The Processed Meat Cancer Panic

You've likely heard by now that the WHO announced that eating processed meats leads to cancer. The media is having a field day with this confirmation, pointing out that eating bacon is now in the same classification bucket as smoking. Scary!

The fact is, the WHO classifies carcinogens by how sure they are that it causes cancer. They're certain about processed meat, hence the link to cigarettes. The media keeps forgetting to mention this detail.

Usually at the very end of the "hot dogs cause cancer" report, the media will mention that eating hot dogs isn't akin to smoking. If you dive into the IARC's report, you'll realize that panic isn't really necessary.

Taken crudely, the IARC’s report suggests that eating 50g of bacon every day would raise your risk from 64 in 100,000 to 72 in 100,000, or from 0.064% to 0.072%. Over a lifetime, your risk is about 5%, according to the NHS; eating 50g of processed meat a day will raise that to about 6%.

For comparison, research on smoking and cancer found that men who smoked 25 cigarettes a day were 24 times higher risk of developing lung cancer, or a 2,400% increase.

There are actually few things in this world that do not lead to cancer. So relax, and remember moderation is the key.

hotdog


Share this entry

Comments (67 - click here to join in!)

andrew

EVERYTHING now causes a form of cancer as social media suggests.

I'm going to live in a "bubble & take liquids only intravenously" & hopefully I live until 50.
Oh wait the needle in my arm may be contaminated. Dammit.

Live your live as you want & disregard all the BS about what food, etc. causes.

October 26, 2015 @ 7:12 PM

Rob J

If stories like this came out with all the pertinent facts right off the bat, talk radio stations would have to switch to country music.

October 26, 2015 @ 7:33 PM

oscar

Dean Blundell causes cancer

October 26, 2015 @ 7:33 PM

Stan

@Andrew

That's terrible, terrible advice.

Avoiding carcinogens is a good idea. Some are more dangerous than others. Like the mod said, everything in moderation.

But don't disregard this good information.

October 26, 2015 @ 8:00 PM

andrew

@ Stan

Moderation Yes I agree.
Ontario has a ministry which regulates all foods & their properties.

ALL OF A SUDDEN after ions hot dogs & bacon are bad for your health?
Whats next water sold in plastic bottles because the plastic may contain cancer causing problems?
Oh sorry, this has already been discussed.

October 26, 2015 @ 8:10 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@andrew

Did you really think hot dogs & bacon were good for you?

I love hot dogs, but I rarely eat them because you just know that shit'll kill ya.

October 26, 2015 @ 8:12 PM

Stan

@andrew

If you only want to live to 50, keep on doing what you're doing. You've got the right mentality!

October 26, 2015 @ 8:15 PM

andrew

I eat tube steaks & bacon very rarely as I know not right.
I was just making a point about now EVERYTHING now is causing health problems.

October 26, 2015 @ 8:24 PM

.

the wind from Fukushima gently caressed my hot dog
it glowed later

October 26, 2015 @ 9:20 PM

.

the pigs were fed chicken shit and the chickens were fed agent orange.
it all ends up in my hot dog.

October 26, 2015 @ 9:26 PM

Cambo

It comes down to common sense.

I remember a health nut saying, if you can't buy it off the shelf in it's native components, then you shouldn't be consuming it at all.

Take drinks with aspartame. Aspartame is a controlled substance- and likely cause of some cancers. You can't buy it off the drug-store shelf, or the supermarket shelf. So why is it OK to consume it in a drink or other processed food???

Hot dogs and most other forms of processed meat are made with a preservative. Most cases are nitrates and nitrites. When was the last time you were able to walk into a store and buy those substances. They are NOT food. So why do we not think twice about eating it in meat? The same goes for the "Celery Root Extract". Same beast with nicer lipstick.

Folks, bacon is horrible for you. There are no re-deeming qualities of cured meats. Taste good? Yup. Once in a while? Maybe. But a very long while.

And no one. NO ONE should eat hotdogs. That's just the cuttings from the good beef they can't sell in any other form. So they turn it into a slurry and form it into a tube. Work in a meat plant and you'll never eat a hotdog again.

October 27, 2015 @ 8:49 AM

Al The Royal Pain

GREAT! Now I want a hotdog for lunch. Thanks @Cambo!

