spydurhank wrote:Arktic, I don’t have the cash to purchase that book right now
PM me your address details and I'll buy a copy and have it shipped over to you, if you like
spydurhank wrote:He first asks the audience, at what age are women at risk for getting breast cancer. Only one person says over 80 years of age... Right off the bat he’s telling everyone that they’re wrong and he’s right. Either he’s never done any research on breast cancer and has no idea what he’s talking about or… he’s done his research and is lying to his audience and the folks that purchased his book.
No, I think it's you who doesn't know what he's talking about. To quote Cancer Research UK
- "Breast cancer risk is strongly related to age,with 81% of cases [in the UK] occurring in women aged 50 years and over. Nearly half (48%) of cases of breast cancer are diagnosed in the 50-69 age group"
And, in fact, to quote your OWN link
- "It is a disease primarily of older women, with 75% of cases occurring in women over 50 years of age. Only 6.5% of cases occur in women under 40 years of age, and a mere 0.6% of cases in women under 30 years of age.
Which I think goes to show that Dan has done his research pretty well here. Breast cancer primarily affects older women. Fact. A demonstrable fact backed up by decades of statistical data, not a 'lie' as you put it (which is a rather loaded weasel-word that you chose there).
spydurhank wrote:Dan states that women aren’t at risk for Breast Cancer until they’re over the age of 80 and should not worry about getting breast cancer.
I didn't have time to watch the whole hour long lecture, but he doesn't say "women aren't at risk until they're over 80" anywhere in the first twenty minutes or so, nor any of the other parts of the video I skipped through; and he certainly doesn't state that in the book. I highly doubt that he says that in the lecture at all. He's not saying that breast cancer doesn't occur in younger women - but the fact of the matter is that the risk for women under 60 is actually very low compared to how women perceive that risk
- fueled by things such as overly emotive media reports that take a really rare case and make it seem as if it's the norm.
Handily, you've also provided an example of just that in the next link -
spydurhank wrote:Here are a few links “many more out there” of women under the age of 30 who are getting breast cancer.
Firstly, a quick note about the Daily Mail. In the UK, it is notorious for a number of things - it's generally regarded as pretty right wing, it's often racist, and it epitomises tabloid over-reaction. It also has a very peculiar stance when it comes to reporting on cancer; almost every day there's at least one article which links something to cancer. Sometimes these these things increase the risk of cancer, other times they reduce the risk. Very often, the articles will contradict themselves from week to week. In fact, there are a number of blogs dedicated to trying tracking the things that the Daily Mail says will increase or decrease the risk of cancer - for example 'Kill or Cure'
. As you can see from the first page, alcohol, allergies and aspirin have all been reported by the Daily Mail to both increase and decrease the risk of cancer. And that's just the 'A' section. As you can see, they have a very odd relationship with reporting on cancer.
And it's not just the Daily Mail that skews reportage of cancer. A 2001 report by the University of Washington analysed articles about breast cancer in major US magazines between 1993 and 1997. 84% of those articles were about women under 50 with the disease, and nearly half were about women under 40. Clearly compared to the real statistics (6.5% of all cases in the US were women under 40), you can see Gardner's point here about the media, by and large, misrepresenting the average age of a breast cancer victim - which in turn influences the public to believe that women are at a higher risk when they're younger.
I have to admit that you totally lost me in the middle of your post. I'm not sure what you're getting at about the connective tissue disease. As you say, most studies neither prove nor disprove the link - so I'm not sure how he's supposedly 'lying' here...?
spydurhank wrote:I wanted to point out that Dan only mentions CDTs in his discussion of breast implants. Why is that? Is it because it’s the only thing that hasn’t been proven or disproven? Seems a little biased to me.
Again, I'm not sure that I follow what you're trying to say here. But the fact that you've provided links to stories about women who have linked silicone breast implants to their ill health doesn't really prove anything. There aren't any news stories that I'd be able to post because "Woman Not Sick" isn't much of a headline - the millions of women who have silicone implants without issues simply aren't represented by the media, because it would be deathly boring to read stories about women who haven't had issues with those implants.
spydurhank wrote:Dan then says that there is no proof that Genetically modified foods are harmful. This is in fact another lie by Mr. Gardner. G.M. foods are not required by law to be labeled as such.
And still, I don't see what you're getting at. There's conflicting evidence both ways, but many major unbiased organisations have published peer-reviewed evidence which suggests that there is no risk from eating GM foods. As the World Health Organisation concludes: "GM foods currently available on the international market have passed risk assessments and are not likely to present risks for human health. In addition, no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population in the countries where they have been approved."
