Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Friday, March 22, 2013

Response To Drescher On Cancer And Chemicals

by Angela Logomasini on March 21, 2013 · 0 comments
Last week, Fran Drescher responded to my Huffington Post article on cancer trends, and today I posted a reply on the Independent Women’s Forum Inkwell blog. In a nutshell, I praise Drescher for her work promoting early detection and a healthy lifestyle that includes both a good diet and exercise, but her focus on chemicals as a significant cancer cause is problematic.
Her basic argument on the Huffington Post was as follows: Most cancers are caused by “environmental factors” and since trace chemicals are present in the human body we should take action to eliminate or reduce them if for no other reason than to simply err on the safe side.
It’s true that “environmental factors” are the cause of most cancers, but researchers define these factors as anything but genetics. As I noted in my article and elsewhere, environmental factors include tobacco, dietary choices, infections, natural radiation, and reproductive behavior among other things. Trace chemicals in consumer products are not a demonstrated cancer source.
What about the fact that chemicals are found in the human body? To Read More....
My Take - Let's face it, Hollywood types are kind of like children,  memorizing other people's words while pretending to be someone else.  So who really cares what Fran Drescher, or any of these Hollywood loons thinks.  She comes out supporting views based on the Precautionary Principle, the foundation of junk science, and she is quoted and lauded.  But think about this; what if she had come out and said that she didn't think trace chemicals had anything to do with causing cancer?  What would the left/green movement have done then?  They would have gone ballistic and then pointed out that she wasn't a medical researcher, nor did she have any scientific qualifications, and for that matter wasn't the least bit qualified to make such statements.  Then they would have pointedly condemned her for being a dupe of big business.  These people shamelessly use celebrities to promote emotion laden junk science as if being a celebrity means they actually know what they are talking about.  But they would condemn anyone who did the same thing from the other side.  So why do they use these people?  Because the left have never had any love of facts, and consistency is a four letter word in that camp.  

No comments:

Post a Comment