Hemp oil supplements would eradicate breast cancer, everyone just wastes their time otherwise. You want to make a system, start by standing against the system that allows cancer to exist in the first place!
@Wiseguyzmoney If it was made properly, there would be a -VERY- good chance. Research Cannabinoids, it's a natural chemical in the body which has as many uses for the body as hemp does for everything else, cancer prevention and repair including.
Thermography has also been shown to be effective at locating tumours and it does so with NO harmful radiation since it's an infrared heat scan! If Dr. Rhodes' scanner is still more effective, then I propose that it could be used infrequently to limit radiation exposure, and thermography could be used on a very regular basis in between. A thermographic camera is an inexpensive piece of equipment that could easily find a place in every doctor's office.
@lowerlowerhk I'm a member of the Tesla Science Foundation. They have an annual meeting for a week in July in Philadelphia every year. You interested?
@lassek85 Seems so in this particular situation. Seems we can not implament the right system because the bullshit profit incentive insn't there. I mean people could save lives, but not at the expence of tailored suits..? Seems like a no brainer.
Its because of the stagnant markets that are called "working markets" (or similar bs), price competition works best in the introductionphase and when oligopolies gets to stagnant and pure monopolies arise due to pricewars.
My point being that the system works in that way when you got majorityelections, noneofficial funding and the liberal/conservative agenda as basis, its stagnant not progressive. That is why people need to work through government and make it their own.
@lassek85 I don't know much about markets, but I think even if we do work to take power of this system it's inevitably going to lead us right back to were we are now. We are giving the market every incentive to build a monopoly and then telling them not to.. It doesn't make sence to me, because if you want to stop something you need to take Incetive out of the equation.
By making fundings open you take away the incentive to pay off politicians as fundings can then be seen by the voting mass.
The incentive for people to rid the system will come, the more the system is abused the more plausible a modern day revolution seems. People are starting to understand the value of not consuming.
In todays USA there is no real effort to put a stop to monopolisation, what serves the ones in control of the companies will be the route taken.
Since this woman has nobly abdicated from any financial gain as a result of this invention to be able to pursue the truth as diligently as she has and not be corrupted from it's surge of benefits she should have a fund of discretionary pocket money serendipitously fall into her hands on a regular basis. The women of the world have their inventor saint. Amazing ! Best women's ted talk.
So what if its a TEDwomen conference. I'm a guy and I learnt alot from watching this. Remember that although this applies to breast cancer, it may have consequences for the treatment and detection of other cancers in the future.
Gamma radiation is still radiation. Radiation has been proven to cause cancer. Why screen with radiation when you can screen using Thermography. Check it out and be careful with brainwashed mainstream medical experts...
@ddelmarsmith Do you understand the technology? I don't think you understand quite what a breakthrough this is. Thermography is very useful, this combats the issue of dense breast tissue which thermography does not
@Vormav666 Are you serious? This is not a 'special talk for woman'. This is about saving millions of lives. Do you have any idea how many people die from breast cancer each year? To me, doesn't matter which gender any talk is meant for, as long as it can make positive changes.
@fannatic19 It is a special talk for women, it's called TEDWoman for a reason... And as I wrote the talk is good. I'm just not happy that something like TEDWomen exists, we don't need that, its pointless, stupid and where the fuck is TEDMan hm? Discrimination? Why?
@Vormav666 : The reason we need TEDWomen is because of the levels of discrimination women face across the planet today. Please look into this... Slavery of blacks is a mere blip on the radar compared to this problem. We used positive discrimination to gain equality for blacks, and are far from full equality there... We need to start positive discrimination for women NOW. Unless you are happy to live in a world were Women are slaves.
@Vortex42 women are NOT oppressed in the west , also to base things on gender is sexist and I could do without hearing biased skewed views with a political agenda , it's an anathema to those of a scientific bent Ie: the old TED viewership .
@sausage4mash The decision to have TEDwomen is probably to expand TED content, and has probably been shown to attract a wide, specific audience large enough to justify the events and platform. This video is testament to the content central to women.
I suppose it's like having a variety of Discovery channels, they can churn out more specific content to targeted audiences, and also press content together for compilations and diverse content. Don't hear the old "Discovery viewership" moaning.
@Vortex42 Shit I get it! You are from fucking UK!! The land of doublethink! I apologize for expecting you to be capable of common sense. Your inbred Royalty chased out most of the people with minds of their own centuries ago.
Not that I don't know some decent folks from UK... Don't get me wrong.
Just that I have been faced with this kind of blind acceptance of blatant bullshit from too many British folks to not feel that it is at least a trend in UK society.
@Vormav666 Men get breast cancer as well, it's actually more common than you would think, (though no where near as common as women) Women have to dust off 2000 years of religious obscurity to have their issues pushed to the fore.
@Vormav666 I would not call this a special talk for women, I would call this a message of hope for all of us. I may be a man, but that sure does not mean breast cancer does not affect me, I have a lover, and she's got breasts. I have a mother and sister too, and they have breasts, why, I think about half the people I know and love have breasts!
If this tech means that those loved ones of mine may live longer and healthier lives, then I am ecstatic to hear about it.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I'm a male and found it extremely interesting and will make my wife watch it tomorrow. It is just plain and simple human interest, not male or female.
@Vormav666 I'm sorry it's not a useful talk for homosexual males. but for straight males who care about their women, and women of any orientation this is a useful talk.
@ratholin I'm going to assume you are joking, right? In case you are not joking - Don't gay men have ANY females in their lives? What about their mothers, sisters and friends? What about their colleagues at work? I do hope that you are joking.
During the 5 years it will take to get this technology through the FDA, hundreds of thousands of women will die of breast cancer that could have been detected early by this new imaging technology.
Abolish the FDA. It kills more people than it saves.
We have a natural RIGHT to buy such imaging services from an entrepreneur who wants to sell it to us.
