Okay ladies get in line time to get those fun bags removed..it's trendy now...

Oh I also know very well how some people handle such tragic events as breast cancer. My friends husband stayed with her after the mastectomy but cheated on her...it broke her heart and I think it may have sped up her giving in and dying.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Oh I also know very well how some people handle such tragic events as breast cancer. My friends husband stayed with her after the mastectomy but cheated on her...it broke her heart and I think it may have sped up her giving in and dying.

Teo, you may be right. I remember the devastation I felt when my husband made the remark about Newt Gingrich. I remember how I felt when I was in the hospital for the reconstruction and my husband couldn't visit me several times because he had to "work." Plus, he worked in the same hospital in which I was hospitalized. Go figure.

It was hard, but I never gave up on myself. I thought I'd forever be the old lady on the street who spends all day in her garden. Happily, I was so wrong. Love can come at a later age, and when it comes then, it's so real. At least it is for me.

I am so sorry about your friend. It's no small wonder this is such a sensitive issue for you.

PB I know that there are few things that impact a woman's self image more than this. She needs support in every way possible during the trauma of recovery from it. I do appreciate that there is reconstructive surgery available and if I were a woman I would want it. The main thing I was posting about is that when a big star does something it influences so many people to follow.

this is rare and biazzar case since she had never had a tumor or lesion, just a blood test.

I know two people who have had this procedure. One did it five years ago. She married late in life and had two young kids. I sat and played poker with a man who had Lou Gehrig's disease and was beginning to decline. He could barely walk, and I had to go cash his chips in, and help him up. In the three hours we played the other players were asking how I was doing. He listened and then opened up about his Illness. When he was sitting down none of us knew he was sick. However, he told the story that 19 people in his family had been hit by Lou Gehrig's disease. They were doing all kinds of genetic testing for what he called familial ALS which I never knew about. I thought they were finding a correlation with head injury, but apparently they are now able to find genetic markers for the disease.

He said that he has lost 19 members of his family to the disease. It was a very powerful conversation, but what stuck with me was the decision that family members would not take the genetic test until after they were forty years of age. They wanted to live their lives without the burden of knowledge of the certainty of the disease. I feel blessed to know approximately when my demise will happen, but I completely understood his rationale of why they were waiting until 40. The point of this story is that the percentages they give people on genetic markers are getting better and better, and if a person has a choice to increase their survival rate by eight fold.....well a poker player knows which choice would be made..........you can fall in love with kings at a poker table, but an ace on the flop is some bad news...........you fold and live to play another hand.

Chrissy wrote:

bluemoon wrote:Many surgeons will remove both a woman's breasts due to a family history of breast cancer, especially with involvement of the BRCA gene. A diagnosis of Lobular CIS in the breast, which is also a predictor of future invasive cancer, is also considered by all insurance companies to be reason for a double mastectomy. You claim you work in a hospital, right? Go ask a surgeon about it. You don't know what you are talking about. Teo lost a good friend to cancer but he thinks a woman shouldn't maim herself to prevent it? I suspect most women who have had breast surgery would resent the word maim.

A woman who carries that gene has an 87 percent chance of getting either ovarian or breast cancer. Any woman who carries it should consider a double mastectomy. She's a fool if she does not. And if her husband isn't man enough to accept her decision, she's not married to much of a man.

I don't claim to work in healthcare I do and have for 20 years.

NO< MANY surgeons DO NOT remove your breast just because of family history and a test that is relatively new ( few years). Normally you would have to have a tumor, they try and do biopsy and FNA first, they don't just go whacking them off like this. so your full of shit. this is rare and biazzar case since she had never had a tumor or lesion, just a blood test.


btw, all you men can line up since you think that its normal to cut off your stuff just vecause you might get cancer. theres a 100% chance if you live long enough you will get prostate cancer. make your appointments today, its completely normal way of prevention LOL

Lady, you don't know what you are talking about. Yes, you must have either the BRCA gene or a Lobular CIS to have the procedure done. You do not have to have active cancer. Insurance companies cover the surgeries. After consultation with the patient and her husband, most thoracic surgeons here in Pensacola will do the job.
I'm not full of shit but someone on this forum is.