FYI: Lips and assholes are meat too, you know.

Honestly, is any of this really news?

October 27, 2015 @ 9:14 AM

Clefto

@Cambo - I always find it interesting how many people post this type of statement: " Aspartame is a controlled substance- and likely cause of some cancers."
My wife consumes aspartame regularly so I tried to find some evidence to support this claim to get her to stop drinking aspartame, but couldnt find one legitimate source that shows aspartame causes cancer in humans.

anyone got a source on this claim? It goes around sooo much.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:31 AM

.

I'm sure aspartame is no worse for you than any other invented chemical the ancient people had no way of processing in their body.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:34 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Clefto and @Cambo

I recently read a very well-researched piece in the New York Times about artificial sweetners vs. sugar. The question posed to this professor of pediatrics was which is better for you.

Bottom line, there have been countless studies and there's zero evidence Aspartame (or any of the others) cause cancer. But, we know sugar is bad for you. His conclusion, based on all that evidence, is that you should choose Aspartame over sugar, if you have to choose, because there's no evidence it's bad for you.

I'm going to dig this article up, because it nicely explains where this urban legend comes from.

Edit: found it! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/upshot/the-evidence-supports-artificial-sweeteners-over-sugar.html

October 27, 2015 @ 9:36 AM

Clefto

It seems that people like to correlate "chemical" with "bad", and yet when they are sick they go to the hospital and say "please give me some chemicals to cure me!"

Just because you put different molecules together in a lab, doesn't make it bad. I guess it's an easy way to demonize things like aspartame without looking into it.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:40 AM

Al The Royal Pain

I wouldn't touch Aspartame with a 10-foot pole. First, I hate the taste and second, while sugar may be bad for you, at least it's natural. Moderation, as always, is your friend.

Study or no, anecdotally, I've witnessed too much evidence of the negative health affects of aspartame. None of them involved cancer, but cancer isn't the only bad thing that can happen to you.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:41 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Al The Royal Pain

You really should read that NYT article I just linked. It closes with this line:

"There’s a potential, and probably real, harm from consuming added sugars; there are most likely none from artificial sweeteners."

October 27, 2015 @ 9:44 AM

.

Many people definitely do not say 'please give me some chemicals to cure me.' Many people research traditional 'plant-based,' cures and balance those with a judicious dose of westernized medicine.

Remember - the food companies (who are divisions of conglomerates that also make god knows what) are interested in your dollar not your health. The same goes for 'Big Pharma.'

You also have to go with your gut feeling.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:45 AM

.

50% of medical research is bullshit.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:47 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

Thanks Dr. .!

I'll require a reputable source for all such statements, thank you.

October 27, 2015 @ 9:47 AM

.

One has to take 'alternative' news with a grain of salt (accidental pun) but one also has to take 'mainstream i.e. corporate news' with the same grain of salt.

***

A shocking admission by the editor of the world’s most respected medical journal, The Lancet, has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media. Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-chief of the Lancet recently published a statement declaring that a shocking amount of published research is unreliable at best, if not completely false, as in, fraudulent.

Horton declared, “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.”

October 27, 2015 @ 10:07 AM

.

http://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/3901/the-truth-about-the-drug-companies-by-marcia-angell-md/

“Dr. Angell’s case is tough, persuasive, and troubling.”
—The New York Times

“In what should serve as the Fast Food Nation of the drug industry, Angell… presents a searing indictment of ‘big pharma’ as corrupt and corrupting.”
—Publishers Weekly

“The Truth About the Drug Companies is a sober, clear-eyed attack on the excesses of drug company power… a lucid, persuasive, and highly important book.”
—The Boston Sunday Globe

“Her prose is clear and readable… Angell does an excellent job [making] a convincing case against Big Pharma.”
—Chicago Sun-Times

“If you’ve ever suffered prescription drug sticker shock, Dr. Marcia Angell’s The Truth About the Drug Companies is the book for you.”
—Newsday

“In-depth and insightful”
—Rocky Mountain News

“Put your money on Angell. We need to know why drugs cost what they do, and we need to know how our physicians choose the drugs they give us.”
—St. Louis Post Dispatch

“Engaging and well-written”
—San Antonio Express-News

"Pharamceutical companies will need a new miracle pain reliever after the whipping they receive from Marcia Angell in her book….a starting point for serious discussion."
–The Hartford Courant

"If informed criticism contains the sharpest stings, author Marcia Angell’s jolting indictument of ‘Big Pharma’ might just be enough to pierce the beast’s hide."
–Minneapolis Star Tribune

October 27, 2015 @ 10:15 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@ .