@Sasataf I must have missed the part where she said it was FDA approved. Can you find me that part in her talk?
And here is why the hate: my first wife died in 2005 of breast cancer. I was there as she fought the FDA to try experimental treatments. I know that the FDA slows the pace of innovation, and denies dying people the right to try new, experimental treatments. I know about the study by Dr. L Lasagna of Tufts that shows that the FDA kills more people than it saves.
@Sasataf No, I would have hated and perhaps sued the corporation that made the drug. Right now, the FDA shields drug makers from liability! This is wrong.
I knew my wife was in a tough situation. It was her right to decide what risks to take in order to try and save her life. The FDA has been slowing the rate of drug and treatment discovery for decades. I believe she would be alive today if not for that slowing caused by the FDA.
Really? As much as the FDA or any other organisation like it in the world may be swayed a little by corporations, they are essential. If corporations always won we'd still be using ddt, thalidomide etc. They do their best as an organisation to do what they are mandated to do, look after public health.
@Setanta1959 I don't doubt that most people in the FDA are sincere. But industry influences some at the top levels in the FDA. And despite the good intentions of the others, the overall effect of the organization is to cause more people to die through delays and reduced innovations and discouraging entrepreneurs to bring drugs to market that would only help a small segment, than are saved by such high profile cases as thalidomide.
By the way, a lack of DDT is killing millions due to malaria.
You're kidding, right? You worry about industry influences on the FDA and recommend demolishing it. What would industry do to us with no oversight? They don't slow innovation, they make sure it's safe before releasing. I'm truly sorry for your loss, I'd hate to lose my wife of 26 years but can you imagine the shit that'd be on the market if there was no FDA or equivalent? You can't seriously suggest they kill more people than they save.
@Setanta1959 The market oversees industry better than the FDA could. The threat of personal injury lawsuits reigns in industry more than the govt can, but the FDA shields industry from lawsuits if the products are FDA approved! So the FDA destroys accountability.
There is a study by Dr L. Lasagna of Tufts U. that estimates that the number of lives lost due to delays in drugs getting to the market by the FDA approval process is GREATER than the number of lives saved due to keeping bad ones off.
@freesk8 Way too far, the FDA does NOT kill people by testing. It is political no doubt and has been tainted by insiders with agendas but Thalidomide is not even close to being the worst, the FDA is far more open to private enterprise than any agency in Europe, where the quality of medicine for a vast majority is far superior than the USA
@freesk8 No decent scientist would WANT to sell an invention that works before it was thoroughly tested. Don't worry, Europe will do all the ground work with it's social medicine which RICH Americans will then use to their advantage while the uninsured and HMO insured die.
Finally... A Ted talk about women's issues that has objective substance, is informative and stimulating, and doesn't have to bash men or contradict other TedWomen talks. Bravo, keep em coming!
Hats off to them for putting together the system, but I don't like how the story was colored.
She made it seem like they came up with a brand new idea all on their own. After looking over some of her papers, the system is basically a dedicated SPECT system. SPECT (and it's similar counterpart PET) have been around for some time now. Instead of scanning the whole body, their MBI just scans the breast. Similar breast-dedicated systems using PET are also in the making too.
Regarding the reviewer with a conflict of interest... big whoop. This happens all the time in academia. Don't get the impression that they were "up against all odds" here, academia can be just as cut-throat as the business world.
As far as the drawbacks of the system, they're likely identical to PET and SPECT. This is just one drama queen version of a medical device making its way to market. All devices have to follow this similar rigorous process, which generally lasts (big shock) 10-15 years.
@notapetit Dude, you are talking like we should just accept this and live with it. Don't you agree that it is a horrible thing and it should be dealt with? Reviewers with a conflict of interest shouldn't exist, and if they do, they shouldn't be the reviewer of that particular article. Why the hell did you become a scientist anyway? I assume all scientist began with the dream of making the world a better place, right? So where did that reviewer go wrong? :-s
@Compact3 And what do you suggest we do? Where is your thesis on how to solve this? Promote stories like this. Fine; a handful of medical devices make it to market a couple years earlier. It's still not going to change the system.
Would you want to change the system? Would you be okay being tested with a device that didn't go through standard rigorous tests? Problem is, people expect fast, perfect medical care; but the moment something goes wrong, they're on the phone with their lawyer.
@notapetit Reviewers with a conflict of interest have nothing to do with a rigorous test. It's not like, when you remove the reviewers-with-a-conflict-of-interest then suddenly the test isn't rigorous anymore.
So I'd say, yeah, change the system. How? I don't know, I'm just a 20 year old kid, I have no idea how these things work. I just know that it must get better.
@Compact3 In some situations, people have to be trusted to be honest. Unfortunately, not all humans are always honest. What are we supposed to; put every reviewer through a lie detector test?
Regarding how this "must get better." I'm not sure you appreciate just how big this "system" is. Think of it just like how Americans still use the English system and the UK drives on the left side of the road. How do you expect to make major changes to a $100 billion industry in a year or even a decade.
@notapetit "What are we supposed to; put every reviewer through a lie detector test?" Of course not, but it shouldn't be hard to investigate if a reviewer has investments in another company that makes the same kind of product that the reviewer is reviewing...
@Compact3 Let's pretend that it's a simple task to uncover the complete financial transactions of the reviewer, even though it is drastically not (hence why so many can get away with IRS fraud). How do you determine whether someone is friends with someone who has a conflict of interest? What if they had no connections with a competing company in the past, but were hoping to start one in the future? Hire a private investigator? Do you know how many peer reviewed articles are published every year?
Its not immoral if you dont take capital of some sort to represent an opionion that differs from your own (may it be social, intellectual or monetary etc).
Friendship is in no way a conflict of interest within science, that is why there is competing schools, in trades these days its more looked (to my knowledge) as a way to decrease transaction costs.
Without transparancy there can be no knowledge about alterior reasons, that is why its important in politics but not to politicians.
