Thursday, December 20, 2012

Good News On Cancer

The largest study of its kind finds no clear link between exposure to the pile and cancer:

Over all, there was no increase in the cancer rate of those studied compared with the rate of the general population, researchers concluded after looking at 23 cancers from 2003 to 2008. The prevalence of three cancers — multiple myeloma, prostate and thyroid — was significantly higher, but only in rescue and recovery workers and not in the rest of the exposed population. But since the number of actual cases was small and the subjects of the study may have been screened more frequently for cancer than other people on average, the researchers noted that it was too early to draw any correlation to time spent at ground zero.

 In one of many counterintuitive findings, the incidence of cancer was not higher among those who were exposed more intensely to the toxic substances than among those who were exposed less.
 Needless to say, I expect the Truthers to greet this news with huzzahs of joy.  They're all about the first responders, amIright?  Well, no, they're convinced this is bad news, but they hold out hope:

To make any clear determinations about the cancer-causing impact of the WTC on 9/11, it is still wait and see.
With such a long gestation period for many of the 'expected' cancers, this study needs to be kept current.
And:
 Cancer only. Not looking at respiratory problems? Or association with carbon-nanotubes?
If only they had that kind of skeptical attitude all the time.

40 Comments:

At 20 December, 2012 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now watch as Lying Brian Good tries to convince us that correlation implies causation.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!


 
At 21 December, 2012 11:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

If only someone could curb the cancer of fake "debunking" that promotes so many lies and source-less drivel about that terrible day. YouknowImean...

 
At 21 December, 2012 13:33, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I wonder why NOBODY's study, including your hero Millette's has ever said anything about the melted iron coming from either the torches (Pat's lie) OR from the cement (Guitarlatan's lie)? Why has neither of you retracted your source-less, idiotic assertions?

Could it be because you're both cowardly losers? Has either of you EVER been interested in talking about the facts of that day? Don't bother responding: critical thinkers know the answer.

 
At 21 December, 2012 13:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another lame attempt to hijack the thread, Ali?

Do you still molest Arab boys for Mohammed?

And remember, he who bathes every 40 days, I'm just asking questions.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!


 
At 21 December, 2012 17:35, Blogger Jon Gold said...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/study-finds-increased-rate-of-3-types-of-cancer-among-911-recovery-workers/

Just an FYI, there have been many articles that talk about how "in the rescue recovery workers, we found a significantly increased rate of three types of cancer — prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and a blood cancer called multiple myeloma."

 
At 21 December, 2012 18:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I wonder why NOBODY's study, including your hero Millette's has ever said anything about the melted iron coming from either the torches (Pat's lie) OR from the cement (Guitarlatan's lie)? Why has neither of you retracted your source-less, idiotic assertions?"

There's nothing to debunk because the infamous sample wasn't obtained until 2004, almost three years since the attack. It's not something they scooped up at Ground Zero on 9/12/2001. As definitive evidence it, and the other samples are 100% worthless.

If you want to get all excited that's your right as an American, but it's not valid evidence so there's no point in debunking it other than the many laughs to be achieved along the way.

Glad I could help.

 
At 22 December, 2012 09:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In light of this, does the Movement still believe that WTC dust caused Janette MacKinlay's cancer?

 
At 22 December, 2012 13:04, Blogger Ian said...

Carbon nanotubes? Wasn't that the "specialty" of some Neo-Nazi fraud that was cited as an expert in the original "Loose Change"?

It's funny how that was the original purpose of this blog: debunking "Loose Change". Dylan Avery has moved on from his youthful foolishness, and what's left of the truthers is just hopeless lunatics like Brian Good and the con artists who swindle them like Richard Gage.

 
At 22 December, 2012 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

The widows asked 300 questions and only got 27 answers; NIST only gave us half a report, have acknowledged that they can not explain the collapses of the towers, and failed to explain ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise; and the 9/11 Commission ignored information provided by Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds, and others.

