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

page: 6
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


Ok i see where the miscommunication comes from.

Instead of the word cancer, replace it with tumor.
Cancer now apparently only means malignant tumor, where as benign means non malignant tumor.

Its easy to get the words wrong when virtually all media uses the word cancer as an eqivalent for all tumors.

You got me there on a minor semantic issue, but isnt the benign tumor still a result of apoptosis failure?
edit on 30-11-2012 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)


Not necessarily, consider the lowly lipoma:


A large number of small adipocytes surrounded by CD34+/lectin- ASCs and increased numbers of Ki67+/CD34+ ASCs indicated enhanced adipogenesis in lipoma compared with normal adipose tissue. In contrast, cellular apoptosis was not enhanced in lipoma, suggesting that the enlargement of lipoma tissue may be due to a positive balance of adipocyte turnover (accelerated adipogenesis combined with nonenhanced apoptosis).

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Thus we have an enhanced production with a normal apoptosis.

Neuroma: frequently caused by trauma to the nerve




posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:10 AM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


Thank you for the apology, most people aren't man enough to do that, it really means a lot to me. Now whenever I see your avatar I won't roll my eyes and foam at the mouth
Kidding, Kidding.

I can only assume she is having them removed because she has watched someone in her family deal with and possible die from breast cancer. It is terrifying.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
It is a stupidity, as a women I see this and what this women is showing the rest of the world and specially young girls as an example.

Cancer is about prevention, keeping our bodies healthy and able to fight the disease before it gets out of hand, no taking away body parts to prevent it what is next, taking the uterus because possible uterine cancer? how about vaginal cancer? Ovarian cancer?

Let just hack our bodies in the name of what may happen, right?


Cancer can affect anybody in any part of the body regardless, prevention is about keeping the body healthy so the body can fight back.

We produce Cancer cells all the time, but our bodies fight back as is mean to fight and kill those cells, we all have the chances of having cancer as we already do.

ALL OF US ARE PRONE TO CANCER. YOUR BODY PRODUCES CANCER CELLS DAILY.


Understanding Cancer,Cancer does not develop for some unknown reason. Once you understand why and how it develops, and learn how to support your body so that it may more effectively fight cancer, it may never be too late to get healthy again. (No matter what type, they have the same underlying causes.) Cancer is a natural process where, to put it simply, an overworked and weakened immune system cannot kill it as fast as it is multiplying. Toxin, carcinogens, radiation, even viruses, combined with an unhealthy internal environment , and in conjunction with a weakened immune system, cause more cells to turn cancerous, and allows them to thrive.

A very small percentage of cells in every person who has ever lived turn cancerous. And the body usually gets rid of those cancerous cells before they do harm. This process has been going on for eons. It is only when more cancer cells are being created than the body can get rid of that the problem comes. With increased toxins, viruses, carcinogens, etc. our immune systems have become significantly overworked and weakened


www.angelfire.com...

Our Body Cures Cancer Every Single Day

ezinearticles.com...


I agree with you totally. There is no reason whatsoever to self mutilate your body in 'fear' or something that may or may not happen. Life is a risk, if we lived in fear everyday of getting hit by a car, nobody would drive.

If we lived in fear of flying, nobody would be in a plane.

And say if we lived in fear of meeting a stranger, nobody would talk to anybody.

As I understand it, the world must function by risk and learning. Removing the factors out of your life will end up destroying any learning to you or others around you. Pain must happen, happiness must happen. There is only 1 thing left, and thats choice. And this woman who says she will remove her breasts cause 'it runs in her family' or whatever argument she is using, I believe is complete stupidity and ignorance.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
And this woman who says she will remove her breasts cause 'it runs in her family' or whatever argument she is using, I believe is complete stupidity and ignorance.
Please enlighten us on your direct experience with cancer.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 09:54 AM
link   
I haven't read all the posts, but I see a recurring answer coming up. I see many are either bringing up genetic traits or hereditary traits determine if you will get cancer.

I will speak for myself, I have only my own experience to what I am going to say.

