Eat fried chicken FOR THE CURE!

[Grace62]

JoeH wrote:

And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated.

Thanks for that insight Joe. We've been hearing from the medical community for a while that mammograms are not as useful as originally thought, but look at the outcry when guidelines were moved away from annual mammograms. Komen has caused a dispproportionate amount of health care spending and attention to focus on breast cancer, at the expense of other illnesses that as you say, are more common in women.
so while he we can applaud the work they've done, and it's not insignificant, their approach overall creates some concerns - as you pointed out. I too would like to know more about ties between Komen and manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical technology.

[Pam]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=JoeH]

And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated.

Thanks for that insight Joe. We've been hearing from the medical community for a while that mammograms are not as useful as originally thought, but look at the outcry when guidelines were moved away from annual mammograms. Komen has caused a dispproportionate amount of health care spending and attention to focus on breast cancer, at the expense of other illnesses that as you say, are more common in women.
so while he we can applaud the work they've done, and it's not insignificant, their approach overall creates some concerns - as you pointed out. I too would like to know more about ties between Komen and manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical technology.
Which goes back to putting money in prevention and cancer type identification, not cures. The huge, I mean huge number of women who have gone through the agony, pain, and expense of needle biopsies and surgeries should be alarming. But women have been subjected to such incessant scare tactics they not only fall for it, they demand it. Prostate cancer almost went the same way for men. Fortunately that has turned around.

[haikuman]

""" Which goes back to putting money in prevention and cancer type identification, not cures. The huge, I mean huge number of women who have gone through the agony, pain, and expense of needle biopsies and surgeries should be alarming. But women have been subjected to such incessant scare tactics they not only fall for it, they demand it. Prostate cancer almost went the same way for men. Fortunately that has turned around.

I believe this perspective is somewhat narrow. The victim card does not make your assertions any more correct.

[Grace62]

Pam wrote:
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=JoeH]

And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated.

Thanks for that insight Joe. We've been hearing from the medical community for a while that mammograms are not as useful as originally thought, but look at the outcry when guidelines were moved away from annual mammograms. Komen has caused a dispproportionate amount of health care spending and attention to focus on breast cancer, at the expense of other illnesses that as you say, are more common in women.
so while he we can applaud the work they've done, and it's not insignificant, their approach overall creates some concerns - as you pointed out. I too would like to know more about ties between Komen and manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical technology.
Which goes back to putting money in prevention and cancer type identification, not cures. The huge, I mean huge number of women who have gone through the agony, pain, and expense of needle biopsies and surgeries should be alarming. But women have been subjected to such incessant scare tactics they not only fall for it, they demand it. Prostate cancer almost went the same way for men. Fortunately that has turned around.
I agree with you Pam. More ounces of prevention, fewer pounds of cure.

[haikuman]

You might find this enlightening *(:>*

Join Our Cancer Prevention Study - 3 (CPS-3)
If you've ever known someone with cancer, you know that birthdays are a very significant milestone. There are nearly 12 million people in America who have survived cancer - and countless more who have avoided it - who will be celebrating birthdays this year. You can join the movement for more birthdays and fight back against cancer by enrolling in a new research study called the Cancer Prevention Study - 3 (CPS-3). The American Cancer Society's Epidemiology Research Program is inviting men and women between the ages of 30 and 65 years who have no personal history of cancer to join this historic research study. The ultimate goal is to enroll at least 300,000 adults from various racial/ethnic backgrounds from across the U.S. By joining CPS-3, you can help us understand how to prevent cancer, which will save lives and give people more of their most precious resource: time. More time with their families and friends, more memories, more celebrations . . . and more birthdays.

http://www.cancer.org/Research/ResearchP...dy-3/index


Cancer Prevention Study Overviews
Cancer Prevention Study I

The Cancer Prevention Study I (CPS-I) is a prospective mortality study of approximately 1 million adult men and women enrolled between October 1, 1959 and February 15, 1960, and followed up through September 1972. Participants were recruited into the study in 25 states by approximately 68,000 volunteers for the American Cancer Society. Enrollment was by families (households). All family members age 30 years and over were recruited if at least one participating household member was 45 years or older.

http://www.cancer.org/Research/ResearchP...-overviews

*********************************************************************************************************

Heredity and Cancer
Cancer is such a common disease that it is no surprise that many families have at least a few members who have had cancer. Sometimes, certain types of cancer seem to run in some families. This can be caused by a number of factors. Often, family members have certain risk factors in common, such as smoking, which can cause many types of cancer.

But in some cases the cancer is caused by an abnormal gene that is being passed along from generation to generation. Although this is often referred to as inherited cancer, what is inherited is the abnormal gene that can lead to cancer, not the cancer itself. Only about 5% to 10% of all cancers are inherited. This document focuses on those cancers.

