The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-17-2013, 12:20 PM   #26
bpc
"Nemo Me Impune Lacessit"
 
bpc's Avatar
 
1 sword keeps another in the sheath

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 13,749

Adopt-a-Bronco:
TJ Ward
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
So what did I do besides pull your chain?

Did I write it? No.

Did I defend it? No.

Do I think it is true? I have no idea.

Do I think it is an insane choice to remove perfectly healthy breasts? Yes I do.
You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.
bpc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:35 PM   #27
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpc View Post
You're eliminating risk. Can you see cancer in most regards? Nope. This becomes greater when considering ovarian cancer which isn't as easily detected by physical examination as breast cancer. Eliminate the culprit or wait around long enough to leave it open to opportunity.

By that logic one should consider killing themselves now because we know there is a 100% chance of dying some day so why not chose a painless method of death now rather than wait of the unknown and possibly painful death that the future is sure to bring.

She is healthy now and there are diet strategies that are know to turn off cancer causing genes. If she is prone to cancer isn't it likely the cancer will find a home in another part of her body?
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 12:48 PM   #28
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
By that logic one should consider killing themselves now because we know there is a 100% chance of dying some day so why not chose a painless method of death now rather than wait of the unknown and possibly painful death that the future is sure to bring.
:eyeroll:

Quote:
She is healthy now and there are diet strategies that are know to turn off cancer causing genes. If she is prone to cancer isn't it likely the cancer will find a home in another part of her body?
No, she is not healthy. She has a genetic disease.

And there are no dietary solutions to that disorder.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:41 PM   #29
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
:eyeroll:



No, she is not healthy. She has a genetic disease.

And there are no dietary solutions to that disorder.

Only a blow hard such as yourself would be so sure of that statement

and she has a propensity to a disease not a disease.
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 01:47 PM   #30
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Only a blow hard such as yourself would be so sure of that statement
LMAO go ahead, show me the objective, scientific evidence of your claim. I've asked before, and the best you've done is post bull****.

Quote:
and she has a propensity to a disease not a disease.
No, she has a genetic disease. Period. That disease can ALSO cause others.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:05 PM   #31
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".
so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 02:09 PM   #32
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
so when is she getting her ovaries removed ?

seems kind of silly to take such a drastic step, and only go halfway with it
Breasts serve no biological function other than feeding babies. Removing them has no known health consequences (other than the risks of the operation itself).

Ovaries do serve a biological function (many, and not limited to reproduction).
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:16 PM   #33
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
Breasts serve no biological function other than feeding babies. Removing them has no known health consequences (other than the risks of the operation itself).

Ovaries do serve a biological function (many, and not limited to reproduction).
many eh ? like what ?
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:38 PM   #34
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,588

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
The defective gene gave her a 90% chance of developing breast cancer and a greatly elevated risk of ovarian cancer. That's not "completely healthy".
One more time ........ Try to say with me, the breast tissue she had removed was healthy, can you really not understand this? This was a choice she made, to remove healthy tissue that might someday be affected by the BRCA1 gene.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:43 PM   #35
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
many eh ? like what ?
I'm not here to teach you bio 101. I've give you a starting point though: hormone regulation.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:49 PM   #36
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
One more time ........ Try to say with me, the breast tissue she had removed was healthy, can you really not understand this? This was a choice she made, to remove healthy tissue that might someday be affected by the BRCA1 gene.
There's a reason the gene is called the breast cancer susceptibility gene. Because breast tissue with that gene is more susceptible to cancer.

What part of that don't YOU understand?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 03:53 PM   #37
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

http://www.markusrothkranz.com/angelina/angelina.html

Another perspective. Should go well here.
IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 04:28 PM   #38
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
I'm not here to teach you bio 101. I've give you a starting point though: hormone regulation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
There's a reason the gene is called the breast cancer susceptibility gene. Because breast tissue with that gene is more susceptible to cancer.
Then why does he get the bio 101 ?

anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 07:56 PM   #39
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
Then why does he get the bio 101 ?
anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.[/quote]

As I said, there are many reasons. Quit being a lazy bum and go ask google.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?[/QUOTE]

Gee, I can't imagine why a woman would want to keep her ability to children. That's just CRAZY TALK!

Anyway, do you have some point? She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 08:07 PM   #40
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
anyhow she could live a normal life without them, she got implants to replace her breasts, she could take hormones to replace her ovaries.
As I said, there are many reasons. Quit being a lazy bum and go ask google.

so what exactly is it that she needs them for ?[/QUOTE]

Gee, I can't imagine why a woman would want to keep her ability to children. That's just CRAZY TALK!