Firstly, if I cited sources like that in University, they'd have booted me out.

Secondly, studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest typically don't stand up to peer review. This is precisely why scientists have peer reviews of all such studies.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:16 AM

Al The Royal Pain

That's the thing Mike, I agree that there is harm from consuming too much sugar, so I try not to. I almost never drink pop, maybe a couple of times a month and my kids NEVER drink pop and we water down their fruit juice. The doctor mentioned in the study admits that his kids consume 4-5 sodas/week!?

But I don't believe that there is no harm in artificial sweeteners, just because they say that there are "most likely none", doesn't mean that there are none. As I said, I have witnessed the affects of Aspartame. No scientific study, just my own eyes. I generally respect the NYT, but they're not a scientific journal. They focus mostly on cancer, but as I said, there are other bad things.

The American FDA has implicated Aspartame to a number of ailments, mostly neurological here are some of the highlights (a survey of 551 people): http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/jan03/012203/02p-0317_emc-000199.txt

Eye
- Decreased vision and/or other eye problems (blurring, "bright flashes," tunnel vision): 140 (25%)
Ear
- Tinnitus ("ringing," "buzzing"): 73 (13%)
Neurologic
- Headaches: 249 (45%)
- Dizziness, unsteadiness, or both: 217 (39%)
Psychologic-Psychiatric
- Severe depression: 139 (25%)
- "Extreme irritability": 125 (23%)
Chest
- Palpitations, tachycardia (rapid heart action): 88 (16%)
Gastrointestinal
- Nausea: 79 (14%)
- Diarrhea: 70 (13%)
- Abdominal pain: 70 (13%)
- Problems with diabetes: loss of control; 60 (11%)
Other
- Frequency of voiding (day and night), burning on urination (dysuria), or both: 69 (13%)
- Excessive thirst: 65 (12%)
- Severe joint pains: 58 (11%)
- "Bloat": 57 (10%)

October 27, 2015 @ 10:17 AM

.

Mike, the editor-physician of the esteemed medical journal Lancet is saying in fact many so-called 'peer reviewed' studies are in fact bogus.

Come on. You know that money corrupts.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:24 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Al The Royal Pain

No doubt, drinking no pop is best. I just thought that was an interesting New York Times article on the subject I wanted to share.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:27 AM

.

Trust your eyes. The country with the most processed food consumption is surely the U.S.A. Look at all the obese people eating 'perfectly safe' processed foods who then have to take all sorts of chemicals/medicine to correct their fucked up bodies.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:28 AM

.

Thanks for posting this article Mike. It's a good reminder for us to be aware of what goes into our body.
I wonder if 'organic' pork, bacon, is cured using non-dangerous ingredients.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:30 AM

.

final thought: Robert Altman made a funny film in 1980 that isn't well known at all called 'Health.' A spoof of a 'natural foods' convention. Some very absurd vignettes and big stars btw.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbKa4r2Nm5o

October 27, 2015 @ 10:40 AM

Mick

I put this in the wrong thread before. I found this on Huffington Post about artificial sweeteners.

In a blog post for The Huffington Post earlier this month, Dr. Mark Hyman explained how "diet soda makes you fat" and unhealthy:

Artificial sweeteners are hundreds to thousands of times sweeter than regular sugar, activating our genetically-programmed preference for sweet taste more than any other substance.
They trick your metabolism into thinking sugar is on its way. This causes your body to pump out insulin, the fat storage hormone, which lays down more belly fat.
It also confuses and slows your metabolism down, so you burn fewer calories every day.
It makes you hungrier and crave even more sugar and starchy carbs like bread and pasta.
In animal studies, the rats that consumed artificial sweeteners ate more, their metabolism slowed, and they put on 14 percent more body fat in just two weeks -- even eating fewer calories.
In population studies, there was a 200 percent increased risk of obesity in diet soda drinkers.

