Great. Breast Cancer Prevention May Lead to Breast Cancer

[REP]

Great. Breast Cancer Prevention May Lead to Breast Cancer
Erin Gloria Ryan

Raise your hand if you saw this one coming from a mile away — while for years women have been told and told and told by everything from pink NFL wristbands to Yoplait lids that the best way to fight breast cancer was to detect it via self-exams and mammograms, it turns out that the act of looking for breast cancer may, in fact, cause breast cancer. Boobs, I'm beginning to think you're more trouble than you're worth.

The research, released by a leading European cancer research organization, shows that some women who expose themselves to radiation from mammogram machines exhibit an increased risk of getting cancer later in life. This especially applies to young women who are already at an elevated risk of developing cancer due to genetic factors — if you're under 30 and you're getting mammograms, it might be a good idea to opt for a less risky, less titsquishy MRI rather than the much-touted mammogram. From HuffPo,
The researchers did not have a breakdown of how many women were exposed to chest radiation before age 30 but estimated that for every 100 women aged 30 with a gene mutation, nine will develop breast cancer by age 40. They projected the number of cases would increase by five if all of them had one mammogram before age 30.

The research's findings validate standard practices of doctors in several European countries, according to the Huffington Post In Spain, the Netherlands, and Britain, young women with genetic mutations that make them prone to cancer are generally directed away from mammograms.

This may bode especially poorly for breast cancer sorority charity Susan G. Komen for the Cure, which has already had a hell of a crappy 2012. Not only did its decision to politicize cancer by defunding Planned Parenthood lead to a huge immediate public backlash, its attempts to rehabilitate its public image have only been met with a resounding "meh" by the public. Donations to the charity are down significantly from coast to coast (here in NYC, this weekend's Race for the Cure registration is down 25% over last year's). Several prominent executives in the charity resigned, and founder and CEO Nancy Brinker even pretended to step down from the role of CEO in order to satisfy the public that a terribly out-of-touch rich lady with a clear political agenda wasn't driving the ship anymore. And to make matters worse, earlier this summer, the charity was formally reprimanded (or "spanked&quot for using deceptive advertising practices to "sell" mammograms to women who don't need them.

Read the rest here

Awesome. I'm in a high-risk category (nullapara with a metric shit-ton of calcifications from cysts, plus family history) so I started getting them at 40. Fortunately I have an amazing GYN who stays (ahem) abreast of these things and insurance that will cover MRIs, but not all women are so fortunate, and PinkIndustry seems to have an interest in selling these things (see link at linked piece about Komen selling unnecessary mammograms).

[AC_Mem]

1. I use

frankincense essential oil in a almond oil base and rub it in after every bath/shower. I strongly believe in the benefits of essential oils (therapeutic grade only). It is an investment I make in my health from a natural perspective. I use essential oils for everything!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22171782

Shine on,
Annette

[REP]

2. Well, I've actually had cancer; I used science and medicine

And am 20 years cancer-free.

[AC_Mem]

3. Outstanding

May you be free of the beast for the rest of your life
Annette

[yardwork]

4. Great. I've wondered about this.

[FloridaJudy]

5. I'm skeptical because breast cancer isn't a single thing

It runs the spectrum from slow-growing, indolent to horribly swift, aggressively malignant. I'm in an ultra high risk group: Eastern European Jewish, early puberty, first child after thirty, mother, sister and maternal grandmother with the disease. Fortunately, the kind that runs in my family is the slow-growing variety. Both my mother and my grandmother survived it for over twenty years, and died of completely unrelated causes. My sister had it twenty years ago, and was diagnosed with it again last month in her other breast. The surgeon said both the tumor margins and her lymph nodes were clear, so she's probably good for another twenty years.

Then there's the kind Elizabeth Edwards, Molly Ivins and my friend Alexis had. The kind that kills you. Alexis was particularly unlucky. She had a normal mammogram in January, found a lump in June and was dead by Thanksgiving. At age 48.

So when people talk about breast cancer, I have to ask "What kind?" But if the MRI thing saves lives, then I'm all for it.

This is personal.

[REP]

6. Ashkenazi women are at risk for carrying a gene mutation that puts them at extremely high risk

Half my genetic make-up is Ashkenazi Jew, which accounts for some of my odd ailments, but I haven't been genetically tested for this variant, since the women on that side of the family died of other things, but it sounds as though you're a good candidate for testing, along with other women in your family.

[FloridaJudy]

7. I suppose I could be tested

But what difference would it make? If I have the BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, it's not going to change my present screening plan. I'll still get yearly mammograms and do thorough monthly breast exams. No one is suggesting prophylactic mastectomies -- yet. Although if I do get a tumor, I want both the girls gone! No messing around with this lumpectomy nonsense. Just take 'em off, and build me a new set of perky little B cups. These Double-Ds have already served their intended purpose.

