Posted on 06/23/2007 5:01:28 PM PDT by neverdem
JOHN Travolta blames school shootings sprees on mind-altering prescription drugs rather than poor gun control.
The Pulp Fiction star claimed: “If you analyse most of the school shootings, it’s not gun control.
“It is psychotropic drugs at the bottom of it.”
Yet the most recent US school atrocity involved Virginia Tech gunman Cho Seung-Hui, who was NOT on medication when he gunned down 32 people two months ago.
Travolta, 53, added: “I don’t want to create controversy. I’ve an opinion.”
Travolta follows the Scientology religion like actor Tom Cruise, who faced a backlash in 2005 when he criticised anti-depressant drugs.
He is spot on.
The last 2 shooters may not have been on drugs - but the vast majority have - drugs like Prozac - that have long been known to be dangerous, particularly for young people. - and has known side effects like suicide. rage, delusions and violence.
::::
Yes, he is. While many here do not understand the message and the scientific facts behind what Travola said, it is indeed shocking to find out how many of these murdering nutjobs have been on mind-altering drugs like Prozac and Ritalin (sp?). For example, it was discovered that the Columbine killers were on Ritalin. I am in my sixties now, and I look back and ask “how did we get through life without all those drugs?” It is an easy cop-out to replace politically-incorrect DISCIPLINE that the liberals hate, with drugs. And that is exactly what is happening.
I remember my youth years, and we did NOT have these kinds of problems. Everyone owned guns and it was a non-issue, then as it is now. It is the PEOPLE that are different now, not guns or gun ownership. But the libs will try and convince the ignorant masses that is the case. Almost daily.
I am trying.
It is very difficult and very expensive. In “my” favor is the fact that my child wants to come stay with me. Sometimes they instinctively know what’s best for them ;’}
Surprised you watched it, I shut it off and read the personal experiences of people who had been on different antidepressants. I figured I could get better information from them than Michael Moore.
It's a pdf link from the NY State Dept. of Health about the high rate of breast cancer on Long Island.
CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION
BREAST CANCER RISK FACTORS with references starts on page 25.
“The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.”(Page 26)
If you want to search, I'd enter (termination of pregnancy or TOP or abortion) and breast cancer into PubMed. Look for Related Links in the upper right of the individual abtracts. Here's one of them that's a 90 % increase.
Induced abortion and risk for breast cancer: reporting (recall) bias in a Dutch case-control study.
The theory behind it is that the breast tissue was not allowed to completely develop from the whole sequence of hormonal changes when interrupted by an abortion. These semi-developed breasts are now prone to cancer. Many of the studies report no statistically significant correlation because the women in question are still relatively young, i.e. they're lame studies done for political correctness, or other methodological problems.
There are hundreds of them, you mean you cant find them?look up www.etters.net/cancer TP.htm#10
Also for just a few tid bits, lifenews.com Studies show Abortion breast cancer link Exists, despite Oxford survey, or should we say “rigged survey”
Cancer awareness Canada
Black Women (who the racist abortion industry like planned parenthood targets) age 50 who had at least one induced abortion showed an 370% increase in breast cancer.
The Journal of National health Medical association
Women under 18 150% increase
Women aged 30, who aborted first pregnancy, increase of 110%.
Look up CWAs listings a very good source and very credible CWA is about the largest Womens organisation out there.
Also National Cancer institute of Canada
Also In France Researcher Nadine Andrieu, Rohan dataon abortion showed 160% increase,
Also in Japan studies since 1957 all show around 100% increase.
American Journal on Epidemology.
Why the silence About Abortion and breast cancer? Chicago Tribune-—May 21 2001
Oral testamony given before Repoductive health Drugs Advisory committee of the FDA July 19 1996, Women who were coming in for breast cancer were admitting having had abortions. Other studies showing 90% increases.
etc...etc...etc..etc... The evidence is overwhelming. Now if the liberal lying media would just be honest for once, but thats another story.
For a pro-lifer, anti-abortion mother of five, with no history of miscarriages or elective abortions - it is disheartening to learn that a diagnosis of breast cancer (and that of other women) has one more perceived identity malignancy to overcome.
I’ll stick with genetic disposition, hormonal prescriptions and post-partum lactation medication.
Kindly
sp
I hear what you are saying here, but I dont think that drugs are what is pushing people to the extremes, but poor beliefs are realy where the answer is found there are direct correlations between peoples types of beliefs and the culture and its disfunctional lifestyles. For example you say google is your friend, but did you know google is the biggest porn directory in history. We can expect to reap what we sow! ~ Peace!!!
Who says shes insane, YOU? If you were realy about your children you wouldnt talk about their mother with words like shes insane.
For a pro-lifer, anti-abortion mother of five, with no history of miscarriages or elective abortions - it is disheartening to learn that a diagnosis of breast cancer (and that of other women) has one more perceived identity malignancy to overcome.
I’ll stick with genetic disposition, hormonal prescriptions and post-partum lactation medication.
Kindly
sp
There are perhaps many different things that can cause breast cancer, but the facts on these studies concerning abortion are real. Perhaps birth control pills, this causes unknown abortions. by claiming the the human embryo is not life when it overwhelmingly is life,(no one would smash bird eggs in its mothers nest and then claim they have done no wrong, but why not they are just embryos? This is what some try and blindly claim) birth control pills also been linked to breast cancer. Some women take these pills and then claim they are pro life. There are many factors that can be calculated. ~ Peace In Christ alone!!!!!
Just please don’t point your finger at a hemophiliac suffering from AIDs because of tainted blood or at a breast cancer survivor whose medical risks do not include abortion in his/her history.
I will pray that you suffer neither.
Christ’s blessings.
He was not on HIS medication. Had he taken some previously?
It can create dependencies and shift the imbalance.
Not saying that prescriptions are the cure. Locking up the criminally insane IS the cure. Put them under house arrest with their legal guardian keeping tabs on them.
No gun purchases because there is no free movement.
If these people are not going to be “responsible” for their own actions then someone who IS mentally capable should be responsible for them.
This is not about “prosecuting” the legal guardian for the misdeeds of the incompetent, it is about keeping the incompetent from acting out. The loaded gun of mental instability is already established.
Harsh?
We lock up and suspend the licenses of “drunk” drivers at 0.08 (or less) because they MAY do harm, not because they HAVE done harm.
My solution only requires an ankle monitor. No government insane asylum, no government prison cell.
We are told that the Virginia Tech shooter was “functional”. No he wasn’t. He could “pass” for normal but he was not functional. His writings and photo and video works show his rage. And eventually he did TAKE OUT his agression. He didn’t “snap”. He’d been there for a long time.
wakeup and go to sleep
Man....I can’t believe I’m agreeing with the man who kissed another man on the lips.
ICK....that picture makes me ill.
What you suggest is not unreasonable at all. It appears to me that the main objection to this plan is the perceived lack of checks & balances. One man with a grudge and the authority can ruin an innocent party.
There is another thread about someone being charged with an alleged rape that is supposed to have occurred decades earlier. Another case of the “justice system” (now there’s an oxymoron for ya) run amuck.
We don’t want crazy people running around armed, and likewise we don’t want the State arbitrarily disarming people...
I don't know what a "perceived identity malignancy" is.
There was a question about abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer. I don't care to get long printouts for comments on my threads, but since this came from maybe the most politically correct Department of Health in the country, headed by a woman, Antonia C. Novello, former Surgeon General of the U.S. (1990-1993) and who became Commissioner of Health for the State of New York in 1999. The title of the report is "CORAM, MT. SINAI, PORT JEFFERSON STATION (CMP) FOLLOW-UP INVESTIGATION." Its pdf link is in comment# 44. It's subject is the high rate of breast cancer in a part of Long Island. Some of you may want to bookmark this thread for the link and references for its recognition of the fact that not having a full-term pregnancy is a risk factor for breast cancer. Here's a printout from pages 25 through 29 which includes its references.
C. Breast Cancer Risk Factors
Any investigation into possible factors related to breast cancer incidence in an area needs to consider what is already known about risk factors for breast cancer. The epidemiologic literature on breast cancer is extensive. In the mid-1990s, the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer identified 66 epidemiologic studies from around the world that included at least 100 women with breast cancer (Collaborative Group, 1996). Several more have been completed since. This chapter is therefore not intended to be comprehensive. Current understandings of established risk factors are summarized in some recent scientific and popular reviews (Hulka 2001, Kelsey 1996, Hankinson 2002, ACS 2003, Harvard 2000).
