Miss D.C. to have breasts removed after Miss America pageant.

[Fate]

The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer.

What are the stats on the mortality rates, though?

But prostate cancer is twice the killer that breast cancer is. Well at least over here.

In the United States lung cancer is the #1 killer. Breast cancer is the #2 cancer killer in women. Prostate cancer is the #2 cancer killer in men. Colorectal cancer is the #2 cancer killer overall, but #3 if you break it down by gender.

[dps]

The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.

Seems that would make basing a preventive measure of this nature on having it hard to defend as a smart choice.

[Fate]

The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.

Seems that would make basing a preventive measure of this nature on having it hard to defend as a smart choice.

I should rephrase my statement - a small study probably exists out in a journal article somewhere that only breast surgeons and immunologists read, but I didn't see it in any of the journal search engines that I have access to through my school.

[dps]

The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.

Seems that would make basing a preventive measure of this nature on having it hard to defend as a smart choice.

I should rephrase my statement - a small study probably exists out in a journal article somewhere that only breast surgeons and immunologists read, but I didn't see it in any of the journal search engines that I have access to through my school.

Fair enough.  My point simply was that I don't see anything that would tell me that her decision is a smart one (to be fair, I don't see anything that would specifically tell me it was a dumb one, either, but unless there is something specific to indicate that drastic measures are reasonable, it's hard to not see it as a bad decision), and if you don't know of any such data, then no one else here would either.  I'd like to at least think that there is something that indicates that it's a good idea, or else no doctor would go along with it, but there are still some quacks out there.

[PDH]

I think that is is awfully selfish that she is going to do this.

[Ed Anger]

I think that is is awfully selfish that she is going to do this.

I welcome her return to the natural brigade.

[Tonitrus]

But prostate cancer is twice the killer that breast cancer is. Well at least over here.

I bet breast cancer gets more funding than prostate cancer, too.

Every time some bitch mouths off about how if men had to have children, abortions would be hassle-free and birth control would be free and all that shit, I mention the disparity in research funding for women cancers vs. men cancers, and watch them whine and cry about historical injustice.

There is nothing inconsistantly sexist about greater funding for breast cancer.

Men like boobies. 

[Razgovory]

The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer.

What are the stats on the mortality rates, though?

5 year mortality rates:

Pancreatic cancer - 97%
Liver cancer - 95%
Esophageal cancer - 92%
Lung cancer - 87%
Stomach cancer - 83%
Brain cancer - 75%
Ovarian cancer - 61%
Oral cancer - 49%
Kidney cancer - 47%
Rectal cancer - 46%
Colon cancer - 43%
Laryngeal cancer - 34%
Cervical cancer - 34%
Prostate cancer - 26%
Breast cancer - 23%
Bladder cancer - 22%
Skin cancer - 19%
Uterine cancer - 17%
Thyroid cancer - 6%
Testicular cancer - 3%

Would it be brave and intelligent of me to cut out my pancreas, liver and esophagus?

[Eddie Teach]

What are the mortality rates for appendix cancer?

[Tonitrus]

In those cases, better to just quit smoking/drinking.

[merithyn]

I bet breast cancer gets more funding than prostate cancer, too.

Nothing prevents men from having a blue ribbon for prostate cancer, but then men would have to admit that they a.) have a prostate, and b.) get exams to make sure that they're not enlarged/endangered. The reality is that prior to the Susan G Komen Foundation, no one talked about breast cancer, and if I remember correctly, it was one of the least-funded cancer research categories in the US. I certainly had never heard of it before the pink ribbon came out. My best guess is that if there was a greater push by men to get other men to have prostate exams, to raise money and awareness about prostate cancer, etc., it would be just as funded as breast cancer now is.

I can also honestly say that the day that I feel my first lump - and I'm highly likely to end up with one since I have a history of ovarian cancer and there's breast cancer on both sides of the family - I will be planning to have both girls excised. If I knew that it wasn't a question of if but when, I would be talking to my doctor tomorrow. As it is, with a 50/50 chance, I've considered it.

Another point is that while mammograms are great, they're highly ineffective in women under the age of 40 or 45. I've had mammograms since I was 31 because of the cancer. The techs and the radiologists said that it was good that I got them, but they really weren't all that effective. The tissue is far too dense to see much of anything. Self-exams were much better, but even they have their problems. For women who can pretty much expect to have breast cancer in their 20s and 30s, it's ridiculously dangerous. I, personally, wouldn't take the chance of leaving things intact.

Is she using this for attention? Probably. Does it negate how smart and brave that I think it is? Nope, not at all.

[Fate]

Would it be brave and intelligent of me to cut out my pancreas, liver and esophagus?

Do you think you could live without any of those organs? Do you have a high genetic predisposition to those cancers of those organs?

I posted mortality data, not incidence data. Given that the incidence is pretty low if you're a non-smoker, don't use IV drugs, and don't drink excessively - then absolutely no. But if you do get one of those three cancers, the mortality data suggests that modern medical science has pretty shitty screening and treatment regimens for those cancers.

[Maximus]

Would it be brave and intelligent of me to cut out my pancreas, liver and esophagus?

Give it a try and report back. For science

[Razgovory]

Would it be brave and intelligent of me to cut out my pancreas, liver and esophagus?

Do you think you could live without any of those organs? Do you have a high genetic predisposition to those cancers of those organs?

I posted mortality data, not incidence data. Given that the incidence is pretty low if you're a non-smoker, don't use IV drugs, and don't drink excessively - then absolutely no. But if you do get one of those three cancers, the mortality data suggests that modern medical science has pretty shitty screening and treatment regimens for those cancers.

Fuck if I know I can survive.  I don't even know what they do.

[Fate]

Fuck if I know I can survive.  I don't even know what they do.

Your pancreas digests proteins and fats and regulates blood sugar. Your liver stores and converts energy from food, produces many of the proteins in your blood, filters your blood for toxins, and produces bile to digest fats. Your esophagus transports food from your mouth to your stomach.

I guess you could survive without an esophagus and pancreas. But you'd be on a gastric tube for feedings and you'd have to be put on digestive enzyme supplements, vitamins, and insulin for life. It's a lot more inconvenient than having your tits lopped off. However if I had a 65% chance of getting esophageal/pancreatic cancer I'd probably do it.