October 27, 2015 @ 1:05 PM

Douglas

This issue just points out the stupidity of the general public - and the knowledge of that fact in the mass media. Like so many health studies/announcements, though, just wait ... there will be another one at some point that concludes just the opposite.

I am reminded of a couple of perspective-type bumper stickers that I saw years ago:

LIFE. It'll kill you.

and

Take your #*$@!#*@ moderation
in moderation.

October 27, 2015 @ 1:43 PM

Dr. No

@.

Toronto Mike's lab manual dictates that science never lies. He has said it many times on this site. Because science is only performed by emotionless machines in vacuum-packed laboratories with no opportunity of infiltration by private interests.

October 27, 2015 @ 3:41 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Dr. No

What I actually said is that I trust the scientific method because it has no reason to lie to me.

October 27, 2015 @ 3:49 PM

Dr. No

@ Toronto Mike,

Interesting correction. Ok, let's take a look at that assertion for a second. Clinical trials. These are part of the scientific method, are they not? Usually performed between a control group and treatment group. Both groups contain an illness or symptom that are identical (ie: high blood pressure). Both groups are populated based on symptomatologies assessed by their General Practitioners over one or more visits averaging 7 minutes. Each likely patient potentially has a completely different cause for high blood pressure (anxiety in one, obesity in another, heart transplant in a third, etc).

The clinical trials take none of these factors into account. Therefore, you have people tested on a whim based on a symptom or illness that was investigated at the minimal level. Would you trust the efficacy of the drug or the study? By the way, the information I have mentioned regarding Doctor visits and clinical trial grouping is easily referenced in the New York Times and medical journals.

For me, the scientific method is about studying everything as deeply as possible. On paper, the scientific method is sound. In reality, it is sacrificed in favour of $$ and private interests (shareholders). The Doctor who wrote the article you mentioned is a specialist in children, and not a nutritionist or dietician, so I would not consider him a leading candidate in the area of nutrition, even though I agree that sugar is worse than aspartame (though neither are likely any good for you at all).

I do agree with you on the essence of this article posting; don't panic over every single health report.

October 27, 2015 @ 4:12 PM

Anonymous

Poor dietary habits lead to more problems than cancer (not to belittle that particular threat). All manner of illnesses are linked to the diets we now have (that our grandparents didn't have).

October 27, 2015 @ 6:25 PM

dale

I have the odd hot dog & sausage periodically, maybe once a month. So what all my 57 years of my life.

What is really is concerning is the Ontario Food & Safety inspectors going to establishments & after ordering their food, without eating it see the manager to see the kitchen. Brother in law's brother has seen too much to explain. It's always the HIGH end restaurants that are the worst, not your fast food outlets.

A Very Big Name establishment was shut down for 2-3 months 2-3 years ago & I will not disclose, but "Come Hungry Darlin'", may sure you have the facilities for after your meal.

This is also a concerning matter.

October 27, 2015 @ 8:30 PM

Advances in Medicine

Medical orthodoxy has its limits. The physician who advocated washing hands before childbirth was ridiculed by the profession. What is being ridiculed now?

October 27, 2015 @ 8:43 PM

Dr. No

@ Advances in medicine,

Remember the days when 4 out of 5 doctors smoked Camels?

October 27, 2015 @ 9:06 PM

Anonymous

@ Dr. No - haha. yes. Some of those are still on YouTube.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:13 PM

Advances in Medicine

Sorry I forgot to 'sign in please' above. Dr. Semmelweis is the doctor mentioned above.

Dr. Suzanne Humphries MD: (excerpt from Dissolving Illusions)

One of the ugliest, most tragic, and most avoidable chapters in the history of medicine is that of puerperal fever. Puerperal fever is the name given to a deadly infection that affected many mothers in the immediate post-partum period. Severe pain, pelvic abscesses, sepsis, high fever, and agonizing death were brought about by an ascending infection introduced by the contaminated hands of doctors and unsterile medical instruments. There is no single type of microorganism responsible, though the most common bacteria isolated after the germ theory was developed was Beta haemolytic streptococcus, Lancefield Group A.

