http://abcnews.go.com/US/miss-america-contestant-undergo-double-mastectomy-pageant/story?id=17740642#.UKcy2Icr0sJ
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.listal.com%2Fimage%2F2438657%2F600full-allyn-rose.jpg&hash=de03437ced9262a6b67104b4d4a681ddf4ace954)
QuoteAllyn Rose lost her mother to breast cancer when she was just a teenager, so after the newly-crowned Miss District of Columbia competes in the Miss America pageant in January, she will undergo a double mastectomy as a preventive measure for her health.
Rose, 24, said she would rather remove both of her breasts than risk getting cancer, a disease she is genetically predisposed to because of a gene mutation carried by the women in her family. Her mother was first diagnosed with cancer at age 27, had her right breast removed, and then found a lump in her left breast 24 years later. She died at age 51.
"Knowing I am a carrier I just said to myself I don't want to put myself through what my mom went through. I want to be here for my kids' - no pun intended - crowning achievements," Rose said.
Rose, originally of Newburgh, Md., and now living in Washington, D.C., won the title of Miss District of Columbia in June. In 2011, she placed in the top eight at the Miss USA pageant as Miss Maryland. She said that the upcoming Miss America pageant will be her last with both of her breasts.
"A lot of people are confused when I say I'm choosing life over beauty, but it's beauty as a stereotype, the Hollywood idea of beauty, the physical attributes. I'm not going to let my desire to achieve those goals distract me from my own health," she said.
Rose's family are carriers of Wiskott-Aldrich Syndrome, a rare disease that affects men almost exclusively, but is carried by females. Rose's mother carried the disease, for which there is a high correlation to breast cancer, she said.
"I met with my surgeon, and the doctors that treated my mom, and doctors are 50-50 with this," she said. "Some say you can put it off, you don't have breast cancer. Others say it is an incredibly wise decision, your mom was diagnosed at 27, only three years from where you are now, why not make a proactive decision?"
Rose's decision to be proactive was similar to an increasing number of women in America who decide to have both breasts removed as a precaution against cancer. A 2008 study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology showed that the rate of the procedure, called a contralateral prophylactic mastectomy, more than double between 1998 and 2003.
After making the decision to have the surgery, Rose said she became passionate about prevention and proactiveness. She has based her platform for January's pageant on the idea that everyone should be proactive about their health.
Rose said she plans to have the operation after she is done serving out her title with the Miss America organization, whether that is her Miss District of Columbia title, which expires next June, or that of Miss America, for which she would serve until 2014.
Rose said she was not afraid of life without breasts.
"There's been leaps and bounds in surgery over the last few years, in reconstruction, to make your body look the same as it did before. Or you can lose a nipple. If surgery doesn't go the right way, you could lose the entire breast. But I knew my mom my whole life with one breast, and she never let that stop her from achieving her goals of being a good mom and wife. So I said if I had to live my whole life with no breasts, I'd rather be alive," Rose said.
When she is finished competing, and finished with surgery, Rose said she hopes to go to law school. She graduated from the University of Maryland, where she studied government and politics, and hopes to work as a constitutional attorney in Washington. The scholarship from being awarded the Miss America crown would help her pay for law school, she said.
In the meantime, Rose has been working as a paralegal and a model, working for print advertising and QVC. She said she is thrilled to be representing Washington, D.C., where she now lives, in the pageant.
"I'm really looking forward to really being able to share my message with America. It's the most iconic swimsuit pageant in the world, and a year from now my body won't be the same body as it is then. I want to showcase that this is what my body looks like now. But if I were to win this, if I lose my breasts, it doesn't make me less of a Miss America."
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
Thank God her mom didn't have brain cancer.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2012, 02:36:30 AM
Thank God her mom didn't have brain cancer.
DAAAAAAAAAAAyum! :lol:
When will this scorched earth policy end? :cry:
No big deal. She'll just get them replaced with implants. :)
Ketchup packets are no replacement for those natural beauties.
Will she put them on ebay?
Quote from: Caliga on November 17, 2012, 07:15:36 AM
No big deal. She'll just get them replaced with implants. :)
That's the part I don't get, aren't implants prone to cause more health problems than natural tits?
I don't know the specifics of people genetically predisposed to breast cancer, but wouldn't heightened screening be a more reasonable approach? If caught early breast cancer isn't really a big danger.