A number of risk factors for breast cancer have been identified. The most important of these are sex and age. Breast cancer risk in females is about 100 times greater than risk in males. Risk increases sharply with age until approximately age 50, and then more gradually, leveling off at about age 70. To control for these risk factors, the mapping analysis was restricted to breast cancer in females, and expected numbers of cases in each ZIP Code were calculated taking into account the age distribution of females in that ZIP Code.
Breast cancer is known to occur more frequently in white women than in African American, Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American women. Indications are that it also is less common among women of Hispanic origin than among non-Hispanic whites. Breast cancer incidence has been found to be highest in the countries of North America and Northern Europe, and lowest in the developing countries of Asia, Africa and South America.
Other risk factors relating to genetic, reproductive, nutritional and other factors are well established. Women with a family history of breast cancer are known to be at an increased risk of the disease, particularly if the cancers occurred in first-degree relatives affected at a young age. A number of mutations have now been identified at two breast cancer genes that confer an extremely high risk of breast cancer on female carriers, although most familial cases have not been associated with identified mutations. It has been estimated that a family history of the disease in first degree relatives account for 5-10% of breast cancer cases.
Women who have had a prior breast cancer are known to be at a greater risk of developing a second cancer in the other breast, or in the remaining breast tissue. Due to the counting rules in use at the time by the Cancer Registry however, second (or later) primary breast cancers were not included in the mapping analysis. (Breast cancers that were diagnosed in persons with a history of another type of cancer, for example colon cancer, were included.) Risk is also known to be greater in women with certain types of benign breast disease and in post-menopausal women with a mammographic finding of dense breasts (Byrne 1995).
Final Integration Report June 2006 25
The importance of reproductive factors in affecting breast cancer risk has been known for a long time. Women who have never given birth (or had a full-term pregnancy) are at a higher risk for breast cancer compared to women who have carried a pregnancy to term.
Among women who have given birth, the age of a woman at her first delivery is an important factor influencing breast cancer risk. Women who are under 20 years old when they have their first full-term pregnancy have the most reduced risk of breast cancer. Women who are between the ages of 20 and 29 when they have their first full-term pregnancy have a slightly greater risk than women under 20 years old who carry full-term. Women who are older than 30 when they have their first full-term pregnancy have a risk about equal to, or slightly greater than, women who had never given birth.
Women with more children also have a lower risk of breast cancer compared to women with fewer children. Researchers have considered that women who have their first full-term pregnancy at a young age are more likely to end up having more children than women who start childbearing late in life. Even among women who were the same age at first full-term pregnancy, however, those with more total births have a lower risk than those with fewer births. Breastfeeding is another reproductive factor that has received attention in relation to its effects on breast cancer risk. A recent article from the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer (2002a) shows that total duration of breastfeeding has an independent effect on reducing the risk of breast cancer over and above that of the reproductive factors discussed previously. Differences in the duration of breastfeeding may account for much of the observed difference in breast cancer rates between developing and developed nations. Other reproductive factors that have been shown to increase the risk of breast cancer include an early age at menarche and a late age at menopause. Both of these factors imply a longer duration of exposure to endogenous estrogens. Some recent studies have also shown a higher risk of breast cancer among women with higher levels of circulating estrogens (Thomas 1997).
These reproductive factors are all associated with variations in the levels, types and timing of endogenous estrogen a woman is exposed to. It might be expected that exogenous estrogens such as those found in various hormone preparations may also play a role. In many studies, oral contraceptives (birth control pills) have been found to increase risk of breast cancer. The greatest increased risk has been observed in current users, and former users within five years of discontinuing use; little increased risk is observed ten or more years after discontinuing use. Hormone replacement therapy is used to counteract the effects of the cessation of estrogen production during menopause. Replacement therapy has been found to increase breast cancer risk to the same extent as not going through menopause.