First off, what your parents have for genetic markers, or anything to do with genetics that will show the same thing happen to you I believe is hogwash. I read somewhere long ago, that your body will replace every cell, except I think for your brain within about 7 years. Now if you consider the possibility that genetics is not a factor after 7 years because, now your body has been completely altered and changed by that time. So for me this argument I hear come up is irrelevant.

This next answer is my opinion just bear with me here, I have no secondary education in genetics, just expand your mind to this possibility.

I believe just by my own understanding not going by science, that 'genetics' does not exist. Let me explain. Us watching movies like Jurassic park for example, where they 'splice' in a gene from a frog into dinosaur DNA is only on a computer model. Nobody can see DNA, its only on a computer. Can someone show me what a amino acid looks like? Or how bout a protein? OR how bout a chromosome? Yes, this can be done with microscopes or even very advanced instruments that can detect this. But to me, in my opinion, DNA or 'genetics' is a whole area of pseudo science that came from that industry for the purpose of things like this. To tell the public your 'GENES' is who you are, and thus it becomes a propaganda and brainwashing to the public to turn to science to tell you who you are, INSTEAD of YOU saying WHO YOU ARE. I don't care what scientist, or biologist, or geneticist tells me about my genes. Its nonsense. I say who I am, not some scientist, and when people start to believe in themself and not some guy in a white labcoat, I believe people will have a greater understanding of their life. If nobody can show me a gene in real time that cannot be seen by human eyes ,not off a computer model, to me its only ficticious.

Also I forgot to mention, this genetic idea is an excuse for people not to change. Here's an example. Some person will say "well my genes say I will be fat, so there's nothing I can do." Or "My genes say I will be bald, and I cant change it." This is a HUGE problem in our society, people not taking responsibility for themselves! To blame your genes, is an excuse. Your genes don't make who you are, you choose who you are. This gives an excuse to the lazy of this world that "Oh I can't change this I'm just gonna accept it and not do anything about it." It's such a sad excuse it just shocks me, all I can do is SMH. Do something about your life, don't take the easy route and blame your genes, you can change your life.

And lastly to the hereditary crowd. It explained a bit of it before but here is a little more. Do you know what you eat is nearly identical to what your parents eat? Did you ever stop to think about it. When you grew up in your life, until you left the house or if you have even, what food did you eat? Where did you live? Do you notice the environmental factors are nearly identical? Has anyone noticed if your parents eat the same foods, you will most likely do the same. And also you will most likely live within the same area as your parents. I am speaking within a region. Not many children leave their home and go to another country. How many children leave their parents for example in the United Kingdom, and then move to Africa. They will have a completely different risk of cancer or disease compared to their parents within a short time. Therefore if your parent had cancer, and you havent changed your diet, or region in the world, YES of course you will have a very similar risk to them. If your parents smoked all their life and you never smoked, but they both got lung cancer what do you think the reason this is? Is it hereditary? NO, its because of the environment you breathed cigarette tar as much as they did, so you have a similar risk to them. Its not hereditary, its just simple fact.



So in conclusion. I don't believe in genes, its 1 more pseduo science thing for us to believe the man in the white lab coat that they are smart, therefore we are dumb and must obey every word they speak. And I don't believe if your parent had cancer, then you will to. Your diet, your environment and your way of thinking, will determine if you get cancer, not hereditary marks such as your mother had breast cancer so I will to.

You have the choice to change, why are you believing you will get it someday? If you believe you will contract cancer like your parents, then you will make it a possibility. Change your mind, get of the box, expand yourself, grow, fight the system. Thats all I have to say.

edit on 1-12-2012 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
I will speak for myself, I have only my own experience to what I am going to say.
Great...please enlighten us on your direct experience with cancer.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

I have to agree with you, and I have researched the statistics, or actually lack of statistics that are pertinent quite a bit. Cancer rates are way up. Deaths from cancer remain about the same. Trouble is that death after getting cancer is not technically from the cancer itself anymore so the cause of death is something else that is damaged by the treatment for the cancer. It could be listed as heart failure, or possibly liver failure. The treatment is extremely invasive to the organs and tissue of the body. This artificially keeps the death rate statistics down. Someone who died six months after the cancer is removed is not technically dying of cancer. There is no cancer left in the body.