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
I have a different perspective. I think the intelligent thing would be to closely monitor with screening and catch it early like Otto said. The brave thing would be to take the risk of keeping them. Just giving up and having them pre-emptively removed seems like the least brave and most risk-averse path.
Then again, she might be doing it so she'll get in the news and people will say she's brave. That, on the other hand is quite entrepreneurial.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 17, 2012, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
I have a different perspective. I think the intelligent thing would be to closely monitor with screening and catch it early like Otto said. The brave thing would be to take the risk of keeping them. Just giving up and having them pre-emptively removed seems like the least brave and most risk-averse path.
Then again, she might be doing it so she'll get in the news and people will say she's brave. That, on the other hand is quite entrepreneurial.
Yeah, what the fuck, Meri? :huh:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2012, 11:34:56 AM
I don't know the specifics of people genetically predisposed to breast cancer, but wouldn't heightened screening be a more reasonable approach? If caught early breast cancer isn't really a big danger.
Despite our best efforts with screening breast cancer is still the #2 cause of cancer death in women. Not all women are caught early and not all women who are caught early can be cured. I disagree with you. It really is a big danger.
She has a different mutation, but the general therapeutic principle is the same as with women who are carriers of the much more common BRCA mutation. For example, 65% of women with the BRCA mutation will get breast or ovarian cancer. The best course of action is to prophylactically remove their breasts and ovaries. Screening alone is a more reasonable approach in the general population where the lifetime rate of occurrence is around 11%.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 17, 2012, 03:13:29 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
I have a different perspective. I think the intelligent thing would be to closely monitor with screening and catch it early like Otto said. The brave thing would be to take the risk of keeping them. Just giving up and having them pre-emptively removed seems like the least brave and most risk-averse path.
Then again, she might be doing it so she'll get in the news and people will say she's brave. That, on the other hand is quite entrepreneurial.
You're putting too much faith in mammograms. They are great tools, but frequent screening in no way guarantees that you will catch breast cancer in an early stage. These women also don't just get breast cancer once. It's almost assured that it will reoccur and there's a good chance it will kill them. If you have a strong family history of breast cancer and are a known carrier of protooncogenes or mutated tumor suppressor genes, then it's reasonable to have prophylactic mastectomies.
There's nothing intelligent or brave about dying at age 45 of breast cancer. It takes guts to have your tits lopped off in a society that puts so much value in them. Especially when you're a 20 something year old woman.
I'd need real numbers though. On the "not all women are screened" that's moot here as she obviously would be someone getting more-than-regular screenings.
Of people who have breast cancer caught early, what percentage come out of it fine? Of people who have the genetic issue she has, what percentage get breast cancer at all?
I could remove my testicles and prostate to pre-emptively protect myself from cancer of either organ, but there are literally hundreds of things I could do that might prevent certain cancers but given the relatively low risk would not be justified. Maybe this is (I'm open to the idea), but I'd need actual statistics here to say.
Don't trust him Otto, he's a doctor. You can't trust them.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Don't trust him Otto, he's a doctor. You can't trust them.
No kidding, he probably studied science or some stupid shit.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Don't trust him Otto, he's a doctor. You can't trust them.
He's also a notorious troll.
Quote from: sbr on November 18, 2012, 12:12:04 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Don't trust him Otto, he's a doctor. You can't trust them.
No kidding, he probably studied science or some stupid shit.
He probably has a belt with a dozen disembodied breasts hanging from it.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 17, 2012, 10:31:00 PM
Don't trust him Otto, he's a doctor. You can't trust them.
:yes:
If you judge by a tv series I am watching, American psychiatry is in a horrible state and all doctors are psychotic murderers. The Guardian should publish a story about it.
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
Incredible publicity stunt. If was really choosing health over beauty as she claims they would already be off.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2012, 12:25:08 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 17, 2012, 02:06:25 AM
Incredibly brave and intelligent of her.
Incredible publicity stunt. If was really choosing health over beauty as she claims they would already be off.
And on some doctor's belt.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
I'd need real numbers though. On the "not all women are screened" that's moot here as she obviously would be someone getting more-than-regular screenings.
Of people who have breast cancer caught early, what percentage come out of it fine? Of people who have the genetic issue she has, what percentage get breast cancer at all?
I could remove my testicles and prostate to pre-emptively protect myself from cancer of either organ, but there are literally hundreds of things I could do that might prevent certain cancers but given the relatively low risk would not be justified. Maybe this is (I'm open to the idea), but I'd need actual statistics here to say.