@lassek85 Wow, nice use of a double negative dipshit. What the hell are you trying to say anyway? My only point is that it's nearly impossible to completely eliminate reviewers with conflicts of interest. Clearly English is not your primary language, maybe try sticking to words that you grasp a complete understanding of.
Well for one im not trying to went my own problems which seems plentyful onto someone else. I wont enable your hunger for spitting on difference of opinion or enlighting another perspective. I was explaining how the definitions of the terms are used today 2010-2011, obviously you got no real hunger for discussion but to went your own petty feelings in here, so go on with your ignorant way pretty please with sugar on top. I'm done enabling you.
The enabling part regards difference of opinion, read what is written for you.
I liked your way to prove me wrong on implying that you behave as a sad excuse for a human being.
Cudos aswell for coming out as a scientist, people with logics enough to deduct anything by your behaviour will definetly believe you. Last and least, thanks for the sexual invite, but 1. I do not post any sexual material on youtube. 2. I do not look for male companionship, even if it is in its denial stage.
@lassek85 Ha, I knew you didn't speak English you Norwegian fuck. Oh man though (pun intended), looks like you're post-op. And while I don't like to advocate suing, you should seriously consider going after your surgeon. I know if I looked like that, I'd be pretty pissed.
Uggghhh... I'm gonna have nightmares from that image. Nice life by the way you tool; maybe we can listen to Mae and read deep poetry together some evening.
@lassek85 If you really didn't want to "enable" me, you wouldn't have replied at all. But I guess that didn't occur to your pathetic excuse for a wannabe esoteric philosopher mind. Sorry, your Jedi mind tricks don't work on beings with a proper scientific education. Also, suck my left nut you tool.
@mikontisott Nice comment... No, I didn't watch the video, was I supposed to? I guess I am kind of new to this YouTube thing, could you tell me how to do so? Thanks.
If my comment was ignorant, yours is ironic. This is a scientific oriented video. If you're going to badmouth me, please list specifically what I said that was ignorant and substantial evidence supporting your accusations.
who are the losers that gave this a thumbs down? this woman is brilliant and has produced a machine that does the job better in every way. Those of you who thumb this video down are just pathetic.
You'd think with all of the breast cancer drives, the ubiquitous pink ribbon, and general obsession with this one kind of cancer that MBI would be front page news. Would it help if I called my local news station or what?
I hope this amazing technology gets made more available soon!
Agreed with some commenters, she didn't really explain what was keeping this off the market, except that they hadn't finished their studies yet--which is true of every drug or procedure, it needs to go through complete testing. Clearly, it will also take a while for hospitals to adopt this system, and I guess that's where her public speeches can help, causing people to advocate and ask for it.
18:15, nice of you not to mention what the opposing side's arguments were, even if they were wrong. "Of course we should" is not a refutation of those counterpoints.
I'm disappointed there wasn't enough time to discuss "the web of politics and economics that keep it from mainstream use", aside from that mention of journal rejection, which was reversed anyway and the device even went on to receive FDA approval.
@Khyrid No platinium fuel, but the strong magnetic fields (they are like 3T and that is HUGE) are hard to make, and they are made with superconducting magnets. At least those are expensive.
The machine is large, expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and uses a lot of power. It also takes a radiologist more time to review it as it produce many more images than anything else.
@kaxitaksi To the best of my knowledge, orally and rectally taking hydrogen peroxide, drinking juices every waking hour, raw calf liver extract, motor oil/coffee enemas, and not drinking water are all great ways to damage your health in every conceivable way short of "pumping toxic chemical in ur veins."
@dreapster You have any proof for ur claims and that "pumping toxic chemical in ur veins" is better way then? Gerson have cured cancer but it's denied by the establishment? Why do u think it's so? It's actually illegal to cure camcer if u don't doin it with Big Farmas useless toxics. U can go to jail for doin that and many ppl have.
@kaxitaksi As for proof of the success of chemotherapy? There's countless statistical and medically significant resource to back it's effectiveness in treating (not necessarily "curing") cancer. On a personal and anecdotal level, my grandmother has leukemia that is in remission. Before her chemotherapy, her health was rapidly declining, and she didn't have much longer to live. Thankfully, the chemotherapy managed to kill the cancerous cells (for now). Sure it has side effects, but it's worth it.
@dreapster Chemotherapy is toxic and kills ur immunesystem at the same time and in most cases long before it kills any cancer. If u look at both Dr. Gerson and fx. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, I'll bet they have much higher "success-rate" than any chemotherapy has and with no side effects. Would'nt it be more worth it that way?
@dreapster Chemotherapy does not cure anything, it kills everything in ur body. It's pure chance if u survive or not. If one treat cancer as it should, and let the bodys own immunesystem do it's job u don't have any side-effects. What this actually is all about is money. A cure for cancer is not desired, it's much more profitable to keep ppl sick. What this, Gerson and Dr. Burzynski is doin is threatening the big farmas profits and we can't have that can we?
@kaxitaksi You clearly haven't read about the people who suffered from colitis after Gerson's enemas damaged their colons.
The immune system of the body (in specific CD8 and NK lymphocytes) is unable to effectively rid the body of proto-oncogenes because they don't present the antigens until later. Thus, by the time the body finally presents the antigens in the mutated cells, it's often too late for the body's natural responses to stop it.
@kaxitaksi Foolish comment, what about countries that have socialised medicine? think the oncology department tells people to go home and eat an apple?
@seysanmar This year 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer . maybe that's the reason ? I didn't thumb it down before you rant at me .
@sausage4mash If that's the case i respect that! But remember, it's about saving lives, male or female, both deserve to live. But i'll admit that my comment was a little harsh in regard to what other people think! ;)
Great woman! No, Amazing woman!
themadhatter8888 1 week ago
Comment removed
Rarae192 1 month ago
great talk. excep fort "recorded at TEDwomen", which is a fuckin insult! there's no TEDmen for a reson, you disgusting sexists!