The hospitals do not like to keep patients in the hospital long after any surgery. They kick you out a lot of times even if you are not doing good. This keeps the death rate of the hospital down and artificially makes the hospital look like it has a better success rate. Make the figures look good, that is the name of the game. Nothing about honesty in this, it works hand and hand with reducing costs for the insurance companies. If you stayed a few more days sometimes it would increase your chances of never coming back. The problem now is that exposure to MRSA is a real problem. I see no solution to this problem.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:17 AM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 

I'd say it's a personal choice and, therefore, no one's business but the patient's. Family history, high risk. It's her decision as to whether or not she wants to address it now or later.

Either way, it's none of our business.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by newsoul

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


Thanks for posting newsoul, my daughter as well, sadly she was led to believe the reconstructive surgery which she has had two now was going to help, it didn't

They did a terrible job.

They tattoo on nipples but they looked bad

So she is opting for this tattooing I found.





posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by davjan4
 


I'm taking D3, from health store, 8-10 1000 iu's a day. And a special magnesium powder with other ingredients, its specially for fibromalgia but good for rheumatoid too. I've read that 50 a day, works for breast cancer in studies and am wondering if there is a better way to take this.

It also produces calcium in your body, however the magnesium and or k2 is needed to prevent kidney stones and loss of that calcium.

I guess I may need to find the liquid form of it somewhere.

www.vitamindfoundation.org...
edit on 1-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 

I'd say it's a personal choice and, therefore, no one's business but the patient's. Family history, high risk. It's her decision as to whether or not she wants to address it now or later.
I can't help but note that much of the ridicule of this tragic circumstance appears to be coming from men. Would this be the same particular demographic that generally wants to dictate what women do with their bodies? I'm guessin' so. War on women, indeed!



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 10:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by GreenGlassDoor
I don't mean to be crude, but she could have done more for cancer research by raising money through
posing topless in a calendar than looking like cancer's victim. If a Miss America contestant has no hope what chances do those of lesser influence have?

I am 100% certain that if the US had a Manhattan-style project for cancer screening, prevention, and treatment it would be a disease that goes the way of polio.


Are you really that far gone, morality wise? First of all nude and all that is obscene violence against women. I can't wait for a world where there is no exploitation of women, some men, and children.

Second of all, there already are cures for cancer, and TPTB won't bring them out. They make money causing it. Now based on that, just think of what level of exploitation the extra funds being given means.

There are certain prohibited plants, there are many things in nature, even apricot kernels, apple seeds, organic cabbage and beet slaws, pau'darco tea, Vit D.

I would never fund raise for Darth Vaders big pharmas.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.


If those around you have breast cancer, and you've ever witnessed someone's death from it, you are definitely going to be on extreme prevention mode.

As for the mammagrams, I just had to take antibiotics for infection there, which helped. Now the doctor wants me to have a mammogram, I've had one, and have no intention of having another one. In fact too many Xrays due to arthritis lately. I'm going to start with my paudarco tea again, every day and large doses of vitamin D instead. And may just do the organic baking soda/molasses cure for a while as prevention once a year.

But, I do believe the genetic markers exist in families, and that they do respond to the environment. Which is why some with them don't get it.

That we can be proactive with our health.

That Russian study comes to mind that DNA changes in real time.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 11:20 AM
link   
I myself think that breast cancer may be happening because of deodorants and soaps. By swelling up the sweat glands to stop perspiration a person also swells up the drainage ducts for the lymph nodes located under the arms and in the breasts. This is just a theory, maybe there have been changes over the years in these chemicals that are worsening this problem also. The changes to the foods could be causing this also but the lymph system should take care of this. I'm seeing a lot of cancers, something may not be carcinogenic and still cause a reaction where the body can not properly detox. Our skin is the biggest organ on the body and we are constantly doing things to restrict it from doing what it is designed to do, just to look or smell better. If a person smells bad, than that person is eating things that caused toxins to be expelled. I am by no means saying people shouldn't take showers
That would be insane. I think there are also good antiperspirants but to get one that works all day may not be a good idea. We have to get rid of those chemicals created by the Lymph system. I wonder if there is even any testing done by our government on these things or if they just take the word of the manufacturers. Even organic deodorants can do the same swelling or plumping things. I don't have a solution to this, I am just aying it may be a problem.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by troubleshooter
 

