Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn't have cancer, page 7

Pages: << 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 17 times

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 05:10 PM by Druscilla

Something that bothers me about this thread is that it seems like a big deal to some.

Does anyone take this much interest in breast implants, other than visiting specific venues to goggle at them?

If the woman wants to avoid a problem while she's 100% healthy through removing (and possibly replacing) her faulty equipment, it's her business, and though more invasive than just getting implants, not really any more significant from a aesthetic standpoint, plus a huge relief for her in attending to a potential health concern.

It's like getting a factory recall part sorted.

What's the big deal?

Had we the science fiction technology to replace more functionally important parts prone to disease, failure, performance degradation, or high risk failure with little or no negative health impact or change in quality of life, there'd likely be people doing elective surgery to get bionic eyes, nearly natural synthetic hearts, replacement synthetic lungs, kidneys, etc.

I don't see any problems here.

Is it because it's boobies and this is a pagent girl?

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 05:13 PM by davjan4

What's the big deal? I guess because it's hard to imagine mutilating a healthy body. And because she was manipluated by her father.

Recall "your going to die JUST. LIKE. YOUR. MOTHER. DID."

No pressure.

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 06:47 PM by troubleshooter

Originally posted by NavyDoc

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.

I have a background in Pharma but have come to understand that all the DNA changes that are observed are either biological changes caused by another biological agent or part of the defensive response to them.

What has changed are deficiencies in key nutrients in our food chain that has weakened our immune response...
...and at the same time lowered our pH producing conditions favourable to endogenous flora.

Most plant/animals/organisms have a predator...
...I am coming to the conclusion that the human predator is a fungus.

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 08:13 PM by Druscilla

Originally posted by davjan4
What's the big deal? I guess because it's hard to imagine mutilating a healthy body. And because she was manipluated by her father.

Recall "your going to die JUST. LIKE. YOUR. MOTHER. DID."

No pressure.

You see it as mutilation.
How do you feel about your appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth?

Many people choose to have these removed before complications ever occur.
I'm fond of taking extended wilderness treks solo anywhere from 50-100+ miles away from the nearest human structure. I also go sailing, sometimes on extended trips. I had my appendix taken out long ago before I ever had problems with it to avoid the chance of ever getting stuck hundreds of miles away from any help in a bad situation with failing health.

Have I mutilated myself by getting my appendix removed when I didn't have a problem with it to begin with?

I had all my wisdom teeth removed at the first sign of trouble, and my tonsils were out as a child.

Am I mutilated? Only the one wisdom tooth was causing trouble at the time, but, what's to say the rest wouldn't raise arms in rebellion? Having none of that, I had them out.

Or, do you just have some over emotional attachment to someone else's boobies that you've never met and feel the need to enforce your own sense of reasoning and aesthetic on other people regarding what they can and can't do with their own bodies as a matter of progressive foresight in health awareness against their will?

Are people that get Tattoos mutilating themselves? Piercings? What about breast implants by themselves? Breast reduction too for those that have problems with over-endowment?
Little Christina Ricci blossomed into distracting over-endowment and for the sake of her career as an actress as well as her quality of life, opted to have a reduction.

At what point does the definition of "mutilation" start and stop?
At what point is it fine and okay for someone else to tell you, and even enforce their own ideals on what you can and can't do with your own body, especially as it applies to your own very personal health concerns?

Historical records have indicated that castrated men live longer, healthier, more active and productive lives. If you're in favor of telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies, certainly wouldn't be against any law or condition of health insurance coverage that says all men need be castrated after some arbitrary age, for their own good you know?

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

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 08:16 PM by MichellePike1111

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I agree, definately irrational. It's like saying "I might get heart disease, so hey doc can you cut my heart out?"

The logic of this woman is on par with a child. I bet she has all the education of one, too.

reply posted on 1-12-2012 @ 08:48 PM by davjan4

Originally posted by Druscilla

Originally posted by davjan4
What's the big deal? I guess because it's hard to imagine mutilating a healthy body. And because she was manipluated by her father.

Recall "your going to die JUST. LIKE. YOUR. MOTHER. DID."

No pressure.

You see it as mutilation.
How do you feel about your appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth?

