The Acoustic Guitar Forum

Go Back   The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #106  
Old 03-26-2015, 11:30 AM
RedJoker RedJoker is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 4,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yandz View Post
<snip>

So, I would like to see those studies and evaluate it for myself. How many test subjects, how long did they follow. What was the cancer rate vs. just finding cells. How does that look compared to a very large population of "normal"? Cancer cells are in everyone, every day and most don't "have cancer" and most of all, what is the long term prognosis and how did they determine it? Best I can tell is a lot of it has been calculated using other models, which may or may not mimic this population of people with different BRCA genes. What happens in a lab, often doesn't look the same in the "wild".

<snip>
I completely agree but what I've always found with studies is that they're never enough. I'm sure you have an idea about what would make a perfect study but I may have a slightly different idea. Someone else may have a third view. So to get the funding to perform such a study, compromises will be made and then a bunch of guitar players will argue that it still isn't adequate.

So in the reality of the world, all we can do is try to educate ourselves the best we can and make the best decisions that we can. We should also know that as we humans learn more, our understanding will also change.

In my mind, it doesn't matter if I agree with anyone's decision. I'm just sorry they were faced with having to make that decision in the first place.
__________________
Original music here: Spotify Artist Page
Reply With Quote
  #107  
Old 03-26-2015, 11:48 AM
yandz yandz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedJoker View Post
I completely agree but what I've always found with studies is that they're never enough. I'm sure you have an idea about what would make a perfect study but I may have a slightly different idea. Someone else may have a third view. So to get the funding to perform such a study, compromises will be made and then a bunch of guitar players will argue that it still isn't adequate.

So in the reality of the world, all we can do is try to educate ourselves the best we can and make the best decisions that we can. We should also know that as we humans learn more, our understanding will also change.

In my mind, it doesn't matter if I agree with anyone's decision. I'm just sorry they were faced with having to make that decision in the first place.
I agree, I'm thankful every day I haven't been faced with this situation. and people do have to make decisions on what they feel is best. and at the same time, people need to realize that things aren't always as presented either. Sometimes the details would give one a different conclusion than an "expert" might.

For example, Norwegian women have higher incidents of BRCA1 gene mutations in the general population, yet they have lower rates of cancer than their US counterparts. Is it just the genes? Is it just the breasts? the Ovaries? what is it? are there other things you can do? what are the long term studies showing? oh, we haven't done any? At this point, I could pick apart a study or think it was the greatest thing on earth. I just haven't seen any yet. I think that's a problem when it's as up front and center in the media and we have none. Maybe it's just me.

I still think Angelina made the decision she thought was best. I'd never fault her for that. I don't find enough real data to make her a poster child for it either.
Reply With Quote
  #108  
Old 03-26-2015, 11:49 AM
Glennwillow Glennwillow is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Coastal Washington State
Posts: 44,924
Default

I can't help commenting after so many interesting posts here that this discussion points out the inevitable limits of human understanding and how we will forever be striving to understand more. Many times we think we are doing the right thing for ourselves or for our families based on the latest science, only to find later that there may have been a better approach based on ever later science.

It seems that we are doomed by never having an adequate understanding of the universe and everything in it.

The miracle is that many of us manage to enjoy life in spite of all these limitations of humanity. And those of us on the forum have the guitar and music, which is a very good thing.

- Glenn
__________________
My You Tube Channel
Reply With Quote
  #109  
Old 03-26-2015, 11:51 AM
unimogbert unimogbert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,606
Default

............
__________________
Unimogbert

Last edited by unimogbert; 03-07-2023 at 10:46 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #110  
Old 03-27-2015, 07:33 AM
Herb Hunter Herb Hunter is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Maine
Posts: 18,560
Default

Here is an interesting and timely article from Scientific American titled, Removal of Ovaries, Fallopian Tubes Wrong Anti-Cancer Option for Most:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29
Reply With Quote
  #111  
Old 03-27-2015, 08:26 AM
El Diablo El Diablo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Florida
Posts: 718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
Here is an interesting and timely article from Scientific American titled, Removal of Ovaries, Fallopian Tubes Wrong Anti-Cancer Option for Most:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29
So, basically, a woman should talk to her doctor. Sound advice, there, and something which I imagine all women would do.

