why is it so hard to cure cancer? science fail.
Wow, it seems you completely missed the point.It is sad that she could actually be trying to do something for the good of the whole, but it is hard to see what that is due to her self-absorbed, narcissistic past. Part of me is reminded that she loves the whole attention-whore and "look-at-me, woe-is-me" thing.
Is she setting up foundations to help other women pay for this non-insurance covered genetic testing? Is she lobbying to get current insurance coverages changed to include this genetic testing?
All I've seen her doing is saying that she's wealthy and has the economic means to get some expensive genetic testing done. She found out she was pre-disposed with a high-percentage change of contracting breast cancer. She chooses a double-mastectomy and, voila, she's newsworthy? I work with two women who also had the same genetic testing performed and ended up with double-mastectomies...they didn't go on the news to spout about it or queue up press-release parties, etc. I can also guarantee the hit to these women financially was much much harder than it is to Angelina.
Wow, it seems you completely missed the point.
This thread already illustrates that having a celebrity announce such a procedure and provide the reasons for it can educate the public. Several people in this thread now know that BRCA1 can predispose to breast and ovarian cancer (and other cancers as well). Furthermore, several people in this thread now understand that prophylactic mastectomy is a reasonable choice in this context.
BTW, although many may not be huge fans of her acting, I think she deserves respect for her humanitarian efforts, which have been many, even if they have not focused upon cancer awareness.
Actually the reason we do not have an actual cure for cancer is because their is little no real research into it. Big Pharma will not allow it. They prefer extensive costly treatments.
This is not self-mutilation, but a reasonable choice in light of current knowledge of the subject, with advice from her physicians. Consider your education on the subject to have begun.While it CAN predispose, there are no guarantees, either way. We should be very careful about whether this is truly "education" or simply sensationalizing a story of self-mutilation.
I've never understood this bizarre conspiracy theory crap.Actually the reason we do not have an actual cure for cancer is because their is little no real research into it. Big Pharma will not allow it. They prefer extensive costly treatments.
This is not self-mutilation, but a reasonable choice in light of current knowledge of the subject, with advice from her physicians. Consider your education on the subject to have begun.
This is science. That you don't know the science is another issue. Perhaps you should read up more on BRCA1.Thank you, but I prefer to be educated by real science, not by rumors and fear-mongering. There is a distinct lack of the former, in this case.
This is science. That you don't know the science is another issue. Perhaps you should read up more on BRCA1.
I'm no expert on BRCA1, but this has been considered a reasonable choice by experts in the field for over a decade now.
Sorry to hear that.I have been reading up on it, thanks. I also have a family history of breast and ovarian cancers, so this is kind of personal for me.
Nobody said it is the ONLY choice. However, it is a REASONABLE choice in the appropriate context, and hence it should not be considered self-mutilation when considered in that appropriate context.I've noticed that preventive mastectomy isn't the ONLY reasonable choice recommended by experts in the field. But don't let facts get in the way of your science, k?
Usually, these are based on an analysis of various scientific studies. eg. Individual studies or meta-analyses.Been hearing about this on the radio news bulletins all day. Apparently she had an "87% chance of getting breast cancer....." which douchebag pulled that number out his ass? I mean seriously why not 87.345432%, retards.
Nobody said it is the ONLY choice. However, it is a REASONABLE choice in the appropriate context, and hence it should not be considered self-mutilation when considered in that appropriate context.
You might have had a point if she was a low risk patient, but she clearly isn't. Knowing that, your use of the term "self-mutilation" here suggests that you may have a bias against the procedure that may be unjustified.
But there's no way to know what her risk was, because there is no actual diagnosis. Every woman who carries that gene has the same risk, but not all of them will develop the disease.
That doesn't even make sense. If she had the disease, the point is moot, because she already has the disease.But there's no way to know what her risk was, because there is no actual diagnosis. Every woman who carries that gene has the same risk, but not all of them will develop the disease.
Been hearing about this on the radio news bulletins all day. Apparently she had an "87% chance of getting breast cancer....." which douchebag pulled that number out his ass? I mean seriously why not 87.345432%, retards.
Actually the reason we do not have an actual cure for cancer is because their is little no real research into it. Big Pharma will not allow it. They prefer extensive costly treatments.
WTF? No, you can know what her risk was by analyzing populations with the same gene, which they've done. It has been determined that the risk is 60-90%. If she had the gene and didn't develop cancer, she was in the other population. she decided not to TAKE THE RISK, and have preventative surgery.But there's no way to know what her risk was, because there is no actual diagnosis. Every woman who carries that gene has the same risk, but not all of them will develop the disease.
This whole cancer thing is probably a ploy to explain her boob job. She is very visible and the media would notice a boob job this is probably just a cover story.
The chick is addicted to plastic surgery just look at her shrinking nose. Michael Jackson would be envious.
But there's no way to know what her risk was, because there is no actual diagnosis. Every woman who carries that gene has the same risk, but not all of them will develop the disease.
My doctors estimated that I had an 87 percent risk of breast cancer and a 50 percent risk of ovarian cancer, although the risk is different in the case of each woman.
Only a fraction of breast cancers result from an inherited gene mutation. Those with a defect in BRCA1 have a 65 percent risk of getting it, on average.
she ain't the type to make up a excuse for a boob job. She has been pretty open about other work she has had done.
Yeah, she's so fucking health conscious that she goes and gets a double mastectomy to help prevent breast cancer but she will inject just about anything into her previous set of tits, lips, forehead, and cheeks just to look young.
I'm still going with 80% attention whore / 15% narcissism / 5% helping others...and I'm probably generous on the 5% number...
Yeah, I believe Wanda Sykes did this as well for perhaps the same reason.
As far as cancers go, breast cancer generally has a high likelihood to metastasize, particularly to the brain. Can't say I blame her.