Quite why the WHO would be lying is beyond me. They don't stand to benefit from GM foods being approved for sale, and they don't stand to lose anything by saying that they're not safe either. Their only priority is to ensure the world's health. Therefore it's safe to assume that their conclusion is probably in our best interest.
spydurhank wrote:He’s been very biased so far, told several lies and wraps those lies around some truths that make sense on their own but not in the bigger picture of what he’s really saying
I'm going to have to disagree with you here - I don't see that he's told any lies. Can you clarify what those lies are? I think I've proven that at least two of the things you've labeled 'lies' are very much true - breast cancer risk is incredibly rare in younger people, and age is the biggest risk factor, and non-biased organisations such as the WHO deem GM to be safe.
spydurhank wrote:Now he talks about your conscious and unconscious mind and they way you make decisions. He makes total sense during his discussion… right up until he uses child abduction as an example. He brushes it aside by saying that statistics are very low on the matter and should be of no concern.
Again, I think you've totally misunderstood the point here. What Gardner is saying isn't that you shouldn't worry about your child's safety or the danger of having a child abducted - but the fact is that the risk of having a child abducted is virtually non-existent
and there are much bigger risks to your child that a parent should be more worried about
spydurhank wrote:Where is he getting his statistics and why does he make it sound like there’s an acceptable number for child abductions?
Again, you're putting words into his mouth. He doesn't say that there's an acceptable number - merely that because the risk of a child being abducted is so incredibly tiny
, it's not something that parents should put high on their priority list of safety concerns; and yet that's very often the opposite.
As for where he's getting his statistics - the exact same place as you; namely the U.S. Department of Justice National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). Did you even bother to read your own links?
I'm just going to quote right from Dan's book here, because it deals with the statistics in a very straightforward manner:
In Risk, Dan Gardner wrote:[in the statistics] there were 58,200 'non-family abductions'. That may sound like strangers stealing children, but it's not. It is in fact a very broad category that can include, for example, a 17-year-old girl whose ex-boyfriend won't let her get out of his parked car.
In order to get a number that matches the sort of paedophile-in-the-shadow attacks that terrify parents, NISMART created a category called stereotypical kidnappings: A stranger or slight acquaintance takes or detains a child ... with the intention of keeping him or her, or kills the child. NISMART estimated that in one year the total number of stereotypical kidnappings in the United States is 115.
To look at these statistics rationally, we have to remember that there are roughly 70 million American children. With just 115 cases... the risk to any one American minor is about 0.00016 per cent, or 1 in 608,696.
In perspective, the risk of a stranger kidnapping any child is minute. Tiny. Virtually non-existant. There are many other dangers that are much more likely to hurt your child - for example, a child is 26 times more likely in the USA to die in a car crash than be abducted by a stranger. But when was the last time you saw an news special about road safety?
The statistics are much the same the world over. In Canada, the National Missing Children Services found that in the two years 2000 and 2001, there were 5 children taken by a 'stranger' - using a definition that included 'neighbour' and 'friend of the father'. They found that there was only one single case of a child being taken by a complete stranger in those two years.
Now, obviously those 115 cases a year in the US are 115 too many. But the risk is so small that it shouldn't really be a major concern to most parents - but that's simply not the case. It's an increasing trend that parents don't let their children out to play on the streets like they used to - one of the major reasons cited by concerned parents is 'stranger danger', i.e. the fear that their child will be abducted by a paedophile. But by being overly cautious about this negligible risk, parents are doing more damage to their children's health and well being in the long term. Children are less active these days, down in no small part to parent's reluctance to let their kids play outdoors unsupervised like we all used to, and there is a growing epidemic of obesity in younger children - 1 in 3 children is now overweight, which is a direct threat to their health. That is a real cause for concern, and the number is growing; and yet parents are more keen to go out of their way to avoid the nearly non-existent risk from 'stranger danger' by keeping their children indoors all day. Do you see how the fear is disproportionate to the genuinely tiny risk posed by child abductions?
spydurhank wrote:Oh and uh… who said anything about some secret plot? What’s that all about?
I'm not saying that you definitely believe in a secret conspiracy to keep us all subdued through chemicals in our foods and medicine, but your views do quite closely align with people who share those sentiments. And when you say things like "now you're stuck in the hamster wheel known as the pharmaceutical and insurance industry which thrives on you being sick all the time"
or "when some folks finally realize that they're being taken for a ride by the EPA and FDA"
- it does sound a little like you believe that the pharmaceutical, food and insurance industries are conspiring against the little guy... which, you must admit, sounds strangely like some of the conspiracy theories trotted out by David Icke and the like.