Many people choose to have these removed before complications ever occur.
I'm fond of taking extended wilderness treks solo anywhere from 50-100+ miles away from the nearest human structure. I also go sailing, sometimes on extended trips. I had my appendix taken out long ago before I ever had problems with it to avoid the chance of ever getting stuck hundreds of miles away from any help in a bad situation with failing health.

Have I mutilated myself by getting my appendix removed when I didn't have a problem with it to begin with?

I had all my wisdom teeth removed at the first sign of trouble, and my tonsils were out as a child.

Am I mutilated? Only the one wisdom tooth was causing trouble at the time, but, what's to say the rest wouldn't raise arms in rebellion? Having none of that, I had them out.

Or, do you just have some over emotional attachment to someone else's boobies that you've never met and feel the need to enforce your own sense of reasoning and aesthetic on other people regarding what they can and can't do with their own bodies as a matter of progressive foresight in health awareness against their will?

Are people that get Tattoos mutilating themselves? Piercings? What about breast implants by themselves? Breast reduction too for those that have problems with over-endowment?
Little Christina Ricci blossomed into distracting over-endowment and for the sake of her career as an actress as well as her quality of life, opted to have a reduction.

At what point does the definition of "mutilation" start and stop?
At what point is it fine and okay for someone else to tell you, and even enforce their own ideals on what you can and can't do with your own body, especially as it applies to your own very personal health concerns?

Historical records have indicated that castrated men live longer, healthier, more active and productive lives. If you're in favor of telling other people what they can and can't do with their bodies, certainly wouldn't be against any law or condition of health insurance coverage that says all men need be castrated after some arbitrary age, for their own good you know?

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

Dictionary Definition

mutilation n : an injury that deprives you of a limb or other important body part
Mutilation or maiming is an act or physical injury that degrades the appearance or function of the (human) body, usually without causing death.

Yeah. Take out or amputate something that works and is not diseased? Wrap it in any justification you want short of neccesary for life and I call that mutilation.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 07:30 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by davjan4
Yeah. Take out or amputate something that works and is not diseased? Wrap it in any justification you want short of neccesary for life and I call that mutilation.

Sure it's mutilation. Self mutilation at that. What a tragic decision to have to make. Beats an early death any day, though.

reply posted on 2-12-2012 @ 08:11 PM by jonnywhite

reply to post by marg6043

I like your post. It highlights that cancer is with everyone in some way.

Cancer reminds me of the climate change tipping point. At some juncture,. the climate changes in our future become irreversible if we do not act soon enough. This is because they build on themselves and we simply are overwhelmed. Something similar happens with cancer when it overwhelms the ability of the body to contain it. We then die from critical failure or from repeated failures.

Honestly, I like breasts. But that's because I'm male. I don't see anything wrong with somebody having them removed if they believe their chance of getting breast cancer is high. We all come to a stage in our life when we realize that there're more important things in life.

YOu do what you can. Life is not all about how we look anyway.

Thes're things we can do to greatly reduce cancer risk:
1) Exercise - this is one of the biggest things you can do
2) Vitamin D from food/supplements and sunlight
3) Reduce needless stress and excessive anxiety in your life
4) Balanced Natural Diet - more vegetables/fruits/legumes/nuts/fish/grains/rices and less refined foods and high fat/sugar foods - make sure you eat a variety of foods to stay balanced
5) Live away from highways/industry - the air on/near highways is polluted from exhaust
6) Don't smoke!!!! Don't ingest/inhale/inject drugs/etc that will unnecessarily stress your body
7) Reduce inflammation - this is a general rule - as it's linked to cancer broadly
8) Etc.

I won't list these because they're just gut feelings: waterfalls and creeks, outdoor air.

Bottom line, we can't PREVENT all occurrences of cancer. Even the most healthy people have been killed by cancer. However, doing something about it WILL increase the odds in your favor.

I also think some of us are doomed to die because we don't do what we're supposed to. Maybe some people are this way intentionally or maybe it's just in their nature.

Many people aren't going to follow these rules. For them all I have to say is that technology is being developed to kill cancers with 3d chemotherapy that's restricted to the cancer cells.

