Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's good for her that she can do it. But there is no way in hell that insurance would cover a preventive mastectomy. Only the 1% could afford this procedure. The rest will have to wait until they have cancer, which by then, well, you have cancer. We don't care about preventive health care in this country. We don't invest in it. It's far more profitable to develop expensive treatments.
I am curious as to whether regular health insurance would cover preventive mastectomy.
I do think that both husband and wife have to learn to live with an amputation. Sure, most men will say they don't care, but I guess at least initially they say that to show support, not because they indeed don't care.
It must be a though choice, sacrificing a key aspect of what makes a woman look feminine, or death. But once diagnosed with breast cancer, that sacrifice is the only real option, after all women are expected to live about 80 years these days, with lives being planned different than in the past. Women become mothers at 30, 40, or later, they have to be around for at least 15 or 20 more years in order to play their role as a mom.
A mastectomy or death? Come on---that is not a difficult choice.
My thoughts are that I feel bad for her and I respect the heck out of her for doing it. 87% chance of cancer is a pretty sobering thing to hear and what a drastic measure she had to take.
I can't imagine how important a woman's breasts are to them, especially a movie star.
What a devastating truth that must have been for her to accept.
Why couldn't she go for more frequent testing? Seems like a drastic action to take based on genetics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutnfancy
If your that worried, would it not be better to go in every six months and have an MRI?
Maybe she has been tested every six months for the last 10 years -- does anyone know AJ's detailed medical history?? No, they don't. Testing generally leads to more tests. Results are often unclear -- many times, testing leads to biopsies and more tests. All of this wreaks emotional havoc on the patient. At some point, they take a stand and decide what is best for themselves.
Why couldn't she go for more frequent testing? Seems like a drastic action to take based on genetics.
With an 85% chance of getting cancer? With a type of breast cancer with a higher lethality than most other types of breast cancer? Why? No woman should ever risk her health, let alone life, for a pair of boobs. Sheesh.
Quote:
A 25-year-old woman with no mutation in her BRCA genes has an 84% probability to reach at least the age of 70. Of those not surviving, 11% die from either breast or ovarian cancer, and 89% from other causes.
Compared to that, a woman with a high-risk BRCA1 mutation, if she had breast cancer screening but no prophylactic medical or surgical intervention, would have only 59% chance to reach age 70, twenty-five percentage points lower than normal. Of those women not surviving, 26% would die of breast cancer, 46% ovarian cancer, and 28% other causes.
Women with high-risk BRCA2 mutations, with screening but with no prophylactic medical or surgical intervention, would have only 75% chance to reach age 70, nine percentage points lower than normal. Of those not surviving, 21% would die of breast cancer, 25% ovarian cancer and 54% other causes.
The likelihood of surviving to at least age 70 can be improved by several medical interventions, notably prophylactic mastectomy and oophorectomy.
I see. So, mammograms...ineffective & cause cancer. So tell me, what do you suggest to detect breast cancer? Or do you think breast cancer is maybe a fallacy?
I would suggest that you study the subject a little more, before pushing the sarcasm button, because I'm not just dreaming this crap up in my head!
There are several levels of problems with mammograms, to include over diagnosis and unneeded invasive treatment of cancers that pose no risk to a significant number of women who are undergoing dangerous and toxic treatments unnecessarily. This is according to the American Cancer Society .... not me:
The study estimates that as many as 1 in 4 cancers detected over a decade by routine mammograms are cancers that won’t grow or spread, cause symptoms, or lead to death.
Instead, these “overdiagnosed” cancers are treated with surgery, powerful drugs, and radiation, all when the cancer wouldn’t have made a woman sick in the first place.
“We are curing people who don’t need to be cured,” says Otis W. Brawley, MD, chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society.
And then there is the increased risk of mammography causing or inducing breast cancer, especially in those considered in the higher risk groups with family history of breast cancer (precisely the group encouraged to be screened more often), and those who are pre-menopausal. This is due to the DNA damage caused by radiation, which also can have negative affects on those non-dangerous cancers just mentioned previously.
Mammography Is a Source of Radiation-Induced Damage
Another recent study further fuels concerns about the use of mammography, especially in women predisposed to breast cancer, and strengthens the recommendation to avoid mammograms if you're under the age of 50. The study assessed the radiation-induced DNA damage in epithelial breast cells in women with high- and low risk of breast cancer. The results showed that women with a family history of cancer, placing them at high risk, were at significantly greater risk to suffer irreparable double-strand DNA breaks from mammography, and the effect was exacerbated with dose repetition.
The authors concluded that:
"This study highlights the existence of double-strand breaks induced by mammography and revealed by γH2AX assay with two major radiobiological effects occurring: a low-dose effect, and a Low and Repeated Dose (LORD) effect. All these effects were exacerbated in high-risk patients. These findings may lead us to re-evaluate the number of views performed in screening using a single view (oblique) in women whose mammographic benefit has not properly been proved such as the 40-49 and high risk patients."
This isn't the first time scientists have come to the conclusion that using mammography as a tool for early detection and "prevention" of lethal cancer may in fact, in many cases, do far more harm than good. Yet you don't see major warning about the risks in the media, nor do any mammography centers provide information on these risks, so the women are not given full disclosure, making it impossible for them to give any type of valid informed consent for this procedure.
