Quote:
wow, thats interesting!!!
Originally posted by
P'Gell
There's no check for being part of the age group, yet never having had a mamogram. I'm old enough to have had one, but in light of the evidence that younger women may actually increase their chances of breast cancer later with yearly
...
more
There's no check for being part of the age group, yet never having had a mamogram. I'm old enough to have had one, but in light of the evidence that younger women may actually increase their chances of breast cancer later with yearly mammograms, I refuse to have one yet. Most breast cancers are caught by the woman or her partner by touch! Mammograms also miss some cancers.
I may eventually have one, but I think manual exams and ultrasound scanning, if you do find a lump is a better plan. MOST women will not get breast cancer. There are things one can do to reduce one'e chances of getting breast cancer. Having children early and breastfeeding each child for at least 6 months or longer can reduce the chance of breast cancer more than ANY other strategy.
Seeing as I had my first baby before 25, and breastfed my kids for between a year and half and four years apiece, and have no family history, was a vegetarian during my formative years and do monthly exams properly, my GYN says my personal chance of breast cancer is "about 1 in 1000 or more!"
I'll start giving money to breast cancer research when they strongly endorse the known fact (more than a dozen peer reviewed studies) that breastfeeding can reduce the chance of breast cancer by a gigantic margin. Most breast cancer groups refuse to include this fact, as I was told by one of the bigger ones at a meeting "We don't want cancer victims to feel guilty." HOW does keeping good data from women who still have the chance to make the choice by breastfeeding help anyone?
As long as they refuse to acknowledge this fact, they're not getting much from me. Also, I'm not a big fan of Komen because of the Planned Parenthood fiasco, when Susan Koman for the Cure stopped their donations to PP because of pressure from Right Wing groups. They have reversed their choice now, but WHY did they do it in the first place? And why were they so easily swayed by these groups?
I support La Leche League because they tell women the truth, breastfeed for a significant period of time and your chance of breast cancer will be REDUCED to somewhere between 11% per 6 months of breastfeeding to up to 56% reduction in many studies. Also, women who were breastfed as infants have a 25% decrease in developing breast cancer as an adult.
Here's some info from Katheryn Detwyller's website (she's a lactation-anthropolgis t)
The authors write: "An increasing duration of lactation was associated with a statistically significant trend toward a reduced risk of breast cancer (P < 0.001). Lactation at early ages and for long durations was associated with more substantial reductions in risk. If women who do not breastfeed or who breastfeed for less than 3 months were to do so for 4 to 12 months, breast cancer among parous premenopausal women could be reduced by 11 percent, judging from current rates. If all women with children lactated for 24 months or longer, however, then the incidence might be reduced by nearly 25 percent. This reduction would be even greater among women who first lactate at an early age."
Newcomb's study is merely the latest in a long series of studies that find protective effects of breastfeeding for mothers. It should also be pointed out that many women nurse far longer than the 24+ month limit in this study.
The second study I referred to in yesterday's post looked at whether having been breastfed protected women from breast cancer when they grew up. This study involved 1,130 women from two counties in Western New York. "Breastfeeding&am p;qu ot; was defined as ANY breastfeeding, so some of these women may have only been breastfed for a week or a month, and others for several years. The reference is:
Freudenheim, J. et al. 1994. "Exposure to breast milk in infancy and the risk of breast cancer." Epidemiology 5:324-331. (NOTE: epidemiologists use the term "exposure" to refer to both good and bad factors).
Their results showed:
Health Status
Relative Risk
Premenopausal breast cancer if not breastfed 1.00
Premenopausal breast cancer if breastfed 0.76
Postmenopausal breast cancer if not breastfed 1.00
Postmenopausal breast cancer if breastfed 0.73
Thus, for both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer, women who were breastfed as children, even if only for a short time, had a 25% lower risk of developing breast cancer than women who were bottle-fed as an infant. END QUOTE
These are only two of the more than a dozen studies in this area.
It makes sense, priests have a higher rate of testicular and severe prostate cancer. Why? Most of them didn't use those organs for the intended purpose, making sperm and releasing it on a regular basis. The result: more cancer in the unused organs.
The breast is no different.
What is "fair" really doesn't matter when it comes to science. Women who have children earlier in life and breastfeed for a significant period of time (at least 6 months per baby and the reduction increases with each additional month or breastfeeding) have lower breast cancer rates. It doesn't completely wipe out the risk of cancer, but certainly reduces it significantly. Also, exclusive breastfeeding has a much higher protective rate than "mixed feeding" (using both breastfeeding AND formula.) Nature really doesn't distinguish what is "fair" is is Nature. Nature doesn't care about one's "Life Plan" it only has biological imperatives and for women, using the breast for what it was intended for is a biological imperative.