KilluaXIII 1 year ago 7
@KilluaXIII It's fair, in all honestly we live in a largely male-dominated world
deersdrinkbeer 1 year ago
Hemp oil supplements would eradicate breast cancer, everyone just wastes their time otherwise. You want to make a system, start by standing against the system that allows cancer to exist in the first place!
LazyOtaku 1 year ago
@LazyOtaku What do you mean? If you know someone that has breast cancer and she takes hemp oil supplements it would cure her?
Wiseguyzmoney 1 year ago
@Wiseguyzmoney If it was made properly, there would be a -VERY- good chance. Research Cannabinoids, it's a natural chemical in the body which has as many uses for the body as hemp does for everything else, cancer prevention and repair including.
LazyOtaku 1 year ago
@LazyOtaku It doesnt prevent cancer, but is very good at pain resultet by it.
Ko252 1 year ago
@Ko252 Did I say prevent? More like protects and treats.
LazyOtaku 1 year ago
I hope this technology will succeed, it's obviously a great improvement. It will save lives!
BFDK 1 year ago
Thermography has also been shown to be effective at locating tumours and it does so with NO harmful radiation since it's an infrared heat scan! If Dr. Rhodes' scanner is still more effective, then I propose that it could be used infrequently to limit radiation exposure, and thermography could be used on a very regular basis in between. A thermographic camera is an inexpensive piece of equipment that could easily find a place in every doctor's office.
robvh2 1 year ago
2:48 Thanx for the epilepsy siezure.
maggru91 1 year ago
So technological repression does exists, may be we should dig out Testla's research again.
lowerlowerhk 1 year ago 3
@lowerlowerhk I'm a member of the Tesla Science Foundation. They have an annual meeting for a week in July in Philadelphia every year. You interested?
InMooseWeTrust 1 year ago
@InMooseWeTrust Did your Foundation work out a working free energy device?
lowerlowerhk 1 year ago
bravo! a true hero!
CetraTJ 1 year ago
yes i am 20 years old.
after i watched this.. i need to check out!
keep going Dr.!
i wanna help! but idk how :(
poob4633 1 year ago
I hope the new technology gets the support it should have.
SpookyFan 1 year ago
Comment removed
vasukolla 1 year ago
Comment removed
vasukolla 1 year ago
TED - Men are wrong. Yawn.
areyouserial 1 year ago
wow wow wow the integrity of this woman is staggering. and the lack of integrity in corporate reality is angering as usual.
caseyforever 1 year ago 2
2:48 woooo segure
lilthug19908 1 year ago
"made of a semi conductor material" More silicon around the breast! lol
NickBlackDIN 1 year ago
Why is it that everytime I hear about the political aspect of almost anything I get so pissed off..
GrimSoul66 1 year ago 33
@GrimSoul66 because politics right now is stupid. i get pissed off by it too. some guy even shot someone in america the other day about it lol.
maxgunn555 1 year ago
@GrimSoul66
Because we got a system that makes the most greedy the most powerful?
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 Seems so in this particular situation. Seems we can not implament the right system because the bullshit profit incentive insn't there. I mean people could save lives, but not at the expence of tailored suits..? Seems like a no brainer.
GrimSoul66 1 year ago
@GrimSoul66
Its because of the stagnant markets that are called "working markets" (or similar bs), price competition works best in the introductionphase and when oligopolies gets to stagnant and pure monopolies arise due to pricewars.
My point being that the system works in that way when you got majorityelections, noneofficial funding and the liberal/conservative agenda as basis, its stagnant not progressive. That is why people need to work through government and make it their own.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 I don't know much about markets, but I think even if we do work to take power of this system it's inevitably going to lead us right back to were we are now. We are giving the market every incentive to build a monopoly and then telling them not to.. It doesn't make sence to me, because if you want to stop something you need to take Incetive out of the equation.
GrimSoul66 1 year ago
@GrimSoul66
By making fundings open you take away the incentive to pay off politicians as fundings can then be seen by the voting mass.
The incentive for people to rid the system will come, the more the system is abused the more plausible a modern day revolution seems. People are starting to understand the value of not consuming.
In todays USA there is no real effort to put a stop to monopolisation, what serves the ones in control of the companies will be the route taken.
lassek85 1 year ago
What the truck! After 2:45, you could cause an epileptic fit!
EgaoNoGenki 1 year ago
@EgaoNoGenki yeah that scared the shit out of me, i was like what the fuck is happening! lol
ironlionkalo 1 year ago
My total respects to Dr Rhodes
siulesojrodriguez 1 year ago
I wonder whether the Ted mysogynists would've voted this down if this had appeared in TedWomen.
wretcherwretch 1 year ago
@wretcherwretch This is TedWomen, isn't it? It says so at 00:33.
Jotto999 1 year ago
@Jotto999
Ah, the caption says it's from TedTalks not ted women.
wretcherwretch 1 year ago
Golden example why competitive world is against progression.
CapMurd 1 year ago
Religion cuts off the clitoris, science saves breasts. which do you choose?
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago 10
@SuperiorApostate True. And False.
Zrno3 2 months ago
Less than the toss of a coin = anythingg between 0% to 49.99999%.
The toss of a coin = 50%.
DrQuijano 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The future Nobel prize in physiology?
avatarelite 1 year ago
Since this woman has nobly abdicated from any financial gain as a result of this invention to be able to pursue the truth as diligently as she has and not be corrupted from it's surge of benefits she should have a fund of discretionary pocket money serendipitously fall into her hands on a regular basis. The women of the world have their inventor saint. Amazing ! Best women's ted talk.
euripideesshreds 1 year ago 2
In Omaha, NE patients can get a BSGI (Breast specific Gamma Imaging) test today. This sounds similar
candewtravel 1 year ago
To the 9-dislikes... WTF???
