|
Grex > Agora41 > #179: Recommendations/referrals for professional services | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 54 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 54:
| 
May 16 19:10 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
senna
|
|
response 26 of 54:
|
May 16 22:51 UTC 2002 |
I don't disagree with anything in #20, because I wrote it yesterday. If
you're referring to #12, I have strong issues with your statements in
paragraph #1. First of all, you provide no evidence that "A healthy
lifestyle reduces the incidence of breast cancer to a *small fraction*
(emphasis mine) of the American average." You simply state it as if it's a
fact. Second, you seem to think that you can escape cancer with simply a
healthy lifestyle. Man, I wish that were so, because then my dad could look
forward to seeing grandkids after all. That ain't the way life works, though,
and you are being both arrogant towards people who don't maintain your quality
of lifestyle ("it's really their fault" is not that strong of an extension
to put on your tone"), and dangerously close-minded to your own potential for
disease.
My strong tone is probably a bit ruder than necessary, for which I apologize,
but I resent the implication that there's a good chance that the breast cancer
suffered by my dad, by my coworkers, and my the parents of friends is strongly
connected to their lifestyle. I highly doubt that's true. I'm also using
strong language because I think you are ignoring a very real risk to yourself,
Sindi, and I think you should take precautions. I equate your message to that
of a college guy or girl who sleeps around, but doesn't use protection because
they're not sleeping with black people or underclass people or people who have
sex with members of the same gender. Theoretically reducing the risk factors,
but still stupid as all getout.
|
keesan
|
|
response 27 of 54:
|
May 17 00:39 UTC 2002 |
How am I ignoring a risk? Actually, I think breast cancer is only about 50%
related to diet and other things that you can change. Lung cancer is more
than 50% caused by environment. I don't have the numbers but I think that
I read that on average, all cancers are about 50% due to genetics and 50% to
environment (including things like viral infections, smoking, diet). Some
are less environmentally influenced. I never said that everyone who gets
cancer is to blame for it, what I said was that leading a healthier life
greatly reduces the risks. I will go see if I can find some actual numbers.
|
senna
|
|
response 28 of 54:
|
May 17 00:46 UTC 2002 |
Are you getting screened for cancer regularly?
|
keesan
|
|
response 29 of 54:
|
May 17 00:59 UTC 2002 |
Not for the past five years but I know I should. If Planned Parenthood had
not moved to a location that requires biking along Washtenaw Ave without even
a sidewalk I would go more often. I had many negative checkups in a row.
Getting to the doctor is bad for my health. I will investigate some place
closer after I get the new insurance policy which will pay for 70%.
I found a very detailed site on breast cancer which says less than 10% of
cases (in women, anyway) are genetic in origin, and that the incidence is much
higher in North America and Europe, but going up now in Asia (as people change
their diets and other habits). Risk factors: high estrogen levels (due to
high fat intake), lack of exercise (which lowers estrogen levels), alcohol,
smoking, and lack of vitamin D. Protection is offered by vitamin C, fiber,
retinol and beta-carotene. I think estrogen is formed from cholesterol, or
at least from saturated fats.
Here it is: cholesterol has three six-carbon and one five-carbon ring, and
is used to synthesize bile acids (needed to absorb fats in the diet, there
are five of these listed), also aldosterone, corticosterone,
deoxycorticosterone, cortisone (all hormones) and 'the estrogens' - which
include estrone, and 'the androgens' which include testosterone. Both sexes
have both sets of hormones, but in different ratios.
Presumably a diet higher in cholesterol, or higher blood levels, would make
it easier for the body to synthesize more estrogens. More saturated fats
might cause the body to make more cholesterol, which is turned into estrogen.
The site I read started off www.wri.org/wri/wri/wri/health/ .
In addition to an hour of biking, much of it on truck routes, Planned
Parenthood would always insist on the patient arriving an hour too early and
waiting around in a room with both radio and TV blaring. A totally unpleasant
experience, followed by a half hour wait in a cold room without clothing on.
Anyone want to recommend someone local (central Ann Arbor) who does female
checkups and is on the PPOM list?
|
edina
|
|
response 30 of 54:
|
May 17 15:25 UTC 2002 |
Yeah. I can see why that would suck, as compared to sitting in a calm room
attached to an IV while chemotherapy pumps through you.
|
keesan
|
|
response 31 of 54:
|
May 18 02:47 UTC 2002 |
I KNOW it will make me sick to spend two hours breathing diesel fumes, and
it could also kill me if I bike in the street which is a truck route. I
suspect there are a lot more traffic injuries every year in this country than
new cases of breast cancer, yet most Americans choose to take that risk every
day.
|
keesan
|
|
response 32 of 54:
|
May 18 02:50 UTC 2002 |
I just checked. For 1996 the US was expected to have 44,000 deaths from
breast cancer. The traffic deaths have been about 42,000 per year.
|
mdw
|
|
response 33 of 54:
|
May 21 07:19 UTC 2002 |
Yes, but the marginal risk from driving to the doctor to be screened for
breast cancer, vs., not driving, is much lower than that. As a very
rough estimate, assuming people drive twice a day & half the population
is at risk for breast cancer (both not entirely accurate I know), the
risk would be about 300:1 for getting breast cancer vs. getting creamed
visiting the doctor.
Bicycling to the doctor, on the other hand, does significantly change
those odds -- on the one hand, the exercise would be valuable, on the
other hand, getting creamed by an automobile would not be.