The fact of these shortcomings in the official investigations is irrefutable. These questions will be addressed sooner or later. If our quest for answers must be addressed to History instead of government, so be it--and it's an indictment of our cowardly media that we must render the questions at all.

 
At 22 December, 2012 15:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another pathetic attempt to hijack the thread, pervert? Same shit, different day.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 December, 2012 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

When you or Ian want to lie about me, that's on topic for you, I guess.
But when I respond, that's hijacking the thread.

 
At 22 December, 2012 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 December, 2012 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Fuck you, pervert. Your comment at time stamp 22 December, 2012 15:24 isn't a "response" at all. It's another 100% fact-free provocation designed to hijack the thread.

See? You lie first, last and always.

There's no need for you to reply to every comment. As always, you lord over the blog waiting to pounce on ANY opportunity to hijack and derail a thread with off-topic nonsense. As your troofer buddy "Snowcrash" pointed out, you're a fucking troll, scumbag.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 December, 2012 17:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

regyp
You just don't like me replying because I point out how you make a fool of yourself every time.

How does it feel to be scammed by a janitor, genius?

 
At 22 December, 2012 17:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another lame effort to hijack the thread, provocateur pervert?

The only janitor who's trying to scam me can be found between your chair and your semen-encrusted keyboard, pervert.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 22 December, 2012 17:33, Blogger Ian said...

The widows asked 300 questions and only got 27 answers; NIST only gave us half a report, have acknowledged that they can not explain the collapses of the towers, and failed to explain ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise; and the 9/11 Commission ignored information provided by Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds, and others.

The fact of these shortcomings in the official investigations is irrefutable. These questions will be addressed sooner or later. If our quest for answers must be addressed to History instead of government, so be it--and it's an indictment of our cowardly media that we must render the questions at all.


Nobody cares what you think, Brian. That much should be obvious after years of posting here.

 
At 23 December, 2012 08:36, Blogger Len said...

Jon Gold said...
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/study-finds-increased-rate-of-3-types-of-cancer-among-911-recovery-workers/

Just an FYI, there have been many articles that talk about how "in the rescue recovery workers, we found a significantly increased rate of three types of cancer — prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and a blood cancer called multiple myeloma."

21 December, 2012 17:35


According to the cited article:

“In both the rescue recovery workers and the non-rescue recovery workers, we did not find any different overall cancer rate from what we determined from the background rate from the New York State Cancer Registry,” Dr. Steven D. Stellman told CBS 2′s Dr. Max Gomez.

But the study in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked deeper and found there were some specific cancer increases.

“Only in the rescue recovery workers, we found a significantly increased rate of three types of cancer — prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and a blood cancer called multiple myeloma,” Stellman said.


Thus the article says the exact same thing as Pat's post. And if the OVERALL rate is the same but the rate for some types is higher then the rates for some other types must be lower.

 
At 23 December, 2012 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, try as you might to make it all about some figment of your imagination that you pretend is me, and try as you might to make it about opinions instead of facts, these facts are irrefutable: The widows asked 300 questions and only got 27 answers; NIST only gave us half a report, have acknowledged that they can not explain the collapses of the towers, and failed to explain ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise; and the 9/11 Commission ignored information provided by Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds, and others.

The fact of these shortcomings in the official investigations is irrefutable. These questions will be addressed sooner or later. If our quest for answers must be addressed to History instead of government, so be it--and it's an indictment of our cowardly media that we must render the questions at all.


 
At 23 December, 2012 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another pathetic attempt to hijack the thread, asshole?

Listen, asshole, no one cares about your homosexual obsession for William Rodriguez; no one cares about your idiotic "essential mysteries;" no one cares about your douche-bag "widows" or their loaded questions; no one cares about your alleged "shortcomings in the official investigations;" and no one cares about Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds.