HuggyGoldfingers 1 year ago 4
BRAVO Deborah Rhodes! BRAVO!
briansmobile1 1 year ago
check your fingerprint patterns...if you have more than 8 whirl patterns, you're on the high propability list...
mike6459 1 year ago
This was very educational, way to go TED! Also, I would just like to say that this speaker's clarity was wonderful.
kindofbluelove 1 year ago 4
This was very educational, way to go TED!
kindofbluelove 1 year ago
I'm dropping out of school. I found my calling. I want to study boob density for the rest of my life.
GRNoam 1 year ago
(breast) food for thought. so: is the U.S. of A. a banana republic?
suzettegm 1 year ago
This is the type of American who is a true hero. Dr Rhodes, you take my breath away. Thank you thank you thank you
mikontisott 1 year ago 2
Not sure why we have 7 thumbs down for this video.
ImBackAJ20101 1 year ago
absolutely awesome!
iurak6868 1 year ago
A summary.
BIG TITS.
mot5600 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mot5600 you are the problem with the world
dylanlawless1 1 year ago
GE and Siemens just put out a hit.
666sigma 1 year ago
no,,,, thank you!!!!!!
DOCBUK 1 year ago
does somebody know the names of the four journals that rejected the paper?
settembrini42 1 year ago
Science saves boobs.
Go science! :-D
doGoNsIylbaborPerehT 1 year ago 109
7:49 newyorker com /reporting/2008/05/12/080512fa_fact_gladwell
altfuns 1 year ago
breast thermography is even better
awaken69 1 year ago
Very important and positive talk here.
Vortex42 1 year ago
So what if its a TEDwomen conference. I'm a guy and I learnt alot from watching this. Remember that although this applies to breast cancer, it may have consequences for the treatment and detection of other cancers in the future.
metrx330 1 year ago 3
Gamma radiation is still radiation. Radiation has been proven to cause cancer. Why screen with radiation when you can screen using Thermography. Check it out and be careful with brainwashed mainstream medical experts...
ddelmarsmith 1 year ago
@ddelmarsmith Do you understand the technology? I don't think you understand quite what a breakthrough this is. Thermography is very useful, this combats the issue of dense breast tissue which thermography does not
mikontisott 1 year ago
Great speech. Hope we can benefit from her work. But why must all americans start to cry.
Mekbarn 1 year ago
Bullshit. Scientists regularly get rejected. Only 4 papers? Thats really low.
ROAtheist 1 year ago
how come corporations, politicians and regulators just f**k up everything they touch ? when will i hear something good they do ?
yourtube20061 1 year ago
Finally a good TEDWomen talk... But still why do we need a special talk for women, this is stupid.
Vormav666 1 year ago 3
@Vormav666 Are you serious? This is not a 'special talk for woman'. This is about saving millions of lives. Do you have any idea how many people die from breast cancer each year? To me, doesn't matter which gender any talk is meant for, as long as it can make positive changes.
fannatic19 1 year ago
@fannatic19 It is a special talk for women, it's called TEDWoman for a reason... And as I wrote the talk is good. I'm just not happy that something like TEDWomen exists, we don't need that, its pointless, stupid and where the fuck is TEDMan hm? Discrimination? Why?
Vormav666 1 year ago 3
@Vormav666 : The reason we need TEDWomen is because of the levels of discrimination women face across the planet today. Please look into this... Slavery of blacks is a mere blip on the radar compared to this problem. We used positive discrimination to gain equality for blacks, and are far from full equality there... We need to start positive discrimination for women NOW. Unless you are happy to live in a world were Women are slaves.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@Vortex42 You're full of it.
Vormav666 1 year ago
@Vormav666 I'm full of it... I can only assume you are referring to knowledge and information. Chock full of that.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@Vortex42 women are NOT oppressed in the west , also to base things on gender is sexist and I could do without hearing biased skewed views with a political agenda , it's an anathema to those of a scientific bent Ie: the old TED viewership .
sausage4mash 1 year ago
@sausage4mash The decision to have TEDwomen is probably to expand TED content, and has probably been shown to attract a wide, specific audience large enough to justify the events and platform. This video is testament to the content central to women.
I suppose it's like having a variety of Discovery channels, they can churn out more specific content to targeted audiences, and also press content together for compilations and diverse content. Don't hear the old "Discovery viewership" moaning.
UnitedKingdomify 1 year ago
@Vortex42 "Positive discrimination" Thats an oxymoron. Pure doublethink. You are fucking brainwashed.
bentothetenthpower 1 year ago
@bentothetenthpower : It's called affirmative action, moron.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@Vortex42
Giving it a new name does not make it any less idiotic.
If the "minority" in question cannot produce competitive candidates for employment, the "minority" in question should work harder.
But wait! It's a fucking majority you are talking about!!!!
There are more women than men!
If the fucking majority cannot present competitive candidates for employment, they just stuff uncompetitive ones down out throats?
Fuck that, it weakens motivating factors on both sides.
Antediluvian.
bentothetenthpower 1 year ago
@bentothetenthpower : Read a book or two on the subject. Dismissed.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@Vortex42 Shit I get it! You are from fucking UK!! The land of doublethink! I apologize for expecting you to be capable of common sense. Your inbred Royalty chased out most of the people with minds of their own centuries ago.
Not that I don't know some decent folks from UK... Don't get me wrong.
Just that I have been faced with this kind of blind acceptance of blatant bullshit from too many British folks to not feel that it is at least a trend in UK society.
Oh, and fuck you.
bentothetenthpower 1 year ago
@Vormav666 Men get breast cancer as well, it's actually more common than you would think, (though no where near as common as women) Women have to dust off 2000 years of religious obscurity to have their issues pushed to the fore.
mikontisott 1 year ago
@mikontisott "Men get breast cancer as well" and? I already explained what i wrote to some people that don't understand what they're reading...
