Have you seen Gia? They are spectacular in that one.
KT
I wonder if there is a bit of denial lurking within those "arguments"./facepalm
Isn't that the one where she is with the chick from Lost?
Yeah, Juliet! Juliet is gorgeous in real life by the way; she was staying at my old condo building while filming something several years back and I rode in the elevator with her. Very attractive!
KT
Because the risk wasn't 100%... ?
If you flip a coin twice and get heads twice in a row, and I flip a coin twice and get heads and then tails, I can say that the chance of getting tails on any flip is 50% and be correct.
You then come in and say I pulled that number out of my ass because I got a tails and you didn't, and that your chance of getting tails on a flip of a coin is 0.
You then pick up a coin and flip it again. Are you guaranteed to get heads?
You do realize that an 87% chance of something happening comes with a 13% chance of it not happening right?
Probably while filming V.
In the context of breast cancer, we aren't flipping identical coins. We may both have the gene in question, but we also have a whole host of environmental factors that may or may not come into play. You have a box of coins, and so do I, but we don't know how many coins are in each one, or whether all of those coins have heads on one side, and tails on the other.
There is no way to know whether we'll be part of the 87% or the 13%, without considering those individual factors.
In the context of breast cancer, we aren't flipping identical coins. We may both have the gene in question, but we also have a whole host of environmental factors that may or may not come into play. You have a box of coins, and so do I, but we don't know how many coins are in each one, or whether all of those coins have heads on one side, and tails on the other.
There is no way to know whether we'll be part of the 87% or the 13%, without considering those individual factors.
What's your point? What you are saying applies to every screening technique in existence. A positive mammography also gives you a chance of having breast cancer based on studies performed on populations. Even the gold standard of breast biopsy can be wrong. You might catch a carcinoma in situ that, due to your specific biology, never progresses to invasive cancer. However, if based on past studies, we know there is a 99% chance that it will become invasive cancer, would you sit on it in hopes that you are a statistical outlier?
The BRCA1 gene is the identical coin.
You're just making up phantom environmental factors now.
First, there's a control group.
Second, there's no way environmental factors in a group like this would contribute to an 87% chance of getting cancer, unless you are talking about people who scrub the inside of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor core.
And third, you're gonna have to explain why there weren't 26 husbands (let alone kids) that developed cancer alongside these women over the 3 years despite having the same environment.
Every single thing you've listed is based on tests that show results and EXISTING risk, not the POSSIBILITY of risk showing up at some unknown point in the future.
Apples and oranges.
WTH do you mean by "possibility of risk?" Makes no sense at all, the risk IS THERE. It exists. The function of BRCA1 is mostly known and the hows and whys of it leading to cancer are worked out in some basic sense.
The major variable that determines whether one falls into the 87 or 13 is most likely what's called "loss of heterozygosity." Put simply, it comes down to luck. So there's no way to influence whether you fall into the 87% or the 13%. Unless, of course, you get a mastectomy....
Every single thing you've listed is based on tests that show results and EXISTING risk, not the POSSIBILITY of risk showing up at some unknown point in the future.
Apples and oranges.
If it's identical, then why didn't 33 families have the same results?
Except her letter says she's still at risk for breast cancer, though she somehow thinks the risk is only 5%. Even though the gene she carries puts her at 87%, regardless of any other factors. Hmmmm...
Yeah...I don't trust that statistic, either.
Except her letter says she's still at risk for breast cancer, though she somehow thinks the risk is only 5%. Even though the gene she carries puts her at 87%, regardless of any other factors. Hmmmm...
Yeah...I don't trust that statistic, either.
To get breast cancer to need breast tissue. If you remove the breast tissue you eliminate/reduce your chance of getting breast cancer.Except her letter says she's still at risk for breast cancer, though she somehow thinks the risk is only 5%. Even though the gene she carries puts her at 87%, regardless of any other factors. Hmmmm...
Yeah...I don't trust that statistic, either.
You're essentially saying that 87% is the wrong answer because 13% didn't get cancer.
If they all had the same results, the chance would have been either 0% or 100%.
You don't understand what risk means. You think risk = cancer when risk = CHANCE of getting cancer.
Your second question is akin to asking: If two coins both have a 50% chance of coming up heads, why didn't they both land heads when I flipped them side by side?
This is basic probability. Let me explain.
If you start with 1000 women today with BRCA1 at age 20 who don't yet have any cancer, they all have an 87% chance of developing breast cancer by the age of 70. That's what the study found.
If you go forward in time 50 years, you'll find that approximately 870 of them will have contracted cancer. Allowing for statistical variance, the number might be 885, it might be 842, but if you repeated this test with many groups of 1000 women, on average, 870 of them will have gotten cancer in each group.
The ones who didn't develop cancer had an 87% chance. The ones who did develop cancer had an 87% chance. You can't then go and ask why they didn't have the same results because you are looking at a GROUP of people. The group had the same results. 87% of them got cancer.
You are essentially saying "87% is the wrong number because 13% of them didn't get cancer!"
She got implants guys, you won't notice in her next flick.
87% IS the wrong answer for INDIVIDUAL women. That's WHY you get 842 or 885 out of 1,000 who have it. Each of those woman have an 87% chance of being part of the GROUP that gets breast cancer.
If someone smokes, her odds might go up. If she exercises for 30 minutes, three times a week, her odds might go down. Booze, abortion, diet or childbearing may or may not contribute to a higher or lower risk.
And for the women who get it, there are treatments available. Sure, they're not pretty, but then, neither are mastectomy scars.
Every single thing you've listed is based on tests that show results and EXISTING risk, not the POSSIBILITY of risk showing up at some unknown point in the future.
Apples and oranges.
ITT sixone demonstrates, once again, that she is an utterly ignorant, spiteful piece of human garbage.