If you had cryptorchidism we'd prophylactically remove your testicles given how likely it is for cancer to occur in such a person. I've never heard of a familial testicular cancer syndrome. The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer. Women with BRCA have a 65% chance of getting breast cancer. You have a 0.4% chance of getting testicular cancer. It would unreasonable for a urologist to prophylactically remove your testicles unless you had a significant risk factor in your history.
The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.
That's not brave or intelligent. Without them, she has nothing to offer anyone.
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer.
What are the stats on the mortality rates, though?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Cecil on November 18, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Cecil on November 18, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
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.
Can only speak for my part of the world but IIRC the rate here was 8 to 1 in favour of breast cancer research. Also a lot more is spent screening women than they do men so I guess that could be an explanation why the high death toll among men afflicted by prostate cancer.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Cecil on November 18, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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%
Quote from: Cecil on November 18, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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.
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 03:12:48 PM
Quote from: dps on November 18, 2012, 03:00:35 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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.
I think that is is awfully selfish that she is going to do this.
Quote from: PDH on November 18, 2012, 03:33:25 PM
I think that is is awfully selfish that she is going to do this.
I welcome her return to the natural brigade.
Quote from: Neil on November 18, 2012, 02:57:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
Quote from: Cecil on November 18, 2012, 02:46:38 PM
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. :P
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:40:50 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
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?
What are the mortality rates for appendix cancer?
In those cases, better to just quit smoking/drinking.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
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
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 11:02:53 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2012, 10:33:41 PM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on November 18, 2012, 11:11:15 PM
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.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
I bet breast cancer gets more funding than prostate cancer, too.
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 don't know about the relative amounts of funding given to various cancers, but heck, before the early 1970's, people didn't even talk publicly about cancer, period. There was a terrible social stigma about the disease, for reasons I didn't then and don't now quite understand. Part of it was because survival rates back then were lower than they are now, and people didn't want employers or potential employers to know that they had cancer, because it hurt your job prospects so badly, but there was more to it than that.
And imagine that when it involved such a highly-sexualized part of the female body like the breasts. It was absolutely taboo to discuss it even with your closest friends. I know that when my aunt got it, my mom was almost too embarassed to tell my dad what kind of cancer it was.
KFC internally used to not refer to them as "chicken breasts" but as "keels" - my friend Rich so reported to me when he worked there. Just the simple word would inflame men's passions and they would leap over the counter and start fucking the chickens right there, or something.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2012, 10:53:34 PMI'm highly likely to end up with one
Then why not get them removed right now? There has to be a reason not to, right?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 09:25:13 AM
And imagine that when it involved such a highly-sexualized part of the female body like the breasts. It was absolutely taboo to discuss it even with your closest friends. I know that when my aunt got it, my mom was almost too embarassed to tell my dad what kind of cancer it was.
Should've just said, "Had 'em removed because they kept getting in the way." I'd have bought that.
Quote from: Fate on November 18, 2012, 02:10:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 17, 2012, 09:54:11 PM
I'd need real numbers though. On the "not all women are screened" that's moot here as she obviously would be someone getting more-than-regular screenings.
Of people who have breast cancer caught early, what percentage come out of it fine? Of people who have the genetic issue she has, what percentage get breast cancer at all?
I could remove my testicles and prostate to pre-emptively protect myself from cancer of either organ, but there are literally hundreds of things I could do that might prevent certain cancers but given the relatively low risk would not be justified. Maybe this is (I'm open to the idea), but I'd need actual statistics here to say.
If you had cryptorchidism we'd prophylactically remove your testicles given how likely it is for cancer to occur in such a person. I've never heard of a familial testicular cancer syndrome. The rate of testicular cancer is no where near the rate of breast cancer. Women with BRCA have a 65% chance of getting breast cancer. You have a 0.4% chance of getting testicular cancer. It would unreasonable for a urologist to prophylactically remove your testicles unless you had a significant risk factor in your history.
The data you're wanting probably doesn't exist for Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome because it's such a rare disease.
Thanks for the data, that makes it sound reasonable. Unlike the other Languish posters here I'm glad to see you didn't just make a blind appeal to authority. Guys, I'm married to a doctor, I know they usually know what they're talking about--but they also have a responsibility to back up their statements if you ask them to. I never questioned Fate's opinion, just said I wanted some data. The 65% thing makes it sound pretty reasonable for that disorder, and if the specific data for this woman's disease doesn't exist I don't think it unreasonable to be cautious given the high rates seen with other genetic predispositions.