Vormav666 1 year ago
@Vormav666 I would not call this a special talk for women, I would call this a message of hope for all of us. I may be a man, but that sure does not mean breast cancer does not affect me, I have a lover, and she's got breasts. I have a mother and sister too, and they have breasts, why, I think about half the people I know and love have breasts!
If this tech means that those loved ones of mine may live longer and healthier lives, then I am ecstatic to hear about it.
Thank you Deborah Rhodes!
bentothetenthpower 1 year ago
@bentothetenthpower I already addressed this with another user who commented on my comment, read it.
Vormav666 1 year ago
@Vormav666
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I'm a male and found it extremely interesting and will make my wife watch it tomorrow. It is just plain and simple human interest, not male or female.
Setanta1959 1 year ago
@Setanta1959 Like he said. This was at a TEDWomen conference. That was the point.
sensori 1 year ago
@Vormav666 I'm sorry it's not a useful talk for homosexual males. but for straight males who care about their women, and women of any orientation this is a useful talk.
ratholin 1 year ago
@ratholin I'm going to assume you are joking, right? In case you are not joking - Don't gay men have ANY females in their lives? What about their mothers, sisters and friends? What about their colleagues at work? I do hope that you are joking.
Vortex42 1 year ago
@ratholin What is wrong with you? Learn to read, look at what I wrote again and next time think before you reply to a comment you idiot...
Vormav666 1 year ago
During the 5 years it will take to get this technology through the FDA, hundreds of thousands of women will die of breast cancer that could have been detected early by this new imaging technology.
Abolish the FDA. It kills more people than it saves.
We have a natural RIGHT to buy such imaging services from an entrepreneur who wants to sell it to us.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 She just said it's FDA approved...so why the hate?
Sasataf 1 year ago
@Sasataf I must have missed the part where she said it was FDA approved. Can you find me that part in her talk?
And here is why the hate: my first wife died in 2005 of breast cancer. I was there as she fought the FDA to try experimental treatments. I know that the FDA slows the pace of innovation, and denies dying people the right to try new, experimental treatments. I know about the study by Dr. L Lasagna of Tufts that shows that the FDA kills more people than it saves.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 17:45 "The MBI unit has now been FDA approved..."
Well think of the flipside...if the FDA approved an experimental treatment which hastened her death, you would have hated the FDA for approving it.
Sasataf 1 year ago
@Sasataf No, I would have hated and perhaps sued the corporation that made the drug. Right now, the FDA shields drug makers from liability! This is wrong.
I knew my wife was in a tough situation. It was her right to decide what risks to take in order to try and save her life. The FDA has been slowing the rate of drug and treatment discovery for decades. I believe she would be alive today if not for that slowing caused by the FDA.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8
Really? As much as the FDA or any other organisation like it in the world may be swayed a little by corporations, they are essential. If corporations always won we'd still be using ddt, thalidomide etc. They do their best as an organisation to do what they are mandated to do, look after public health.
Setanta1959 1 year ago
@Setanta1959 I don't doubt that most people in the FDA are sincere. But industry influences some at the top levels in the FDA. And despite the good intentions of the others, the overall effect of the organization is to cause more people to die through delays and reduced innovations and discouraging entrepreneurs to bring drugs to market that would only help a small segment, than are saved by such high profile cases as thalidomide.
By the way, a lack of DDT is killing millions due to malaria.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8
You're kidding, right? You worry about industry influences on the FDA and recommend demolishing it. What would industry do to us with no oversight? They don't slow innovation, they make sure it's safe before releasing. I'm truly sorry for your loss, I'd hate to lose my wife of 26 years but can you imagine the shit that'd be on the market if there was no FDA or equivalent? You can't seriously suggest they kill more people than they save.
Setanta1959 1 year ago
@Setanta1959 The market oversees industry better than the FDA could. The threat of personal injury lawsuits reigns in industry more than the govt can, but the FDA shields industry from lawsuits if the products are FDA approved! So the FDA destroys accountability.
There is a study by Dr L. Lasagna of Tufts U. that estimates that the number of lives lost due to delays in drugs getting to the market by the FDA approval process is GREATER than the number of lives saved due to keeping bad ones off.
freesk8 1 year ago 4
@freesk8 Way too far, the FDA does NOT kill people by testing. It is political no doubt and has been tainted by insiders with agendas but Thalidomide is not even close to being the worst, the FDA is far more open to private enterprise than any agency in Europe, where the quality of medicine for a vast majority is far superior than the USA
mikontisott 1 year ago
@freesk8 No decent scientist would WANT to sell an invention that works before it was thoroughly tested. Don't worry, Europe will do all the ground work with it's social medicine which RICH Americans will then use to their advantage while the uninsured and HMO insured die.
mikontisott 1 year ago
Finally... A Ted talk about women's issues that has objective substance, is informative and stimulating, and doesn't have to bash men or contradict other TedWomen talks. Bravo, keep em coming!
enotdetcelfer 1 year ago 12
Sweet new technology.
Shalek 1 year ago
I can just hear the whiners now...
"Why should I care about women's breast cancer?" as they are standing in line for their HMO-covered Viagra.
kinsmed 1 year ago
The streak of bad TedWomen talks has been busted to pieces!
Jotto999 1 year ago 46
@Jotto999 C-C-c-combo breaker.
SuperiorApostate 1 year ago
Hats off to them for putting together the system, but I don't like how the story was colored.
She made it seem like they came up with a brand new idea all on their own. After looking over some of her papers, the system is basically a dedicated SPECT system. SPECT (and it's similar counterpart PET) have been around for some time now. Instead of scanning the whole body, their MBI just scans the breast. Similar breast-dedicated systems using PET are also in the making too.
notapetit 1 year ago
Regarding the reviewer with a conflict of interest... big whoop. This happens all the time in academia. Don't get the impression that they were "up against all odds" here, academia can be just as cut-throat as the business world.
As far as the drawbacks of the system, they're likely identical to PET and SPECT. This is just one drama queen version of a medical device making its way to market. All devices have to follow this similar rigorous process, which generally lasts (big shock) 10-15 years.