According to the Cancer Prevention Coalition, [b]radiation from routine mammography poses a significant cumulative risk (over time) of causing breast cancer[/B]. And according to the BreastCancerFund.org, lower-energy X-rays provided by mammography result in substantially greater damage to DNA than would be predicted, and suggests that risk of breast cancer caused by exposure to mammography radiation may be greatly underestimated.
Now get this .... this is not new news ... these risks were discussed as early as 1972, and have continued to be studied, and the only thing the news studies have revealed is the risks previously thought were underestimated. Several studies have concluded that the screening is virtually worthless, while others have shown that they INCREASE cancer risks, rather than save lives.
"Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of at least 4 rads for each breast, at least 8 times greater radiation than FDA's "cancer risk" level," Dr. Epstein calculates, warning, "Such high radiation exposure approximates to that of Japanese women living approximately 1 mile away from the site of the Hiroshima atom bomb explosion."
This alarming information is not new, explains Dr. Epstein. In 1972, the prestigious National Academy of Sciences warned that the overall risks of breast cancer increase by 1% for every single rad exposure. This totals a 10% risk from 10 years annual premenopausal mammography.
This warning was emphasized in Dr. Epstein's 1978 book, The Politics of Cancer, which states, "Whatever you may be told, refuse routine mammograms, especially if you are pre-menopausal. The x-rays may increase your chances of getting cancer."
A 1993 Swedish study involving 42,000 women showed that those under the age of 55 who received regular premenopausal mammography experienced a 29 percent greater risk of dying from breast cancer.
Based on a detailed review of these and a wide range of other such studies, the late Dr. John Gofman, the leading international authority on medical radiation, published an analysis in his classic 1995 book, Preventing Breast Cancer. He stressed that medical radiation is probably the single most important cause of the modern breast cancer epidemic.
Now, this is just a small sample of the massive amount of evidence that these tests are not just useless , but may be a primary cause in the increased breast cancer epidemic ... imagine that!
So, you were saying? And by all means, do go right ahead and ignore all of this, and keep tossing out the propaganda and exposing yourself as not quite current on the subject, particularly since some of this stuff is now 40+ years old.
Or, you could respond like a normal, intelligent person by saying .... WOW ... I didn't know any of this stuff ... then you can draw the most reasonable conclusion for why that is .... you've been lied to, and the truth has been deliberately kept out of the mainstream dialog, because CANCER IS BIG BUSINESS ... cures are not.
Best of health to her!! She did a great thing by talking about her experience publicly. As this thread proves, ignorance regarding breast cancer and BRCA mutation is still pervasive.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-15-2013 at 06:59 PM..
Reason: Deleted quoted post and reply
Now, correct me if I've misunderstood you ... but it seems that you are suggesting that fathers and husbands, brothers and sons really don't love the women in their lives nearly as much as the oncologists and technicians and Glaxo-Smith-Kline? Is that really the ignoramus idiocy you are suggesting? Because if it is, you just broke the dummy meter. I do hope it is simply my misunderstanding the point you were trying to make. But this is what I comprehend when reading your statement:
Sure, they love you so much ... heck, they'd cut off your breasts for free, but they have to pay the bills, so that's the only reason why they charge for their services. Like the oncologists of the world who's total income in the solid 6 figure range is comprised of about 20% base salary and 80% profit on chemotherapy drugs. Without the drug revenue, the typical oncologist might rake in about 37K, instead of $185,000. Of course, that extra $150 grand each year isn't the slightest incentive to install a chemo port in you, or a reason to silently celebrate the unfortunate fate of a few new clients ... because he really loves you, and he really really cares. The money has nothing to do with why he's in the business, because he's a regular Florence Nightingale that guy.
Now, I want you to re-read that as many times as it takes for you to reach the same conclusion that I do ... that it is ridiculously stupid to think that way for a split second.
And just for the record, I'm not selling anything ... and I'm not receiving a dime for offering you the truth. I have no vested interest in what you may believe or do to your own body, and I certainly would never suggest that I love you more than your doctor, when I'm not at all sure I even like you very much.
But I feel an obligation as a caring human being to at least present the truth, and after that, I feel I've honored my obligation to warn of evil and wrongdoing when I see it. You may dismiss those warnings and the information presented you at your own peril. I've done my part, but I cannot, nor am I even inclined to cajole or coerce you into the laborious task of thinking. That part is your obligation.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 05-15-2013 at 07:00 PM..
Reason: Deleted quoted post and reply
What's next a nation of boobless woman? If I were a woman I would forget these "genetic markers" and take my chances...My father dies of bowel cancer...should I have my guts cut out tomorrow? People have been getting sick and dying of cancer and other diseases since the beginning of humanity. Everyone dies...that's just the way it goes. Your death date is written in the big book in the sky and when your number is up it is up...Scientific extending of life has it's limitations- whether you are a rich movie star or not- you are going to pass away eventually. How about those with diabetes who are heavy smokers...before their feet go black lets just chop them off now. This is modern man in a state of panic who have a morbid fear of the DEATH...got over it and live...............a positive attitude will keep you alive longer than science.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
