. Seems like she would have got
> cancer already if she was going to get it. Of course, I'm sure that she
> thought of that before making the decision, and she sure made a tough
> one, but I don't think there are circumstances where I would have done
> that if I was otherwise healthy.

Breast cancer doesn't kill you. Metastasizion is what kills you.
Depending on the kind you get and how aggressive it is, that keeping at
zero for as long as you can, adds years to your life. In her case she
spent a bunch of money to keep her "Tits" as much as possible visually,
and has to spend much less time dealing with the horror of cancer
treatment and management, that may not provide decent results. So
longer life, higher quality of life compared to the relatively high risk
of a shorter lesser quality of life.

[Clave]

"johnny_t" <nobo...@home.com> wrote in message
news:5193c43a$0$13581$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com...

That's it, of course. She'd have spent the rest of her life getting exams
as frequently as was practical, living in fear of the day it was discovered,
and the possibility of not having caught it soon enough.

Jim

[Bea Foroni]

The difference of life expectancy of a 40 year old women in 1900 was to live to about 70. Today a women at age 40 can expect to live to be about 80.

Taking a look at those last, additional 10 years is not all that comforting. Incontinence, poverty, crime victim, increasing dementia, and finally a couple years in a nursing home.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 10:50 am, Bea Foroni <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  Taking a look at those last, additional 10 years is not all that comforting. Incontinence, poverty, crime victim, increasing dementia, and finally a couple years in a nursing home.

Maybe you have the dementia gene, Bea, and you'll have that when you
get older. I recommend that you just cut your fucking off now.

But get a second opinion.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 10:03 am, johnny_t <nobod...@home.com> wrote:

>
> Or it could be we are simply living long enough to get cancer compared
> to 1900.

Or not.

I don't know why I even bothered to click your post.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 9:58 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:

>
> Diet gave her a defective set of genes?
>
> You sure find some creative ways to be stupid.
>
> Jim

Not as stupid as someone who thinks a fucking gene causes cancer.

Tell me something, Einstein, why do incidents of cancer not occur in
wild animals but once they are domesticated they get it just like we
do?

[Bea Foroni]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:42:18 AM UTC-7, popinjay999 wrote:

>
> Tell me something, Einstein, why do incidents of cancer not occur in
>
> wild animals but once they are domesticated they get it just like we
>
> do?

You're so easy.

The lifespan of feral cats is hard to determine accurately, although one study reported a median age of 4.7 years, with a range between 0 and 8.3 years,[7] while another paper referenced a mean life span of 2–8 years.[8] By contrast, in captivity, an average life expectancy for male indoor cats at birth is 12 to 14 years,[9] with females usually living a year or two longer.

Look it up on Wiki.

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:d5ab8c78-2d90-4347...@a15g2000pbu.googlegroups.com...

> On May 15, 9:58 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Diet gave her a defective set of genes?
>>
>> You sure find some creative ways to be stupid.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
> Not as stupid as someone who thinks a fucking gene causes cancer.

Where did I say that, dickbag?

Jim

[Bea Foroni]

On Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:42:18 AM UTC-7, popinjay999 wrote:

>
>

> Tell me something, Einstein, why do incidents of cancer not occur in
>
> wild animals but once they are domesticated they get it just like we
>
> do?

Cancer accounts for about 10 percent of all human deaths. If you think that sets us apart, scientists have news for you: Wild animals die of cancer at about the same rate, and it threatens some species with extinction.

"Cancer is one of the leading health concerns for humans," Dr. Denise McAloose, a pathologist for the Wildlife Conservation Society, said in a statement. "But we now understand that cancer can kill wild animals at similar rates."

You can read the rest at http://www.livescience.com/9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.html

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 11:54 am, Bea Foroni <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>  You can read the rest athttp://www.livescience.com/9680-cancer-kills-wild-animals.html

"Contagious cancer" among Tasmanian Devils? First it's a gene, now
it's a germ. A cancer germ. lol Get the fuck outta here.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 11:47 am, Bea Foroni <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> The lifespan of feral cats is hard to determine accurately, although one study reported a median age of 4.7 years, with a range between 0 and 8.3 years,[7] while another paper referenced a mean life span of 2–8 years.[8] By contrast, in captivity, an average life expectancy for male indoor cats at birth is 12 to 14 years,[9] with females usually living a year or two longer.
>

Feral cats are no more wild than these homeless assholes blocking the
sidewalks with their cardboard and shit. What about mountain lions,
numbnuts, that don't come in contact with man, and EAT what they were
intended to eat, other animals, animals that feed on wild grass, which
has nitrilosides.