Prophylactic (preventative) mastectomy is an alternative to intensive screening, and is undertaken only after very careful consideration, often including genetic testing and a psychiatric evaluation.

Women who might consider propylactic mastectomy include those with a strong family history of breast cancer, especially if relatives are diagnosed at a very early age.

Some families have a known genetic mutation that predisposes to breast cancer (BRCA1 or BRCA2), and individuals can be tested for these genes. Inherited mutations in these genes increase the lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. It is important to note that prophylactic mastectomy greatly reduces, but DOES NOT ELIMINATE the risk of breast cancer.
http://www.health.am/encyclopedia/more/breast_removal_surgery/

but DOES NOT ELIMINATE the risk of breast cancer.

T are you arguing that the probabilities are false, or are you arguing that no medical procedure should be attempted unless the results allow 100% success?

Not very stellar arguments.

2seaoat wrote: but DOES NOT ELIMINATE the risk of breast cancer.

T are you arguing that the probabilities are false, or are you arguing that no medical procedure should be attempted unless the results allow 100% success?

Not very stellar arguments.

Well you are not taking into consideration the enormous amount of complications and often deaths that occur from being opened up by surgery in the home of every disease imaginable...A Hospital.

In Hospital Deaths from Medical Errors at 195,000 per Year USA

I'm not full of shit but someone on this forum is.




I have found that when discussing things with Chrissy or Dreams, they both will rarely accept facts which are contrary to their opinion. You could show the insurance company letter approving the surgery, and Chrissy would argue with you about it being fake........I know people who have done this procedure and are alive and well........and about this time somebody would post that as BS.....and nobody has healthy breasts removed........now if you try to provide them with more facts......you will simply be chasing your tail, and they both will eventually call you names when you are persistent in correcting their misconceptions......I guarantee you this.....Chrissy will not concede your facts and knowledge......been there and done that.

Well, Teo is pretty much anti-hospital but I don't think his posts on this thread are an attack on women or anything of the sort. Most medical decisions like this involve pros and cons and risks. It should be up to every woman and her doctor how to proceed. I just hope that women are getting ALL the facts before making a decision. I think it's all about education, information and having a choice.

Nekochan wrote:Well, Teo is pretty much anti-hospital but I don't think his posts on this thread are an attack on women or anything of the sort. Most medical decisions like this involve pros and cons and risks. It should be up to every woman and her doctor how to proceed. I just hope that women are getting ALL the facts before making a decision. I think it's all about education, information and having a choice.

Yes exactly...

2seaoat wrote:I'm not full of shit but someone on this forum is.




I have found that when discussing things with Chrissy or Dreams, they both will rarely accept facts which are contrary to their opinion. You could show the insurance company letter approving the surgery, and Chrissy would argue with you about it being fake........I know people who have done this procedure and are alive and well........and about this time somebody would post that as BS.....and nobody has healthy breasts removed........now if you try to provide them with more facts......you will simply be chasing your tail, and they both will eventually call you names when you are persistent in correcting their misconceptions......I guarantee you this.....Chrissy will not concede your facts and knowledge......been there and done that.

show me the fatcs?



where are the facts.



not opinions....

you are aware when they take boobs off they send them to HISTOLOGY/PATHOLOGY?

This is rare to see this, dont fool yourself. women dont normallly run to have thier boobs taken off unless their is a tumor. and doctors do not normally recomend such a radical procedure. buy into what you want, but this is a scam. and it is not something we should se as a trendy. how many of you men have signed up to get your prostates removed so far? running yet?


http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/11/28/166064484/more-women-choose-double-mastectomy-but-study-says-many-dont-need-it

After denying last night that doctors will remove a healthy breast that doesn't have cancer, you just posted a link proving that it happens. It happens to women who are not Angelina Jolie.
Thank you for disproving what you said. I thought of posting a link myself, but you doing it for me is much sweeter.

Comparing breast surgery to prostate surgery is nonsensical. Breast removal obviously does not cause impotency.

I am pro breastestess... just thght I'd throw that out there. (and I think she made the smart decision).

bluemoon wrote:After denying last night that doctors will remove a healthy breast that doesn't have cancer, you just posted a link proving that it happens. It happens to women who are not Angelina Jolie.
Thank you for disproving what you said. I thought of posting a link myself, but you doing it for me is much sweeter.

Comparing breast surgery to prostate surgery is nonsensical. Breast removal obviously does not cause impotency.

I was waiting for you lol

you don't pay attention very well.

this is a article against double mastectomy, and its against double mastectomy WHEN THESE WOMEN ACTUALLY HAVE A TUMOR. which joli did NOT have btw.

not only that this article also shows how FEW of even those women had the gene.

and it also shows how SURGEONS do not support this type of RDICAL treatment, and guess what this treatment isn't near as radical as having them removd because of a blood test, these women actually had a tumor? did you get that? did you read any of it or just skim it for your liking?

Do you even know nything about this gene or how these test are done? at all? or do you just willfully accept that its ok to cut those damn breast off because of a gene just in case you might get it? do you kno how fucking crazy that is?

and its perfectly PERFECT to compare prostate cancer to this. You want to prevent cancer by removing your manly hood, go get a prostatectomy because men WILL get cancer of the prostate if they live long enough. Fact.

im not sure what is going on here with this Hollywood pharmaceutical dream land shit she is pulling, but its not normal and its not good medicine. I am familure with this test btw.....

yall think what you want, you cant decipher data and you damn sure don't think rationally if you think women are having their boobs cut off because of blood test only. your buying into a scary propaganda big pharm story for some unknown reason im afraid. because this isn't normal medicine and anyone who says it is, is a god damn liar and fake.

I apparently know a hell of a lot more about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and about lobular carcinoma in situ than you do. I
The article also stated that a double mastectomy made sense for a woman who had the offending genes, but you ignored that part.

From your link:

"The more radical operation makes medical sense, Hawley says, for fewer than 10 percent of women with early breast cancer. Those include the 1.5 percent who have a genetic mutation called and another 8 percent who have a strong family history, which means two or more immediate relatives who've had breast or ovarian cancer."

I can tell you from the experience of a family member that Dr John Tyson who practices at Baptist Hospital here in Pensacola will also do a bilateral on any woman who has had lobular CIS. He's been a surgeon for over 25 years here locally, and the other thoracic surgeons in his group will also do the procedure. Lobular CIS is a non-invasive growth that kills no one. It is a predictor of cancer in the future, as is the BRCA gene. No woman will die of lobular CIS itself, but many women with it have preventative mastectomies.
I don't know where you work, but if it's Baptist then maybe you should ask around before you start mouthing off about what doctors will and will not do.

I think I'll go ahead and take Mr Seaoat's advice and not try to give you any more facts.You aren't interested in digesting them. Good luck if you ever find out you have a BRCA1 gene and are too attached to those appendages to save your own life.

bluemoon wrote:I apparently know a hell of a lot more about the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes and about lobular carcinoma in situ than you do. I
The article also stated that a double mastectomy made sense for a woman who had the offending genes, but you ignored that part.

From your link:

The more radical operation makes medical sense, Hawley says, for fewer than 10 percent of women with early breast cancer. Those include the 1.5 percent who have a genetic mutation called and another 8 percent who have a strong family history, which means two or more immediate relatives who've had breast or ovarian cancer.

I can tell you from the experience of a family member that Dr John Tyson who practices at Baptist Hospital here in Pensacola will also do a bilateral on any woman who has had lobular CIS. He's been a surgeon for over 25 years here locally, and the other thoracic surgeons in his group will also do the procedure. No one has to bribe them.
I don't know where you work, but if it's Baptist then maybe you should ask around before you start mouthing off about what doctors will and will not do.

I think I'll go ahead and take Mr Seaoat's advice and not try to give you any more facts.You aren't interested in digesting them. Good luck if you ever find out you have a BRCA1 gene and are too attached to those appendages to save your own life.

I think I'd better

I know dr Tyson, and I highly doubt even he would cut off the breast because of a blood test only.

and your right, its no use in discussing it. your getting your info from 3rd hand, im not.

I suggest now that you are so excited and agree its ok for women to chop ff their boobs just in case they might get a cancer, that you man up and do the right thing by going and having your prostate removed just in case you get cancer, because you will get it and you don't even need a genetic test. or is it ok to push for women to have their boobs removed just in case, but not for men to have their little juice maker remov for preventive reasons, right? right?

you cherry picked, so lets just end with that the CONCLUSION was.....

The two operations really are equal — not just in survival but in the risk of cancer recurrence," Morrow says. "That wasn't true 30 years ago. We've gotten better at lumpectomy; we understand more about the biology of breast cancer.

"So at a time when we can decrease the intensity of surgical therapy," she continues, "instead what we're seeing is patients who want to be 'safe' choosing the bigger surgery, even though in fact it's no safer for them."

If you know Dr Tyson, I suggest you ask him personally.

Ask him about the BRCA1 gene, the BRCA2 gene, and lobular carcinoma in situ. If you are a healthcare professional, you could use the knowledge.

As I said, I'm taking Mr Seaoat's advice. There is no point in arguing with someone who will not listen. Keep those appendages of yours no matter what. They must be very important to you.

You know a while back we talked about this gene. this is the gene that the company who discovered it wants to patent it.

The U.S. Supreme Court is about to decide whether a private company can own a part of your body.

Currently, a company called Myriad Genetics “owns” two genes known as BRCA 1 and BRCA2 –or Breast Cancer 1 and Breast Cancer 2. Women with certain mutations in these genes have a strong chance of getting breast or ovarian cancer.

This has very dangerous implications for women’s health, and it’s illegal. The ACLU has filed a lawsuit challenging the validity of these gene patents. On April 15, 2013, the ACLU argued the case before the U.S. Supreme Court. We expect a decision this summer.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/tag/brca


btw, now she needs to have her ovaries out. ovarian cancer is much more aggressive btw. so what if she goes into menopause, its all about prevention right?

btw, I now think this is some sort of activism over this gene patent. stop your ogling, she got a damn boob job people. theres nothing wrong with her.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:First off I posted nothing stating that because a woman had to have a Mastectomy it made her unattractive nor did I say she shouldn't if she wants or feels she needs to. I simply think that because some Hollywood type makes a big deal out of it women shouldn't immediately have it done because of some statistic about genetics....I am sure though that the Doctors will welcome the profit potential the propaganda will create by scaring women into preemptive surgery....I also doubt anyone read the article I quoted from but I'll be your Boogeyman if you need one...

You're really going to say this was complimentary? "Angelina Jolie inspires women to maim themselves by celebrating medically perverted double mastectomies"

Yes, a star, especially of such magnitude, can call attention to a potentially life saving surgery and information some people may not be aware exists.

Your stupid comment about doctors doing it for the profit potential underlines the idiocy of your original post.

What are you? 12?

That's Teo. He uses inflammatory words in his subject headlines and thread starters. I am pretty sure he does it to get attention to his thread...and it usually works.

Yeah it's hard to rouse the ruminators like markle he prefers to graze and dump his own BS....

I been working since 1975 in Hospitals all over the USA coast to coast North and south and believe me Profit rules....every now and then someone does something charitable and they make a big deal about it but for the most part...It's corporate Medicine for profit....BIG profit...that's why the Mafia infested Government wants in on it.

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Yeah it's hard to rouse the ruminators like markle he prefers to graze and dump his own BS....

I been working since 1975 in Hospitals all over the USA coast to coast North and south and believe me Profit rules....every now and then someone does something charitable and they make a big deal about it but for the most part...It's corporate Medicine for profit....BIG profit...that's why the Mafia infested Government wants in on it.

Much as it is impossible for you to accept, profit is not a dirty word.

Why is it that the United States has developed more new procedures, drugs and medical technology than the rest of the world combined? Who do those advances help? Only Americans? Not at all, these are used around the world.

IF you have been working in hospitals since 1975, as you claim, all over the USA from coast to coast, what percentage are non-profit?

Government isn't "Mafia Infested", it is just to big by half.