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit Dude, you are talking like we should just accept this and live with it. Don't you agree that it is a horrible thing and it should be dealt with? Reviewers with a conflict of interest shouldn't exist, and if they do, they shouldn't be the reviewer of that particular article. Why the hell did you become a scientist anyway? I assume all scientist began with the dream of making the world a better place, right? So where did that reviewer go wrong? :-s
Compact3 1 year ago
@Compact3 And what do you suggest we do? Where is your thesis on how to solve this? Promote stories like this. Fine; a handful of medical devices make it to market a couple years earlier. It's still not going to change the system.
Would you want to change the system? Would you be okay being tested with a device that didn't go through standard rigorous tests? Problem is, people expect fast, perfect medical care; but the moment something goes wrong, they're on the phone with their lawyer.
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit Reviewers with a conflict of interest have nothing to do with a rigorous test. It's not like, when you remove the reviewers-with-a-conflict-of-interest then suddenly the test isn't rigorous anymore.
So I'd say, yeah, change the system. How? I don't know, I'm just a 20 year old kid, I have no idea how these things work. I just know that it must get better.
Compact3 1 year ago
@Compact3 In some situations, people have to be trusted to be honest. Unfortunately, not all humans are always honest. What are we supposed to; put every reviewer through a lie detector test?
Regarding how this "must get better." I'm not sure you appreciate just how big this "system" is. Think of it just like how Americans still use the English system and the UK drives on the left side of the road. How do you expect to make major changes to a $100 billion industry in a year or even a decade.
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit "What are we supposed to; put every reviewer through a lie detector test?" Of course not, but it shouldn't be hard to investigate if a reviewer has investments in another company that makes the same kind of product that the reviewer is reviewing...
Compact3 1 year ago
@Compact3 Let's pretend that it's a simple task to uncover the complete financial transactions of the reviewer, even though it is drastically not (hence why so many can get away with IRS fraud). How do you determine whether someone is friends with someone who has a conflict of interest? What if they had no connections with a competing company in the past, but were hoping to start one in the future? Hire a private investigator? Do you know how many peer reviewed articles are published every year?
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit Okay, I'll shut up. :-#
Compact3 1 year ago
@notapetit
Its not immoral if you dont take capital of some sort to represent an opionion that differs from your own (may it be social, intellectual or monetary etc).
Friendship is in no way a conflict of interest within science, that is why there is competing schools, in trades these days its more looked (to my knowledge) as a way to decrease transaction costs.
Without transparancy there can be no knowledge about alterior reasons, that is why its important in politics but not to politicians.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 Wow, nice use of a double negative dipshit. What the hell are you trying to say anyway? My only point is that it's nearly impossible to completely eliminate reviewers with conflicts of interest. Clearly English is not your primary language, maybe try sticking to words that you grasp a complete understanding of.
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit
Well for one im not trying to went my own problems which seems plentyful onto someone else. I wont enable your hunger for spitting on difference of opinion or enlighting another perspective. I was explaining how the definitions of the terms are used today 2010-2011, obviously you got no real hunger for discussion but to went your own petty feelings in here, so go on with your ignorant way pretty please with sugar on top. I'm done enabling you.
lassek85 1 year ago
Comment removed
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit
The enabling part regards difference of opinion, read what is written for you.
I liked your way to prove me wrong on implying that you behave as a sad excuse for a human being.
Cudos aswell for coming out as a scientist, people with logics enough to deduct anything by your behaviour will definetly believe you. Last and least, thanks for the sexual invite, but 1. I do not post any sexual material on youtube. 2. I do not look for male companionship, even if it is in its denial stage.
lassek85 1 year ago
@lassek85 Oh, I'm sorry; I didn't realize that you're only interested in other lesbians. My bad.
notapetit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lassek85 Ha, I knew you didn't speak English you Norwegian fuck. Oh man though (pun intended), looks like you're post-op. And while I don't like to advocate suing, you should seriously consider going after your surgeon. I know if I looked like that, I'd be pretty pissed.
picasaweb.google.com/lassek85/USA2007#5112813010016319970
Uggghhh... I'm gonna have nightmares from that image. Nice life by the way you tool; maybe we can listen to Mae and read deep poetry together some evening.
notapetit 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lassek85 If you really didn't want to "enable" me, you wouldn't have replied at all. But I guess that didn't occur to your pathetic excuse for a wannabe esoteric philosopher mind. Sorry, your Jedi mind tricks don't work on beings with a proper scientific education. Also, suck my left nut you tool.
notapetit 1 year ago
@notapetit Did you watch this video? your comment is so ignorant to the video I just watched it's absurd.
mikontisott 1 year ago
@mikontisott Nice comment... No, I didn't watch the video, was I supposed to? I guess I am kind of new to this YouTube thing, could you tell me how to do so? Thanks.
If my comment was ignorant, yours is ironic. This is a scientific oriented video. If you're going to badmouth me, please list specifically what I said that was ignorant and substantial evidence supporting your accusations.
notapetit 1 year ago
2:48 WOAH!
Jotto999 1 year ago
she said woman-kind... it was a bit unsettling to me......
matt517472 1 year ago
This is amazing. However, I would like to hear the other side story. What are the drawbacks of this technique?
ndjarnag 1 year ago
Women TEDtalks are always about other women. WTF man...
shoobla 1 year ago 3
@shoobla sorry bud, but this talk is not only about women.
Ibakecookiess 1 year ago
@shoobla I agree with the other person to an extent. 1% of breast cancer is in Males but their audience is completely Female.
