« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Take that boobs!Follow

#1 Nov 13 2006 at 12:11 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1591808141280

View User Forum

407 posts

Quote:

Lindsay Avner cannot remember a time when breast cancer wasn't a part of her life. Her mother, grandmother and great-grandmother all battled the disease. So did aunts and cousins.

But the 24-year-old took charge of her fate in a way unavailable to previous generations.

After a blood test confirmed she carried an inherited genetic mutation that drastically increased her risk of breast cancer, the Chicago woman opted to have a double mastectomy.

I caught a little bit of this on CNN this morning before heading out to work. I missed a lot of the details then, so I was very much "WTF?!" when I heard it. I guess the Bush pre-emptive strike doctrine did have an effect on the world.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/health/chi-0610220340oct22,1,4828853.story

#2 Nov 13 2006 at 12:12 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Certainly not the first time a woman has made this decision due to family history. The news here is the genetic marker.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#3 Nov 13 2006 at 12:32 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Not the first time I've heard of this, although it walways makes me wonder if they get their lymph nodes extracted as well.

#4 Nov 13 2006 at 12:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1596990078323

View User Forum

Sage

19,727 posts

Not the first time I've considered having my colon removed.

#5 Nov 13 2006 at 12:53 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1591753045314

Scholar

5,019 posts

5 bucks says her boobs will be up for sale on ebay in less than two weeks.

Who's in?

#6 Nov 13 2006 at 12:57 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1591808141280

View User Forum

407 posts

Quote:

Certainly not the first time a woman has made this decision due to family history. The news here is the genetic marker.

Really? It just seems so extreme to me, even with the genetic component added in. So women have actually just done this because their family history *might* cause them problems? In that article itself it states that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 breast cancers cases diagnosed anually are inherited...seems a bit like jumping the gun to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding that part.

#7 Nov 13 2006 at 1:11 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Quote:

In that article itself it states that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 breast cancers cases diagnosed anually are inherited...

That's a lot different than saying "XX% of women who have the marker will develop breast cancer." I think you'd find that XX is higher than 10.

I'd look it up, but meh.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#8 Nov 13 2006 at 1:18 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

Quote:

At least 15% of the women who carry the altered gene will never develop the disease.

Does that mean 85% will? I hate medical studies.

#9 Nov 13 2006 at 1:19 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1592260045708

Sage

6,730 posts

xtremereign wrote:

Quote:

Certainly not the first time a woman has made this decision due to family history. The news here is the genetic marker.

Really? It just seems so extreme to me, even with the genetic component added in. So women have actually just done this because their family history *might* cause them problems? In that article itself it states that fewer than 10% of the 200,000 breast cancers cases diagnosed anually are inherited...seems a bit like jumping the gun to me. Unless I'm misunderstanding that part.

It's one thing to say x% of women get breast cancer through inheritance, it's another to find out almost every women in your immediatly family has gotten it AND find out you have genetic markers that indicate you have an even greater chance than they.

She is going to have one hell of a time getting a man me thinks. I'm not a boob man, but damn a woman with nuthin but great big scares on her chest aint no turn on either.

Edit: typing pwns me

Edited, Nov 13th 2006 at 1:23pm PST by GitSlayer

#10 Nov 13 2006 at 1:24 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Atomicflea wrote:

Quote:

At least 15% of the women who carry the altered gene will never develop the disease.

Does that mean 85% will? I hate medical studies.

Are those really the numbers? I'd read it as "Up to 85% will," with the implication being that 85% is the expected rate.

With those odds, I'd probably do the same thing. That, or get a mammogram every six months for the rest of my life.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#11 Nov 13 2006 at 1:34 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1591808141280

View User Forum

407 posts

Samira wrote:

Atomicflea wrote:

Quote:

At least 15% of the women who carry the altered gene will never develop the disease.

Does that mean 85% will? I hate medical studies.

Are those really the numbers? I'd read it as "Up to 85% will," with the implication being that 85% is the expected rate.

With those odds, I'd probably do the same thing. That, or get a mammogram every six months for the rest of my life.

Yeah see that's the thing, why couldn't she just do that? If something develops, get the boobs hacked then. I suppose there is some risk of it spreading quickly that concerns her? Or maybe it's something like she said at the end of the article, get it out of the way now...that way she doesn't end up with a boob guy, marry him for 20 years, then have to lose her boobs AND the guy. Now she can just cut right to the chase and marry an in the closet gay guy from the start.

#12 Nov 13 2006 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good

View User Forum

No Gag Reflex

10,802 posts

Samira wrote:

With those odds, I'd probably do the same thing. That, or get a mammogram every six months for the rest of my life.

/nod After seeing what her family went through, she probably realized that a mastectomy isn't the end of the world. For me, I like my rack, I'd do the mammograms every 6 months and monthly self-exams too.

#13 Nov 13 2006 at 1:39 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1695601009560

Guru

18,463 posts

The Berkely Lab page I quoted wrote:

In 1995, scientists developed experimental tests for detecting several recently discovered cancer genes, including BRCA-1. However preliminary studies have shown that testing positive for an altered BRCA-1 gene does not necessarily mean a woman will develop breast cancer. At least 15% of the women who carry the altered gene will never develop the disease. Scientists have no way of knowing yet which women fall into that category. In addition, because BRCA-1 alterations occur in many different places scattered throughout the gene, developing an accurate test will be very difficult to do.

The altered BRCA-1 gene appears in only 5% of the 182,000 breast cancer cases that develop. If a woman tests negative (that is, she does not have the altered gene), this does not necessarily mean she will be free of breast cancer during her lifetime.

