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

Jump to: navigation, search

The Knudson hypothesis (aka multiple-hit hypothesis) is the hypothesis that cancer is the result of accumulated mutations to a cell's DNA. It was first proposed by Carl O. Nordling in 1953,[1][2] and later formulated by Alfred G. Knudson in 1971.[3] Knudson's work led indirectly to the identification of cancer-related genes. Knudson won the 1998 Albert Lasker Medical Research Award for this work.

The multi-mutation theory on cancer was proposed by Nordling in the British Journal of Cancer in 1953. He noted that in industrialized nations the frequency of cancer seems to increase according to the sixth power of age. This correlation could be explained by assuming that the outbreak of cancer requires the accumulations of six consecutive mutations.

Later, Knudson performed a statistical analysis on cases of retinoblastoma, a tumor of the retina that occurs both as an inherited disease and sporadically. He noted that inherited retinoblastoma occurs at a younger age than the sporadic disease. In addition, the children with inherited retinoblastoma often developed the tumor in both eyes, suggesting an underlying predisposition.

Knudson suggested that multiple "hits" to DNA were necessary to cause cancer. In the children with inherited retinoblastoma, the first insult was inherited in the DNA, and any second insult would rapidly lead to cancer. In non-inherited retinoblastoma, two "hits" had to take place before a tumor could develop, explaining the age difference.

It was later found that carcinogenesis (the development of cancer) depended both on the activation of proto-oncogenes (genes that stimulate cell proliferation) and on the deactivation of tumor suppressor genes (genes that keep proliferation in check). A first "hit" in an oncogene would not necessarily lead to cancer, as normally functioning tumor suppressor genes (TSGs) would still keep the cancer in check; only damage to TSGs would lead to unchecked proliferation. On the converse, a damaged TSG (such as the Rb1 gene in retinoblastoma) would not lead to cancer unless there is uncontrolled growth from an activated oncogene.

en.wikipedia.org...

IMPORTANT: Using Content From Other Websites on ATS
MOD NOTE: Posting work written by others

Originally posted by newsoul

Originally posted by rickymouse

It is just a tactic to justify the silicone implants she wants. Next year she will be back bigger and better than before with a breast cancer awareness speech. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I want to feel them when she is done to make sure that she hasn't deceived us.

I think I'm going to vomit. Are you freaking serious?? Do you really think that after a mastectomy women have bigger and better breasts?? Well let me tell you what it is like. I was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, it was in my right breast. Because of my FAMILY HISTORY I had both of my breasts removed. After the 6 months of agonizing torture to stretch my skin and muscles, I got my implants. I have a 3 inch scar in the middle of both of my "breasts", I do not have nipples.....it's beautiful, really you should see them

No one in the world would have their breasts removed because they think they will look better after the surgery. Did you know that when a person has a mastectomy that means nipples and all. They dig all of the breast tissue out of your body, up to your collar bone and under your arms. Try getting an implant that covers that area and tell me how pretty it looks. Fool

Let me be the first to say congrats on survivng your fight. It is a tough road and you have my respect for your bravery and fortitude. God bless and keep on keeping on.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

I think this illustrates better than anything else the failure of the war on cancer.

reply to post by NavyDoc


Thank you so much!

It is a suckie, suckie road. I was 39 when I had my mastectomy. I was a rather vain person before the surgery (of course I didn't know that before the surgery), I really learned a lot about the person I was and the person I want to be.

Originally posted by troubleshooter
reply to post by Seektruthalways1

 

I think this illustrates better than anything else the failure of the war on cancer.

We have not failed. We have made amazing strides and will keep up the fight.

Originally posted by newsoul
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

Thank you so much!

It is a suckie, suckie road. I was 39 when I had my mastectomy. I was a rather vain person before the surgery (of course I didn't know that before the surgery

), I really learned a lot about the person I was and the person I want to be.

You are very brave. Keep at it and I'll be glad to help anyway I can.

Originally posted by newsoul

Originally posted by rickymouse

It is just a tactic to justify the silicone implants she wants. Next year she will be back bigger and better than before with a breast cancer awareness speech. Sounds like a publicity stunt to me. I want to feel them when she is done to make sure that she hasn't deceived us.