Anyway, do you have some point? She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?[/QUOTE]


Why yes just the other day I noticed a women on a sofa doing childrening.


BTW You telling someone to do their own research is priceless
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:11 PM   #41
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post

BTW You telling someone to do their own research is priceless


Your idea of research is lapping up whatever bull**** fullfills your confirmation bias.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:13 PM   #42
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
Why yes just the other day I noticed a women on a sofa doing childrening.
Complaining about typos: the last refuge of people who's real stupidity is exposed on a regular basis.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:45 PM   #43
IHaveALight
the sun is gone
 
IHaveALight's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,272
Default

How about this... http://www.secretsofthefed.com/expos...ourt-decision/
IHaveALight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:52 PM   #44
BowlenBall
Hurry Hurry
 
BowlenBall's Avatar
 
2014 -- This one's for Pat.

Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Abu Dhabi
Posts: 5,230

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Matt Paradis
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bpc View Post
Yeah this is a bs op-ed piece. My wife works for Myriad. Great company. They've been developing the technology to test for mutations in your DNA for a long time, along with all the investments in R&D that comes with it. That process is patented and should be protected as it didn't fall out of the sky, it has matured over time.

At the end of the day these tests give women options. It doesn't mean you go have breast surgery but provides risk analysis for patients. If you want to give holistics a try too, so be it. As with Angelina, her mother died from cancer and she is determined to not succumb to the same fate. Knowledge is power and well, if that is her choice, more power to her. Whether its $300 or $3k, the test is compelling to a person's well being and a worthwhile investment in one's self. The impact I've seen has been amazing.
I'm sure Myriad is a great company to work for, and that they do lots of good things, but the part of your post that I've highlighted in red is the real issue here.

If these types of tests can be patented, and a monopoly on life-saving procedures can be obtained by corporations, then all kinds of issues can arise. What if the real cost of the procedure is $30, but the company charges $30,000? If it's your wife or your daughter's life at stake, you've got no choice but to pony up the cash, regardless of what they charge.

I know that the counter-argument is that "these companies need to recoup their development costs", but do I also need to subsidize their massive CEO salaries and the millions of lobbying dollars they spend every year? I say no.
BowlenBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:56 PM   #45
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IHaveALight View Post
But she's hot...
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2013, 09:58 PM   #46
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Of course the timing is a complete coincidence...
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 01:46 AM   #47
chadta
Atomic Meatball Keeper
 
chadta's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Posts: 2,935

Adopt-a-Bronco:
The Mc Rib
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fedaykin View Post
She decided to only (for now) do the mastectomy. Why do you have a beef with that? Do you envision some nefarious purpose ala the resident woomeister OP?
so for now it is a job done in a half asses manner, like i said, and you argued, but now seem to agree with.

in other words you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.

anyhow, off to cedar point to ride some roller coasters, on this fine first long weekend of the year, have a good one
chadta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-18-2013, 03:25 AM   #48
Fedaykin
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,906

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by chadta View Post
so for now it is a job done in a half asses manner, like i said, and you argued, but now seem to agree with.

in other words you were arguing just for the sake of arguing.

anyhow, off to cedar point to ride some roller coasters, on this fine first long weekend of the year, have a good one
Are you stoned? The only one who seems to be arguing for the sake of arguing is who who came out of left field asking why she did one and not other other -- as if it's some big mystery why a person would choose to get rid of biologically useless tissue and not the useful bits.

If you're worried about "arguing for the sake or arguing" you should check your own damn reflection in the mirror dumbass.
Fedaykin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 07:27 AM   #49
baja
Pat Bowlen
 
baja's Avatar
 
The best owner ever

Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: in the present moment
Posts: 58,882

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Chase Vaughn
Default

Conventional medicine openly admits to confusion over BRCA1 gene
Saturday, May 18, 2013 by: Jonathan Landsman
Tags: Cancer, BRCA1, Women


3,803
15

(NaturalNews) By now, I'm sure you've heard the news about Angelina Jolie testing positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation and the decision to remove her breasts. This decision has been touted as a brave and reasonable choice, considering the assumed high risk for breast cancer.

But, as an educated guess, I'll bet Angelina Jolie has NOT been told the whole truth about the BRCA1 gene or her risk for getting breast cancer.

I say this respectfully - that if Angelina Jolie or any other woman wants to read the rest of this article (and has had 1 or 2 breasts removed due to the BRCA1 gene mutation) - you should be prepared to get very angry!

