Cervical cancer vaccine versus GM crops

Name:        CHAN, Sin Fong

Subject:     Cervical cancer vaccine versus GM crops

Visit Time: 23/05/2007 12:55 PM

Remark:

On 17/4/2007 Kerry O’Brien interviewed Dr Ian Frazer, during which Dr Ian Frazer said, “Yes, realistically, even if the vaccine were used worldwide tomorrow, it would be another 50 years before the cervical cancer figures fell to the point where you could say the vaccine had worked.”

On 22/5/2007, The Age reported that “Leading immunologist and Gardasil creator Ian Frazer says a cervical cancer vaccine is safe, despite five Victorian schoolgirls falling ill after they were immunised.” In the same report, the health department spokesman said that “... the overriding thing here is we've got a vaccine that is a cancer-preventing vaccine. I mean, that's got to be a good thing."

It is interesting to note that cervical cancer vaccine is so readily embraced by the community, here and overseas, and yet GM crops receive great opposition. Before the word GM becomes commonly used, botanists and zoologists have been cross-fertilising plants and cross-breeding animals in search of better and stronger species.

Borrowing the words in a negative way from Dr Ian Frazer and rephrasing in my own way, “Yes, realistically, even if the GM crops were consumed worldwide tomorrow, it would be another 50 years before the human deformity figures increased to the point where you could say the GM had not worked.”, or positively from the health spokesman, “... the overriding thing here is we’ve got a crop that is drought and pest resident crop, (and may even solve the world hunger problem.) I mean, that’s got to be a good thing.”

Statistically, around 300,000 women worldwide die from cervical cancer annually and 227 Australians in 2002. Almost 800 million people worldwide go hungry ever day.

Breast Cancer

Name:        CHAN, Sin Fong

Subject:     Breast Cancer

Visit Time: 7/11/2006 5:04 PM

Remark:

On 25/10/2006, Dr Helen Zorbas, National Breast Cancer Centre commented on 7.30 Reports about "Breast cancer rates on the way up ", that "… having a doubling of increase in incidence between 1983 and today and looking forward to 2011 and saying that that's going to be a trebling of incidents is concerning."

What is doubled - the number of detection in absolute numbers, per female population, or female of certain age group? Don't forget that more females go for mammograms these days; and as the population grow older, more females turn 50 and over, and they are entitled to free mammograms. In short, is the increase significant enough to cause public hysteria when 2011 comes about?

I am not a medical doctor or scientist. However, I take keen interests in cancer, and particularly breast cancer. Rick Kefford discarded the myths about breast cancer being caused by underarm deodorant, or wearing a bra. There are other so called myths like drinking too much milk, a blow or injury to the breast, having silicon breast transplant, or even having a mammogram.

A lot of people are concerned about what they eat; making sure that food is low fat, low carb, no preservatives, no artificial flavouring, no chemicals etc. A lot more people talk about clean air, clean water, no fluoridation in water and no GM agricultural products. I would like to know whether people know what is in their vitamin pills, vitamin supplements, toothpaste, mouthwash, lip gloss and lipsticks. Why do I mention these items? These are ingested, used or applied to area, namely the lips, where the saliva will dissolve them and eventually ingested.

Mark Bannerman commented that "… researchers have begun mapping the disease. What they found is that breast cancer is more prevalent if you live in a major city, numbers are higher in affluent suburbs too". In a more affluent society, people tend to be better presented in term of appearance, and as a result, the females are likely to use more cosmetics, including lipsticks. Every time a lipstick user drinks liquid or wet her lips by her tongue, she unintentionally dissolves the chemical of the lipstick, which finds its way to the blood stream.

Statistically, there are 2% of men suffering from breast cancer. Men in certain profession do use cosmetics and lipsticks. More and more people also use lipgloss on hot days.

If chemotherapy is the use of drugs to kill cancer cells, then it is very likely that there are chemicals that can trigger or promote the growth of cancer cells. If certain contraceptive pills, alias chemicals, can cause deformity of foetus, there must be chemicals that can cause deformity of cells - or put it bluntly, turn them into cancer cells!

Cigarette was once believed to be harmless, but what has happened to the unfortunate smokers who have signed their own death warrant? Is lipstick / cosmetic the curse of the century for the women? I hope I have not opened the Pandora box.