[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–What a doctor may say and what a patient may hear are two different things entirely
–I find that a self-important person imagines herself to be expert–educated by the internet or by other self-important people–and discount what doctors say…
[/quote]
Hmm…this sounds exactly like…me.
Angelina Jolie hasn’t been hot since she co-starred with Nicholas Cage in Gone in Sixty Seconds…
Actually, she was pretty damn hot in the Tomb Raider movies as well.
She hasn’t been hot since then, too old now.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer.[/quote]
Alternatives:
–Myriad Genetics provides the estimates of risk associated with the various BRCA1 deleterious mutations; 87% lifetime risk is probably a statistical quirk and has not been revised recently.
–Oophorectomy reduces lifetime risks by about 1/3; she is 38, and taking the ovaries soon makes sense anyway. She did not do this, I guess, because she wants to remain estrogenized, and hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy would increase her risks of breast cancer.
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
So, she got bad medical advice, Doc?[/quote]
No way to know
–What a doctor may say and what a patient may hear are two different things entirely
–I find that a self-important person imagines herself to be expert–educated by the internet or by other self-important people–and discount what doctors say…unless the doctor also happens to be a celebrity, or takes care of other celebrities, as was the case here with Ms Jolie.
–I only met Angelina Voight once when she was about 4 years old, and my advice to her then was “play outside.” She didn’t listen then either.
[/quote]
Maybe, if we are lucky, T Nations resident Doctor will chime in on this and set the record straight.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]Chushin wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]kakno wrote:
NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer.[/quote]
Alternatives:
–Myriad Genetics provides the estimates of risk associated with the various BRCA1 deleterious mutations; 87% lifetime risk is probably a statistical quirk and has not been revised recently.
–Oophorectomy reduces lifetime risks by about 1/3; she is 38, and taking the ovaries soon makes sense anyway. She did not do this, I guess, because she wants to remain estrogenized, and hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy would increase her risks of breast cancer.
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
So, she got bad medical advice, Doc?[/quote]
No way to know
–What a doctor may say and what a patient may hear are two different things entirely
–I find that a self-important person imagines herself to be expert–educated by the internet or by other self-important people–and discount what doctors say…unless the doctor also happens to be a celebrity, or takes care of other celebrities, as was the case here with Ms Jolie.
–I only met Angelina Voight once when she was about 4 years old, and my advice to her then was “play outside.” She didn’t listen then either.
[/quote]
Maybe, if we are lucky, T Nations resident Doctor will chime in on this and set the record straight.[/quote]
Uh…We are lucky.
And for the record (because this is important stuff, right?), I have never, ever found Angelina Jolie to be either attractive or any kind of actress worth watching.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Bauber wrote:
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Dont see what the big deal is. Her boobs weren’t all that special, not like we are talking about Amy Reid here. And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that… [/quote]
I prefer natural much more. The feel and the look naked. Fake can look great in clothes then they come off and it’s like what just happened?.. Sad dong.[/quote]
What? I have dated two girls who were past DD and into the E range. One was in college and natural and about 19 so gravity hasnt had much time here. In clothes she looked like a horny japaneese anime artist’s wet dream. Soom as she took off the bra they looked like pancakes with nipples. Only way not to be grossed out was on her back.
The circus freak with Bolt Ons on the other hand still had something that resembled a circle regardless of anything else. To be honest, she was dumb as a rock and it was the only reason I dated her as shallow as it was. They were magical but her nips had been stretched out like crazy.
I have dated just as many natural as I have with fake, granted there are amazing natural boobs and bad fake ones, but the chacnes of either cases are both rarer than they are common.
If they exist, they are real. [/quote]
This is spot on. Natural boobs aren’t meant to be big, they’ll sag or just look so nasty.
Granted, there are good ones and bad ones, but the pros overweight all cons packed together.
Have you ever felt on a NICE fake boob? I mean a-top-notch-surgeon-did-this-shit nice fake boob? Man, I can’t even put it into words…
Reality check, here’s the motivation behind this PR stunt: Angelina Jolie, corporate patents on genes, and the U.S. Supreme Court - NaturalNews.com
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?
Maybe I’m missing some important information. [/quote]
But the randomized trial was less enthusiastic (sorry, can’t find that abstract in the J Clinical Oncology). If memory serves me, women assigned to receive the yearly MRI mammogram eventually could not stand the anxiety of repeated studies; they crossed over to bilateral mastectomy. Thus, the “12%” 5 year risk I cite above was a lower risk than expected. Statistics get screwed up when these things happen, but I still discuss MRI mammography as an option for younger women.
[quote]rehanb_bl wrote:
http://www.greenmedinfo.com/blog/did-angelina-jolie-make-mistake-acting-breast-cancer-gene-theory[/quote]
92.3% bullshit (with a standard error of 1.8%)
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?
Maybe I’m missing some important information. [/quote]
I was thinking something like this. I also immediately thought “crazy attention whoring celebrity” when I first heard the story, and I haven’t revised that thought yet. I don’t care if this makes me an asshole.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?
Maybe I’m missing some important information. [/quote]
I was thinking something like this. I also immediately thought “crazy attention whoring celebrity” when I first heard the story, and I haven’t revised that thought yet. I don’t care if this makes me an asshole.[/quote]
I gladly assume the worst when it comes to most women, but chopping off her lady bits of just to attention whore?