I think I'm going to vomit. Are you freaking serious?? Do you really think that after a mastectomy women have bigger and better breasts?? Well let me tell you what it is like. I was diagnosed with breast cancer last year, it was in my right breast. Because of my FAMILY HISTORY I had both of my breasts removed. After the 6 months of agonizing torture to stretch my skin and muscles, I got my implants. I have a 3 inch scar in the middle of both of my "breasts", I do not have nipples.....it's beautiful, really you should see them

No one in the world would have their breasts removed because they think they will look better after the surgery. Did you know that when a person has a mastectomy that means nipples and all. They dig all of the breast tissue out of your body, up to your collar bone and under your arms. Try getting an implant that covers that area and tell me how pretty it looks. Fool

I had to hunt your post down to give you a star, thanks for saying what so many others don't even realize. I mentioned that fact back a few pages... Sadly, most people just pop in, spit out a few juvenile words, then leave.
Bless your brave soul.

Originally posted by Lonewulph
Sadly, most people just pop in, spit out a few juvenile words, then leave.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here, and state that unless one has had intimate experience with cancer...as a patient, loved one or caregiver (institutional or otherwise)...they really aren't entitled to much of an opinion on the subject.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Lonewulph
Sadly, most people just pop in, spit out a few juvenile words, then leave.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here, and state that unless one has had intimate experience with cancer...as a patient, loved one or caregiver (institutional or otherwise)...they really aren't entitled to much of an opinion on the subject.

Precisely

reply to post by NavyDoc


Ok i see where the miscommunication comes from.

Instead of the word cancer, replace it with tumor.
Cancer now apparently only means malignant tumor, where as benign means non malignant tumor.

Its easy to get the words wrong when virtually all media uses the word cancer as an eqivalent for all tumors.

You got me there on a minor semantic issue, but isnt the benign tumor still a result of apoptosis failure?

reply to post by NavyDoc


abc news

cbs news

That is just one article from two major outlets.

Google " mammogram cancer risk " , even though it should be tumor risk few use that terminology, so cancer works.

There are tons of sources about increased risks from all sorts of xray techniques including mammograms.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Lonewulph
Sadly, most people just pop in, spit out a few juvenile words, then leave.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here, and state that unless one has had intimate experience with cancer...as a patient, loved one or caregiver (institutional or otherwise)...they really aren't entitled to much of an opinion on the subject.

So to speak about cancer with any legitimacy, one Must be emotionally compromised?

That doesnt make any sense.

reply to post by newsoul


I had no idea that it was that much of an operation. Why would this girl have it done if it is that difficult? I wouldn't do it if I were her unless I actually had cancer. I can see you having the other one removed since you had cancer in the one. Sorry if I offended you.

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Our medical records only go back a few decades for most families.

No one bothers to test their living space to find contamination, or check their food source etc.

They just ASSUME it was hereditary because a grandparent had it? What if this family all got exposed to some carcinogenic source? No one even checks for these possibilities most of the time.

Im blown away that despite having almost no historical records, we are presuming it must be hereditary.

Fact is though the entire planet is contaminated to varying degrees, our medical tools are dangerous, our food is packed with toxins, etc.
But we blame grandma ??

No way... I blame industry ... DuPont, GE, Cancer Foundations, Westinghouse, and all the other players making big $$ of the cancer racket.

Actual question - my grandfather did immediate clean up help in Japan in 1945 after the bombs, he died of cancer in 92, but was sick for a very long time prior, but my father was contacted in the mid 90s from the son of a man my grandfather worked with over there. He said that most of the kids these men had are fighting various forms of cancer, both my aunts had it one has passed and dad is very pro active in testing, and every conversation we have he nags us about mammograms, smears etc - can we actually have a greater risk passed down through my grandfather, or could it just be purely coincidental? I've tried to look it up, but can't find much. We have pretty much grown up expecting it, leading to a pretty big fear of test results :p

Originally posted by rickymouse
reply to post by newsoul

 

I had no idea that it was that much of an operation. Why would this girl have it done if it is that difficult? I wouldn't do it if I were her unless I actually had cancer. I can see you having the other one removed since you had cancer in the one. Sorry if I offended you.

