Astounding: Miss America contestant will have both breasts removed, and she doesn't have cancer

reply to post by Druscilla


Just a matter of playing the odds.

I'm not sure where I stand on this.

It's her body though. So she can do whatever she wants with it. It may be considered a rational thing to do if it as some have pointed out runs in her family

For me being a guy the only thing I could compare it to would be for me to get rid of my testicles if testicular cancer ran in my family.

I'm not sure I'd do it

Honest answer.

I think it is a slippery slope. What if we get to the point where this genetic testing is required? And if the tests reveal you have the gene that gives you a 75% of getting cancer, you HAVE to have the surgery or insurance will not cover you? Breasts aren't vital organs, after all. Are we that far off from this scenario given the technology we have at hand?

reply to post by TheOtter


This is a terrifying thought....
I'm sure this day will come one day.

I just survived breast cancer, an agressive cancer. It did not run in my family. I was so scared at first I even wondered if I should have them both removed. I ended up with just a lumpectomy and still have both breasts.

Hopefully this woman will remain healthy for a long time, but it is no gaurentee of being cancer free. Cancer can be found anywhere throughout the body. I wish her well.

My opinion:

I have seen too many women destroy perfectly healthy breasts by implants that is, they were healthy she did not have cancer, but she/they are free to do as they wish.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

Men. They are the ones who equate breasts with femininity. Women know there is so much more that makes us female. I wonder, is the reason behind their objections is that they won't have 'pretty things' to look at?
I have breasts. Mine were working breast, 2 boys were nourished by me. But now their work is over. I don't have a familial history of breast cancer in my family so I hope I will be ok. But if I came from a family with a long line of breast cancer the decision would be so very easy for me. Make them go as far away from my body as they could get. Yes, just the chance of getting it would be enough for me. I would have the surgery and not look back. So the hubby might miss them. I'll get him some pillows. I refuse to let myself die for vanity, pride or whatever silly reason someone might have for keeping the time bombs in your chest. I'm sorry, I tried to keep my snarkiness out of my comments. i really did.

reply to post by lokin


You've spoken wisely. Looks fade, and I don't think I've ever had them personally. My responsibility to my family isn't served by having a pair of breasts. I'd rather not have them and know I would live long enough to fulfill that responsibility than keep them and take the risk (if I was in her position). I think she is a brave lady and good on her for doing what she thinks is right.

Join the ATS LIVE crew for a jam packed episode discussing the hot topics of today, including this threads topic which will be on this weeks Turbo Topics segment of the ATSLive radio program


LOW BANDWIDTH STREAM NOW AVAILABLE - We now run a 32kbps stream for those of you with slower connections. You can connect to the low bandwidth stream by clicking here.

www.shoutcast.com...

We are still running at 256kbps through the ATS Player, and there are also options to listen via other players on our relay site at www.illustrial.net...



Hope you'll listen in!
Johnny

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
lol I don't really see how it would be much worse to remove the breasts after the cancer turns up? Maybe the fear of it spreading? Still seems pretty stupid to me... irrational fear if you ask me. I'd be more scared of having my breasts removed (if I were a women).

A friend of mine did not know she had breast cancer, until it metastasized to her brain. Her first symptom was headaches, nausea, and blurred vision. They discovered the cancer was in the breast first.

i used to work with a former crackhead who told me she had all her teeth removed while seeing the dentist about some bad ones. she figured she'd have future issues anyway due to her drug use and it would be easier to take care of dentures. i thought she was crazy and even couldnt believe that a doctor had the ethics to actually do it.

reply to post by homeskillet

i used to work with a former crackhead who told me she had all her teeth removed while seeing the dentist about some bad ones. she figured she'd have future issues anyway due to her drug use and it would be easier to take care of dentures. i thought she was crazy and even couldnt believe that a doctor had the ethics to actually do it.

Yes, when she was doing crack she was crazy. However, since she clearly had no intention of trying to kick her addiction at the time, her assessment was remarkably clear sighted. The doctor agreed, and acted ethically.

Originally posted by JibbyJedi
Why don't we all remove our livers, kidneys, testicles, ovaries, breasts, lungs, tongues, eyes, kidneys, prostates, and hearts to prevent cancer. Let's all be torsos and heads only.
Maybe if we eliminate all areas cancer can infect, we can have cancer free lives!
In the meantime, head toward the flashing light, there's salvation in the light, disregard the screams of torture from your fellow citizens, they are screams of freedom!
Just cut your heads off if you agree, it saves a lot of time and thread posts.

Given that the theme of this site is "Deny Ignorance", why not take a look at the rationale behind such a decision before rectally sourcing, eh?

