Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn't have cancer, page 4

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.

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.

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

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?

Cooking With Aluminum Foil Should Be Avoided
  Posted 16 days ago with 43 member flags

"US teen invents advanced cancer test using Google"
  Posted 17 days ago with 38 member flags

A virus that kills cancer: the cure that\'s waiting in the cold
  Posted 6 days ago with 21 member flags

Anyone else get "vaccines" in school (United States) in the mid to late 70\'s?
  Posted 1 days ago with 11 member flags

Stem cells bring back feeling for paralysed patients
  Posted 7 days ago with 7 member flags

Gruenenthal\'s thalidomide apology \'insulting\'
  Posted 10 days ago with 6 member flags

Use these tips to detox after exposure to aerial or ground sprayed pesticides
  Posted 8 days ago with 6 member flags

My block was sprayed for mosquitos 3 days ago, been sick ever since!
  Posted 5 days ago with 6 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: