MILITARY INTERVENSION IN NEW YORK TIMES

( A TEZ CHCA ZAMKNAC NAUKE I KONTROLOWAC LEKARSTWA/ RECEPTY - W USA
JUZ TO ROBIA W MNIEJSZYCH FARMACJACH)


( I am not sure if hackers did not edit the article as iI comment -
IT WAS ABOUT MILITARY NEED TO CONTROL SCIENCE THAN MEANT ONLY MEDICAL
SCIENCES)

Op-Ed Columnist
Medicine on the Move By GAIL COLLINS
Published: April 6, 2011

The Conversation
David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns.





I AM ALMOST SURE THAT SHE WAS A REPORTER NOT JUST THE COLUMNIST

We got word this week that estrogen therapy, which was bad, is good
again. Possibly. In some cases.

REALLY? HOW YOU GOT YOUR EXPERIZE? ( LATER THE AUTHIOR EXPLAINS THAT
SHE USED IT HERSELF BUT TAHT SI ONE CASE ONLY AND OFTEN PERSONAL)
Me: ( I have a problem hee similar to others - 'Gail' is not that
limited;
is this someone el;se trying to push opinion completely outside of own
expertize)
....
This was not quite as confusing as the news last year that calcium
supplements, which used to be very good, are now possibly bad.
Although maybe not. And the jury?s still out.
IS NOT EITHER - YOU ARE IGNORANT.
ONE BIG FACTOR THAT MODIFIED THE CALCIOUM ABSORBTION AND EFFECTS,
BESIDES THE 100S FORMS OF CALCIM ITSEL;F, IS LASER FIELD AND SATELLITE
TRACING. IF YOU TAHT CONFUSED, AND ALREDY IN 2 CASES - YOU DO NOT
BELONG TO COMMENTING ON THE MEDICAL ISSUES.

Or the recent federal study that suggested women be told to stop
checking their breasts for lumps.
I DO NOT THNIK THAT IT WAS SAID THAT CATEGORICAL.

Or the recommendations on when to get a mammogram, which seem to
fluctuate between every five years and every five minutes.

ONLY UPON UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THAT SATELLITE TRACING MIGHT BE A BIG
FACTOR.

We certainly want everyone to keep doing studies.
EXCUSE ME - WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?
But it?s very difficult to be a civilian in the world of science.
NO, NO AND NO.

?It?s very difficult to be a woman,? said Dr. Leslie Ford of the
National Cancer Institute wryly.
NO.

Back in the day, estrogen was prescribed only for women who were
experiencing serious problems with menopause.
EXCUSE ME, BUT THIS EXCAMPLE IS ABOUT THE PRACTICE AND NOT THE
REASEARCH RESUKLTS; ESTROGEN IS PRESCRIBED BY PRACTICING
DOCTORAS , NOT BY SCIENTISTS; ARE YOU ALSO HAVING PROBLEM
OF WHO IS WHO BY PROFESSION?

Then a 1966 book called ?Feminine Forever? argued that estrogen
therapy was good for almost every middle-aged female on the planet who
wanted to avoid morphing into a crone.
ARE YOU REFERENCING THE RESEACH, AGAIN. I DOUBT. AT TAHT TIME WAS VERY
TIN ON ESTROGEN. THSI DAYS THIS IS VERY COMPEX ISSUE BUT WORKED ON
AT , MIND YOU - UNIVERSITIES AND NOT HOME REMEDIES.

The idea grew in popularity even after evidence mounted that the
author had been paid by an estrogen manufacturer.
THAT IS NOT EXAMPLE OF THE PROBLEM IN SCIENCE; MIND YOU, IN USA THE
REFERENCES FROM THE LAST 10 YEARS MERELY FIT OPNE ARTICLE AS
THERE IS A LOT OF THEM;

?The mantra among gynecologists was: as soon as you got to be 49,
almost automatically put women on estrogen. It was supposed to be a
fountain of youth,? said Dr. Ford.
GET IT - IT IS NOT SCIENTISTS EITHER!

To reduce the danger of uterine cancer, estrogen was mixed with
progestin and the result was, among many other wonderful things,
supposed to lower the risk of heart disease.
NO, NOT AT ALL. THERE WAS NOT EVEN THE PROGESTIN DRUG FORM.
WE USE THE CREAM. ( it could be that they covered the exoperiment
somewhere with it but she is not referencing and gibneciologists
certainly did not
have it - I WAS PRESCRIBED SEPARATE FORM POF PROGESTIMN UPON
INSISTANCE TAHT WAS TOO STRONG AND NOT TEH ONE THAT BODY ABSORBS BUT
NOT IN 60-70 TIES; THERE WAS NO MIX FORM AT ALL)

Then a report from the Women?s Health Initiative, a long-running study
by the National Institutes of Health, found that it did no such thing.
Also, it raised the risk of breast cancer.