I'm at a loss to figure out why anyone would think that a woman would take such a drastic step simply because Jolie has done so. I just don't see it happening, yet some seem to believe that her star status is sufficient to trump common sense and sound medical care and advice.
Reply With Quote
  #112  
Old 03-27-2015, 08:29 AM
Dirk Hofman Dirk Hofman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: NOR * CAL
Posts: 7,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Herb Hunter View Post
Here is an interesting and timely article from Scientific American titled, Removal of Ovaries, Fallopian Tubes Wrong Anti-Cancer Option for Most:


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...witter+Feed%29
Good article, but I thought it was pretty clear from her statements that this was understood. Not for everyone, particular to her genetic defect and family history, and even then a considered, difficult choice. The number of women with the BRCA1 is about 1%.
Reply With Quote
  #113  
Old 03-27-2015, 10:05 PM
flaggerphil flaggerphil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Florida Space Coast
Posts: 13,718
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GHS View Post
Oh here we go, again! No you are wrong. Two of my co-workers committed suicide after getting diagnosed with the disease. One of them after watching his wife die of it, guess he thought it was the quick way out. Be advised, these deaths were BEFORE they started any treatment. These two guys were family men who worked in a dangerous profession and had cool heads under stress. One of my picking buddies is going for treatment now, but he is not having his left arm removed because he had a small tumor taken out. This is were I disagree with the Hollywoods sending out their message. They have a very big soapbox and can influence the decision of weak people. There are lots of folks who can be easily led the wrong way by people who get constant coverage in all media. Their views begin to be accepted as the gospel truth. This can lead to irrational acts brought about by fear.
Nope. Still don't think you get it.
__________________
Phil

Playing guitar badly since 1964.

Some Taylor guitars.
Three Kala ukuleles (one on tour with the Box Tops).
A 1937 A-style mandolin.
Reply With Quote
  #114  
Old 03-27-2015, 10:51 PM
Chicago Sandy's Avatar
Chicago Sandy Chicago Sandy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SW Coast of Lake Michigan
Posts: 14,782
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirk Hofman View Post
Good article, but I thought it was pretty clear from her statements that this was understood. Not for everyone, particular to her genetic defect and family history, and even then a considered, difficult choice. The number of women with the BRCA1 is about 1%.
Actually, everyone (male and female) has both the BRCA 1 and 2 genes. It’s the MUTATIONs of one or both genes that is both rare and increases the theoretical possibility of two deadly cancers (ovarian and estrogen-dependent breast) to a probability. Family history of ovarian raises it to between probability and near-certainty. Breast cancer can be routinely screened for and diagnosed early enough to treat; but if estrogen-dependent, most oncologists suggest removal of ovaries and fallopian tubes before mastectomy to reduce the chance of recurrence or metastasis. Estrogen and progesterone are administered once the breasts have been removed and there is no evidence of spread (or if, after chemo and radiation, no cancer cells are detectable). Ovarian cancer, OTOH, cannot be routinely reliably screened for (blood markers previously thought reliable, like CA-125, can give false negative or less often false positive results) and by the time it becomes symptomatic is almost always incurable. The 3-year survival rate is 5.5 patients out of twenty, and 5-year is even more dismal.

It’s not the same thing as, say, melanoma--unless that tumor has invaded so deeply below the dermis that metastasis to organs is inevitable without amputation, excision of the tumor with wide and deep margins is all that is necessary (albeit usually disfiguring and sometimes disabling). If big enough to consider amputation, amputation would probably prove futile anyway.

If you have suspicious smaller skin growths, it is perfectly reasonable to excise them first, then biopsy and proceed (or not) accordingly depending on what the biopsy shows. A skin growth displaying the “ABCD” signs (alteration of its previous appearance, irregular border, telltale color--not just black or brown but evidence of red and/or blue as well--and diameter larger than a pencil eraser) is presumed to be malignant melanoma unless proven otherwise--and must be treated with at least surgical excision before biopsy; and radiation, chemo or both if the diagnosis is confirmed.

Most people can and do survive melanomas if caught when small enough not to have burrowed deeply--but most people also don’t know to look for it. Go to a dermatologist and have all your moles, warts and freckles mapped as a baseline--and compare them periodically, under magnification, to those baseline photos (or see the dermatologist annually). Not only does a blistering sunburn early in life increase the possibility of melanoma, especially if fair-skinned, but the melanoma often appears on parts of the body not exposed to the sun (your entire skin is an organ, the body’s largest). And dark skin is not always protective: Bob Marley died of a melanoma he refused to have surgically removed (and spurned all but “alternative” medical treatment because he did not trust doctors--especially white ones).
__________________
Sandy

http://www.sandyandina.com

-------------------------
Gramann Rapahannock, 7 Taylors, 4 Martins, 2 Gibsons, 2 V-A, Larrivee Parlour, Gretsch Way Out West, Fender P-J Bass & Mustang, Danelectro U2, Peavey fretless bass, 8 dulcimers, 2 autoharps, 2 banjos, 2 mandolins, 3 ukes

I cried because I had no shoes.....but then I realized I won’t get blisters.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  The Acoustic Guitar Forum > Other Discussions > Open Mic

Thread Tools





All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, The Acoustic Guitar Forum
vB Ad Management by =RedTyger=