In the United States, Europe, New Zealand, Sweden, and wherever conventional midwifery was abandoned and taken over by the new male midwives known as obstetricians and medical students, puerperal fever followed....

...In 1865 Dr. Semmelweis was deceived into entering an insane asylum and when he tried to escape, he was severely beaten by guards. A gangrenous wound to his hand, probably caused by the beating, led to his untimely death two weeks later.

The reason it is important to never forget the history of puerperal fever is because the massive loss of maternal life impacted husbands, surviving infants, older surviving children, the family unit, society . . . and the statistics on life expectancy. Yet we rarely hear the words “puerperal fever” mentioned or discussed.

October 27, 2015 @ 10:22 PM

Rob J

Interesting that all the focus was on the cancer that's caused by hot dogs and nothing on the report that human DNA has also been found. People actually taste pretty good, if not a little salty.

October 28, 2015 @ 12:30 AM


Argie

Isn't that time of year we have another flu shot vs. no flu shot thread? That usually generates at least 50 comments every time.

October 28, 2015 @ 8:31 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Argie

I couldn't be bothered this year.

My 3 kids have their flu shot, and I'm getting mine this week. I believe it's very important.

October 28, 2015 @ 8:35 AM

Ben V

@ TorontoMike: Did you opt for the needle version or the new nasal spray flu shot for your kids?

October 28, 2015 @ 10:44 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Ben V

They all got needles.

October 28, 2015 @ 10:47 AM

Cambo

@Argie

Yup. Let the crap-shoot begin...just 18% accurate last year...

That means the vaccine was effective in just 18% of the population who received it.

October 28, 2015 @ 10:56 AM

Cambo

...and to add, the FluMist was completely ineffective.

October 28, 2015 @ 10:57 AM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Cambo

18% beats the hell out of 0%.

Again, this is a no-brainer in my family.

p.s. That does not mean it's only effective in 18% of the people who receive it.

October 28, 2015 @ 10:57 AM

Dr. No

@ TO Mike and Cambo,

Why bother with a crappy 18% efficacy rate when you can go for placebo and shoot your chances up to 50%?

http://www.livescience.com/42430-placebo-effect-half-of-drug-efficacy.html

TO Mike, you are spot on here; "p.s. That does not mean it's only effective in 18% of the people who receive it." is incorrect. That is exactly what it means. Please peruse this line out of a recent WebMD article:

Feb. 26, 2015 -- It’s no secret this year’s flu shots didn’t work as well as doctors had hoped. But the news got worse Thursday when the CDC revised its estimates of the flu vaccine’s effectiveness downward even further, from 23% to 18%.

That means for all ages, getting vaccinated cut the risk of needing medical treatment for flu symptoms by just 18%.

So what this actually means is that not only is it ineffective in preventing the flu, but that it can only prevent MEDICAL TREATMENT of the flu in 18%, which means these 18% have the flu anyways. What this is, is bad science, because they are not basing numbers off of how many people do not get the flu as a result of the vaccine, but rather, how many get the flu but not severely enough for medication.

Now, the merits of the Polio, TB and other crucial vaccines should not be questioned for what they accomplished. But the flu vaccine is, in my opinion, open for debate.

October 28, 2015 @ 11:52 AM

Lou

No flu shot here. Never. No way. Never.

October 28, 2015 @ 12:01 PM

Lou

Too many drs. warn against it. You just have to look for them. There are a lot of them.
Like that guy who said to wash your hands. In the minority for now.

October 28, 2015 @ 12:04 PM

The Ghost of Harry Caray

Hey! Here's a hypothetical question for you.
If you were a hot dog and you were starving to death, would you eat yourself? Heck I know I would. I'd cover myself with ketchup and mustard. Its a matter of life or death.

October 28, 2015 @ 12:17 PM

Stuart Small

lol. that's not deep thoughts by jack handy but what is it. tip of my memory. haha.

October 28, 2015 @ 2:21 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

To me, it's simple.

Do you trust your doctor?

If yes, ask him/her if he/she recommends you get a flu shot. Do what he/she recommends.

If no, get a new doctor.

My doctor, and my children's pediatrician, and my wife doctor, and her OB/GYN, all strongly encourage their patients to get the flu shot.

October 28, 2015 @ 3:28 PM

Cambo

@Mike

Due respect Mike, I've never heard them suggest NOT to get a vaccine- of any sort.

