Ok check this out:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/06/health/women-drinking-daily-health/index.html

and now this one:

http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2011/11/01/a-drink-a-day-increases-breast-cancer-risk/

Nice research ...

•  

• Complementary medicine for fatigue and cortisol variability in breast cancer survivors. A randomised trial.

  Shamini Jain PhD^1,2,*, Desiree Pavlik BA², Janet Distefan PhD², Reverend Rosalyn L.ruyere³, Julia Acer MBA², Rosalie Garcia BA², Ian Coulter PhD⁴, John Ives PhD¹, Scott C. Roesch PhD⁴,Wayne Jonas MD¹,Paul J. Mills PhD² 
  [LINK to Article]
  
  The question is since when the American Cancer Society started accepting a quackademics for publication. How did this article passed the peer review?
  I would also want to know the names of the reviewers who have accepted this article for publication.
  Allow me to clarify.
  My daughter is 6 year old and she already lost few teeth. The question she asked was if the Tooth Fairy will give more money if she wraps the tooth in foil so its shiny.
  Well we can design study about this a randomized double blind by having many kids at the same age half of which will use foil the other half paper. Who knows may be we will be able to even learn something about it. The main problem however is to prove that the Tooth Fairy exists.
  I have to admit I started reading the article and quit after I saw the following paragraph:
  " The purpose of this study is to examine within a blinded randomized controlled trial design whether a biofield therapy (hands-on-healing) would significantly reduce fatigue.."
  Well how about the Tooth Fairy... obviously the "researchers" have accepted the "fact" that bioenery does exists and can "heal" or "affect" human physiology. Really?  The authors list 42 reference none dialing with the effectiveness of the mumbo-jumbo quackery. Did the authors control for placebo; yes by "mock healing". Why didn’t they include other forms of healing like , hand shake, pat on the back, frequent smiling..etc. How would you evaluate the effects providing that fatigue is subjective, waxes and wanes and cortisol variability is diurnal? All of this is the typical example of quackademics and by publishing this bullshit Cancer have lost all credibility.

  EPIC FAIL.