so i felt like being annoying
yeah you are
somethings happening to my dangus!
New 3D Mammography Increases Radiation Exposure):
"Breast cancer is big business, and mammography is one of its primary profit centers. This is why the industry is fighting tooth and nail to keep it, by downplaying or outright ignoring its significant risks."
I think that it was around for a few years before I realized that Komen wasn't a typo. The first time I saw the word on a billboard I thought, "Haha what a bunch of dumbasses! How do you fuckin misspell WOMEN on a breast cancer billboard?!"
We have a municipal cult of getting Ovarian Cancer now. No globalist celebrities, so it's only locally that we have psychotic female adherents and neutered male appendage supporters. The township signs every September declare this woman that died from it a hero LOL
"Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."
Jack london, "Before Adam"
Heart disease is a bigger killer. Let's all go get our hearts replaced, just in case!
Knifegill is christened to be high carb now!Tremendous worms of a swarthy nature pursue me across the sandy blank sky. I stop to think. What the devil AM I up to?!the buttstuff...never interested.
My pony picture thread http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread82786.html
i've seen cancer deaths up close and personal. to call it agonizing for the person dying is an understatement, to call it agonizing for the family sitting vigil is also an understatement
it is an ugly, horribly painful death
be blase all you want, if it can be avoided there's nothing wrong with avoiding it
yeah you are
somethings happening to my dangus!
If the issue is with the gene mutation then that is the root factor. The problem does not lay with any body part.
Support the body, do not take away from it, do not add harm towards it. This will give the best odds on whether or not the mutated gene wakes up or stays dormant.
I am not sure how the doctors were able to determine the risks/odds, I for one, would not trust any counsel they may or may not have had from the company who patented this mutated gene and their owned genetic test.
Bottomline, if the human condition is not supported, no amount of exterior intervention, i.e. surgery, will change the course of genetic expression.
The BRCA gene mutation involves higher risk for cancer related to tissues of the breasts and ovaries and other tissues as well.
If there is LESS breast tissue, there is less risk or chance for cancer to develop because there is less cell turnover. Less cell turnover means less cell damage/repair. (With the gene mutation of BRCA, their is a "broken" repair process, so instead of normal cells repairing, there may be "abnormal" [tumor, cysts/calcifications] cells growing instead).
Now, is there a surgical intervention that can remove 100% perfect all breast tissue? Do women who anticipate future breast enlargement surgery still require maybe....1% or 5% of normal breast tissue to support the enhancement?
From the article, Angelina was told some statistics, either by her MD's or by the scientists from the company who has monopoly over the gene testing on BRCA. The article mentioned that after Angelina's breasts removal she now has a 5% risk for breast cancer...down from 87% risk.
Where did these numbers arise from? I do not know. I do know, that numbers, statistics can all be manipulated or translated into whatever is needed at that time to support whatever argument at hand.
Now, I feel, the closest thing to reduce that risk to 0% is to remove the mutated gene. But no one is able to do that.....yet (or they ain't telling us).
Even with that mutated gene removal......there may still be a 0.0000001% risk for cancer.
So what happens after removal of the defected gene? Do we replace it with another non-mutated gene? Can Stem Cells play a role here? What happens to the rest of that human? Is he or she still human? Does this person lose their intellectual capacity?
There are some scientists who believe there are benefits that go along with this mutated BRCA gene, like higher intellect.
No one knows, I don't know what would happen if the gene was removed/replaced.
What I do know is if mastectomy happens, there are no more "your breasts". Those are gone. But the gene is still there. The mutation is still there. The higher risk for ovarian cancer is still there.
The ovaries can be the next stuff to remove. But the gene is still there. The mutation is still there. The risk for cancer affecting "other" tissues is still there.
So even after all the procedures, after all the doctor's visits....if a person does not end up supporting normal cell flourishment, cancer is always still a risk.
And in no way am I saying that Angelina was doing a horrible job at supporting her normal cell growth. I do not know her, what her life entails, but what I do know is that she did not have breast cancer. So whatever support she was undertaking, it was doing a good enough job already.