Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn't have cancer

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Key words
" believed to be the cause"

I dont believe that as I explained above succinctly.

Fair enough.

Forget about the genetic marker and say she never gets a mammogram. Her family history shows breast cancer. So, she makes the judgement call based strictly on that.

Would you blame her?

I favor more likely souces of causation such as chemicals or radiation exposure from nature or industry.

I have no argument there. We as a species are screwing up our environment and ourselves. That would be an interesting topic for a thread all on its own.

Which is clearly a real issue being overlooked big time to protect the $$$ flow.

I have no argument there as well. Obviously greed plays a part in all of this. If it didn't then all these exams and accompanying medicine and procedures would be reasonably priced.

Which obviously they are not

Our medical records only go back a few decades for most families.

No one bothers to test their living space to find contamination, or check their food source etc.

They just ASSUME it was hereditary because a grandparent had it? What if this family all got exposed to some carcinogenic source? No one even checks for these possibilities most of the time.

Im blown away that despite having almost no historical records, we are presuming it must be hereditary.

Fact is though the entire planet is contaminated to varying degrees, our medical tools are dangerous, our food is packed with toxins, etc.
But we blame grandma ??

No way... I blame industry ... DuPont, GE, Cancer Foundations, Westinghouse, and all the other players making big $$ of the cancer racket.

reply to post by muzzleflash


OK. What if....

Great Grandmother lived in Michigan developed breast cancer and died. Grandmother lived in Wichita developed breast cancer and died. Mother lived in Oregon developed Breast cancer caught early and survived.

Daughter sits in San Diego contemplating this family history...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Ok hmm.

All humans share 99% plus identical genetics, however it is the dominant and recessive traits which make us all different, agreed? At least in general.

Cancer is a result of damage to the dna strand. Normally the body fixes this daily as ALL people contract hundreds of cancer cell formations constantly.
Good nutrition generally plays a major role in aiding defense and repair from this natural daily cancer formation.

By having ionizing radiation exposure, the cancer formations increase in multitude and intensity, and within a few months or years the tumor growths are too widespead for normal nutrition to stop.

If such were hereditary, it would be akin to actual hereditary disorders like eye or skin disorders and be visible from birth. Defects, deformities, etc. That is what happens when the parents have dna defects or the zygote is damaged in some way.

Of course thats a gross overgeneralization, but the point is that this " predisposition for cancer " mythos doesnt even address the hundred competing possibilities, nor does it adequately define or explain its own proposition.

Why is an incredibly complex, always unique and differing set of situations being dumbed down into a sound bite that isnt even ten percent accurate?

Look, everyone has a predisposition towards getting cancer growths out of control.
We have to avoid exposure to carcinogenic sources, and maintain good nutrition in order to fight back the inevitable for as long as possible.

That means avoiding mammograms if possible. Too risky.

reply to post by SLAYER69


You cant justify a medical procedure merely because of anecdotal evidence ( a story ).

What caused the cancer in those people? Not resolved.
How can we assume hereditary from pure coincidence?

We need more data, way more data.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Are you saying some forms of Cancer are not hereditary?
That all are from other external causes?

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Beast cancer hereditary? I have serious doubts.

Cancer is essentially a genetic defect that prevents apoptosis, or cell death. Cancer is merely your own cells failing to die and thus reproducing uncontrollably.

IF it were hereditary in nature, the child should in theory be born with those defects present.

You cant live half your life healthy, than contract a cancer, then blame your ancestors.
That cancer popped up as a result of environmental factors.

Of course the beast cancer profiteers will lie to the unthinking and tell them its all grandmas fault.
They will not admit that their own mammogram screens cause cancer formations, which is an indisputable scientific fact. Plus the other billion sources of carcinogenic activity I didnt bother to mention.

NOt trying to be arguementative and will try to address several of your posts. The BRCA gene is well described and is tracked to several genetic populations: Ashkenazi Jewish,Norwegian, Dutch, and Icelandic peoples. Not to say that it does not happen in other populations, but that these are the major players. People with this genetic defect are 5 times as likely to get the disease than the general population. The defect is detectible in children and infants and this has been proven by genetic testing, but you must understand that the phenotype does not show itself until after the tissue becomes active (after puberty). Time is a player. The longer the process is going on, the more likely to get the disease.

You are quite incorrect: there is no "unrefutable" evidence that mamograms cause cancer. Yes, sometimes mamograms do find lesions that end up not being cancer and miss lesions that end up being cancer, but no screening test is 100%. I suggest you read up on Sensitivity vs SPecificity in screening tests Yes, women who get mammograms tend to get cancer more often but that is because women who get mamograms are in the higher risk group so they get screened more often. The amount of radiation one gets from a mamogram is not that much more than the amount of radiation one gets from the environment:

An average of 70 millirems—roughly the dose you'd receive from your normal, everyday environment over a period of two and a half months

You are incorrect about the genetic data only going back a few generations. A lot of our multi-generational health data we owe to teh Scandenavians. They have been keeping meticulous medical records going back hundreds of years. In the US, data has been kept, in detail since before the turn of the century in many institutions.

I agree that more data is always a good thing, but it is disingenuous to say that this is based on anecdotal evidence. The lines of several genetic defects are quite clear, have been monitored, and have been connected with specific mutations. There is quite good evidence that in many cancers the genetic underlying cause is there.

About " different types of cancer ".

We have two types, malignant and benign. Those that spread and those that dont.