Of course, if Medicare approves the MRI screening only for those with the mutation, sure. Test away. Otherwise it's just a waste of money and anxiety.

[REP]

8. That's something to discuss with your doctor :-)

There's more than just those two mutations, and many of them carry an additional risk for ovarian cancer, which is far more frightening - vague symptoms, bad prognosis.

For some women, screening makes sense, but that's something to discuss with a doctor.

[FloridaJudy]

9. I waved goodbye to my ovaries 20 years ago

They tried to kill me. Not cancer - they thought it was at first, but it proved to be endometriosis so bad it caused a complete intestinal blockage.

So at least I don't have that to worry about!

[jethro_troll]

10. Prevention is NOT getting x-rays!

Prevention is eating raw fruits and veggies, changing one's mindset, living a holistic life which incorporates exercise in a natural, meaningful way into each day, and understands our True Selves, versus the materialistic, ego-centered existence celebrated on Facebook.

And just for the record, using essential oils and herbs IS medicine! It's just not in pill form.

Another thing: sometimes going in for biopsies can disturb lumps being cordoned off from the bloodstream and this causes the cancer to "spread."

[FloridaJudy]

11. This is 90% hogwash!

There is an element of truth in it. It is better to avoid unnecessary X-rays, to exercise and to eat a healthy diet that favors fruits and vegetables. I don't know that that will prevent breast cancer, but it will improve your health and quality of life in many other ways.

As to the rest, it's wishful thinking, and even worse, yet another way of blaming the victim. I've seen at least two of my patients who treated their breast cancer with diet and herbs, and avoided any other medical treatment die. Horrible, ugly, completely preventable deaths. If they'd come in for treatment the moment they found a lump instead of dicking around with crystals and a macrobiotic diet, they'd likely be still walking around spreading their noxious gospel of positive thinking.

And FYI, numerous studies have shown that a "positive attitude" doesn't do squat to improve the odds of beating cancer. It may improve the quality of the remaining time, but it doesn't cure anything. I'm all in favor of allowing patients to explore other options in treating disease, but not if it means rejecting the best evidence-based medical practice. And not if it means making dying people think that the reason they're in such terrible shape is because they did something wrong.

What you're advocating isn't just silly. It's downright dangerous.

[betsty bangs boston]

13. What is dangerous is spreading the meme

that cancer falls out of the sky. Even if your family has a history with a dis-ease, you can still prevent it with diet. I did not advocate crystals and even herbs are still like meds in a sense. I am for PREVENTING the imbalances which lead to dis-ease. Hell, the chemo label warns those handling it about its toxicity!

[FloridaJudy]

14. Goodbye persistent troll.

I'm pretty sure cancer does fall out of the sky. My friend Alexis was raised downwind of the A-bomb tests in the 50s. Not only she, but both of her two sisters were diagnosed with cancer in their thirties: she had survived skin and thyroid cancer before the breast cancer killed her. Heard of cosmic rays? Ultraviolet radiation? Both known cancer triggers.

There are environmental causes we can't control. And then there are those we can: avoiding smoking and sunburn among them. And there are those that we, as a society, need to address, such as toxic waste and air pollution. I'm in favor of suing the shit out of any business or government that dumps carcinogens in our soil, air, water or food and shutting them down or forcing them to clean up the mess.

That's where I want feminists to put some of their efforts. Not into convincing sick people that it's their own fault.

[peace begins with me]

15. I am not a persistent troll

but a persistent advocate for Truth. By "dropping from the sky," I was not being literal. Radiation is indeed a "trigger for cancer." And yet it's also a TREATMENT for it?!

Of course there are environmental toxins! When I advocate for living a clean lifestyle, I am including everything which prevents that from occurring. No one with a heart tells a lung cancer patient who smoked for 40 years that he had in coming to him, but not too many are surprised when he gets lung cancer. We need to extend that knowledge of carcinogens to include foods we eat and other habits in which we indulge (including a persistent negative attitude). Most of the "shit" in food is due to bad choices made by consumers. When you eat prepared foods, you automatically will have to contend with chemicals because they are not fresh. Waiting around for companies to get it together is not the answer, IMO. We can achieve optimal health NOW, regardless of "them."

[FloridaJudy]

12. If anyone wants a first person narrative

On what it's like to survive breast cancer from a woman with just about the best Feminist credentials in the world, I highly recommend Barbara Ehrenreich's book "Bright-Sided". A sample of it is on her blog.

http://www.barbaraehrenreich.com/cancerland.htm