Dietary factors are believed to play a role in breast cancer. Obesity is an established risk factor for breast cancer in post-menopausal women. International comparisons show higher rates of breast cancer in countries where dietary fat consumption is high, but dietary intervention studies have not been able to reduce breast cancer risk in women by restricting fat consumption. Several recent studies have suggested that physical activity may decrease the risk of breast cancer, possibly by leading to anovulatory cycles and hence, lower total estrogen exposure in some women. Some studies have shown the risk of breast cancer to be greater in taller women, which might be related to
Final Integration Report June 2006 26
high caloric intake or to a faster growth rate during childhood and adolescence (Tretli 1989, Kelsey 1996, Harvard 2000). It has often been observed that breast cancer rates are higher in more affluent areas (see, for example, Rimpela 1987). This is usually attributed to childbearing patterns, as more affluent women are more likely to attend college and thereby delay childbearing. Certain occupations have been observed to be associated with characteristically high breast cancer rates, including teaching and health care occupations (see, for example, NYS DOH 1986, Bernstein, et al., 2002). These associations as well might be attributable, at least in part, to childbearing patterns. Breast cancer studies in the past 20 years have produced fairly consistent results showing elevated breast cancer risk associated with heavy alcoholic beverage consumption, defined in most studies as more than three drinks per day. An important study published in 2002 (Collaborative Group 2002b) reanalyzed individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, which included 58,515 women with breast cancer and 95,067 without the disease. This meta-analysis concluded that breast cancer risk was elevated by approximately 30% for individuals consuming between three and four drinks per day and by approximately 40% for those consuming more than four drinks per day. If the observed relationship is causal, the authors estimate that about 4% of breast cancers in developed countries are attributable to alcohol. Studies of cigarette smoking and breast cancer conducted in the 1960s and 1970s usually compared women who have ever smoked to women who have never smoked. They showed no consistent association between smoking and breast cancer risk (Collaborative Group, 2000b). However, these studies did not take into account the possible effects of exposure to secondhand tobacco smoke or “passive smoking.” Because study questionnaires did not ask about passive smoking, women with this type of exposure were grouped together with non-smokers in these analyses. In some more recent studies, passive smoking was taken into account. These more recent studies show associations with both passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk. In a Canadian study of 2,317 breast cancer cases and 2,438 controls for whom full risk factor histories, including lifetime residential and occupational histories of exposure to passive smoking, were gathered by questionnaire, active and passive smoking were each associated with more than a doubling of premenopausal risk of breast cancer. Postmenopausal risk estimates were not as high, but were also elevated (Johnson, 2000). Five other studies have assessed passive as well as active smoking, and these studies consistently show an approximate doubling of breast cancer risk associated with passive and with active smoking (Lash, 1999; Morabia, 1996; Smith, 1994; Hirayama, 1990; Sandler, 1985). Studies of tobacco exposures are complicated by the fact that individuals with tobacco exposures are also more likely to be consumers of alcoholic beverages. Since heavy alcohol use is associated with increased breast cancer risk, alcohol use needs to be carefully addressed in these studies. An additional complication in studying the effect of tobacco use is that active smoking is known to have an antiestrogenic effect resulting in, for example, some women having an earlier natural menopause, which would reduce their potential risk for breast cancer. Studies of tobacco exposure and breast cancer have also suggested that individual genetic variations that affect the body’s metabolism of compounds from cigarette smoke alter breast cancer risk associated with tobacco exposures (Morabia, 2000; Ishibe, 1998).
Final Integration Report June 2006 27
It has been estimated that known risk factors account for only 30% of breast cancer cases. A more recent study, however, concluded that almost half of breast cancer cases in the United States population could be accounted for by these risk factors: later age at first birth, never having given birth, higher family income and family history of breast cancer. Inclusion of additional risk factors, including earlier age at menarche, history of benign breast disease, and alcohol consumption, would increase the proportion even further (Madigan and Ziegler, 1995). 1. References
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, Breast cancer and hormonal contraceptives: Collaborative reanalysis of individual data on 53297 women with breast cancer and 100239 women without breast cancer from 54 epidemiological studies, Lancet 347:1713-1727 (1996). Hulka BS and Moorman PG, Breast cancer: hormones and other risk factors, Maturitas 38: 103-116, 2001.
Kelsey JL and Bernstein L, Epidemiology and prevention of breast cancer, Annual Reviews of Public Health 17:47-67, 1996.
Hankinson S and Hunter D, Breast Cancer, in Adami H, Hunter D, Trichopoulos D, Textbook of Cancer Epidemiology, Oxford 2002; 301-339.
American Cancer Society, Breast Cancer Facts and Figures 2003-2004, Atlanta: American Cancer Society, 2003. Harvard Center for Cancer Prevention, Your Cancer Risk: Breast Cancer Risk List, at http://www.yourcancerrisk.harvard.edu/hccpquiz.pl?func=show&quiz=breast&page=risk list, 2000, accessed April 2004.
Byrne C, Schairer, C, Wolfe J et al., Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age and menopause status, J Natl Cancer Inst 87:1622-9, 1995.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer, Breast cancer and breastfeeding: collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 47 epidemiological studies in 30 countries, including 51302 women with breast cancer and 96973 women without the disease, Lancet 360: 187-195, 2002(a). Thomas HV, Reeves GK, Key TJ, Endogenous estrogen and postmenopausal breast cancer: a quantitative review, Cancer Causes Control 8:922-8, 1997.
Tretli, Height and weight in relation to breast cancer morbidity and mortality. A prospective study of 570,000 women in Norway, Int J Cancer 44:23-30, 1989.
Rimpela AH, Pukkala EI, Cancers of affluence: positive social class gradient and rising incidence trend in some cancer forms, Soc Sci Med 24:601-606, 1987.
New York State Department of Health, Mortality in New York State* (*Exclusive of New York City), 1980-1982. A Report by Occupation and Industry, Albany NY: New York State Department of Health, Monograph No. 21, 1986.
Bernstein L et al., High breast cancer incidence rates among California teachers: results from the California Teachers Study (United States), Cancer Causes and Control 13: 625-635, 2002.
Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer “Alcohol, tobacco and breast cancer- collaborative reanalysis of individual data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 58 575 women with breast cancer and 95 067 without the disease,” Br. J. Cancer 87: 1234-1245, 2002(b).
Johnson KC, Hu J, Mao Y and the Canadian Cancer Registries Epidemiology Research Group, Passive and active smoking and breast cancer risk in Canada, 1994-97, Cancer Causes and Control, 2000, 11: 211-221.
Lash TL, Aschengrau A, Active and passive Cigarette smoking and the occurrence of breast cancer, Amer J of Epid, 1999, 149:1, 5-12.
Final Integration Report June 2006 28
Morabia A, Bernstein M, Heritier S, Khatchatrian N, Relation of breast cancer with passive and active exposure to tobacco smoke, Amer J of Epid, 1996, 143:9, 918-928. Sandler DP, Wilcox AJ, Everson RB, Cumulative effects of lifetime passive smoking on cancer risk. Lancet, 1985, 1, 312-315.
Hirayama T, Cancer de mama: avances in diagnostico y tratamiento. In: Diaz-Faes J, (ed.) Epidemiologia y factores desriesgo del cancer de mama. 1990, Leon, Spain: Santiago Garcia, pp. 21-38 (described in Johnson, 2000).
Smith SJ, Deacon JM, Chilvers CE, Alcohol, smoking, passive smoking and caffeine in relation to breast cancer risk in young women. UK National case-control study group, British J of Cancer 1994, 70, 112-119.
Morabia A, Bernstein MS, Bouchardy I, Kurtz J, Morris MA, “Breast cancer and active and passive smoking: the role of the NAcetyltransferase 2 genotype, Am J of Epid, 2000, 152:3, 226-232. Ishibe N, Hankinson SE, Colditz GA, Spiegelman D, Willet WC, Speizer FE, Kelsey KT, Hunter DJ, Cigarette smoking, cytochrome P450 1A1 Polymorphisms, and breast cancer risk in the nurses’ health study, Cancer Research, 1998, 58, 667-671.
Madigan MP, Ziegler RG et al., Proportion of breast cancer cases in the United States explained by well-established risk factors, J Natl Cancer Institute 87(22): 1681-1685.
Final Integration Report June 2006 29
I thought that I might as well share this with everyone, IMHO.
He’s dead on ..... druggies kill
I kiss my father every time I see him.
I'd certainly say that of most Hollywood clods-turned self-appointed political "experts," but this is actually an exception. Certainly Travolta's no doctor, and anyone who takes medical advice from him is either suicidal or as dumb as he appears to be. But as others have posted, at least he didn't blame the guns.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.