Now stop trying to hijack the thread, pervert.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 23 December, 2012 15:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for demonstrating clearly your personality disorders, and showing your lack of regard for the truth.



 
At 23 December, 2012 16:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Are you deaf, pervert? I said shut the fuck up, asshole.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 23 December, 2012 17:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"these facts are irrefutable: The widows asked 300 questions and only got 27 answers"

That's because the other 273 questions are bullshit. Refuted.

" NIST only gave us half a report, have acknowledged that they can not explain the collapses of the towers, and failed to explain ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise"

Actually, they did a good job of explaining the collapse of WTC1 on Page 34, Tower 2 on page 45, and WTC7 on pages 21 through 23 of that report. The proof of the quality of the NIST reports are the recommendations they contain for building construction & safety. They are well thought out based on the evidence from Ground Zero.

You're just butt-hurt because they went out of their way to say they found no evidence of CD.

" and the 9/11 Commission ignored information provided by and Sibel Edmonds, and others."

Nope. Edmonds' information wasn't anything we didn't already know.

Anthony Shaffer has been problematic because he's more of a self-promoter than a patriot. In the end he talks about an Army intelligence operation that may have identified Atta in advance, but the Constitution made their operation illegal within the United States. Since 9/11 these operations seem to be legal, or at least tolerated, and of course 9/11 troofers whine about their civil liberties being violated by these same operations...which technically they are, but you can't have it both ways.

"The fact of these shortcomings in the official investigations is irrefutable."

I just refuted them.

"These questions will be addressed sooner or later."

Sooner. Most have been laid to rest.

"If our quest for answers must be addressed to History instead of government, so be it"

Yeah, history will lump you guys in with John Birchers, and Lyndon LaRouche. And history will laugh hard.



"--and it's an indictment of our cowardly media that we must render the questions at all."

What, you mean the media that's based in NYC and Washington D.C? The guys with hundreds of cameras trained on the WTC on 9/11? The guys who have sources everywhere? The same media who hated Bush so much they had to seek psych counseling? The guys like the NYTimes who've read most of the Wikileaks documents a looking for Bush Administration lies, and finding few if any?

The media who lost friends in the 9/11 attacks?

That cowardly media?

Here's an idea.

You are the coward. Get off your lazy ass and get to work. At least Gage quit his just to pursue his beliefs. You've done nothing. If all of this evidence is out there it's up to you to put it together.

Put up, or shut up.

 
At 23 December, 2012 19:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, try as you might to make it all about some figment of your imagination that you pretend is me, and try as you might to make it about opinions instead of facts, these facts are irrefutable: The widows asked 300 questions and only got 27 answers; NIST only gave us half a report, have acknowledged that they can not explain the collapses of the towers, and failed to explain ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise; and the 9/11 Commission ignored information provided by Anthony Shaffer and Sibel Edmonds, and others.

The fact of these shortcomings in the official investigations is irrefutable. These questions will be addressed sooner or later. If our quest for answers must be addressed to History instead of government, so be it--and it's an indictment of our cowardly media that we must render the questions at all.


MGF already said the important things, but I'd like to add that no matter how much spam you post, no matter how hysterically you squeal, nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.

Have a Merry Christmas, petgoat!

 
At 23 December, 2012 20:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your ignorant opinion does not refute the fact that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered.
Kindly identify one of the 273 unanswered questions that you regard as bullshit, and explain why it's bullshit.

NIST's 150-word "explanation" that you consider satisfactory does not explain the collapses at all. It is simply a listing of the structural insults the buildings suffered. The assumption that because the building collapsed after the buildings suffered these insults, therefore these insults caused the collapses is a logical fallacy. If you would bother to check the evidence supporting these assertions, you would find that some of them are based on no evidence at all.

The evidence for CD is all after the moment of collapse initiation, all in the part of the incident that NIST leaves out of its half-a-report. It's in the ten essential mysteries of the collapses that NIST dodged. NIST's willful blindness in this regard is damning.

With respect to civil liberties and anti-terrorist activities--yes, actually we CAN have it both ways. The Constitutional protections that Bush and Obama abuse against citizens in no way interfered with the right and the duty of our intelligence agencies to investigate a terrorist organization's known agents who were known to be inside the USA, and who were in violation of immigration laws. You seem to think that the argument that Ms. Edmond's information was already known (not all of it was) and that Mr. Shaffer's operation was illegal (a dubious opinion) are an excuse to leave them out of the 9/11 Commission investigation. You have refuted nothing. Your arguments are specious.






















 
At 24 December, 2012 08:46, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, I'd like to remind you that no matter how much spam you post, no matter how hysterically you squeal, nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.

 
At 24 December, 2012 09:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Spoken like the flocking dinosaur you are. The future belongs to those who have the courage to think for themselves.

 
At 24 December, 2012 11:32, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, I'd like to remind you that no matter how much spam you post, no matter how hysterically you squeal, nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.

Also, Santa Claus is likely to bring you a lump of coal, given that your harassment of Willie Rodriguez likely put you on the naughty list.

 
At 24 December, 2012 11:44, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian's hysterical babbling about dinosaurs and the future is funny, given that he's a hopeless burnt out relic who still thinks it's 1968, while I'm young and successful and have a bright future ahead of me.

 
At 24 December, 2012 17:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Kindly identify one of the 273 unanswered questions that you regard as bullshit, and explain why it's bullshit."

We've covered this before many times. Look it up.

"NIST's 150-word "explanation" that you consider satisfactory does not explain the collapses at all. It is simply a listing of the structural insults the buildings suffered."

Or what smart people call "Chain of Events", and any two of them could have brought the towers down. If you read their recommendations for code changes in construction you'll see it's clear why the towers and 7 came down.



"The assumption that because the building collapsed after the buildings suffered these insults, therefore these insults caused the collapses is a logical fallacy."

In Brian world maybe. In the engineering department it's just called logic.

"If you would bother to check the evidence supporting these assertions, you would find that some of them are based on no evidence at all."

Yeah, no.

"The evidence for CD is all after the moment of collapse initiation, all in the part of the incident that NIST leaves out of its half-a-report."

And if they'd found evidence of CD it would be in the report.

"It's in the ten essential mysteries of the collapses that NIST dodged. NIST's willful blindness in this regard is damning."

They didn't dodge anything. just because you, Gage, Gold, and the rest of the troofers are too stupid to understand it doesn't make it a mystery.

"With respect to civil liberties and anti-terrorist activities--yes, actually we CAN have it both ways."

No, hence Civil Liberties. It's either one way or the other.


"You seem to think that the argument that Ms. Edmond's information was already known (not all of it was) and that Mr. Shaffer's operation was illegal (a dubious opinion) are an excuse to leave them out of the 9/11 Commission investigation."

Edmonds had an axe to grind. Her testimony added no new information that had not already been revealed in the FBI & CIA internal investigations (which the commission already had).

It wasn't Shaffer's operation. He was part of an Army intel unit. The Army follows the law. Their operation was an experiment on cross-pollination of intelligence sources. It strayed into internal surveillance, which is illegal, and was shut down. The information the Army had was given to them by the various intelligence agencies, and we already know they dropped the ball.



 
At 26 December, 2012 08:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, exposing a con artist's scumbaggery is hardly naughty. I've proven that Wizzie's hero story is a lie. The death statistics show it.

There were 15,000 office workers on 120-something floors under the impact zone. 120 people per floor. 99% of the civilians evacuated successfully, whether they had Wizzie's help or not. About 100 died. On Willie's 39 floors, that would be 30 deaths. Of these, let's suppose half were mobility-impaired or trapped in elevators, and Wizzie could do nothing for them. So that leaves 15 people on Wizzie's floors who were potentially available for his to save their lives. His claim that he saved hundreds is a bald-faced lie.