[Bea Foroni]

Some cancers are genetic, some are viral, and some are indeed environmental. Just because they have the same name, doesn't mean they all started the same way.

People who have HPV (look it up) have a much greater chance of getting cancer, specifically cervical cancer.

Hepatitis puts you at a greater risk of getting liver cancer.

Here is an article about oncoviruses that will have you running to a doctor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oncovirus

[VegasJerry]

Yea, ignore the doctors and scientists and listen to Popinjay. He still thinks the scientists are wrong about global warming. (And a conspiracy during 911). And he's allowed to vote!.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 12:33 pm, VegasJerry <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:

> Yea, ignore the doctors and scientists and listen to Popinjay. He still thinks the scientists are wrong about global warming. (And a conspiracy during 911). And he's allowed to vote!.

Jerry read the article about genes causing cancer and wondered if
Dockers is part of the problem.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 15 2013 1:43 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> Jerry read the article about genes causing cancer and wondered if
> Dockers is part of the problem.

jerry wonders how his pants don't fall down.

mo_ntresor

[Tim Norfolk]

Because wild animals do get cancer?

[Tim Norfolk]

Yes. There are some cancers which are caused by a gene which reacts with RNA
transfer from a virus to cause cancer. My friend had rib cancer as a child,
and transmitted both the gene and virus to one daughter, who also got the
same cancer.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 2:22 pm, Tim Norfolk <timsn...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> Yes. There are some cancers which are caused by a gene which reacts with RNA
> transfer from a virus to cause cancer. My friend had rib cancer as a child,
> and transmitted both the gene and virus to one daughter, who also got the
> same cancer.

It's interesting, Tim, that both you and Johnny have been absent from
RGP recently and it took a thread about a double mastectomy to get you
guys to post. Because you're both a couple of boobs.

[Hollis2]

On May 15 2013 7:46 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> On May 14, 11:51�pm, Vince <vi...@hush.ai> wrote:
>
> >
> > I heard she had an 80% chance of getting cancer, but now has a 5%
> > chance. She now has the odds on her side.
>
>

> What a bunch of crap. Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Cancer
> Society, they will NEVER cure cancer. They don't want it cured.

Then how do you explain the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer,
which is the fourth most likely cancer for women. The vaccine, which was
introduced in 2007, will eventually make cervical cancer a very rare
disease. The company that developed the vaccine will make a fortune
before the patent expires.

There's not a pharmaceutical company in the world that wouldn't like to
find a drug to cure one cancer or the other. Only a complete fool would
think otherwise. But then again, it's very common for people who believe
in one consperiacy to believe in other conspiracies. Faulty thinking
isn't isolated to one area.

[popinjay999]

On May 15, 6:08 pm, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> There's not a pharmaceutical company in the world that wouldn't like to
> find a drug to cure one cancer or the other.  Only a complete fool would
> think otherwise.  But then again, it's very common for people who believe
> in one consperiacy to believe in other conspiracies.  Faulty thinking
> isn't isolated to one area.

That's just it, fuckface, they want to cure it if they can make
billions off the "cure". But a simple preventative that might be
found in the produce section that costs 3 for a dollar, they will
throw all their weight behind discrediting it.

Anyway, go fuck yourself, Hollis.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 15 2013 7:08 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> > What a bunch of crap. Big Pharma, the AMA, the American Cancer
> > Society, they will NEVER cure cancer. They don't want it cured.
>
> Then how do you explain the development of a vaccine for cervical cancer,
> which is the fourth most likely cancer for women. The vaccine, which was
> introduced in 2007, will eventually make cervical cancer a very rare
> disease. The company that developed the vaccine will make a fortune
> before the patent expires.
>
> There's not a pharmaceutical company in the world that wouldn't like to
> find a drug to cure one cancer or the other. Only a complete fool would
> think otherwise. But then again, it's very common for people who believe
> in one consperiacy to believe in other conspiracies. Faulty thinking
> isn't isolated to one area.

there is no vaccine for cervical cancer.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 4:39 am, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

No doubt in my mind that "Hollis" is not a day over 23 years old.
Barely potty-trained.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 16 2013 11:20 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> > there is no vaccine for cervical cancer.
>

> No doubt in my mind that "Hollis" is not a day over 23 years old.
> Barely potty-trained.

not sure how old he is, but he's clearly wrong. he'll argue of course ...
paploma etc. ... but no amount of arguing will make him right. risky's
doing the same in another thread -- clinton ran a budget surplus (LOL).
all i can do is highlight reality; i can't make religious nuts abandon
their fantasies.

mo_ntresor

[Clave]

"mo_ntresor" <amontillad...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:g4te6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

He obviously meant HPV, you stupid fuck.