I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I will always respect the decision of any woman to care for her body - any way she sees fit. But, when a woman is asked to make life and death decisions with fraudulent, unscientific information, that's when I take exception. In fact, I think, those healthcare professional giving out flawed data, to their patients, should go to jail.

Don't remove your breasts until you read this "NCI disclaimer"...

Many of us have heard the conventional talking points that refer to an "87% higher risk for breast cancer" - if one tests positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation. But, I'm here to tell you, that this is a complete fabrication of the medical truth.

I'll be honest - when I read this statement by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) - I nearly fell off my chair. Even if you test positive for the BRCA1 gene mutation - your risk of getting breast cancer may still be caused by other factors.

In other words, the BRCA1 gene may not really be the cause of breast cancer.

Read for yourself what the National Cancer Institute says about BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations...

"It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. Estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been calculated from studies of these families. Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families may be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members may not accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available."

I hope you understand the magnitude of what you've just read. The NCI has openly admitted that your risk for breast cancer stems from a wide variety of "genetic or environmental factors".

Simply put, the NCI really doesn't know (scientifically) how much of any risk factor causes cancer - including the presence of a BRCA1 mutation.

If you have any doubt about what you just read ... check it out yourself - at the National Cancer Institute website link: www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/BRCA


How the conventional cancer industry profits from your ignorance

The cancer industry would like you to believe that you are a victim of your genes with very little power to control your own health.

Let's be clear, we are not victims of our genes. Even conventional science admits that our environment is a major risk factor for developing cancer. Our lifestyle has everything to do with the health (and expression) of our genes.

In fact, the research is so strong that they will do everything in their power to suppress this information and focus on disseminating fraudulent propaganda that makes you feel helpless and disempowered.

They know if the truth came out they would be out of business.

If you're looking for positive, self-empowering answers in dealing with cancer - be sure to join us for the NaturalNews Healing Summit - starting Mon. May 20.

One of the summit speakers, John Aspley, MD(E), ND, DC had this to say about our genes and cancer prevention:

"What folks need to know is that genes can only express what they are fed. If they are fed a polluted diet from a toxic immediate environment (milieu), they will express disease."

"With proper diet and a detoxified milieu, genes will almost always express resilient, thriving cells, never cancerous cells. Unless we learn this, we will end-up amputating most body parts by the end of this century. My heart aches for Angelina, and I wish her the best."

Discover natural ways to counter the BRCA1 mutation

Research published in The Journal of Cell Biology, from a team led by Susana Gonzalo, Ph.D., illustrates our ability to dramatically reduce the risk of breast cancer - even with a BRCA1 gene mutation, without the need for surgery.

The so called breakthrough of this study is something we already know - vitamin D plays a significant role in turning off a pathway that would cause an activation of the mutated BRCA1 gene.

In other words, vitamin D can provide a safe and cost-effective way to prevent cancer. But, vitamin D is not the only nutrient with cancer-fighting properties.

A study in the medical journal Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention looked at the benefits of dietary selenium supplements for women who have mutations in the BRCA1 gene.

The study was conducted in Poland, specifically for people who have a high risk of cancer due to their family history or genetic tests. The researchers used women who had the mutation and a relative that did not have the BRCA1 mutation.

The researchers collected a blood sample from each pair of women to find out how the blood may be damaged in a way that could lead to cancer. These samples were exposed to a chemical, which can cause cell damage. This was done to see how much damage occurs in the cells of women with and without the BRAC1 mutation.

For the second phase of this study, researchers gave a selenium supplement that provided 276 micrograms of selenium per day, for the duration of one to three months. Then, they had new blood samples taken after the women had taken the dietary selenium supplements.

Can you guess what happened next?


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/040394_BR...#ixzz2TkTuHYxx

Last edited by baja; 05-19-2013 at 07:34 AM..
baja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-19-2013, 07:57 AM   #50
misturanderson
Ring of Famer
 
Why not?

Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Diago
Posts: 1,779

Adopt-a-Bronco:
DemaryiusThomas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baja View Post
"It is important to note, however, that most research related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 has been done on large families with many individuals affected by cancer. Estimates of breast and ovarian cancer risk associated with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations have been calculated from studies of these families. Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families MAY be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members MAY NOT accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available."

I hope you understand the magnitude of what you've just read. The NCI has openly admitted that your risk for breast cancer stems from a wide variety of "genetic or environmental factors".
Poor reading comprehension/misrepresentation much (yes I understand that you didn't write it)?

Regardless, given the fact that Jolie's mother did in fact die from breast cancer, her choice is absolutely justified based on current research.

Last edited by misturanderson; 05-19-2013 at 08:01 AM..
misturanderson is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:07 AM.


Denver Broncos