Oh and lastly, do as I say, not as I do. I'm an imperfect human. :0

edit on 2-12-2012 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 09:15 AM by marg6043

reply to post by NavyDoc

I agree, sometimes, it is genetics but the genetic link until one or two generations ago was actually rare, now is for some reason and epidemic what cancer is becoming and just like childhood diabetes that also was rare a generation or two ago now is blame on genetics and obesity, but mostly is about the environment and what our bodies are exposed everyday from all sources and specially the child in uterus, that is creating the modern version of cancer problems that now are becoming genetically linked because after two generations a link can be made as now cancer can be found in families as generations become more sucestible to the disease.

When my doctor could not pin poing why I have naturally high blood pressure as I am a fit person he try to linked to genetics, because I told him that my mother had high blood pressure also and has developed hart disease, but he failed to undestand that it was factors into my mothers health that I don't have, but that is how now the medical comunity wants to link what it can not be explained.

Is a shame because it is true cases in which diseases are actually genetically linked regardless.

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 09:20 AM by marg6043

reply to post by jonnywhite

I agree, but as our environment and our food sources become tainted and polluted, let no forget the manufactured food and GMOs that two generations ago were no there, our bodies ability to fight diseases weakens, then to make excuses on the genetic link factor they go back and ask if somebody in a particular family have problems with cancer, obesity or diabetes, you know that in our modern times as our generation deteriorates is going to be somebody that already is having a health problem, so the genetic link is born.

Now It is true cases in which a genetic factor is true but one or two generations ago this cases were rare.

Just look at childhood diabetes, it was unthinkable at one time, now has become common and when looking at the family history and our modern diets you are going to find a link regardless.

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 09:48 AM by NavyDoc

reply to post by troubleshooter

Which is why long life is an independant risk factor for cancer--the longer you live, the more exposures.

When people ask me, "Hey Doc, is cancer genetic or environmental," I have to say: both.

The layman tends to have a bit of binary thinking when it cmoes to disease processes" "is it one or the other" "if I have this, I'll get it, but if I do that, I won't." It's a bit more complicated than that.

Every person is born with two sets of every gene. When it comes to cell growth, you have two types of genes involved. You have oncogenes which are responsible for regulating cell growth. When turned on, the cell grows. A mutation of this gene can take the brakes off and the cell grows out of control. In addition, you have defensive genes knowns as tumor suppresor genese which are responsible for self destruction of the cell with abdnormal DNA.

You have two copies of each of these genes. If something goes wrong, the other copy can take over and do the job, so people with one mutation have a higher risk, but people with mutations inherited from their parents have a much, much higher risk.

Even with both those genes mutated, you still may not get cancer. You still have to have some sort of exposure to something that causes damage in the DNA. Your risk is much higher because the mechanisms that correct for that exposure are defective.

Even with that, the immune system can recognize and destroy cancer cells. This is why people with compromised immune systems can get cancers that are unheard of in the general populace, such as an AIDs patient with Karposi's Sarcoma.

When talking about cancer, it is not either or, it is about both and it is about risk. Someone with a genetic problem is not guranteed to get cancer. Like wise someone without any genetic problems is not guranteed not to get cancer. When dealing with risk, we an do things to reduced said risk: not smoking, avoiding the sun, a good diet rich in fresh fruits and vegetables, avoiding processed food, avoiding chemical exposure, etc.

In this case, the lady in question evaluated her proven risk factors and came to a conclusion that she thought was the best one. It was her decision and I would respect that.

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 09:52 AM by NavyDoc

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by NavyDoc

I agree, sometimes, it is genetics but the genetic link until one or two generations ago was actually rare, now is for some reason and epidemic what cancer is becoming and just like childhood diabetes that also was rare a generation or two ago now is blame on genetics and obesity, but mostly is about the environment and what our bodies are exposed everyday from all sources and specially the child in uterus, that is creating the modern version of cancer problems that now are becoming genetically linked because after two generations a link can be made as now cancer can be found in families as generations become more sucestible to the disease.