Jim

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:1b066814-4330-4418...@fz1g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

> No doubt in my mind that "Hollis" is not a day over 23 years old.
> Barely potty-trained.

Another drooling fuckhead who can't suss out the blitheringly obvious -- he
clearly meant HPV, dumbass. Everything else is true, especially your
passion for tinfoil-hat causes.

Jim

[Hollis2]

The reason that these "home remedies" that cure cancer are discredited is
because they don't work. Desperate people will often grab hold of
anything in the hope to stay alive. Unfortunately, there are many
unscrupulous people around to take advantage of them.

The idea that there is a cure for cancer that is being hidden by the
pharmaceutical industry is preposterous.

> Anyway, go fuck yourself, Hollis.

No need to be rude.

[Hollis2]

Don't be silly, of course there is. Unless you know something that the
mayo Clinic doesn't.

"Two cervical cancer vaccines have Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approval in the U.S. — Gardasil and Cervarix. Both vaccines can prevent
most cases of cervical cancer if given before a girl or woman is exposed
to the virus."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO00120

[mo_ntresor]

On May 16 2013 12:36 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> Don't be silly, of course there is. Unless you know something that the
> mayo Clinic doesn't.
>
> "Two cervical cancer vaccines have Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
> approval in the U.S. � Gardasil and Cervarix. Both vaccines can prevent
> most cases of cervical cancer if given before a girl or woman is exposed
> to the virus."
>
> http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer-vaccine/WO00120

that's isn't a vaccine for cervical cancer. like i said, you don't know
what you're talking about.

mo_ntresor

[Hollis2]

On May 16 2013 1:34 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:

> On May 16 2013 11:20 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
>
> > > there is no vaccine for cervical cancer.
> >
> > No doubt in my mind that "Hollis" is not a day over 23 years old.
> > Barely potty-trained.
>
> not sure how old he is, but he's clearly wrong. he'll argue of course ...
> paploma etc. ... but no amount of arguing will make him right.

Now who's being childish. I know what the cervical cancer vaccine does.

Would you argue that the purpose of an antibiotic is to cure pneumonia or
to kill bacteria?

risky's
> doing the same in another thread -- clinton ran a budget surplus (LOL).
> all i can do is highlight reality; i can't make religious nuts abandon
> their fantasies.
>
> mo_ntresor

In this case, you are correct. There never was a balanced budget during
the Clinton years. The nation debt went up every year.

[Hollis2]

He's confusing the action of the vaccine with its purpose. When I have a
muscle ache (even young people have them) I don't take ibuprofen to reduce
inflammation, I take it to reduce pain.

[Hollis2]

If it wasn't a vaccine for cervical cancer why would they say it is?

[Mossingen]

"Hollis2" wrote in message news:55mf6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

___________________



http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/



The article also has an explanation on the difference between yearly fiscal
budgets and the national debt, which it appears you need.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 16 2013 1:05 PM, Hollis2 wrote:

> > that's isn't a vaccine for cervical cancer. like i said, you don't know
> > what you're talking about.
>

> If it wasn't a vaccine for cervical cancer why would they say it is?

therapeutic cancer vaccination, that's fine. oh, was that clave
responding to me? never seem to see his posts for some reason. maybe i'm
vaccinated.

mo_ntresor

[Clave]

"Hollis2" <a3a...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:fnmf6ax...@news.ezprovider.com...

> He's confusing the action of the vaccine with its purpose...

Yes, and deliberately.

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 11:31 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> The reason that these "home remedies" that cure cancer are discredited is
> because they don't work.  Desperate people will often grab hold of
> anything in the hope to stay alive.  Unfortunately, there are many
> unscrupulous people around to take advantage of them.
>
> The idea that there is a cure for cancer that is being hidden by the
> pharmaceutical industry is preposterous.
>

You don't know what you're talking about, you little fucking baby.
I've about had it with your shit. I am considering banning you from
replying to any of my posts in the future. You are on thin ice.