DNA, genes, and chromosomes
Cancer is a disease of abnormal gene function. Genes are pieces of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). They contain the instructions on how to make the proteins the body needs to function, when to destroy damaged cells, and how to keep the cells in balance. Your genes control things such as hair color, eye color, and height. They also can affect your chance of getting certain diseases, such as cancer.

An abnormal change in a gene is called a mutation. The 2 types of mutations are inherited and acquired (somatic).

Inherited gene mutations are passed from parent to child through the egg or sperm. These mutations are in every cell in the body.
Acquired (somatic) mutations are not present in the egg or sperm. These mutations are acquired at some point in the person's life, and are more common than inherited mutations. This type of mutation occurs in one cell, and then is passed on to any new cells that are the offspring of that cell.

http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/CancerCause...and-cancer

[JoeH]

Not saying there is outright collusion, but when a clinic has a machine that costs $10k a week for example it is going to try and recover that expense. That can be 10 $1k procedures, or 5 $2k procedures. And in many clinical settings the doctors make more or less depending on how the clinic does overall. Or they are in many cases hospital employees, not independent as used to be common, and subject to influence from their employer.

And it can be easy to comply with a request from a patient spooked by the scare tactics and hoopla around breast cancer to have the most advanced diagnostic procedure instead of a normal mammogram.

P.S. 15 months cancer free, looking for many more.

[Grace62]

JoeH wrote:


P.S. 15 months cancer free, looking for many more.

Congrats, and all good wishes for cancer-free living Joe!


(and yes I've always thought it was problematic to have doctors benefit financially from treatments they themselves recommend)

[Pam]

Grace62 wrote:
[quote=Pam]
[quote=Grace62]
[quote=JoeH]

And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated.

Thanks for that insight Joe. We've been hearing from the medical community for a while that mammograms are not as useful as originally thought, but look at the outcry when guidelines were moved away from annual mammograms. Komen has caused a dispproportionate amount of health care spending and attention to focus on breast cancer, at the expense of other illnesses that as you say, are more common in women.
so while he we can applaud the work they've done, and it's not insignificant, their approach overall creates some concerns - as you pointed out. I too would like to know more about ties between Komen and manufacturers of pharmaceuticals and medical technology.
Which goes back to putting money in prevention and cancer type identification, not cures. The huge, I mean huge number of women who have gone through the agony, pain, and expense of needle biopsies and surgeries should be alarming. But women have been subjected to such incessant scare tactics they not only fall for it, they demand it. Prostate cancer almost went the same way for men. Fortunately that has turned around.
I agree with you Pam. More ounces of prevention, fewer pounds of cure.
When 80% of procedures result in benign findings, something is extremely wrong. When women in the 20% get surgery, sometimes mastectomies, radiation, and cancer causing drugs for types of breast cancer that wouldn't otherwise kill them, something is extremely wrong. Unfortunately money runs the show, the medical community is still male dominated, and as seen with the screening recommendations, it's become politically incorrect to talk about changing things.

[haikuman]

Breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, except for skin cancers. The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is about 1 in 8 (12%). In 2009, an estimated 192,370 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed among women in the United States.

In addition to invasive breast cancer, there will be about 62,280 new cases of carcinoma in situ (CIS) in 2009. CIS is non-invasive and is the earliest form of breast cancer.

After increasing for more than 2 decades, female breast cancer incidence rates decreased by 2.2% per year from 1999 to 2005. This decrease may be due at least in part to less use of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) after the results of the Women's Health Initiative were published in 2002. This study linked HRT use to an increased risk of breast cancer and heart diseases.

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer. The chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman's death is about 1 in 35 (about 3%). In 2009, about 40,610 women will die from breast cancer in the United States. Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990, with larger decreases in women younger than 50. These decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment.

At this time there are about 2.5 million breast cancer survivors in the United States.

Early Detection
Finding cancer at its earliest, most treatable stage gives patients the greatest chance of survival. To help the public and health care providers make informed decisions about cancer screening, the American Cancer Society publishes a variety of early detection guidelines. These guidelines are assessed regularly to ensure that recommendations are based on the most current scientific evidence.

What are the key statistics about breast cancer?
Breast cancer is the most common cancer among American women, except for skin cancers. The chance of developing invasive breast cancer at some time in a woman's life is a little less than 1 in 8 (12%).

The American Cancer Society's most recent estimates for breast cancer in the United States are for 2012:

About 226,870 new cases of invasive breast cancer will be diagnosed in women.
About 63,300 new cases of carcinoma in situ (CIS) will be diagnosed (CIS is non-invasive and is the earliest form of breast cancer).
About 39,510 women will die from breast cancer

Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in women, exceeded only by lung cancer. The chance that breast cancer will be responsible for a woman's death is about 1 in 36 (about 3%). Death rates from breast cancer have been declining since about 1990, with larger decreases in women younger than 50. These decreases are believed to be the result of earlier detection through screening and increased awareness, as well as improved treatment.