All of the fancy words they call cancer are misleading to the uninitiated.
Any cell in an organism can become cancerous ( apoptosis failure ) , whether it be your blood cells, bone, tissues, organs, etc.

The body parts that replicate the fastest, ie quick cell division rates, are at higher risk than cells that divide slower.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Yes it is irrefutable that mammograms can cause cancer.

Please read up on biological effects of ionizing radiation.
Then correlate those facts.

Mammograms expose organic tissue to ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation facilitates genetic damage.

When an atom inside a complex molecule becomes ionized, it breaks the molecular bond holdin it all together.

Just think about what is really happening when you get hit by those rays , thats all I ask.

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Are you saying some forms of Cancer are not hereditary?
That all are from other external causes?

No sir, I am stating that is one of the least likely souces of causation.

Id put it under ten percent.

Exposing yourself to 2.5 months of natural background radiation in under ten seconds is insanely risky.

It only serves to increase overall damage rates.
That is quite significant compared to someone who was not exposed to it.

That s the scare tactics of the cancer industry . We all have cancerous cells in our body but it can take 20,30, 40
years to progress to a critical stage where it takes over the body. It was already proved in a study , actually many,
in Denmark with twins. Environment wins out over genetics. You are what you eat. Wanna increase your cancer
risk? Eat BACON
So the cancer industry gets lots of free publicity from the popular media via the heroic Miss America....another
cancer industry victim. Bet all those surgeons are rubbing their hands together and counting their gold.
And all the little girls will be dreaming of becoming heroes. More female mutilation in the world.
Any men out there willing to get their you know what wacked off to prevent testicular cancer ?

running with the wolves

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by Seektruthalways1

 

My neighbor had complete mastectomys with no cancer. Breast cancer runs rampant in her family. If this is how she finds peace with not having to deal with the prospect of getting breast cancer, I understand.

edit on 11/29/2012 by sad_eyed_lady because: (no reason given)

Umm it is about her being very screwed up in the head and brainwashed. I guess if she ever had kids they can suck down that tasty factory made powder but that is healthy right...


Gs

cancer is cancer stop eating gmo food and you wont have to cut your tits off

Originally posted by muzzleflash
About " different types of cancer ".

We have two types, malignant and benign. Those that spread and those that dont.

All of the fancy words they call cancer are misleading to the uninitiated.
Any cell in an organism can become cancerous ( apoptosis failure ) , whether it be your blood cells, bone, tissues, organs, etc.

The body parts that replicate the fastest, ie quick cell division rates, are at higher risk than cells that divide slower.

By definition, a benign tumor is not cancer.
en.wikipedia.org...

Cancer is not just one disease, but a large group of almost 100 diseases. Its two main characteristics are uncontrolled growth of the cells in the human body and the ability of these cells to migrate from the original site and spread to distant sites

LOL. There are as many types of cancer as there are tissue types:sqaumous cell, lymphoid cell, chondro, osteo, white blood cell, sarcoma, neuroma, gleoblastoma, melanoma, basal cell, etc. Each has its own risk factors, treatments, and genetic predisposition.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Yes it is irrefutable that mammograms can cause cancer.

Please read up on biological effects of ionizing radiation.
Then correlate those facts.

Mammograms expose organic tissue to ionizing radiation.
Ionizing radiation facilitates genetic damage.

When an atom inside a complex molecule becomes ionized, it breaks the molecular bond holdin it all together.

Just think about what is really happening when you get hit by those rays , thats all I ask.

I'm well aquainted with ionizing effects of radiation...you get more ionizing radiation flying at 30,000 feet from New York to LA than you get from a mammogram.

"Irrefutable" is a strong word that requires strong evidence. It is untrue. Please show us your "irrefutable" evidence.

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by SLAYER69
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Are you saying some forms of Cancer are not hereditary?
That all are from other external causes?

No sir, I am stating that is one of the least likely souces of causation.

Id put it under ten percent.

By what data?

Originally posted by rickymouse

It is just a tactic to justify the silicone implants she wants. Next year she will be back bigger and better than before with a breast cancer awareness speech. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I want to feel them when she is done to make sure that she hasn't deceived us.

I think I'm going to vomit. Are you freaking serious?? Do you really think that after a mastectomy women have bigger and better breasts?? Well let me tell you what it is like. I was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, it was in my right breast. Because of my FAMILY HISTORY I had both of my breasts removed. After the 6 months of agonizing torture to stretch my skin and muscles, I got my implants. I have a 3 inch scar in the middle of both of my "breasts", I do not have nipples.....it's beautiful, really you should see them

No one in the world would have their breasts removed because they think they will look better after the surgery. Did you know that when a person has a mastectomy that means nipples and all. They dig all of the breast tissue out of your body, up to your collar bone and under your arms. Try getting an implant that covers that area and tell me how pretty it looks. Fool

Originally posted by SLAYER69
I'm not sure where I stand on this.

It's her body though. So she can do whatever she wants with it. It may be considered a rational thing to do if it as some have pointed out runs in her family

For me being a guy the only thing I could compare it to would be for me to get rid of my testicles if testicular cancer ran in my family.

I'm not sure I'd do it

Honest answer.

Many men are removing parts of the penis due to the possibility of infections. It seems to me that breast cancer is a far more serious threat to a healthy life.
If I tested positive for the genes in question and had a family history that had lost many of its women due to breast cancer then yes, I would do it in a second .