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2012, 10:53:34 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 18, 2012, 02:47:50 PM
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.
Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.
What are the risks of getting a pre-emptive mastectomy? It's basically chopping off part of the body, so there can't be no risk.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2012, 02:40:39 PM
What are the risks of getting a pre-emptive mastectomy? It's basically chopping off part of the body, so there can't be no risk.
There's a nerve in that area that can be damaged by surgery, there is a risk of infection, poor wound healing, etc. Boilerplate stuff.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 19, 2012, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 18, 2012, 10:53:34 PMI'm highly likely to end up with one
Then why not get them removed right now? There has to be a reason not to, right?
There are a lot of reasons for me not to, not the least of which is that while the risk is higher for me than the average woman, my risks are still lower than half. I'm also too vain to go that route until I have to. On top of that, I'm now past the age of 40, so mammograms and self-exams will be much more effective in finding tumors early.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.
That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.
That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.
Is there another, better way to test for prostate cancer? I understood that there was a blood test on the horizon. Has that come to fruition yet?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 02:28:37 PM
Guys, I'm married to a doctor, I know they usually know what they're talking about--but they also have a responsibility to back up their statements if you ask them to.
Never trust a doctor who never read Walker Percy.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:08:11 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 02:55:44 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 02:34:42 PM
Incidentally, a small cabal of doctors are actually now saying prostate screenings are not a good idea. I'm not 100% sure the nuances of the argument, but it's become frequent enough to have made it into articles in several major newspapers.
That's the current recommendation for the US Preventative Medicine Task Force so it's a pretty mainstream practice in medicine right now. They advise against routinely screen men for prostate cancer using PSAs. It leads to too many false positives which is a big problem since the surgery to remove the prostate can cause significant harm (loss of an ability to get an erection, scarring of the urethra, etc.) Of course the urology societies have different recommendations, but they stand to gain financially from an increased number of prostatectomies.
Is there another, better way to test for prostate cancer? I understood that there was a blood test on the horizon. Has that come to fruition yet?
It's a huge can of worms. We don't have a better test right now. If the patient wants to be screen and has greater than 10 years life expectancy (i.e. you're more likely to die of prostate cancer before you die of something else), then you get screened. The epidemiological data doesn't show much (if any) benefit from screening at the population level, but it does detect prostate cancer. The problem is all of the people that it says have prostate cancer who subsequently suffer significant morbidity from treatment with a final result negative for cancer.
I self-screen for prostate anyway.
Quote from: Tonitrus on November 18, 2012, 08:32:47 PM
There is nothing inconsistantly sexist about greater funding for breast cancer.
Men like boobies. :P
Well I just figure if you cure one kind of cancer it seems logical that other kinds of cancers will also be cured. I just figured they were using boobies' positive image to draw in donations.
She wont be able to breast feed her children and yet she is doing this for her children to be- so she says
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
She wont be able to breast feed her children and yet she is doing this for her children to be- so she says
:huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
She wont be able to breast feed her children and yet she is doing this for her children to be- so she says
:huh:
You do know that a woman must have breast in order to breast feed right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
She wont be able to breast feed her children and yet she is doing this for her children to be- so she says
:huh:
You do know that a woman must have breast in order to breast feed right?
I'm trying to understand how what she says is negated by your statement.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:59:39 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:58:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 03:45:31 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 03:42:41 PM
She wont be able to breast feed her children and yet she is doing this for her children to be- so she says
:huh:
You do know that a woman must have breast in order to breast feed right?
I'm trying to understand how what she says is negated by your statement.
I dont understand what part you dont understand
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:06:46 PM
I dont understand what part you dont understand
How does her ability or inability to breast feed her children negate that she is having her boobs lopped off in order to be around to watch them grow up?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 04:31:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:06:46 PM
I dont understand what part you dont understand
How does her ability or inability to breast feed her children negate that she is having her boobs lopped off in order to be around to watch them grow up?
I call bullshit for a couple of reasons:
1) her mother got cancer for the first time at about the age she is now. If this wasnt anything other than a publicity stunt and she really meant what she is saying those breasts would be off by now.
2) The harm of not breast feeding is real as opposed to the chance that she might some day get cancer that will likely by that time become treatable.
She is worse than Marti's look and me look at me threads because no one in their right mind would do what Marti says but this kook's publicity stunt may actually convince healthy women to cut off their breasts. Even if you dont consider the horror of this reality for Cal will no one think about the woman and their unborn children? I mean this kook says she is.