I believe lung cancer is like 80-90% environmental; almost all of that
is smoking. (Though a small % of that gets complicated; asbestos +
smoking, for instance, is much worse than merely smoking or asbestos --
so is that smoking related, or asbestos related?)
|
mary
|
|
response 34 of 54:
|
May 21 10:39 UTC 2002 |
Fascinating. My best friend's mother was creamed in an auto accident,
last November, on route to her mammogram. She's still in a rehab
facility.
|
tsty
|
|
response 35 of 54:
|
May 21 12:57 UTC 2002 |
oy!
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 36 of 54:
|
May 21 16:25 UTC 2002 |
There is also the fact that more people will die because they don't get
checked fast enough for cancers. It's late detection of illness that
kills many people. More people are a lot more careful behind the wheel
oftentimes than they are aware of the need for being knowledgeable of
family health history and being on guard for killers like breast cancer
or heart disease.
|
i
|
|
response 37 of 54:
|
May 23 06:32 UTC 2002 |
Recent research results strongly suggest that regular mammograms do
*NOT* actually save lives (net). Yes, they often detect things, the
woman knows more, has more treatment options, etc., but the actual
odds for survival for the women who get the mammograms do not seem
to be any better. The same applies to longer survival.
Professional medical researchers & statisticians are busy debating
all sorts of details about this (and have been for years). They do
seem to agree that serious improvement in the breast cancer outlook
can't come through mammograms, but instead through prevention, new
& improved treatments, and other detection technologies.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 38 of 54:
|
May 23 17:03 UTC 2002 |
I have no idea about the statistics for breast cancer, so I did not
comment on that illnesss specifically.
|
senna
|
|
response 39 of 54:
|
May 23 17:55 UTC 2002 |
How do they suggest that works? Because I know of several women who are being
treated for breast cancer right now that only noticed because of the
mammograms they received.
|
gull
|
|
response 40 of 54:
|
May 23 18:15 UTC 2002 |
One theory is that the X-ray exposure of getting a mammogram increases
your cancer risk enough to cancel out the benefits of getting one, on
average.
|
senna
|
|
response 41 of 54:
|
May 24 02:41 UTC 2002 |
Interesting idea, but they'll have to do more tests on that. We could always
fund more MRI machines.
|
i
|
|
response 42 of 54:
|
May 24 11:07 UTC 2002 |
There are a bunch of effects. For (simplified) example, if all the breast
cancers caught early were either so feeble that they'd never threaten the
woman's health or so potent that they'll kill her in about the same time
(whether treated early or not). Tests & treatements are *not* risk-free
themselves - they will kill some women who either didn't have cancer, had
a too-feeble-to-be-a-threat cancer, or got cancer from the treatment.
In the broader view, all types of cancer (and many other disorders) have
similar issues - are tests and treatments actually benificial to the
patient? Some clearly yes, some clearly no, and many we really don't
know.
This whole issue is mostly a "science being (mis-)done by foolish human
nature" thing. Without any evidence that it'll do any good (or even
evidence that it won't do harm), humans want to "do something". All
the patients, the medical industry, and the malpractice juries are human.
|
keesan
|
|
response 43 of 54:
|
Jun 3 23:23 UTC 2002 |
Diesel fumes are known carcinogens, another reason why I avoid going near
Washtenaw Ave. I don't have to bike in the road - last time I walked my bike
through 1 mile of mud while breathing diesel fumes. I can reduce my
environmental risk of cancer by not breathing diesel fumes.
Some people are more likely than others to get breast cancer when exposed to
radiation.
|
jep
|
|
response 44 of 54:
|
Jun 4 03:07 UTC 2002 |
I picked Jan Rizzo for John's dentist. Being in Clinton and all, he's
very convenient and everyone around seems to know him. His
receptionist clamied he's great with kids. If he's really good I'll
switch to him myself; my dentist is in a bad location for me.
I don't know yet if John's mother will object to Rizzo; I'll find that
out Wednesday when John comes back to my place. She has veto power (as
either of us should).
I'm wondering about my hopes for a PCP for me. The dentist sends out
reminders when it's time for another visit. My optometrist does that.
Do doctors ever do things like that? You know, time for a physical,
time for this or that. I don't know much about what I need or about
what to expect, except my current doctor sure doesn't send reminders.
I'm interested in whether this is an impossible expectation, and what
other people's experiences are.
|
other
|
|
response 45 of 54:
|
Jun 4 06:51 UTC 2002 |
Worrying about getting cancer probably has a tremendously higher
carcinogenic effect than actually living your life in the modern world in
a place as relatively lightly populated and relatively lightly polluted
place as Ann Arbor. Not that that matters any... ;)
|
edina
|
|
response 46 of 54:
|
Jun 4 14:03 UTC 2002 |
Re 44 I don't think you will be unhappy with your choice - or will Andrea
- Dr. Rizzo is a great guy and incredibly straight forward.
|
jep
|
|
response 47 of 54:
|
Jun 4 15:45 UTC 2002 |
So far I have you to thank for two of two professional referrals; my
lawyer and John's dentist.
|
edina
|
|
response 48 of 54:
|
Jun 4 16:41 UTC 2002 |
What can I say? I get around Lenawee county :)
|
keesan
|
|
response 49 of 54:
|
Jun 5 03:39 UTC 2002 |
Ann Arbor may be lightly polluted on average, but truck routes are not average
in pollution or noise level.
|