Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gao seng who wrote (217245)	1/11/2002 3:40:47 PM
From: Patricia Trinchero	Respond to of 769669

"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/09/health/womenshealth/09MAMM.html" The article you referenced is very good as it addresses most sides of the issue. Scientific data will be hard to prove and duplicate as it is hard to control studies with humans. In an animal study it is easy to get animals that are all the same age, sex, weight and have all lived under identical living conditions such as light and dark cycles, humidity,cage size,room temperature,air quality, beddings and location proximity to other factors that may influence carcinogenesis. ( Just to name a few) It is also unethical to let some patients be the control ( just let them die) while others get treatment ( hopefully they will be helped with an increased life span.) One of my primary tumors was detected while I was taking the drug Tamoxifen, however that tumor was a very unaggressive kind. It is impossible to tell whether it helped me some or not. Only future studies will be able to sort out that information. Many woman do not realize that breast cancer can be missed by mammograms. A gal I knew could see her tumor but it didn't show up on her mammogram...........as I mentioned earlier, she was younger and pre-menopausal. It is not a good thing to allow a tumor to get big enough to actually see. However, some large tumors are not aggressive so there is no certainly. However, that is also true of most cancers. Each case is different and it is hard to compare one case to another. My radiation oncologist was the best in the country( I was very lucky and traveled 70 miles a day for 6 weeks to use him), and he told me that some big tumors are not aggressive and some little tumors are very aggressive. That story can only be told by removing the tumor and performing biochemical tests on the cells and examining the surrounding lymph nodes. It isn't hard to find stories that are horrific about women whose Dr. had them wait to get a lump removed by a surgeon. WHen they did decide to operate it was already too late. There was an LPGA golfer who died like that a couple years ago and made the news. Which again comes back to "self exam". It is always good to rely on two different means of diagnosis before taking action against any major disease...........just like a second opinion. Use two means of detection and you will increase your chances of early detection. I have always opted on the choice that would lead to a longer life, even if it increased my odds by 10%. Because, if you end up in that 10%, it's 100% for you if you survive. Hopefully, with more research we can gain information and eventually irradicate cancer. Many drugs are currently in the pipeline that will cause increased longevity for many. However, in most cases, early diagnosis is still your best defense. Pat Speaking of research,I have work to do!!