She's a carrier for a genetic disease that predisposes her to multiple forms of cancer and she has a strong family history of fatal early onset breast cancer. She isn't some random person with an aunt who got breast cancer at age 67 and has no other risk factors.
Anyway, 1) she can get human breast milk from a donor AND eliminate her risk for cancer 2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
So she's gonna bring in children who will carry same such risks?!?!?
Might as well make sure she can't do that too.
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:10:08 PM
So she's gonna bring in children who will carry same such risks?!?!?
Might as well make sure she can't do that too.
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate cancer gene, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:40:35 PM
2) The harm of not breast feeding is real as opposed to the chance that she might some day get cancer that will likely by that time become treatable.
:lmfao:
What utter bullshit. This woman is at a 65% chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer. Her children, should she have any, could survive just fine without ever having a drop of breast milk. Generations of humans have proven that.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:19:07 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 04:40:35 PM
2) The harm of not breast feeding is real as opposed to the chance that she might some day get cancer that will likely by that time become treatable.
:lmfao:
What utter bullshit. This woman is at a 65% chance of getting a deadly form of breast cancer. Her children, should she have any, could survive just fine without ever having a drop of breast milk. Generations of humans have proven that.
Yes, I agree her publicity stunt is utter bullshit. If she really is at a 65% chance risk of dying why the hell does she still have those deadly breasts attached to her body?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
Oh for fuck's sake. Don't go all Jos on us now, CC.
There are plenty of women incapable of breast feeding. There are also women who find that it doesn't work for them and their families. There are babies who find breast feeding a problem. There are hundreds of reasons why breast feeding isn't used by any number of families all over the world.
Breast feeding is the preferred method of feeding one's child, but it is by no means the only method of doing so. Nor does it "harm the child" to be a formula-fed kid.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:21:53 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
Oh for fuck's sake. Don't go all Jos on us now, CC.
There are plenty of women incapable of breast feeding.
If you would take a moment to breath we are talking about woman who can
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:20:30 PM
Yes, I agree her publicity stunt is utter bullshit. If she really is at a 65% chance risk of dying why the hell does she still have those deadly breasts attached to her body?
Because she has - presumably with the advice and blessing of her doctor - chosen to delay that procedure for a year. That is a choice for her to make about her health, career, and lifestyle. She's gone public about her choice as a way to bring attention to the disease, and yeah, probably to help her chances at becoming Miss America. Whatever her reason for her choice, they're her reasons to have, not yours to dictate because of your personal cynicism.
First, she's ridiculous for lopping them off, now she's a moron for not doing it yesterday. Basically, the woman can't win with you people.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:26:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:20:30 PM
Yes, I agree her publicity stunt is utter bullshit. If she really is at a 65% chance risk of dying why the hell does she still have those deadly breasts attached to her body?
Because she has - presumably with the advice and blessing of her doctor - chosen to delay that procedure for a year.
What with a 65% chance of dying any day!?! That is a hell of a presumption for you to make
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:23:26 PM
If you would take a moment to breath we are talking about woman who can
How do you know that she can? Because she has breasts at the moment? So do I, yet I could only breast feed two of my four kids. So have plenty of women that I know who chose, for a variety of reasons, not to breast feed their kids.
This woman will NOT have breasts at the time that she has children. Does that mean that she shouldn't have children?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:28:22 PM
What with a 65% chance of dying any day!?! That is a hell of a presumption for you to make
I see. Obviously, discussing this with you is a waste of my time. Time to bow out. Ta.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:29:06 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:23:26 PM
If you would take a moment to breath we are talking about woman who can
How do you know that she can?
Wow, that is the basis of Fates comment to me. keep up
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I was raised on the bottle only, and that was in 70s Germany. I've known plenty women who didn't breastfeed, and it's only recently become fashionable again.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 05:32:45 PM
and it's only recently become fashionable again.
Yep, thanks for confirming my point. People in the 70s did all kinds of silly things. Smoking, drinking, prescription drugs that caused birth defects. Not exactly a good guide to what happens now is it?
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 05:32:45 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I was raised on the bottle only, and that was in 70s Germany. I've known plenty women who didn't breastfeed, and it's only recently become fashionable again.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F27592473.jpg&hash=28d90574a68c533976fd699d2c3f8885b4548394)
:huh:
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:21:53 PM
Nor does it "harm the child" to be a formula-fed kid.
