=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Prevent_Ductal_Breast_Cancer_By_Regularly_"Dra inin?==?ISO-8859-1?Q?g"_Or_"Pumping"_A_Women's_Breast_Ducts?=

My wife's bout with ductal breast cancer led me to theorize that this
epidemic may have a simple common denominator and that some simple
oversight in the general population could be a contributing factor.

http://www.capturecancer.com/prevent...ast-ducts.html

Don't bother looking at this one it is the same profit site
"guage" <guagecn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b999311c-56be-4208-8a5b-2a6e74e43494@e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> My wife's bout with ductal breast cancer led me to theorize that this
> epidemic may have a simple common denominator and that some simple
> oversight in the general population could be a contributing factor.
>
> http://www.capturecancer.com/prevent...ast-ducts.html

That's pure speculation with no evidence for it at all.

Is this yet another troll fishing for clicks to a dubious commercial
'news' site? Looks that way. It's not strictly off-topic, but it
doesn't contribute anything either, and it does expose advertising. And
the site isn't really a news site as such, it's mostly just a mash-up of
Google stuff.

If they keep doing that, their fish will go the way of the Grand Banks
cod, they'll just drive people away from the newsgroups.

Maybe we ought to publish some guidelines about quoting web articles, to
the effect that posts should make their main point in plain text, and
not rely on the reader following up references elsewhere. Then we could
define this sort of thing as an abuse.


Tim Jackson


guage wrote:
> My wife's bout with ductal breast cancer led me to theorize that this
> epidemic may have a simple common denominator and that some simple
> oversight in the general population could be a contributing factor.
>

On Dec 2, 6:38 am, guage <guag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My wife's bout with ductal breast cancer led me to theorize that this
> epidemic may have a simple common denominator and that some simple
> oversight in the general population could be a contributing factor.
>

You are correct that there is a simple common denominator, but it has
nothing to do with draining. Basically, understanding how to prevent
breast cancer requires you to understand how hormones and hormone
receptors work. A good example of this occurred one year ago when
Poole demonstrated that simply by blocking a single hormone receptor,
the rate of breast cancer in mice with BRCA1 mutations dropped from
100% to 0%. In principle, there is no reason why women should not be
able to live their whole lives with a breast cancer risk no greater
than it was when they were teenagers.

Ed Friedman

ed@math.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> You are correct that there is a simple common denominator, but it has
> nothing to do with draining. Basically, understanding how to prevent
> breast cancer requires you to understand how hormones and hormone
> receptors work. A good example of this occurred one year ago when
> Poole demonstrated that simply by blocking a single hormone receptor,
> the rate of breast cancer in mice with BRCA1 mutations dropped from
> 100% to 0%. In principle, there is no reason why women should not be
> able to live their whole lives with a breast cancer risk no greater
> than it was when they were teenagers.
>
> Ed Friedman
>
That's not quite a single factor. I understand that the single receptor
result only applied to BRCA1-induced cancers, and that the rest (the
great majority) have one or more other receptors involved. Also
blocking receptors tends to have undesirable side effects, they grew
there for a purpose after all.

It is a therefore big jump from a mouse study of a single cancer type to
your final statement.


Tim

On Dec 2, 11:43 am, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> That's pure speculation with no evidence for it at all.
>
> Is this yet another troll fishing for clicks to a dubious commercial
> 'news' site? Looks that way. It's not strictly off-topic, but it
> doesn't contribute anything either, and it does expose advertising. And
> the site isn't really a news site as such, it's mostly just a mash-up of
> Google stuff.
>
> If they keep doing that, their fish will go the way of the Grand Banks
> cod, they'll just drive people away from the newsgroups.
>
> Maybe we ought to publish some guidelines about quoting web articles, to
> the effect that posts should make their main point in plain text, and
> not rely on the reader following up references elsewhere. Then we could
> define this sort of thing as an abuse.
>
> Tim Jackson
>
>
>
> guage wrote:
> > My wife's bout with ductal breast cancer led me to theorize that this
> > epidemic may have a simple common denominator and that some simple
> > oversight in the general population could be a contributing factor.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Who are you going to report the abuse to?

On Dec 2, 11:42 am, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:
> e...@math.uchicago.edu wrote:
>
> > You are correct that there is a simple common denominator, but it has
> > nothing to do with draining. Basically, understanding how to prevent
> > breast cancer requires you to understand how hormones and hormone
> > receptors work. A good example of this occurred one year ago when
> > Poole demonstrated that simply by blocking a single hormone receptor,
> > the rate of breast cancer in mice with BRCA1 mutations dropped from
> > 100% to 0%. In principle, there is no reason why women should not be
> > able to live their whole lives with a breast cancer risk no greater
> > than it was when they were teenagers.
>
> > Ed Friedman
>
> That's not quite a single factor. I understand that the single receptor
> result only applied to BRCA1-induced cancers, and that the rest (the
> great majority) have one or more other receptors involved. Also
> blocking receptors tends to have undesirable side effects, they grew
> there for a purpose after all.
>
> It is a therefore big jump from a mouse study of a single cancer type to
> your final statement.
>
> Tim

Tim,

I agree with you that blocking hormone receptors can have long term
adverse side effects. However, at some point, women with BRCA1 or
BRCA2 mutations may have to make the decision whether they want to try
to prevent cancer by blocking a single receptor and accept the side
effects of that or whether they prefer to have prophylactic surgery to
remove their breasts and ovaries and accept those side effects.

However, for women who don't have adverse mutations, my research
indicates that maintaining hormone levels at teenage levels should
prevent pretty much all types of breast cancer, while optimizing
overall health. I'm still not sure what the benefit is for estrone,
and the research on ovarian cancer is too primitive to make any
definitive statements regarding it, but that is the way science goes -
the research is a neverending search for the truth.

Ed Friedman

ed@math.uchicago.edu wrote:
> maintaining hormone levels at teenage levels

Oh YUK! Who'd do that voluntarily.


Tim

Alex wrote:
> On Dec 2, 11:43 am, Tim Jackson <t...@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote:

>> Maybe we ought to publish some guidelines about quoting web articles, to
>> the effect that posts should make their main point in plain text, and
>> not rely on the reader following up references elsewhere. Then we could
>> define this sort of thing as an abuse.
>>
>
> Who are you going to report the abuse to?

Their ISP. If they were posting in contravention of a published charter,
they'd also most likely be in breach of their ISP's conditions of service.

Not very forceful I admit, but grounds for a complaint all the same.


Tim

"Tim Jackson" <tim@tim-jackson.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13l64qeihgpha79@corp.supernews.com...
> ed@math.uchicago.edu wrote:
>> maintaining hormone levels at teenage levels
>
> Oh YUK! Who'd do that voluntarily.
>
>
> Tim

Exactly what I was thinking :-)

It's not for me, thanks!

Mary