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 11:46 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> In this case, you are correct.  There never was a balanced budget during
> the Clinton years.  The nation debt went up every year.

How can that be, asshole? Everyone SAYS there was a surplus, the
people on the news refer to the surplus, the fucking GOVERNMENT says
there was a surplus, I bet even Cheney says there was a surplus. What
are you, a fucking conspiracy nut? Huh? Are you a fucking conspiracy
KOOK who believes in something that "officially" is just the
opposite? Get the fuck outta here, you little fucking baby.
Hypocrite!

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 11:56 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> He's confusing the action of the vaccine with its purpose.  When I have a
> muscle ache (even young people have them) I don't take ibuprofen to reduce
> inflammation, I take it to reduce pain.

I knew it. I said 23, you might be under 20. Seriously, I am pretty
fucking perceptive in matters like this. You're a fucking baby, I'd
bet my left nut on it.

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 12:11 pm, "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
> The article also has an explanation on the difference between yearly fiscal
> budgets and the national debt, which it appears you need.

It appears YOU need it. We, or I, have discussed this in the past, ad
nauseum. I even had to explain it to "super genius Bill Chen", who
apparently didn't understand the difference between the annual deficit
and the cumulative national debt. It's TRUE. There were NO Clinton
annual surpluses. Smoke and mirrors, creative calculating. The
national debt is cumulative. Since it never dipped during any of
those Clinton years, THERE WAS NEVER NO FUCKING SURPLUS in any of
those years.

James, get a fucking job.

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 12:09 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> therapeutic cancer vaccination, that's fine.  oh, was that clave
> responding to me?  never seem to see his posts for some reason.  maybe i'm
> vaccinated.
>
> mo_ntresor

Heh, the Clave Virus. First symptoms are the sudden urge to vomit.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 16 2013 1:11 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> http://www.factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget-and-deficit-under-clinton/
>
> The article also has an explanation on the difference between yearly fiscal
> budgets and the national debt, which it appears you need.

LOL. yeah, we need a method for lying about what's really happening so we
can fool a bunch of idiots into voting us the purse strings.

mo_ntresor

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

news:e8ff28cf-a904-4eb1...@pd6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Or in your case a red ass.

Jim

[Hollis2]

No doubt about it, you've about as perceptive as they come.

[Hollis2]

Show me one year when the national debt went down.

[Hollis2]

I'll be damned, a post by you that I can agree with. But then, you're so
much older and wiser than I am.

[Hollis2]

Both the Democrats and the Republicans take credit for the mythical
surplus. Clinton was the president but this was also the time of Gingrich
and the "Republican Revolution." You can't say that the other guy is
lying if you want to tell the same lie.

[popinjay999]

What does that have to do with anything I just said? By believing
that there was no surplus, you are going against the belief of
practically everyone else. And why does practically everyone believe
that? Because THERE IS A CONSPIRACY TO HIDE THE TRUTH! Think of the
enormity of the mechanism that must be utilized to keep something that
is so easily proven hidden from the people.

[Hollis2]

The US Treasury publishes the national debt figures every day. It's not
that hard to see that during the Clinton years the national debt went up
every year. The information is out there for anyone who wants to find it.


Usually, when the Democrats lie about something, the Republicans will call
them on it and vice versa. In this case, both sides of the aisle wanted
to tell the same lie for their own benefit. I suppose that you can call
it a consperiacy, because in this case it is. But to me it's just another
example of politicians lying, which they do all the time. Normally, the
Democrats and Republicans tell different lies, this time they told the
same lie.

[popinjay999]

On May 16, 7:13 pm, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>
> The US Treasury publishes the national debt figures every day.  It's not
> that hard to see that during the Clinton years the national debt went up
> every year.  The information is out there for anyone who wants to find it.
>
> Usually, when the Democrats lie about something, the Republicans will call
> them on it and vice versa.  In this case, both sides of the aisle wanted
> to tell the same lie for their own benefit.  I suppose that you can call
> it a consperiacy, because in this case it is.  But to me it's just another
> example of politicians lying, which they do all the time.  Normally, the
> Democrats and Republicans tell different lies, this time they told the
> same lie.

RGP never changes. Sure, one endlessly argumentative asshole may stop
posting, but there's always another endlessly argumentative asshole to
take his place.

