yes she does. so that gives even more credit to her for doing this so she does not get cancer.
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...
yes she does. so that gives even more credit to her for doing this so she does not get cancer.
Wait...what? Give her credit for injecting this/that/the other and fucking with her body's natural order of things and then, when shit starts to get real, she starts lopping off things to avoid the cancer?
those haven't been proven to cause cancer now have they? She was at a major risk for getting breast cancer.
now that risk is far far lower.
so yes i do beleive her and good for her for doing what she thinks is right.
This is common and medically accepted use of statistics.So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.
That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
They may not be linked directly to cancer, but when you're as predisposed to something like that as she was, why take the chance? Vanity.
Just like the photo-op adoptions she did...wasn't about the kids, it was about her.
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.
That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.
That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
why is it so hard to cure cancer? science fail.
This is common and medically accepted use of statistics.
It has now become clear you don't understand the issues at hand at all. Or, perhaps it may be that you are looking for excuses to justify your bias. If so, I would recommend stepping back and re-evaluating the information available. If you're spouting the same misguided bias that you've spouted in this thread, to your loved ones that carry a BRCA1 mutation, you may be doing them a great disservice.
If this were the case how can doctors prescribe any medication? Even the chemo drugs they administer have a % of success attributed to them. Since those statistics are CUMULATIVE to all the test patients that they administered to in FDA trails should the doctor be sued for malpractice?
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.
That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
If she's that scared of getting cancer and dying, then I can't say I blame her. I can't imagine doing it myself, since I love my nipples, but good for her I guess?
KT
Yeah, lots of math and logic fail today. Sad, really.wow./facepalm
Yes, I'm well aware that those in a position to make money off the problems of others are not always ethical or scrupulous about how they do so.
I do have a bias against such behavior. Too bad you don't.
Uh no, that's not what it said. Cumulative before age 70 means that any one woman has an 87% chance of getting cancer before the age of 70.
When you say "you have a 10% chance of getting cancer", the obvious required qualifier is "over what period of time?" Is it 10% in the next year? 10% over my life? 10% by the end of the day?
This is 87% chance by age 70 per person.
Note that they found 26 breast cancers in 33 families over a 3 year period.
You have now made 3 claims in this thread that are all outright wrong.
Then please do explain the 7 families who faced the same statistics, but not the same incidents of cancer. The difference was their individual risk, which is not addressed in the study.
what a shame, they were such nice tits too.
Then please do explain the 7 families who faced the same statistics, but not the same incidents of cancer. The difference was their individual risk, which is not addressed in the study.
I think the only movie I've seen her topless in was Taking Lives and they weren't all that glorious.