I dunno, Meri. Look at Caliga; breast feeding stopped too soon, got massively grotesque breasts on the brain the rest of his life.
(https://lh3.ggpht.com/-mz9pd0sOqYA/UG2L7Ka2RmI/AAAAAAAARDY/rdTLE5sUiO8/s1600/tumblr_m014v7Hukz1qj3x9oo1_500.gif)
"Ma'am, you don't breast-feed him, he'll hate you for it later. That's why we wound up in prison."
"Anyway, that's what Doc Schwartz tells us."
The Peter North fetish, that's something entirely different, I think.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:35:13 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F27592473.jpg&hash=28d90574a68c533976fd699d2c3f8885b4548394)
Quite serious. It's the same in the US. In fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where the benefits of breast feeding has been shown to be the better option here. Plenty of women still choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons.
Quote from: Syt on November 19, 2012, 05:37:30 PM
:huh:
I'm lashing out seedy-style, taking your busting on me in one thread for not being able to tell if you're serious or not, into another.
I thought it would be funny.
:(
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:35:13 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.memegenerator.net%2Finstances%2F400x%2F27592473.jpg&hash=28d90574a68c533976fd699d2c3f8885b4548394)
Quite serious. It's the same in the US. In fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where the benefits of breast feeding has been shown to be the better option here. Plenty of women still choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons.
:rolleyes:
As the father of two very young boys I am aware of the pros, cons, and history of breastfeeding.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:39:08 PMI'm lashing out seedy-style, taking your busting on me in one thread for not being able to tell if you're serious or not, into another.
I thought it would be funny.
:(
Ah, ok. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
:rolleyes:
As the father of two very young boys I am aware of the pros, cons, and history of breastfeeding.
Toughened your nipples, didn't it?
PAGE THE LACATION SPECIALISTS!
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:38:46 PM
Quite serious. It's the same in the US. In fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where the benefits of breast feeding has been shown to be the better option here. Plenty of women still choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons.
:rolleyes:
As the father of two very young boys I am aware of the pros, cons, and history of breastfeeding.
I wasn't sure. Your Canadian counterpart seems to think that it's barbaric not to breast feed in order to live. I wasn't sure how shared that opinion was among your people.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:41:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:38:46 PM
Quite serious. It's the same in the US. In fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where the benefits of breast feeding has been shown to be the better option here. Plenty of women still choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons.
:rolleyes:
As the father of two very young boys I am aware of the pros, cons, and history of breastfeeding.
I wasn't sure. Your Canadian counterpart seems to think that it's barbaric not to breast feed in order to live. I wasn't sure how shared that opinion was among your people.
CC is following Seedy into the deep end today.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:41:14 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:40:06 PM
:rolleyes:
As the father of two very young boys I am aware of the pros, cons, and history of breastfeeding.
Toughened your nipples, didn't it?
:pinch:
Why am I not surprised CC is a breastfeeding nut.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:10:08 PM
So she's gonna bring in children who will carry same such risks?!?!?
Might as well make sure she can't do that too.
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate cancer gene, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
Okay i will say i really haven't been paying attention to this thread, but now i'm really confused.
Quote from: Barrister on November 19, 2012, 05:43:49 PM
CC is following Seedy into the deep end today.
Today?
I think he's figured having conquered Marty's throne he might as well go after Raz's too.
Ah, breast and bottle. Another parenting topic that has people verbally re-creating the Western Front. :D
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:45:59 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 19, 2012, 05:13:03 PM
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:10:08 PM
So she's gonna bring in children who will carry same such risks?!?!?
Might as well make sure she can't do that too.
It seems to me, from what I understand from doctors, that's really rare. If it's a legitimate cancer gene, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.
Okay i will say i really haven't been paying attention to this thread, but now i'm really confused.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79864.html
That's a joke, son. A flag waver. You're built too low. The fast ones go over your head. Ya got a hole in your glove. I keep pitchin' 'em and you keep missin' 'em. Ya gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye. Ball. I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2012, 05:47:57 PM
Ah, breast and bottle. Another parenting topic that has people verbally re-creating the Western Front. :D
No shit. One of the stupidest arguments to have, too. Talk about a "personal parenting" topic!
Ah see I thought that was where you were coming from, but wasn't sure.
Quote from: Maximus on November 19, 2012, 05:44:42 PM
Why am I not surprised CC is a breastfeeding nut.