[Pepe Papon]

The Mayo Clinic is irrelevant. mo-ron went to the University of
Chicago, and that makes you, me, and the Mayo Clinic a bunch of
idiots.
--

Pepe Papon

[mo_ntresor]

On May 16 2013 11:54 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> The Mayo Clinic is irrelevant. mo-ron went to the University of
> Chicago, and that makes you, me, and the Mayo Clinic a bunch of
> idiots.

poor, dumb peptard. doesn't know how a vaccine works.

mo_ntresor

[Hollis2]

They work like this. The polio vaccine give the person immunity from the
virus that causes polio. The smallpox vaccine give the person immunity
from the virus that causes smallpox. The cervical cancer vaccine gives
the person immunity from the virus that causes cervical cancer.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 17 2013 11:15 AM, Hollis2 wrote:

> > poor, dumb peptard. doesn't know how a vaccine works.
>

> They work like this. The polio vaccine give the person immunity from the
> virus that causes polio. The smallpox vaccine give the person immunity
> from the virus that causes smallpox. The cervical cancer vaccine gives
> the person immunity from the virus that causes cervical cancer.

the polio and small pox vaccines ARE the viruses that causes said disease
(close relative for safety in small pox case). the "cervical cancer
vaccine" is not, AND it doesn't profess to "immunize" against cervical
cancer. it's an HPV vaccine that reduces risk of most cervical and other
cancers by immunizing against the hpv virus. it DOESN'T immunize from
cervical cancer.

mo_ntresor

[popinjay999]

On May 17, 10:15 am, "Hollis2" <a3a8...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>  The cervical cancer vaccine gives
> the person immunity from the virus that causes cervical cancer.

lol whatta maroon!

Are you old enough to post on the internet using your mommy's
computer?

[fffurken]

On May 17, 6:33 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> > They work like this.  The polio vaccine give the person immunity from the
> > virus that causes polio.  The smallpox vaccine give the person immunity
> > from the virus that causes smallpox.  The cervical cancer vaccine gives
> > the person immunity from the virus that causes cervical cancer.
>
> the polio and small pox vaccines ARE the viruses that causes said disease
> (close relative for safety in small pox case).  the "cervical cancer
> vaccine" is not, AND it doesn't profess to "immunize" against cervical
> cancer.  it's an HPV vaccine that reduces risk of most cervical and other
> cancers by immunizing against the hpv virus.  it DOESN'T immunize from
> cervical cancer.

It's amazing to watch you basically repeat what someone else said,
something that person never said anything to the contrary about, and
wind up thinking you're so smart.

University of Chicago eh? I'd be surprised if you made it beyond the
8th grade.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 17 2013 1:04 PM, fffurken wrote:

> It's amazing to watch you basically repeat what someone else said,
> something that person never said anything to the contrary about, and
> wind up thinking you're so smart.
>
> University of Chicago eh? I'd be surprised if you made it beyond the
> 8th grade.

you're illiterate. not amazing.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 17, 8:17 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Funny you should mention illiteracy because I didn't say I was
amazing.

Point out anything Hollis has said wrong in this thread about vaccines
in general or describing the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine
which "will eventually make cervical cancer a very rare disease".

-
HPV and cervical cancer

Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer,
particularly types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45. They are called high risk
types. Almost all women with cervical cancer have at least one of
these types of HPV in the cells of their cervix.

Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10
(70%) cancers of the cervix. The other types cause most of the
remaining 30% of cervical cancers.

http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-the-hpv-virus#cervical

[mo_ntresor]

On May 17 2013 1:34 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > you're illiterate. �not amazing.
>
> Funny you should mention illiteracy because I didn't say I was
> amazing.
>
> Point out anything Hollis has said wrong in this thread about vaccines
> in general or describing the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine
> which "will eventually make cervical cancer a very rare disease".
>
> -
> HPV and cervical cancer
>
> Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer,
> particularly types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45. They are called high risk
> types. Almost all women with cervical cancer have at least one of
> these types of HPV in the cells of their cervix.
>
> Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10
> (70%) cancers of the cervix. The other types cause most of the
> remaining 30% of cervical cancers.
>
>
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-questions/what-is-the-hpv-virus#cervical

exactly as i said: it's a vaccine against hpv not cervical cancer.
please pull your idiot head out of your idiot ass.