I used to work in surgery as a new RN. My very first surgery to assist in was a double mastectomy. One doc on each side, removing both at the same time.

It's quite a disfiguring operation. She's going to look at herself when she's done and say "what have I done to myself".

I'm betting she won't go through with it. Gets some publicity in the meantime though.

Originally posted by mykingdomforthetruth
cancer is cancer stop eating gmo food and you wont have to cut your tits off

I love it. Right to the point and so truthful Made me laugh out loud!

running with the wolves

Originally posted by muzzleflash
So to speak about cancer with any legitimacy, one Must be emotionally compromised?

No, but you need to have an investment in what you are talking about. If you ain't been there...you have no freakin' idea. You won't be able to understand until you've been there.

Emotionally compromised, me fine arse!

Originally posted by muzzleflash

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by Lonewulph
Sadly, most people just pop in, spit out a few juvenile words, then leave.

I'm gonna go way out on a limb here, and state that unless one has had intimate experience with cancer...as a patient, loved one or caregiver (institutional or otherwise)...they really aren't entitled to much of an opinion on the subject.

So to speak about cancer with any legitimacy, one Must be emotionally compromised?

That doesnt make any sense.

Really?

When you are intimately involved with cancer in your life, over the course of a number of years, it's more than being "emotionally compromised" , that entitles one to speak about cancer with not just legitimacy, but first hand experience...and years of research, way beyond your several days of computer research, intermingled with the other unknown variety of 'things' you claim to know about to some degree.
To save you some time read back to page three. I saw errors in several comments you made here to the good navydoc, I didn't call you on it and let it play out until you realized your error.

Make no mistake, I recognize your galant efforts, but to us who have been to 'hell and back', the ego battle for who knows what, looks...well, foolish.

Imagine, the person closest to you, more that anyone in your life, waking up one day and saying..."honey I have a crick in my neck,..and my right side is, 'buzzing'.
An MRI at the chiropractor reveals not a pinched nerve, but an almond shape egg lying in the depths of her mid-brain, brain stem area.
A trip to a neuro surgeon oncology team requires a hi res MRI, with spectroscopy and blood perfusion. It's a tumor, a high risk deep brain stereotactic biopsy pathology comes back as malignant grade three oligodentroglioma vs. glioblastoma multiform. At the growth rate, she's given two months. Inoperable.
Practically overnight you become a neuro surgeon/ brain oncologist, studying everything in sight to learn what you need to know so that you will be armed with the knowledge to fight, beat, and win this killer and save your true soul mate of many years.
To cut this whole life changing event short, let me just make clear I logged every hour of every day, every meal, every time she threw up, every new sign and symptom. I didnt just sit on my hands and wait on the next thing the team suggested, i burned the midnight oil my dear friend, left my job, pulled her out of her 23 year career, and hit the books, attended seminars, classes, focus groups, and joined every related web site and forum.
After months of high intensity focused radiation and chemo, it looked like we were in remission, then followed another year of punishing chemo to make sure.
A few months later it came back, they came back, and they brought friends.
Her MRI looked like the constellation of Orion in her mid brain.

Imagine eating breakfast with your loved one while discussing getting your estate affairs in order, will, power of attorney, do you want to be buried or cremated....things you never thought of discussing because you too freak'n young!
Surely I digress.
Point being, yes, being intimately involved (compromised as you put it sadly), forces you to educate yourself over months and years of research, case study, clinical trials, other types of cancers should this metastasize elsewhere.
You have no idea as clearly obvious by your posts, specifically "two types of cancer benign and malignant..." Now you just put a huge mustard stain on your tie, and with the quote response of this post, you clearly lack the years of experience caring for someone fighting for their life, then slowly passing away through your helpless fingers.
I am honestly trying to keep this short, but it is much deeper that you can imagine, I could write a sizable book, can you? Right this minute?

She left behind her brain cells for research toward further study to benefit the treatments for brain cancer and gliomas.

reply to post by NavyDoc

1 in 20 got cancer fifty years ago and now it's 1 in 3 ... yeah right!

So you haven't failed until everyone gets cancer I suppose.

reply to post by Lonewulph


I love you. That's all I can say. Oh yeah, and I would give you a million stars and a gigantic hug if I could.