I mean, even I find that farfetched.
One would think that an international celebrity could get her fix another way.
In this case, I might consider, that, um, she actually, um, did want to raise awareness and to make it easier for other women who are faced with the same choice…
EXPOSED: ANGELINA JOLIE PART of a clever CORPORATE SCHEME TO PROTECT BILLIONS In BRCA Gene Patents, INFLUENCE SUPREME COURT Decision
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
EXPOSED: ANGELINA JOLIE PART of a clever CORPORATE SCHEME TO PROTECT BILLIONS In BRCA Gene Patents, INFLUENCE SUPREME COURT Decision
Gentlemen we have a code red! Somebody get Alex Jones on the line!
Chemtrails! 9/11! Bohemian Grove! BOHEMIAN GROVE!!
In all seriousness this might be the silliest subject for conspiracy I’ve ever seen.
OK, gentlemen, who would weigh risk against permanent impotence?
"The first man has undergone prostatectomy after finding that out that he carries the BRCA2 gene mutation.
"BRCA gene mutations increase the risk for a number of cancers, including prostate cancer. They were in the news last week after superstar Angelina Jolie announced that she had a prophylactic mastectomy to avoid breast cancer.
"Hot on the heels of that extensive media coverage, news of the first prophylactic prostatectomy because of the genetic mutation made the front page of the Sunday Times.
"The surgery was performed by Roger Kirby, MD, director of the Prostate Cancer Center in London, United Kingdom, an eminent prostate cancer specialist who has performed more than 2000 prostatectomies. Ironically, he himself recently underwent radical prostatectomy after prostate cancer was found.
“The man who underwent surgery was participating in a clinical trial, conducted by the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), that involved more than 20,000 men. Previous results from this trial have shown that a man with a BRCA2 mutation has an 8.6-fold increased risk of developing prostate cancer, and with a BRCA1 mutation has a 3.4-fold increased risk. Just weeks ago, the ICR researchers reported that prostate cancer in men with the BRCA2 mutation is more aggressive and more likely to be fatal (J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1748-1757).”
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
REALLY, T-Nation???!!?!?
THREE PAGES and NO pics??
DISAPPOINT!!![/quote]
Now that she is married and has like 35 kids, I bet her snatch is hairy and unkept outside the 1.75 times a month her and brad have sex…
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
REALLY, T-Nation???!!?!?
THREE PAGES and NO pics??
DISAPPOINT!!![/quote]
Careful what you ask for, SteelyD. Remember where we are. This ain’t SAMA.
I just got done having the color burned from my irises on another thread.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?
Maybe I’m missing some important information. [/quote]
Yeah, you are. 5 year survival rates vs lifetime survival rates. Early detection survival rates are seriously inflated because the fact that it was detected early starts the timer ticking earlier.
Imagine two alternative scenarios involving the same person with the same cancer. We’ll call this scenario “1” and scenario “2”.
In scenario “1”, a 40 yr old person’s cancer was detected in an early stage. If this person lived 6 years and then died of their cancer at age 46, they would be considered a survival in 5 year survivor rates.
In scenario “2”, the same person’s cancer was detected 5 years later than in scenario 1. They died a year later at age 46. This person would not be considered a survival in 5 year survivor rates.
Same person, same death date, but in the early detection scenario they survive and in the late detection scenario they do not.
In this specific scenario, I think Jolie is making the right decision. Her mother died of breast cancer at 56 as she already stated and living with that level of anxiety associated with developing and dying of cancer is not something anyone wants to live with. Cancer is a horrible thing. If I was a woman and even had a 25% lifetime risk of getting breast cancer, I’d consider the procedure, especially at that age.
[quote]challer1 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?
Maybe I’m missing some important information. [/quote]
Yeah, you are. 5 year survival rates vs lifetime survival rates. Early detection survival rates are seriously inflated because the fact that it was detected early starts the timer ticking earlier.
Imagine two alternative scenarios involving the same person with the same cancer. We’ll call this scenario “1” and scenario “2”.
In scenario “1”, a 40 yr old person’s cancer was detected in an early stage. If this person lived 6 years and then died of their cancer at age 46, they would be considered a survival in 5 year survivor rates.
In scenario “2”, the same person’s cancer was detected 5 years later than in scenario 1. They died a year later at age 46. This person would not be considered a survival in 5 year survivor rates.
Same person, same death date, but in the early detection scenario they survive and in the late detection scenario they do not.
In this specific scenario, I think Jolie is making the right decision. Her mother died of breast cancer at 56 as she already stated and living with that level of anxiety associated with developing and dying of cancer is not something anyone wants to live with. Cancer is a horrible thing. If I was a woman and even had a 25% lifetime risk of getting breast cancer, I’d consider the procedure, especially at that age.[/quote]
You are correct, but answering a different question.
I was referring to the risks of discovery and diagnosis, not to survival rates.
What you are referring to is also called “stage shift” in some contexts, or survival shift, but it is not the measure used in discussing the risks of development of BRCA-determined breast cancer.
Different statistical inferences entirely.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
REALLY, T-Nation???!!?!?
THREE PAGES and NO pics??
DISAPPOINT!!![/quote]
Picture proves that not only are fake breasts better than real, but CGI is superior to silicon.