FALSIFICATION? COVERING OTGHER ASSAULTS ON WOMEN?

?It?s been a real culture shift for gynecologists,? said Dr. Ford.

Now comes a new study ? from the very same Women?s Health Initiative ?
that appears to show that for some women, estrogen alone may actually
reduce the risk of breast cancer and heart attack. As long as you take
it when you?re in your 50s.

?It?s ?Back to the Future,? ? said Dr. Emily Jungheim of Washington
University School of Medicine, who co-authored an editorial raising a
red flag about the new report.

The new findings, which come with many qualifications, apply only to
women who?ve had a hysterectomy. But that?s quite a population; about
one-third of all American women have their uterus removed at some
point in their lives.
AHA! FOR WHAT IS THE HYSTERECTOMY IN THE FIRST PLACE? TO STEAL
UTERUSES AND KEEP THEM FOR MEN 9 THAT SI ALREDY DONE; THE CUSTODIAL OF
SRTOREN UTERUSES WAS CAMILLA PAGLIA BEFORE SHE FIGURED THAT LEGALITY
OF IT WAS COMPROMISED - REPORTEDLY, SHE NOT NOW)
You cannot contemplate this information for too long without asking
whether the medical profession has a tendency to get carried away.
REALLY, WHOM ARE YOU KIDDING? ALL BE WRONG BY THE TIMER YOU FUINISH;
LONG ARE FORGOTTEN SCIENTISTS, BY NOW

?There?s a pill for every ill,? said Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of the
Public Citizen Health Research Group and the co-author of ?Worst
Pills, Best Pills: A Consumer?s Guide to Avoiding Drug-Induced Death
or Illness.?

He worries a lot about overmedication. ?There?s just a massive
overprescribing in this country,? he said. ?Also elsewhere. France
comes to mind.?
HAS HE SEEN PSYCHIATRIST WITH THIS MUCH ANXIETY ABOUT ALL?

Finally, we have found some part of medicine in which our system is as
efficient as France?s.
I AM SENSING BRIT AKA FOGGY ( WHAT TO DO?)
Americans
HALLO, THAT IS NOT 'WE AMERICANS'?
should know by now that you can?t put a pill in your mouth without
risk. Television is full of commercials for wonder drugs that will
perk up your spirits, soothe your allergies or lower your cholesterol,
improving life altogether except in the cases where they lead to vivid
dreams, suicidal thoughts, hair loss, stabbing pains or sudden death.
AMERICANS ARE THAT SLIPPERY - YOUR ARGUMENT IS ABOUT ESTROGEN ONLY.

But it still feels as if we need to be on guard against medical
overoptimism.
?Doctors are far more knowledgeable about the benefits of drugs than
the risks,? said Dr. Wolfe. There isn?t always much talk about the
possible downside of drugs on which all the evidence is yet to come
in, like many fertility treatments.
DOWNSIZES INDUSTRY! ( WHOP THIS IS?)

Dr. Wolfe believes that most doctors prefer writing prescriptions to
having lengthy discussions with their patients about things like long-
term behavior modification therapy.
FOR CERTAIN PROBLEMS ACCORDING TO DIAGNOZES AND TREATMENT PLAN.
( ARE YOU REALLY VISITING ANY HOSPITALS IN USA?)

My own theory is that they just tend to want to satisfy their
patients.
THEY ALL DO? AND YOU?
Let?s face it, few of us go to the doctor with hopes of getting
advice on behavior modification.
HAVE WE EVER SEEN SUCH A JOKER? ( BEHAVIOR CHANGE IS ENOUGH FOR THE
SEVERITY OF MEDICAL PROBLEMS)
They?re medical practitioners, and their instinct is to solve your
problems with medicine.

(...)

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on April 7, 2011, on page
A27 of the New York edition..comments (158)

......

DEAR GAIL, OR THE LIKE,
Apropos, my breasts, heart and the rest and superb IF YOU WERE TRYING
FOR RTHE TRICK HOW SICK I COULD BE; I WAS NOT ESTROGEN - I ONLY
BRIEFLY
CHECKED IT THAN. IT IS TRUE THAT SOME WOMEN REPORT THAT THEY DO NOT
HAVE SYMPTOMS OF ANY MENOPAUSE WITH MEDS AND OTHER EXACTLY OPPOSITE.
NOW, I DO NOT HAVE ANY. I FIGURED IT.

WE AS PATIENTS HAVE AMERICAN OPTION NOT TO TAKE ANYTHING.
( IF YOU SPIED AND THEY LIED IN THE DOCTOR OFFICE , YOU BROKE SEVERAL
LAWS). AC