I think breast feeding is beneficial. You are defeding the person that think it isnt based on the fact women took pills to dry up their milk before the dawn of modern medicine.
Now tell me who is the nut here?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:53:59 PM
I think breast feeding is beneficial. You are defeding the person that think it isnt based on the fact women took pills to dry up their milk before the dawn of modern medicine.
Now tell me who is the nut here?
What the fuck are you talking about?? :blink:
Are you sure English is your first language?
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:41:52 PM
Quite serious. It's the same in the US. In fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s. It's only been in the last 20 years or so where the benefits of breast feeding has been shown to be the better option here.
Plenty of women still choose not to go that route for a variety of reasons.
Where in there did I say that breast feeding isn't beneficial? I said that it's a personal choice, and that formula-fed babies aren't harmed by not being breast fed. You really have jumped the shark today.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:58:21 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?? :blink:
Are you sure English is your first language?
Yes but I am beginning to think that, as with much else, the English in your part of the world is spoken quite differently so that this actually makes sense as an argument for why Women dont breast feed in the year 2012.
QuoteIn fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:58:21 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?? :blink:
Are you sure English is your first language?
Yes but I am beginning to think that, as with much else, the English in your part of the world is spoken quite differently so that this actually makes sense as an argument for why Women dont breast feed in the year 2012.
QuoteIn fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s.
I didn't say that that was why women didn't breast feed in the year 2012. I was explaining why Syt had been bottle fed in the 1970s, and that it was common practice everywhere.
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:02:57 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:01:16 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 05:58:21 PM
What the fuck are you talking about?? :blink:
Are you sure English is your first language?
Yes but I am beginning to think that, as with much else, the English in your part of the world is spoken quite differently so that this actually makes sense as an argument for why Women dont breast feed in the year 2012.
QuoteIn fact, for most of the 1950-1970s, it was considered better for babies to be formula-fed rather than breast-fed. They provided new mothers with pills to dry up the milk all the way up through the 1990s.
I didn't say that that was why women didn't breast feed in the year 2012. I was explaining why Syt had been bottle fed in the 1970s, and that it was common practice everywhere.
Ok so what is your argument for Fate comment that few women breast feed anyway so they dont really need their breasts?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:04:50 PM
Ok so what is your argument for Fate comment that few women breast feed anyway so they dont really need their breasts?
Well, I suppose if Fate had actually said that, I'd say that he was right, women don't really need their breasts, though it's not the best case scenario. However, that's not what he said at all. He said that breast-feeding wasn't necessary, which it isn't.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:53:59 PM
You are defeding the person
Even ignoring facts, who am I defending?
No, I'm just mocking your apparent descent into madness.
This is probably insensitive of me. If you provide a note from your doctor I'll stop.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:04:50 PM
Ok so what is your argument for Fate comment that few women breast feed anyway so they dont really need their breasts?
Well, I suppose if Fate had actually said that, I'd say that he was right, women don't really need their breasts, though it's not the best case scenario. However, that's not what he said at all. He said that breast-feeding wasn't necessary, which it isn't.
Go back and read what he said deary
Quote from: Maximus on November 19, 2012, 06:14:58 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:53:59 PM
You are defeding the person
No, I'm just mocking your apparent descent into madness.
:jaron:
Your knee jerk jump to her defense on every issue is admirable but she really doesnt need your help.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
Anyway, 1) she can get human breast milk from a donor AND eliminate her risk for cancer 2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:hmm:
Yeah, not really what you're saying at all.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
Anyway, 1) she can get human breast milk from a donor AND eliminate her risk for cancer 2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:hmm:
Yeah, not really what you're saying at all.
Yeah, it is. If you read what he was responding to.
Anyway I get the feeling there is no point to further discussion. I am just descending into madness right?
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:19:06 PM
Your knee jerk jump to her defense on every issue is admirable but she really doesnt need your help.
Your pathological need to stalk her from thread to thread is less admirable. Let Raz have his niche, you have Marty's. Surely that's enough?
Quote from: Maximus on November 19, 2012, 06:33:52 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:19:06 PM
Your knee jerk jump to her defense on every issue is admirable but she really doesnt need your help.
Your pathological need to stalk her from thread to thread is less admirable. Let Raz have his niche, you have Marty's. Surely that's enough?
Who the Fuck is stalking who asshole!
Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 06:34:51 PM
Who the Fuck is stalking who asshole!