 
At 26 December, 2012 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

oubcod 6132MGF, yes we have many times before covered the fact that you can not explain why you believe any of the widows' questions are bullshit.

Contrary to your claim, NIST admits that none of their list of structural insults could have brought the buildings down without adding in the unproven and unrealistic assumption that the fireproofing was completely stripped off. NIST provides no proof that this happened. Their own steel samples show that the core steel wasn't heated above 480 F.

Reverse-engineering your input parameters to get the right answers is not "logic", MGF, and it's not science.

NIST's claim that they found no evidence of CD is a case of willful blindness. All the evidence of the CD occurs AFTER the moment of collapse initiation, and AFTER NIST stops its analysis. The 10 essential mysteries are almost all evidence of CD, and NIST dodged them. Contrary to your claim, they provided no explanation.

Yes, we CAN have civil liberties and anti-terrorist protections. There is no constitutional right for known agents of known terrorist organizations with known plans to fly hijacked airliners into our buildings to plot the execution of those terrorist acts.

The point about Ms. Edmonds is that the 9/11 Commission left the information out of the reports. Whether they already had the internal agency reports or not is irrelevant even if it's true (and coming from you, I doubt it). They left the information out of the report.

What is your source for the claim that the Able Danger operation was illegal? Who was prosecuted? What exactly makes it illegal? Says who?

 
At 26 December, 2012 15:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, exposing a con artist's scumbaggery is hardly naughty. I've proven that Wizzie's hero story is a lie. The death statistics show it.

There were 15,000 office workers on 120-something floors under the impact zone. 120 people per floor. 99% of the civilians evacuated successfully, whether they had Wizzie's help or not. About 100 died. On Willie's 39 floors, that would be 30 deaths. Of these, let's suppose half were mobility-impaired or trapped in elevators, and Wizzie could do nothing for them. So that leaves 15 people on Wizzie's floors who were potentially available for his to save their lives. His claim that he saved hundreds is a bald-faced lie.


Nobody cares about your homosexual obsession with Rodriguez.

 
At 26 December, 2012 15:38, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, I'd like to remind you that no matter how much spam you post, no matter how hysterically you squeal, nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.

 
At 26 December, 2012 17:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for the fashion tips, Butch. I bet you bought FNMA at 70.

 
At 26 December, 2012 18:11, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for the fashion tips, Butch. I bet you bought FNMA at 70.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I have enough money to invest in securities, while he can't even afford a decent haircut or clothing that isn't from Goodwill.

Anyway, Brian, I called the bull market peak of October, 2007. You, meanwhile, predicted that your "meatball on a fork" model would be published in a journal of engineering. How did that work out?

 
At 26 December, 2012 20:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're just papering the place with liespam to try to cover over the fact that I cleaned MGF's clock in the post above.

 
At 27 December, 2012 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

You're just papering the place with liespam to try to cover over the fact that I cleaned MGF's clock in the post above.

Yup, this is the kind of hysterical babbling I expect from Brian. After all, he knows that nothing will change. The truth movement has failed.

Also, MGF humiliated you, much as I do every day by pointing out that you're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

 
At 27 December, 2012 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, do you think the "widows" will have their "questions" answered in 2013?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 27 December, 2012 08:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

All Ian has is lies. Ian chortles about the frustration of the family members in their quest for answers, and GuitarBill calls the 9/11 widows "douchebags". Great job of debunking, guys.

 
At 01 January, 2013 01:04, Blogger Pat said...

"Jon Gold said...

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/18/study-finds-increased-rate-of-3-types-of-cancer-among-911-recovery-workers/

Just an FYI, there have been many articles that talk about how "in the rescue recovery workers, we found a significantly increased rate of three types of cancer — prostate cancer, thyroid cancer and a blood cancer called multiple myeloma.""

You can always hope, Jon. Personally I will always hope against higher rates of cancer for the first responders.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home