October 28, 2015 @ 4:06 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Cambo

So if you trust your doctor, and he/she advises you to get vaccinated, why wouldn't you take that advice? Why do you think you know more about the subject than the medical doctor you trust?

October 28, 2015 @ 4:09 PM

Cambo

@Mike

Are these the same doctors and researchers who "predict" what the flu strain is in a given year and got it wrong?

October 28, 2015 @ 4:16 PM

Toronto Mike Verified as the defacto Toronto Mike

@Cambo

They're trying to predict the strains a year out. These strains morph a lot over 12 months. They do their best to hit 100%. Until we have a better way, this is the best they can do without a crystal ball.

October 28, 2015 @ 4:20 PM

Dr No

@ TO Mike,

My family Dr recommends not getting the flu shot for everyone in my family. Would you go to him/her?

It sounds like you're saying to only trust your family doctor if they tell you what you already want to hear and have been conditioned to believe.

I have to agree with Cambo's points. This is your site so you're entitled to your opinion (and your podcasts are great), but you seem to have a high standard of the scientific method but shrug your shoulders when people point out it isn't as perfect as you claim (ie: "this is the best we can do without a crystal ball")

Hope you don't mind a good ole fashioned debate.

October 28, 2015 @ 4:44 PM

Dr No

To Cambo's and Mike's point;

The people working on these flu strain vaccines a year out are not "my family doctor". Immunologists, virologists and pharmaceutical companies with major $$ at stake. Family doctors actually know very little about the flu vaccine research process (except for those that do regular professional development/updating).

October 28, 2015 @ 4:49 PM

dale

Agree Dr.No.

Wife had physical early last week & she asked about the flu shot (she has Crone's disease - Major IBS) & he said personally I wouldn't get it unless you have a major medical problem (like she does) or are elderly. Let your body build up their own immunity system.
She got flu shot last year & nobody else in the family did & she was only 1 to get a minor case of the flu.
She declined this year & so will the rest of us AGAIN.


October 28, 2015 @ 6:07 PM

Walk on Green

My family dr. would drug me up the wazoo if I did everything he said. I consider him great for information, referring me for tests, and clarification of conditions. In terms of treatments I will consider what he prescribes in good faith and choose my own course of action (without being ridiculously naive).

In other words I'm not going to replace an abdominal ultrasound with pots of burning sage. But after finding the results I may or may not follow his suggestions 100%. Dietary changes are huge considerations concerning health.

October 28, 2015 @ 6:22 PM

dale

Of course most family Drs. recommend getting the flu shot & I while you're here I will give it.

Cha Ching $ in my pocket. Most get the Flu shots at their Dr. offices & not the FREE clinics everywhere available. No wonder why our OHIP $ contribution from Ontario is so high.

"My kid has a cold & sneezing" & parents go to walk in clinics or family Dr. especially with young ones. Their immune system will fight off viruses without "injections or prescriptions" they gice which Dr. & Pharmacist make $ on.

Cha Ching Again. another problem which parents use the "system".
I'm not a Dr. or pretend to be but our Health Care is abused because of "easy fix". I'm not saying regarding those who SHOULD get the flu vaccine.

We had our company nurse the last 6-7 years available for flu shots as employees had to sign up. First couple of years of over 200 people - maybe 40 people signed up & last year 2 signed up. It's not available at work this year.

October 28, 2015 @ 7:52 PM

Petition online

Rename the SpyHill Landfill for Stephen J. Harper

Spyhill Landfill | The City of Calgary

October 28, 2015 @ 8:25 PM

Dr No

Dale and Walk on Green,

Thank you guys for sharing great points. I feel like these days people who blindly follow traditional medical practice like to yell at others who are a bit more discerning, open-minded and critical-thinking for not following the rest of the herd.

Make no mistake, for emergency medicine, traditional avenues are essential. But for regular maintenance and preventative healthcare, I am 150% with Walk on Green.

October 28, 2015 @ 8:43 PM

Leave a comment


Only 67 comments? C'mon, we can do better... Leave a comment above and let's keep this conversation going!


« Knowing the Gender of your Unborn Child Your 2015-16 Toronto Raptors »