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 17, 8:42 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On May 17 2013 1:34 PM, fffurken wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > > you're illiterate. not amazing.
>
> > Funny you should mention illiteracy because I didn't say I was
> > amazing.
>
> > Point out anything Hollis has said wrong in this thread about vaccines
> > in general or describing the HPV vaccine as a cervical cancer vaccine
> > which "will eventually make cervical cancer a very rare disease".
>
> > -
> > HPV and cervical cancer
>
> > Some types of HPV can increase the risk of developing cervical cancer,
> > particularly types 16, 18, 31, 33 and 45. They are called high risk
> > types. Almost all women with cervical cancer have at least one of
> > these types of HPV in the cells of their cervix.
>
> > Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of 10
> > (70%) cancers of the cervix. The other types cause most of the
> > remaining 30% of cervical cancers.
>

> http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-help/about-cancer/cancer-quest...

>
> exactly as i said:  it's a vaccine against hpv not cervical cancer.
> please pull your idiot head out of your idiot ass.

Concentrate *really* hard on the second paragraph this time.

[mo_ntresor]

On May 17 2013 1:47 PM, fffurken wrote:

> > exactly as i said: �it's a vaccine against hpv not cervical cancer.
> > please pull your idiot head out of your idiot ass.
>
> Concentrate *really* hard on the second paragraph this time.
>
> "Of the different types of HPV, types 16 and 18 cause about 7 out of
> 10 (70%) cancers of the cervix. The other types cause most of the
> remaining 30% of cervical cancers."

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cervical-cancer/DS00167/DSECTION=causes

"What causes cervical cancer isn't clear. However, it's certain that the
sexually transmitted infection called human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a
role. Evidence of HPV is found in nearly all cervical cancers. However,
HPV is a very common virus and most women with HPV never develop cervical
cancer. This means other risk factors, such as your genetic makeup, your
environment or your lifestyle choices, also determine whether you'll
develop cervical cancer."


deadbeat, does your brain even work?

mo_ntresor

[fffurken]

On May 17, 8:57 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Not everyone infected with the HPV virus contracts cervical cancer,
not everyone who smokes contracts lung cancer. What is certain, as
your quote agrees - "Evidence of HPV is found in nearly all cervical
cancers."

Whether there is debate over it being causative in all cases, I won't
be asking you for any medical expertise.

[arseniccollection]

On 5/17/2013 12:57, mo_ntresor wrote:

> "What causes cervical cancer isn't clear. However, it's certain that the
> sexually transmitted infection called human papillomavirus (HPV) plays a
> role. Evidence of HPV is found in nearly all cervical cancers. However,
> HPV is a very common virus and most women with HPV never develop cervical
> cancer. This means other risk factors, such as your genetic makeup, your
> environment or your lifestyle choices, also determine whether you'll
> develop cervical cancer."
>

Do they teach sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV's in college stats?

[arseniccollection]

Let me clarify:

The vaccines will decrease HPV infection. Few HPV-negative women get
cervical cancer. In theory, the vaccine should decrease cancer rates.

But.... the vaccine is too new to determine its real-world efficacy in
cancer-prevention, so it is more prudent to refer it as a HPV vaccine,
not a cancer-vaccine.

The risk/benefit consideration still favors giving it to all girls.

[fffurken]

I hope you realise that none of that was mo_ron's point. That would
have involved far too much consideration and don't let him tell you
any otherwise.

[Bea Foroni]

On Friday, May 17, 2013 3:43:40 PM UTC-7, arseniccollection wrote:


>
>
>
> The risk/benefit consideration still favors giving it to all girls.

But what about the side-effects? I'm talking specifically about reported wide spread whorishness. Do we really want American women prone to Jezebelism?

[Clave]

"fffurken" <fffu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dfad8137-7c73-4eca...@k4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Which, of course, was nothing more than his usual anklebiting.

[arseniccollection]

On 5/17/2013 15:53, fffurken wrote:

> I hope you realise that none of that was mo_ron's point. That would
> have involved far too much consideration and don't let him tell you
> any otherwise.
>

Yeah, I know.

But, having commented, I thought I might as well give the geek-medical
interpretation.

[Clave]

"Bea Foroni" <wilm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fbf876d-cc8a-420d...@googlegroups.com...

Kinda, yeah.

Jim

[arseniccollection]

I vote yes.