It may not seem "fair" for some, but it is fact. less
I may eventually have one, but I think manual exams and ultrasound scanning, if you do find a lump is a better plan. MOST women will not get breast cancer. There are things one can do to reduce one'e chances of getting breast cancer. Having children early and breastfeeding each child for at least 6 months or longer can reduce the chance of breast cancer more than ANY other strategy.
Seeing as I had my first baby before 25, and breastfed my kids for between a year and half and four years apiece, and have no family history, was a vegetarian during my formative years and do monthly exams properly, my GYN says my personal chance of breast cancer is "about 1 in 1000 or more!"
I'll start giving money to breast cancer research when they strongly endorse the known fact (more than a dozen peer reviewed studies) that breastfeeding can reduce the chance of breast cancer by a gigantic margin. Most breast cancer groups refuse to include this fact, as I was told by one of the bigger ones at a meeting "We don't want cancer victims to feel guilty." HOW does keeping good data from women who still have the chance to make the choice by breastfeeding help anyone?
As long as they refuse to acknowledge this fact, they're not getting much from me. Also, I'm not a big fan of Komen because of the Planned Parenthood fiasco, when Susan Koman for the Cure stopped their donations to PP because of pressure from Right Wing groups. They have reversed their choice now, but WHY did they do it in the first place? And why were they so easily swayed by these groups?
I support La Leche League because they tell women the truth, breastfeed for a significant period of time and your chance of breast cancer will be REDUCED to somewhere between 11% per 6 months of breastfeeding to up to 56% reduction in many studies. Also, women who were breastfed as infants have a 25% decrease in developing breast cancer as an adult.
Here's some info from Katheryn Detwyller's website (she's a lactation-anthropolgis t)
The authors write: "An increasing duration of lactation was associated with a statistically significant trend toward a reduced risk of breast cancer (P < 0.001). Lactation at early ages and for long durations was associated with more substantial reductions in risk. If women who do not breastfeed or who breastfeed for less than 3 months were to do so for 4 to 12 months, breast cancer among parous premenopausal women could be reduced by 11 percent, judging from current rates. If all women with children lactated for 24 months or longer, however, then the incidence might be reduced by nearly 25 percent. This reduction would be even greater among women who first lactate at an early age."
Newcomb's study is merely the latest in a long series of studies that find protective effects of breastfeeding for mothers. It should also be pointed out that many women nurse far longer than the 24+ month limit in this study.
The second study I referred to in yesterday's post looked at whether having been breastfed protected women from breast cancer when they grew up. This study involved 1,130 women from two counties in Western New York. "Breastfeeding&am p;qu ot; was defined as ANY breastfeeding, so some of these women may have only been breastfed for a week or a month, and others for several years. The reference is:
Freudenheim, J. et al. 1994. "Exposure to breast milk in infancy and the risk of breast cancer." Epidemiology 5:324-331. (NOTE: epidemiologists use the term "exposure" to refer to both good and bad factors).
Their results showed:
Health Status
Relative Risk
Premenopausal breast cancer if not breastfed 1.00
Premenopausal breast cancer if breastfed 0.76
Postmenopausal breast cancer if not breastfed 1.00
Postmenopausal breast cancer if breastfed 0.73
Thus, for both premenopausal and postmenopausal breast cancer, women who were breastfed as children, even if only for a short time, had a 25% lower risk of developing breast cancer than women who were bottle-fed as an infant. END QUOTE
These are only two of the more than a dozen studies in this area.
It makes sense, priests have a higher rate of testicular and severe prostate cancer. Why? Most of them didn't use those organs for the intended purpose, making sperm and releasing it on a regular basis. The result: more cancer in the unused organs.
The breast is no different.
What is "fair" really doesn't matter when it comes to science. Women who have children earlier in life and breastfeed for a significant period of time (at least 6 months per baby and the reduction increases with each additional month or breastfeeding) have lower breast cancer rates. It doesn't completely wipe out the risk of cancer, but certainly reduces it significantly. Also, exclusive breastfeeding has a much higher protective rate than "mixed feeding" (using both breastfeeding AND formula.) Nature really doesn't distinguish what is "fair" is is Nature. Nature doesn't care about one's "Life Plan" it only has biological imperatives and for women, using the breast for what it was intended for is a biological imperative.
It may not seem "fair" for some, but it is fact. less