When my doctor could not pin poing why I have naturally high blood pressure as I am a fit person he try to linked to genetics, because I told him that my mother had high blood pressure also and has developed hart disease, but he failed to undestand that it was factors into my mothers health that I don't have, but that is how now the medical comunity wants to link what it can not be explained.

Is a shame because it is true cases in which diseases are actually genetically linked regardless.

Well, like I said. Genetics has more to do with increasing the risk than a certain, on/off switch. Diabetes is a higher risk in juveniles with a family history, but childhood obesity, processed food, foods high in sugar, and so forth are a larger risk factor than the population at large.

Also consider this: many genetic issues caused earlier death in past years so those genes did not have the chance to spread. Now that we can keep people with many of these defects alive to reporduce, those genes can become more commonplace in the general population.

edit on 3-12-2012 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 11:25 AM by marg6043

reply to post by NavyDoc

You should open a post on this type of subject as I have also research on why our generation is going down the hill when it comes to health and why cancer and other diseases are becoming an epidemic.

Also, is interesting that you are right the longer we live the more we are to experience health problems as we age, but for some reason modern medicine while helping people live longer the quality of life is not longer there like it used too.

I do come a family of people with long live and the only thing I find that they had in common was a clean diet and that they didn't rely on modern medicine for the health problems.

Now I am now researching on animals as I have three aging dogs that your post while dealing with humans also apply to them, diabetes, thyroid problems, dementia and dog Alzheimer's, I have three, one with dementia, one with thyroid problems and one with dog Alzheimer's, they all 14 years old.

Just like humans pets are living longer and suffering with the same human like disease, so interesting.

reply posted on 3-12-2012 @ 12:29 PM by NavyDoc

reply to post by marg6043

Well, you are right. as animals age, they encounter the same diseases that we do and some of the same things that benefit us: diet, exercise, proper nutrition, and so forth helps them as well. Due to science we can make people much longer than we used to, but is that time worth the lack of quality? I guess everyone would have a different answer as this is more a philosophical question. Just be cause we can does not necessarily mean we should.

I all, to extend quality, we need to start at an early age with exercise, good nutrition, and avoidance of risky behavior such as smoking (for example).

reply posted on 4-12-2012 @ 01:58 AM by AuranVector

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

I agree. I watched an interview of this girl -- could not believe the stupidity, the blind faith in conventional medicine and in research (probably) funded by Big Pharma.

What a tragedy that she will suffer this mutilation before it's even necessary.

There is so much info on alternative preventatives and even cures for cancer. What a waste.

reply posted on 4-12-2012 @ 06:23 AM by Violetshy

I had my uterus removed due to cancer and I would have removed it before if I had known the pain it would have caused me in the future. Breast cancer runs in my family and my aunt passed away at a very young age. I am considering the double mastectomy.

reply posted on 5-12-2012 @ 08:11 PM by Seektruthalways1

Originally posted by newsoul
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.

Removing the symptom does not save your life. Maybe you don't like my answer but its the truth. Pro active is just a fancy term for being fearful. Don't throw at me some garbage they were saving their life. What if she gets ovarian cancer? Hmm maybe she should remove those too? Or melanoma and she should hurry and remove her skin?

You have the same mentality as the doctors. "Oh you have gallstones, well we must remove the gallbladder its the problem!"
Or "You have a headache, it must be treated by an Advil, thats your problem"
Or how about
"I see your very overweight, we must give you liposuction cause your fat cells are the problem"

You haven't fixed nothing by removing your breasts. Cancer starts in women first there because that's a focal point of where it grows. You have not addressed the problem only the symptom. Maybe next time don't defend those who made wrong decisions and then blame ones who are right.

edit on 5-12-2012 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 5-12-2012 @ 09:28 PM by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
You haven't fixed nothing by removing your breasts. Cancer starts in women first there because that's a focal point of where it grows.

A) Just as a point of interest, males get breast cancer as well. And women get other cancers, too.
B) You have still not answered my question (twice) regarding your own intimate experience with cancer. You know, colon cancer is not the only thing that is rectally sourced, eh?

reply posted on 7-12-2012 @ 11:10 AM by Stormdancer777

Found this video on face book today, sad what so many young people are going through these days,

when I read the obituaries it seems more and more young women,

youtu.be...