[halfpastdead]

On May 15 2013 1:19 AM, popinjay999 wrote:

> I can't believe this, she had both breasts removed, and she didn't
> even have cancer! She had some friggin gene, that they said MIGHT
> lead to cancer. What a bunch of crap, and it's so sad that so many
> people believe every word from the quacks in the medical
> establishment. This is both tragic, and criminal.
>
> She should have got a second opinion. And a third, and a fourth, etc.

Emwerson.. emwerson nice titties


*****************************************

I saw a bumper sticker about six months ago. It said: "Don't Mex with
Tejas".

---------------------------------------------------------------

[halfpastdead]

On May 15 2013 2:05 PM, popinjay999 wrote:

> On May 15, 11:47 am, Bea Foroni <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > The lifespan of feral cats is hard to determine accurately, although one
study reported a median
> age of 4.7 years, with a range between 0 and 8.3 years,[7] while another
paper referenced a mean
> life span of 2–8 years.[8] By contrast, in captivity, an average life
expectancy for male indoor
> cats at birth is 12 to 14 years,[9] with females usually living a year or
two longer.
> >
>
>
>
> Feral cats are no more wild than these homeless assholes blocking the
> sidewalks with their cardboard and shit. What about mountain lions,
> numbnuts, that don't come in contact with man, and EAT what they were
> intended to eat, other animals, animals that feed on wild grass, which
> has nitrilosides.

how do you know if they dont die of cancer in the wild ? Who checks ?

[fffurken]

On May 18, 12:44 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "fffurken" <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

What else?

mo_ron's a complete joke. He's like a Beldin, a smartass without an
education. It's a toss up who's more obnoxious.

[Hollis2]

Grow up and admit that you were wrong. It's not the end of the world.

[popinjay999]

On May 17, 5:54 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> mo_ron's a complete joke. He's like a Beldin, a smartass without an
> education. It's a toss up who's more obnoxious.

You're making a pretty good run for that title.

[fffurken]

What the fuck is your problem?

Nothing's changed since I posted this last except maybe 40 million or
so hits. You're still the reptile, asshole.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lZIom_yErk

[popinjay999]

On May 17, 8:49 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> What the fuck is your problem?
>

What's my problem? I'll tellya what's my problem. People like you,
like Doggystle, like Clave, you're all just trouble-makers and rarely
contribute anything worthwhile to this newsgroup. Your motive seems
to be just to stir shit up. You just want to aggravate and tear
people down.

[fffurken]

On May 18, 5:04 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > What the fuck is your problem?
>
> What's my problem?  I'll tellya what's my problem.  People like you,
> like Doggystle, like Clave, you're all just trouble-makers and rarely
> contribute anything worthwhile to this newsgroup.

I don't contribute anything to this newsgroup?

Are you out of your cotton pickin fuckin mind?

[Clave]

"popinjay999" <paulpo...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:0ca6b87b-1ded-448e...@qc10g2000pbb.googlegroups.com...

Fuck you, you whiny pussy.

DIAF,
Jim

[fffurken]

On May 18, 5:09 am, "Clave" <ChrisClav...@TheMonastery.com> wrote:
> "popinjay999" <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message

Holy Jesus Christ!

Will you STOP using acronyms I don't know! I'm trying to have an
argument with Paul and now I'm now I'm going to have an argument with
you at the same time.

Because I know you're so hypersensitive.

[popinjay999]

On May 17, 9:09 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I don't contribute anything to this newsgroup?
>

I didn't say you don't contribute anything. I said you don't
contribute anything worthwhile.

I said the same about Doggystyle and Clave. Look at them. Doggystyle
USED to be interesting, but he is just an empty shell now. And Clave
has never been interesting, even when he was new to the group. This
group was once a very exciting and interesting forum. People like you
three guys have ruined it.

[fffurken]

On May 18, 5:16 am, popinjay999 <paulpopin...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> > I don't contribute anything to this newsgroup?
>
> I didn't say you don't contribute anything.  I said you don't
> contribute anything worthwhile.

Fine -

I don't contribute anything worthwhile to this newsgroup?

Are you out of your cotton pickin fuckin mind?

Your protestations are just that. You want me to stop "contibuting" to
this newsgroup? Start thinking about 50 to a 100 posts a week, total,
dikhead.

[popinjay999]

On May 17, 9:15 pm, fffurken <fffur...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Will you STOP using acronyms I don't know!

He just proved my point. He goes over and above, out of his way, to
decimate this newsgroup. Think of how many people have been repelled
by his content.