I keep reading it as 85% of the women that have the gene do develop cancer at some stage and 15% never do, but even so alltogether, these women account for only 5% of all breast cancer cases.

#14 Nov 13 2006 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

AF wrote:

I keep reading it as 85% of the women that have the gene do develop cancer at some stage and 15% never do, but even so alltogether, these women account for only 5% of all breast cancer cases.

I read it as, "Up to 85% may be at risk because of the genes involved. The markers are not yet sophisticated enough to give exact numbers. The other 15% do not face the same genetic risk but may still develop breast cancer for other, unrelated reasons."

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#15 Nov 13 2006 at 3:34 PM Rating: Default

__DEL__1592771807628

252 posts

Its not that rare, somone i know has been thinking of it, not due to caner but cystic fibrosis, lil bumps that have to be cut out evry 6mo-year, and i gets old. then after many of them, not a whole lot there still

#16 Nov 13 2006 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

Micitan wrote:

Its not that rare, somone i know has been thinking of it, not due to caner but cystic fibrosis, lil bumps that have to be cut out evry 6mo-year, and i gets old. then after many of them, not a whole lot there still

Fibrous breast cysts =/= cystic fibrosis. Holy hell.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17 Nov 13 2006 at 4:20 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591797278547

Sage

3,829 posts

Atomicflea wrote:

The Berkely Lab page I quoted wrote:

In 1995, scientists developed experimental tests for detecting several recently discovered cancer genes, including BRCA-1. However preliminary studies have shown that testing positive for an altered BRCA-1 gene does not necessarily mean a woman will develop breast cancer. At least 15% of the women who carry the altered gene will never develop the disease. Scientists have no way of knowing yet which women fall into that category. In addition, because BRCA-1 alterations occur in many different places scattered throughout the gene, developing an accurate test will be very difficult to do.

The altered BRCA-1 gene appears in only 5% of the 182,000 breast cancer cases that develop. If a woman tests negative (that is, she does not have the altered gene), this does not necessarily mean she will be free of breast cancer during her lifetime.

I keep reading it as 85% of the women that have the gene do develop cancer at some stage and 15% never do, but even so alltogether, these women account for only 5% of all breast cancer cases.

That's what I'm reading here too. The 85% of people with the gene that do develop breast cancer account for 5% of the total number of breast cancer cases.

#18 Nov 13 2006 at 4:25 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591797278547

Sage

3,829 posts

Micitan wrote:

Its not that rare, somone i know has been thinking of it, not due to caner but cystic fibrosis, lil bumps that have to be cut out evry 6mo-year, and i gets old. then after many of them, not a whole lot there still

Samira caught it first, but yeah...Cystic fibrosis is a whole world of different from fibrocystic breast disease.

#19 Nov 14 2006 at 1:43 AM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1591916000612

11 posts

couldnt they just replace the originals with silicone you would still get to keep the boobs and look normal. busting an implant might be a problem(fragment sentence).But what the hell do i know about implants(this might be a fragment sentence to i dunno).

Isnt fragment sentence a fragment sentence.

Edited, Nov 14th 2006 at 1:46am PST by bigfauster

#20 Nov 14 2006 at 3:16 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1644193194517

2,081 posts

She should probably get her heart removed too. Just in case she might have a heart attack.

#21 Nov 14 2006 at 5:39 AM Rating: Decent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

InuyashaaSama wrote:

She should probably get her heart removed too. Just in case she might have a heart attack.

Yes, because we're talking about vital organs here. FUckslap.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#22 Nov 14 2006 at 5:41 AM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

bigfauster wrote:

couldnt they just replace the originals with silicone you would still get to keep the boobs and look normal. busting an implant might be a problem(fragment sentence).But what the hell do i know about implants(this might be a fragment sentence to i dunno).

Isnt fragment sentence a fragment sentence.

Edited, Nov 14th 2006 at 1:46am PST by bigfauster

She could, and very well might - but the presence of the implants might obscure future mammogram results. She'll probably still have to get routine mammograms, since as Flea pointed out they may not get all the lymph nodes even with a complete mastectomy.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#23 Nov 15 2006 at 9:28 PM Rating: Decent

__DEL__1609114661133

Sage

10,811 posts

A full mastectomy on a cancer patient does not guarantee that their cancer will not return. My parents go to Cancun every year with a woman whose cancer returned after hers. For her, the initial surgery was a necessary, lifesaving measure.

Some are lucky enough that a "lumpectomy" and treatment are enough. In short, I think the girl took an unnecessary action that in no way totally prevents the disease.

#24 Nov 15 2006 at 9:43 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Leet Haxör

29,919 posts

Atomicflea wrote:

Not the first time I've heard of this, although it walways makes me wonder if they get their lymph nodes extracted as well.

I can state from personal 2 Lymph node they thought might be cancer but turns out it wasn't experiance that I really don't reccomend the lymph node removal proceedure. Especially if they are the ones on the left side of your neck. Though chicks dig scars right? Actually its not that big, maybe an inch and a half long now, and you can bairly see it.

____________________________

Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules

#25 Nov 16 2006 at 1:21 AM Rating: Default

__DEL__1596990015497

322 posts

Sadly there is no cure for cancer, and i've already lost 4 family members to it, and my grandmother already has STage 2 in her lungs, its a devistating disease and the treatments i hear are painful, you'd think with all this money that ppl are raising for these illness's we'd have some kind of breakthrough you know? how many more people have to die before they actually take this seriously?

#26 Nov 16 2006 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good

__DEL__1663546654528

Sage

3,118 posts

[quote]
Yes, because we're talking about vital organs here. ******************** don't consider breasts to be vital? For shame!

« Previous 1 2 Next »

Reply To Thread

Recent Visitors: 180 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (180)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC