As I understand it, she is a carrier for the BRCA gene which makes it pretty darn near certain she is going to get breast cancer sometime. But I don't think that gene has a relationship to ovarian cancer. One of the things she is advocating for is improved access for everyone, not just people with pricey hollywood doctors, to be able to know about their genetic predispositions and make choices accordingly.[/QUOTE]
The BRCA1 gene does have an association with an increased risk of ovarian cancer to the tune of about 50%.
My guess is that because of the nature of the ovaries as important functional organs for hormonal health, and the fact that Jolie has the means to have them closely attended by doctors (maybe by regular ultrasounds), that she is planning to be watchful and attentive to the situation.
I hardly think that if she had her breasts removed that she is ignoring that threat.
But unlike breast tissue, ovaries are active and important organs in our bodies that cannot be replaced so simply.
Perhaps the path she is taking with them is the best course of action give the side effects of ovary removal...
Maybe she is just watching them for a few more years then having removal done. It seems the longer you keep them the better.
"Women who've undergone ovary removal are seven times more likely to develop heart disease. This risk is greater than that found in women who have gone through natural menopause. Oophorectomy also results in a drop in testosterone production. Decreases in testosterone and estrogen cause an increased risk of osteoporosis and osteoporosis-related bone fractures.
Women who have their ovaries removed before menopause and don't take hormone replacement until age 50 have an increased risk of developing cognitive problems, dementia and Parkinsonism, according to a study reported in "Neurology" in 2007. Women under age 45 at the time of ovary removal have a mortality risk over one and a half times that of women who have their ovaries. Estrogen therapy can help alleviate the increased medical risks from ovary removal. There seems to be no increase in medical side effects if oophorectomy is performed after a woman undergoes natural menopause."
Read more: [url=http://www.livestrong.com/article/35884-side-effects-having-ovaries-removed/#ixzz2TOJbDXLw]Side Effects Of Having Ovaries Removed | LIVESTRONG.COM[/url]
It's also possible she is planning just one more baby before she let's them go... ?
Raw Jersey or (even better IMO) Guernsey milk!
I feel like I'm being a "bad girl" when I drink it!
Maybe I should just say to heck with "moderation".
[QUOTE=Paleobird;1191697]OK, lets talk about something other than sliced up, stretched out, or torsion-ed body parts.
I decided on a whim to try the milk diet that Richard over at Free The Animal has been talking about. Now, I am far from being one of Richard's fan girls, in fact I think he's kind of a dickhead, but I looked into his source material on this and was intrigued.
Now I am flabbergasted. After two days I am down seven pounds.
Yeah, yeah, I know the first thing everyone says is , "It's only water weight". But I am not someone transitioning off of the SAD. I was already in ketosis before starting.
Hmmmmm? Veeeeeeerrrry Interesting.
And I don't feel hungry at all.[/QUOTE]
Interesting. So what exactly are you eating and how much? Is the diet just raw milk and Kefir. Just wondering on the amounts and where you are getting your raw milk and Kefir from. I might give it a go some day....Thanks
I'm in the her body, her choice camp in terms of the mastectomy as well, but in my mind, if you're going to go preventative in one area, why not just go preventative in another? I think of my breasts as really important to me, so I would really only give them up if I absolutely needed to. As a preventative measure, I likely wouldn't do it. But, again, that's my choice.
The real downfall that I see with the article, though, is not about the choice -- it's about the real availability. As far as I know, an insurance company isn't just going to pay for an expensive test or expensive procedures because they suddenly become what people want. Just looking into it roughly, this whole process out of pocket could come in around $12-20k and months leave from work (unpaid medical leave). I can't imagine the average woman -- with or without a family -- being able to afford the time/money for this process.
In the UK (a friend of mine lives there and talked about it online yesterday), the test is covered if they have reason to believe you might have hte genetic disposition. It doesn't take much more than a family history and the doctor ordering it, so it's accessible to be tested. Once tested, you then have the option to go a more preventative route or mastectomy route. This choice was made because both of those routes are less expensive than treating late-dedected cancers. And, they are less expensive in two ways: 1. actual treatment of the individual; and 2. better for society/workforce to have women living rather than dying anyway.
Now that's real, medical choice if you ask me.
I think that a lot more women may consider this option, but once they see the price tag and that insurance doesn't cover, they're going to see just how difficult this procedure is to get. OR, they'll go for medical tourism. I recommend thailand. Seriously modern hospitals with a lot of well trained doctors.
Oh, and according to jezebel.com, jolie is lined up to remove ovaries as well. So this is her preventative route. I'm ok with that, if it's what she wants/thinks is best.
My husband finds it very upsetting. It's shocking how upset he is.
[QUOTE=zoebird;1191783]Oh, and according to jezebel.com, jolie is lined up to remove ovaries as well. So this is her preventative route. I'm ok with that, if it's what she wants/thinks is best.
My husband finds it very upsetting. It's shocking how upset he is.[/QUOTE]
I hadn't see the Jez article. Good for her.
My husbands only comment was "What's the big deal. At least she is getting a boob job for a decent reason instead of just being ridiculous... " (commenting on other actresses getting them for no reason except bigger boobs)
He always find ways to remind me why I like him so much.
It shocks/saddens me that men seem so attached to the idea that women should not have such domain over their own bodies. It is men that seem the most bothered by her decisions. =/
I'd likely have mine redone for husband if he wanted that...
But for just me... I prefer this idea. It's just gorgeous!
[QUOTE=namelesswonder;1191716]I started reading about it and got lost about what exactly he is doing. I'm sure it's written out somewhere, but all I found was "I'm doing it and things are happening." How much milk do you drink?[/QUOTE]Yeah, you have to subscribe officially to get all the details
[QUOTE=cori93437;1191728]Raw Jersey or (even better IMO) Guernsey milk!
I feel like I'm being a "bad girl" when I drink it!
Maybe I should just say to heck with "moderation".[/QUOTE]"When I'm good I'm very very good but when I'm bad I'm better."
[QUOTE=canuck416;1191770]Interesting. So what exactly are you eating and how much? Is the diet just raw milk and Kefir. Just wondering on the amounts and where you are getting your raw milk and Kefir from. I might give it a go some day....Thanks[/QUOTE]
My only last comment on the whole boob issue is that Mr. Perfidy is certifiable. Nuff said.
Mooooooooving on to milk. (:o sorry, couldn't hep myself)
Richard's plan was 3 pints milk, 1 pint kefir with a bit of fruit added like a smoothie, plus one pint of kombucha.
I have done two whole days so far and both times I wasn't hungry for the third pint of milk so I have just done 2/day.
If you count actual numbers on the scale, I have lost 9 lbs in two days but I'm not counting 2 or 3 of those because I was out for a special Mother's day dinner with my BFF/2nd mom the night before starting (including some pomegranate wine) so there was probably a couple of pounds of bloat going on. But still 6 or 7 pounds in two days?
Canuck, I get my milk and kefir from Organic Pastures which you could too living here in the great state of California where raw milk is legal. They sell it at Sprouts and on line.
Oh, And I've been adding a tbsp of butter a day to make up for the fact that the only raw kefir I can get is low fat. Richard was using kefir he made himself from whole milk.
No raw milk here. *grumble grumble* Interesting that you don't feel hungry at all. Are you drinking it all in one meal or spreading out throughout the day?
[QUOTE=JoanieL;1191903]No raw milk here. *grumble grumble* Interesting that you don't feel hungry at all. Are you drinking it all in one meal or spreading out throughout the day?[/QUOTE]Doing it by the pint. I really don't feel like drinking more than that at one sitting. It is quite filling.
I figured out that if you do the whole three pints of milk, one kefir with a little fruit, one kombucha and a tbsp of butter it comes out to about 1400 cal/day. Since I've only been doing 2 of the milk I've been getting 1100.
BTW on the subject of calories, I really like J Stanton's latest two articles about how CICO is not wrong, it's just so oversimplified as to be meaningless. He just posted part II today.
[url=http://www.gnolls.org/]GNOLLS.ORG - Home of J. Stanton and The Gnoll Credo[/url]
For anybody interested in finding out about the regulations in their state about raw milk and perhaps getting involved to help change them:
[url=http://www.realmilk.com/]A Campaign for Real Milk | A Project of the Weston A. Price Foundation[/url]