I have to agree with you, and I have researched the statistics, or actually lack of statistics that are pertinent quite a bit. Cancer rates are way up. Deaths from cancer remain about the same. Trouble is that death after getting cancer is not technically from the cancer itself anymore so the cause of death is something else that is damaged by the treatment for the cancer. It could be listed as heart failure, or possibly liver failure. The treatment is extremely invasive to the organs and tissue of the body. This artificially keeps the death rate statistics down. Someone who died six months after the cancer is removed is not technically dying of cancer. There is no cancer left in the body.

The hospitals do not like to keep patients in the hospital long after any surgery. They kick you out a lot of times even if you are not doing good. This keeps the death rate of the hospital down and artificially makes the hospital look like it has a better success rate. Make the figures look good, that is the name of the game. Nothing about honesty in this, it works hand and hand with reducing costs for the insurance companies. If you stayed a few more days sometimes it would increase your chances of never coming back. The problem now is that exposure to MRSA is a real problem. I see no solution to this problem.


Conversely, one reason why cancer rates are up is because people are living longer. The longer you live, the more chance you will get cancer. Life is a dangerous proposition.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Stormdancer777
 


I opted to fore go the tattoos. They are not natural looking at all. Of course having no nipples isn't natural either, but now my husband says I look like a Barbie...lol

I actually thought about getting that tattoo, it is really beautiful. I like wearing white and I'm afraid even the best bra might not hide that if it is on both breasts.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Seektruthalways1
 


Sometimes peoples ignorance is astounding. I hate to be that blunt, but you leave me no choice.

Are you insinuating that people actually cause themselves to have cancer by thinking about it? I can assure you that I did not sit around thinking about my breasts, or fearing the day that I might get breast cancer. Believe it or not some people actually have a life and other things to concentrate on.

I have a friend who had both of her breasts removed at the age of 27. She did not have breast cancer. Her grandmother died at the age of 50 from breast cancer and her mother died at the age of 39 from breast cancer. How can you blame someone for trying to be proactive and take care of things before it is too late?

Do you look both ways before you cross the street? Do you wear a seat belt? I am assuming that you do these things because they can save your life. You shouldn't be so critical of someone else who is trying to save their own life.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   
what gives you people the right to critique other peoples actions. why is this even a topic.
if she wants to remove them, so be it. this is someones personal life we all have our own agenda beliefs.

this topic belongs in some womens weekly magazine. Purely gossip.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by amraks
this topic belongs in some womens weekly magazine. Purely gossip.
I disagree...the forum is Medical Issues, and there is an astounding amount of ignorance being displayed in this thread. Hopefully a few posters have learned little something.



posted on Dec, 1 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unity_99
reply to post by davjan4
 


I'm taking D3, from health store, 8-10 1000 iu's a day. And a special magnesium powder with other ingredients, its specially for fibromalgia but good for rheumatoid too. I've read that 50 a day, works for breast cancer in studies and am wondering if there is a better way to take this.

It also produces calcium in your body, however the magnesium and or k2 is needed to prevent kidney stones and loss of that calcium.

I guess I may need to find the liquid form of it somewhere.

www.vitamindfoundation.org...
edit on 1-12-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)


You must get your D3 level measured. Just taking 8-10000 a day is shooting in the dark. Titrate to your level. Typically, every 1,000U of D3 will raise your level by10ng/ml. But that's just rough. Only raised mone by 5ng/ml. The reason I take 10,000 a day is because that's what it takes to keep my level at about 75ng/ml/





new topics
top topics
 
17
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join