Originally posted by feelingconnected
An estimated 5 percent to 10 percent of all breast cancers are hereditary. Particular mutations in genes associated with breast cancer are more common among certain geographic or ethnic groups, such as people of Ashkenazi (central or eastern European) Jewish heritage and people of Norwegian, Icelandic, or Dutch ancestry. Particular genetic changes occur more frequently in these groups because they have a shared ancestry over many generations.
Eta: Above quote taken from below source.

[url=http://www.ghr.nlm.nih.gov...]

This site has interesting info on the rare but devastating hereditary gene that I would assume would be a reason behind such an extreme decision. Not just the threat of breast cancer alone or the possibility of someday getting it.

edit on 29-11-2012 by feelingconnected because: (no reason given)

The above is true. Some mutations put someone at extreme risk for breast cancer. Those identified with the gene usually opt for very close and frequent surveillance but some opt to just remove the breasts prophylacticly. It is a tough decision and I do not envy them it.

A few months ago my daughter had a double mastectomy, so I did a lot of research on this, one of her breast was normal.
1.3 million overdiagnosed for breast cancer in US: study

1.3 million overdiagnosed for breast cancer in US: study
Friday, November 23, 2012

More than a million US women have received unnecessary and invasive cancer treatments over the last 30 years, thanks to routine mammograms that detected harmless tumors, scientists said Thursday. The results throw new doubt over the effectiveness of an already controversial cancer screening tool that is aimed at detecting tumors before they spread and become more difficult to treat. To reach the one million figure, researchers compared the number of breast cancer cases detected at early and late stages among women over 40 between 1976 and 2008. Their analysis showed that, since mammograms became standard in the United States, the number of early-stage breast cancers detected has doubled -- in recent years, doctors found tumors in 234 women out of 100,000. But in that same period, the rate of women diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer has dropped just eight percent -- from 102 to 94 cases out of 100,000. "We estimated that breast cancer was overdiagnosed -- i.e., tumors were detected on screening that would never have led to clinical symptoms -- in 1.3 million US women in the past 30 years," authors Gilbert Welch of Dartmouth Medical School and Archie Bleyer of the Oregon Health & Science University, wrote in a study published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine. "We estimated that in 2008, breast cancer was overdiagnosed in more than 70,000 women; this accounted for 31% of all breast cancers diagnosed," they added. These women likely received major medical interventions -- including surgery, radiology, hormone therapy and chemotherapy -- that ought only to be used when absolutely necessary,

articles.nydailynews.com...

This study came out after I had done my reserch on the subject, and I have come to the conclusion my daughter was one of those with needless surgery, even before this study was on line,

plus

Even indulging in just a few drinks a week raises a woman’s risk of breast cancer, according to a large Harvard study released Tuesday.
www.washingtonpost.com...
The analysis of data collected from nearly 106,000 nurses over 28 years found that those who imbibed as sparingly as three to six glasses of wine or any other alcoholic drink per week were slightly more likely to develop breast cancer than teetotalers.

Even though I believe her mastectomy's were not necessary I would have not tried to persuade her to not have it done.

abclocal.go.com.../consumer&id=8656180

articles.cnn.com...:HEALTH

Other things I wonder about.

Originally posted by TheOtter
I think it is a slippery slope. What if we get to the point where this genetic testing is required? And if the tests reveal you have the gene that gives you a 75% of getting cancer, you HAVE to have the surgery or insurance will not cover you? Breasts aren't vital organs, after all. Are we that far off from this scenario given the technology we have at hand?

OTOH, one can use genetic testing to help guide individual choices and to prepare for and even prevent problems. Knowlege is power for the individual as well. I agree it is a double-edged sword.

It is a stupidity, as a women I see this and what this women is showing the rest of the world and specially young girls as an example.

Cancer is about prevention, keeping our bodies healthy and able to fight the disease before it gets out of hand, no taking away body parts to prevent it what is next, taking the uterus because possible uterine cancer? how about vaginal cancer? Ovarian cancer?

Let just hack our bodies in the name of what may happen, right?

Cancer can affect anybody in any part of the body regardless, prevention is about keeping the body healthy so the body can fight back.

We produce Cancer cells all the time, but our bodies fight back as is mean to fight and kill those cells, we all have the chances of having cancer as we already do.

ALL OF US ARE PRONE TO CANCER. YOUR BODY PRODUCES CANCER CELLS DAILY.

Understanding Cancer,Cancer does not develop for some unknown reason. Once you understand why and how it develops, and learn how to support your body so that it may more effectively fight cancer, it may never be too late to get healthy again. (No matter what type, they have the same underlying causes.) Cancer is a natural process where, to put it simply, an overworked and weakened immune system cannot kill it as fast as it is multiplying. Toxin, carcinogens, radiation, even viruses, combined with an unhealthy internal environment , and in conjunction with a weakened immune system, cause more cells to turn cancerous, and allows them to thrive.

A very small percentage of cells in every person who has ever lived turn cancerous. And the body usually gets rid of those cancerous cells before they do harm. This process has been going on for eons. It is only when more cancer cells are being created than the body can get rid of that the problem comes. With increased toxins, viruses, carcinogens, etc. our immune systems have become significantly overworked and weakened

www.angelfire.com...

Our Body Cures Cancer Every Single Day

ezinearticles.com...

Originally posted by marg6043
It is a stupidity, as a women I see this and what this women is showing the rest of the world and specially young girls as an example.

Cancer is about prevention, keeping our bodies healthy and able to fight the disease before it gets out of hand, no taking away body parts to prevent it what is next, taking the uterus because possible uterine cancer? how about vaginal cancer? Ovarian cancer?

Let just hack our bodies in the name of what may happen, right?

Cancer can affect anybody in any part of the body regardless, prevention is about keeping the body healthy so the body can fight back.

We produce Cancer cells all the time, but our bodies fight back as is mean to fight and kill those cells, we all have the chances of having cancer as we already do.

ALL OF US ARE PRONE TO CANCER. YOUR BODY PRODUCES CANCER CELLS DAILY.

Understanding Cancer,Cancer does not develop for some unknown reason. Once you understand why and how it develops, and learn how to support your body so that it may more effectively fight cancer, it may never be too late to get healthy again. (No matter what type, they have the same underlying causes.) Cancer is a natural process where, to put it simply, an overworked and weakened immune system cannot kill it as fast as it is multiplying. Toxin, carcinogens, radiation, even viruses, combined with an unhealthy internal environment , and in conjunction with a weakened immune system, cause more cells to turn cancerous, and allows them to thrive.

A very small percentage of cells in every person who has ever lived turn cancerous. And the body usually gets rid of those cancerous cells before they do harm. This process has been going on for eons. It is only when more cancer cells are being created than the body can get rid of that the problem comes. With increased toxins, viruses, carcinogens, etc. our immune systems have become significantly overworked and weakened

www.angelfire.com...

Our Body Cures Cancer Every Single Day

ezinearticles.com...

The above is partially true, however, in some genetic mutations, the natural cell killing mechanism is defective which is why we see patterns of a large amount of occurance of specific cancers in specific family lines. In those cases, the natural system is broken, which makes that particular cancer in those people very hard to prevent and/or cure.

ETA: I'm not sure why my post came out in bold. It was not intentional.

Vitamin D3 at a level of 60ng/ml will prevent 80%+ of breast cancer. Throw in some iodine too. Good for breasts and prostates too. Also cures polycystic ovaries, which is caused by an iodine defeciancy.
joannebrophy.com...

There used to be a lot more iodone in the American diet.
1. iodine is a halide
2. Bread used to have iodine in it. About 150mcg a slice.
3. Back in the 80's, the powers that be decided to remove iodine from bread. They replaced it with bromine.
4. Bromine is toxic and has no place in our diet.
5. Bromine is a halide.
6. Since bromine is a halide (as is flouride and chlorine, both in our water) thes compete for the same receptor sites along with iodine.

So... what tiny amouts of iodine you do get are not used since those othe halides that are so prevalent have already taken up those recetor sites.
The Japanese get an average of 12.5mg of iodine a day, due to the seaweed in their diet. Our gov't recommends 150MICROgrams (mcg). This is an insane small amount.

But what about iodized salt? Won't that get us iodine?
Maybe some, but what is the government teaching us about salt? They tell us to not use much. Less and less in fact. So there goes another source of iodone.

It's almost like they want us sick.

Don't expect to ever here that from Koman. Don't expect them to reccomend D3 either. Koman is bought and paid for by big pharma.

Here's the presentation that explains how D3 prevents breast cancer. School is in session.

www.grassrootshealth.net...

Action plan for preventing breast cancer?

1. levels up to 60ng/ml. Get some sun and take the D3 that looks like little oil filled pearls. D3 is fat soluble and you need the fat to absorb the D3. Better yet, take it with a full meal to increase absorbancy.
2. filter your water. Get the flouride and chlorine out.
3. Sop eating bread. Get that bromine out of your diet. Wheat is bad for you anyway.
4. Eat some seaweed. You can also suppliment.

Don't expect to hear that from Koman either. They are about selling mammograms, chemo and making noble "Pink Warriors" out of breast cancer victims. Not preventing breast cancer.

Oh, and you think that if you have breast cancer that it just might spread to your axillary lymph glands if you squish the crap out of your breasts when getting mammogram?

If you do just one thing, get your D3 level measured, then suppliment to get that level up. I'd take a K2 complex along with that. D3 makes calcium more bioavaialble. K2 will tell that newly freed up calcium to go to bones instead of soft tissues (like arteries). It's my opinion that this is why women have caught up with men in heart disease. They take calcium like it going out of style, but it goes to soft tissues instead of bones due to lack of K2.