Aresftfun 1 year ago
who are the losers that gave this a thumbs down? this woman is brilliant and has produced a machine that does the job better in every way. Those of you who thumb this video down are just pathetic.
hardleecure 1 year ago
@hardleecure Good topic & work, just an average presentation for a TED production. Needs to be a little more snappy.
jaredbroad 1 year ago
You'd think with all of the breast cancer drives, the ubiquitous pink ribbon, and general obsession with this one kind of cancer that MBI would be front page news. Would it help if I called my local news station or what?
dookiecheez 1 year ago
I hope this amazing technology gets made more available soon!
Agreed with some commenters, she didn't really explain what was keeping this off the market, except that they hadn't finished their studies yet--which is true of every drug or procedure, it needs to go through complete testing. Clearly, it will also take a while for hospitals to adopt this system, and I guess that's where her public speeches can help, causing people to advocate and ask for it.
generationutena 1 year ago 3
18:15, nice of you not to mention what the opposing side's arguments were, even if they were wrong. "Of course we should" is not a refutation of those counterpoints.
I'm disappointed there wasn't enough time to discuss "the web of politics and economics that keep it from mainstream use", aside from that mention of journal rejection, which was reversed anyway and the device even went on to receive FDA approval.
civver3 1 year ago
Excellent talk!
MihaZ 1 year ago
profit motives...
cheeseit126 1 year ago
ISRAELI TECH FTW!
HDvideosaregood 1 year ago
Why are MRIs so expensive? Do they use platinum fuel?
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid MRI's require super conducting magnets at near absolute zero, go google.
Doazic 1 year ago
@Doazic Why google when I have legions of you tube know-it-alls at my disposal?
Khyrid 1 year ago
@Khyrid No platinium fuel, but the strong magnetic fields (they are like 3T and that is HUGE) are hard to make, and they are made with superconducting magnets. At least those are expensive.
SepirothUltima 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Khyrid
The machine is large, expensive to operate, expensive to maintain, and uses a lot of power. It also takes a radiologist more time to review it as it produce many more images than anything else.
GT35R 1 year ago
I think I just saw a man in the audience. Someone get him and kick him out of the TED audience.
Only joking :)
Good video, I hope more people see it.
deconverts 1 year ago
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOBS :)
teckniec2 1 year ago
Dr. Gerson was murdered coz he could cure cancer. It was and still is forbidden to cure cancer in any other way than the big farma way.
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi Haha, you mean the guy that prescribed coffee enemas?
dreapster 1 year ago
@dreapster Yes. What u prefer? Coffee in ur ass or a shitload of toxic chemicals in ur veins that don't belong there?
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi To the best of my knowledge, orally and rectally taking hydrogen peroxide, drinking juices every waking hour, raw calf liver extract, motor oil/coffee enemas, and not drinking water are all great ways to damage your health in every conceivable way short of "pumping toxic chemical in ur veins."
dreapster 1 year ago
@dreapster You have any proof for ur claims and that "pumping toxic chemical in ur veins" is better way then? Gerson have cured cancer but it's denied by the establishment? Why do u think it's so? It's actually illegal to cure camcer if u don't doin it with Big Farmas useless toxics. U can go to jail for doin that and many ppl have.
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi As for proof of the success of chemotherapy? There's countless statistical and medically significant resource to back it's effectiveness in treating (not necessarily "curing") cancer. On a personal and anecdotal level, my grandmother has leukemia that is in remission. Before her chemotherapy, her health was rapidly declining, and she didn't have much longer to live. Thankfully, the chemotherapy managed to kill the cancerous cells (for now). Sure it has side effects, but it's worth it.
dreapster 1 year ago
@dreapster Chemotherapy is toxic and kills ur immunesystem at the same time and in most cases long before it kills any cancer. If u look at both Dr. Gerson and fx. Dr. Stanislaw Burzynski, I'll bet they have much higher "success-rate" than any chemotherapy has and with no side effects. Would'nt it be more worth it that way?
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@dreapster Chemotherapy does not cure anything, it kills everything in ur body. It's pure chance if u survive or not. If one treat cancer as it should, and let the bodys own immunesystem do it's job u don't have any side-effects. What this actually is all about is money. A cure for cancer is not desired, it's much more profitable to keep ppl sick. What this, Gerson and Dr. Burzynski is doin is threatening the big farmas profits and we can't have that can we?
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi You clearly haven't read about the people who suffered from colitis after Gerson's enemas damaged their colons.
The immune system of the body (in specific CD8 and NK lymphocytes) is unable to effectively rid the body of proto-oncogenes because they don't present the antigens until later. Thus, by the time the body finally presents the antigens in the mutated cells, it's often too late for the body's natural responses to stop it.
dreapster 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi Foolish comment, what about countries that have socialised medicine? think the oncology department tells people to go home and eat an apple?
mikontisott 1 year ago
@mikontisott Well, I did and my cancer was gone without any chem shit. Go get a banana if u don't like apples :)
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
@kaxitaksi Cancer never goes Kax, it goes into remission, it is never cured.
mikontisott 1 year ago
@mikontisott Exactly! Just what happen to me.
kaxitaksi 1 year ago
Who the fuck dislikes this??? Idiots!
seysanmar 1 year ago
@seysanmar This year 218,890 men in the U.S. will be diagnosed with prostate cancer, according to the American Cancer Society. By comparison, 178,480 new cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed in women. Not a huge difference, but a new report finds that for every prostate cancer drug on the market, there are seven used to treat breast cancer . maybe that's the reason ? I didn't thumb it down before you rant at me .
sausage4mash 1 year ago
@sausage4mash If that's the case i respect that! But remember, it's about saving lives, male or female, both deserve to live. But i'll admit that my comment was a little harsh in regard to what other people think! ;)
seysanmar 1 year ago
@seysanmar I disliked because the thesis of the talk and data presented is misleading and misguided.
Doazic 1 year ago
@Doazic are u a conservative republican by chance?
boutdempapers 1 year ago
@boutdempapers liberal progressive if we're using the american system.
Doazic 1 year ago
@Doazic Why so? I'm not trying to be a troll, just curious on your opinion...
lIlLLinIlI 1 year ago