I'm just concerned for your well being. Sudden changes in personality, especially when they coincide with increasing aggression and degrading rational capabilities, are rarely a good sign.
Quote from: Maximus on November 19, 2012, 06:42:41 PM
Sudden changes in personality, especially when they coincide with increasing aggression and degrading rational capabilities, are rarely a good sign.
I've been fine with mine.
You have an excuse.
Eh, CC may have an excuse too. I've made my point. I'll let it go.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 06:40:46 PM
Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.
There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.
Otto hasnt had a regular bowl movement in a while it seems.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...
Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%
In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 07:41:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...
Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%
In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.
We're also the most obese state, the number 2 state for incarceration, and the number one state for bad theology. Clearly, evangelical Baptists are to blame for obese teenage moms in Mississippi's prisons.
Isn't all theology, by definition, bad?
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 07:41:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...
Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%
In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.
Not sure what exclusive breast feading has to do with that point you were trying to make. I am actually surprised that exclusive breast feeding is that high.
The percentage in Mississippi just proves that literacy rates are important.
I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fsally-field-you-really-like-me.jpg&hash=3f285d87be18a523d8c6c10b3b978b29cdc03ff0)
"You like me, you really like me!"
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fnbchardballtalk.files.wordpress.com%2F2012%2F05%2Fsally-field-you-really-like-me.jpg&hash=3f285d87be18a523d8c6c10b3b978b29cdc03ff0)
"You like me, you really like me!"
I am trying to defend your interests. The mob seems to be against me. Very unseemly for Languish to have gone over to the anti-breast lobby.
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2012, 09:24:04 PM
I like how often I am mentioned in this thread.
Meh, you make/get a meme you get mentioned. I get trotted out all the time for homosexuality. <_<
Quote from: katmai on November 19, 2012, 05:53:04 PM
Ah see I thought that was where you were coming from, but wasn't sure.
Yeah, sort of like BB's post in this thread, it had some of the characteristics of a joke, but lacked some of the important ones, such as actually being funny.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 09:20:36 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 07:41:10 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 19, 2012, 05:18:47 PM
Quote from: Fate on November 19, 2012, 04:49:28 PM
2) most women don't breast feed all that long anyway once they leave the hospital even if they have two breasts...
:huh:
Another odd US norm?
I don't know what your norm is. For 2012 in the US nationally (per the CDC)...
Exclusively breast feeding at 3 months: 36.0%
Exclusively breast feeding at 6 months: 16.3%
In some states that second number is as low as 7.6% (Mississippi). It tends to be the poorest states where the rates of breast feeding are the lowest.
Not sure what exclusive breast feading has to do with that point you were trying to make. I am actually surprised that exclusive breast feeding is that high.
The percentage in Mississippi just proves that literacy rates are important.
I'm just trying to remind everyone that correlation is not causation.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 07:03:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 06:40:46 PM
Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.
There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.
I did a little research on this. It appears by and large most babies that have some problem that would prevent them from being able to normally breastfeed are not generally healthy babies, and only live to adulthood through modern medicine. Like a premature baby historically would probably have been abandoned or smothered, people didn't generally try to save unfit children in the past.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 20, 2012, 10:12:24 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2012, 07:03:33 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 19, 2012, 06:40:46 PM
Wait, I don't give two shits about other people breastfeeding their kids or not, but what is this I'm hearing about "not able to breast feed this particular child?" What would have happened 500 years ago in such a situation? Child starving to death? Was this a deficiency of the mother (not producing enough milk?) or the child not taking to the breast? If the former I'd guess we had wet nurses for a reason and even outside of "professional" wet nurses just about every woman who wasn't too old had a good chance of being pregnant or nursing at some point 500 years ago so someone would be able to feed the kid, but if it was the latter cause--the kid not taking to the breast, if that's really a thing I'd think history would have a lot of cases of babies dying from such a psychosis.
There were. Think cleft palate and weak/premature babies. Of course, baby bottles have been around since the time of the Phoenicians, so there were options, but usually only for the well-heeled.
I did a little research on this. It appears by and large most babies that have some problem that would prevent them from being able to normally breastfeed are not generally healthy babies, and only live to adulthood through modern medicine. Like a premature baby historically would probably have been abandoned or smothered, people didn't generally try to save unfit children in the past.
How does that negate what I said? :unsure:
Everything I say to you must negate something you said? :huh:
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on November 21, 2012, 07:35:31 AM
Everything I say to you must negate something you said? :huh:
No, I just expect it from you. :blush: