Angelina Jolie surgery

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1427097 wrote:

I'd seriously like to know what her levels are. The fact that what has proven recently to be vital in the prevention of cancer in studies and is completely absent in any public dialogue with her may indicate that she is unaware of the research.

.


Are you seriously suggesting that someone of Ms Jolie's wealth, a multi millionairess, and her connections would not have the most qualified medical experts to advise her?

You seem to be under the Impression that she's nipped out to some back street clinic.

Stop using the word evidence.... as Accountable said.. there Is no evidence.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1427097 wrote: If in cancer patients, the vit-d deficiency is not addressed the chances of cancer taking form in other parts of the body are high. Even though Jolie had her surgery she will hopefully address any vit-d issues she has.That is an absolutely valid suggestion. Anything that has potential helpful qualities and no harmful qualities should of course be considered, especially when one is at high risk, but to suggest as you did that the ONLY thing she needs to do is take a vitamin and relax is irresponsible.

Ahso!;1427097 wrote: I'd seriously like to know what her levels are. The fact that what has proven recently to be vital in the prevention of cancer in studies and is completely absent in any public dialogue with her may indicate that she is unaware of the research. Stop making exaggerated assumptions and stating them as fact. The research looks promising, I agree. Anything beyond that is hyperbole.

Ahso!;1427097 wrote: There are significant organizations out there that stand to loose a lot of funding if the vit-d story is told honestly.Who is being dishonest? I haven't seen anyone lie or exaggerate except you when you lavish excess praise on vitamin D. There are many organizations out there that stand to gain a lot of funding if vitamin D gains approval as a cancer preventative. It will deserve that funding if and when the research proves valid.

Ahso!;1427097 wrote: On a personal note, myself and my partner had been supplementing with vit-d at 10,000iu per day for four years with zero ill affects. What we have experienced is lower cholesterol; lower blood pressure; healthier looking skin; smooth (non-pitted) finger nails and toe nails; higher levels of energy; better eyesight and more.
Excellent reasons to tout the good that vitamin D does, but hardly reason to recommend someone with an astronomically high genetic risk for cancer not take other precautions.

I'm going to look for some D for my beloved and me. Thanks for the tip.

[Oscar Namechange]

Recently, three large studies have been published that show that vitamin D probably has no effect on breast cancer risks. These are the type of studies that I consider the best of the best, ones that have large cohorts which give better statistical significance. As I’ve discussed before, the quality of scientific sources matters. In the science denialism world, alternative medicine, cherry-picks research that supports their beliefs, rather than looking at the highest quality research and determine if it supports the hypothesis (in this case, whether vitamin D has any benefit to preventing breast cancer).

In a study of 36,282 postmenopausal women 50–79 years of age, who were randomized into two groups, a placebo or 600 IU daily of vitamin D, the authors concluded that “while evidence for a reduction in breast cancer risk and total invasive cancer risk among calcium plus vitamin D users was only suggestive. Statistically, the evidence was weak, despite the relatively large number of subjects in the study, and cannot be accepted as “conclusive. However, the authors suggest that the study wasn’t set up to examine cancer risks (there were many confounding variables). But the study does conclusively support that “long-term use of calcium and vitamin D appears to confer a reduction that may be substantial in the risk of hip fracture among postmenopausal women.

In a large study of nearly 400,000 women in Europe, the authors determined that there was no significant effect on cancer risk with calcium and vitamin D intake. They conclude that “in this large prospective cohort, we found no evidence for an association between dietary vitamin D or calcium intake and breast cancer risk. This is a huge study, which should be able to identify small changes, and none were found.

Finally, researchers examined the levels of vitamin D in the blood of patients with breast cancer, and determined that “this large prospective study does not support a relationship between circulating 25(OH)D and risk of breast cancer, except possibly in younger women. These results add to a growing body of evidence from prospective studies and randomized trials that suggests higher vitamin D levels do not reduce breast cancer risk.

Vitamin D and breast cancer risk–is there anything to it?



Also, some research has shown that elevated vitamin D levels or intakes may increase the risk of certain cancers (prostate, breast, pancreatic, and esophageal). Continued evaluation is needed before a clear conclusion can be made.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/vitami ... N=evidence

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1427112 wrote: That is an absolutely valid suggestion. Anything that has potential helpful qualities and no harmful qualities should of course be considered, especially when one is at high risk, but to suggest as you did that the ONLY thing she needs to do is take a vitamin and relax is irresponsible.I stated my opinion and backed it with evidence and also stated that under duress it might change.

Accountable;1427112 wrote: Stop making exaggerated assumptions and stating them as fact. The research looks promising, I agree. Anything beyond that is hyperbole.It's more than promising.

Accountable;1427112 wrote: Who is being dishonest? I haven't seen anyone lie or exaggerate except you when you lavish excess praise on vitamin D. There are many organizations out there that stand to gain a lot of funding if vitamin D gains approval as a cancer preventative. It will deserve that funding if and when the research proves valid.The dishonesty lies with organizations that refuse to concede that d-levels are too low and scaring people from getting adequate sun exposure, which is the best source of vit-d. 30 November 2010

New vitamin D guidelines, a disappointment

Over the past decade, there has been tremendous excitement in the world of nutrition centered around the "sunshine vitamin" for its association with reducing risk of influenza, osteoporosis, autoimmune diseases, heart disease, and even some cancers such as prostate and breast cancer.

However, this morning, the Institute of Medicine, of the National Academy of Sciences released new guidelines for vitamin D (and calcium) that will come as a disappointment to several researchers who consider the report too conservative to deal with a widespread epidemic.

Evolving Health: New vitamin D guidelines, a disappointment

Vitamin D Update – Carole Baggerly and Dr. Cannell

Vitamin D Institute Of Medicine | Dr. Soram's Integrative Medicine



Accountable;1427112 wrote: Excellent reasons to tout the good that vitamin D does, but hardly reason to recommend someone with an astronomically high genetic risk for cancer not take other precautions.What I said after my initial post was I would have most likely recommended getting her d-level up properly and then monitored the situation very closely.

Accountable;1427112 wrote: I'm going to look for some D for my beloved and me. Thanks for the tip. You're welcome. We use this brand

https://www.google.com/search?client=ub ... 8&oe=utf-8

The two year old grand daughter has been getting 1,000iu per day since she's been able to chew and swallow.

[Ahso!]

Ahso!;1427114 wrote:

The two year old grand daughter has been getting 1,000iu per day since she's been able to chew and swallow. :)i forgot to mention that she was recently offered a scholarship to Princeton. She's deciding.

[flopstock]

I'm a jennifer fan myself, but appreciate that she wants to make the best choices she can for herself.



I don't think(but can not state as a fact) that most women could afford the reconstructive steps she can.

[Oscar Namechange]

flopstock;1427125 wrote: I'm a jennifer fan myself, but appreciate that she wants to make the best choices she can for herself.



I don't think(but can not state as a fact) that most women could afford the reconstructive steps she can. In the UK any woman with a high risk ratio would be given the surgery free of charge on the NHS

[AnneBoleyn]

The jury's still out:

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

"The assumption that vitamin D supplements will protect you against diseases associated with low vitamin D levels is incorrect, according to Australian researchers. The report found that vitamin D supplements are immunosuppressive and may actually make diseases worse."

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

There are many articles in the same vein, that taking supplements are never as effective as receiving the ingredients from Natural Sources.

[Oscar Namechange]

AnneBoleyn;1427127 wrote: The jury's still out:

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

"The assumption that vitamin D supplements will protect you against diseases associated with low vitamin D levels is incorrect, according to Australian researchers. The report found that vitamin D supplements are immunosuppressive and may actually make diseases worse."

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

There are many articles in the same vein, that taking supplements are never as effective as receiving the ingredients from Natural Sources.


A few years ago hen there was no more they could do for my Father, a Oncology Consultant asked him If he'd undergo some tests that were part of some research they were doing Into cancer and salt water. It sounded pretty whacky at the time to us but he obliged, not for himself, his cancer had reached metastases, but possibly that It may be of help to them In the future.

Machine Literally Burns Saltwater AND Cures Cancer!

They also tested seaweed on him.

Seaweed versus Chemotherapy: Can Seaweed Treat Cancer? | GreenMedInfo

[Ahso!]

AnneBoleyn;1427127 wrote: The jury's still out:

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

"The assumption that vitamin D supplements will protect you against diseases associated with low vitamin D levels is incorrect, according to Australian researchers. The report found that vitamin D supplements are immunosuppressive and may actually make diseases worse."

Why Vitamin D Supplements Are NOT the Same as Sunlight

There are many articles in the same vein, that taking supplements are never as effective as receiving the ingredients from Natural Sources.It's good advice to be careful of the supplements. Reading on the same page further down:

All Vitamin D Supplements are Not the Same

I’m not certain what type of vitamin D was studied in the report above, however the abstract mentions the vitamin D that’s added to milk and cereals. Well, the vitamin D that’s added to milk is synthetic vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol) and is not something that you should be taking anyway.

Only vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol), the type of vitamin D found naturally in foods like eggs, organ meats, animal fat, cod liver oil, and fish, is appropriate for supplementation. Do NOT use the highly inferior vitamin D2.

There have been no clinical trials to date demonstrating conclusively that D2 prevents fractures, yet every clinical trial of D3 has shown it does. Further, vitamin D2 has a shorter shelf life, and its metabolites bind with protein poorly, making it less effective.

Studies have even concluded that vitamin D2 should no longer be regarded as a nutrient appropriate for supplementation or fortification of foods (though it continues to be used).

So if you choose to use vitamin D supplements make sure it is in the form of vitamin D3. And remember that if you are relying on your “fortified milk to supply you with vitamin D, it is NOT giving you the healthy type of vitamin D that has been associated with all the benefits that you read about on this site and in the media.

[AnneBoleyn]

oscar;1427131 wrote: A few years ago hen there was no more they could do for my Father, a Oncology Consultant asked him If he'd undergo some tests that were part of some research they were doing Into cancer and salt water. It sounded pretty whacky at the time to us but he obliged, not for himself, his cancer had reached metastases, but possibly that It may be of help to them In the future.

Machine Literally Burns Saltwater AND Cures Cancer!

They also tested seaweed on him.

Seaweed versus Chemotherapy: Can Seaweed Treat Cancer? | GreenMedInfo


My father died of lung cancer in 1981. He had the second fastest kind. We would have tried/done ANYTHING. So would he have. He was a patient at an excellent hospital, Johns Hopkins in Baltimore. They could have taken every nickel we had. They didn't even try. I am grateful to them for that.

[Accountable]

oscar;1427126 wrote: In the UK any woman with a high risk ratio would be given the surgery free of charge on the NHS


Reconstruction as well?

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;1427156 wrote: Reconstruction as well? Yes. Totally free of charge.

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Breastcancer ... ction.aspx

[tabby]

Sounds like she may take it a step further ~~~~~> Angelina Jolie may have ovaries removed in preemptive cancer fight | MNN - Mother Nature Network

[Saint_]

Ahso!;1427008 wrote: And all she needs to do is get her vitamin D levels up. Very drastic decision borne out of ignorance.


I don't know about that, the docs are getting pretty good at genetic testing these days....

[Ahso!]

Saint_;1427261 wrote: I don't know about that, the docs are getting pretty good at genetic testing these days....Yes they are and no doubt Jolie had the gene that's been identified with breast cancer. The question that's been answered in the research is why a gene causes cancer, any cancer. If anyone bothers reading any of the papers or viewing the longer videos I linked they'd learn an awful lot. The fact is that the gene that was identified in Jolie may still cause cancer, just not breast cancer, so in effect she lowered her chances of breast cancer but not cancer in general, she has done nothing to change that unless she is doing vit-d3 therapy. And, if vit-d3 therapy is being done, chances are that she didn't need the surgery in the first place.

[Ahso!]

tabby;1427234 wrote: Sounds like she may take it a step further ~~~~~> Angelina Jolie may have ovaries removed in preemptive cancer fight | MNN - Mother Nature NetworkI think it's best to address the cancer itself instead of getting into organ removal simply because one doesn't plan on using the organ any longer. I just don't think like that. If the cancer is unavoidable, I could understand, but it's a myth that cancer is unavoidable. We now know that cancer is avoidable in what is looking like might be overwhelming numbers.

[along-for-the-ride]

Opinion: What Angelina Jolie forgot to mention - CNN.com

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1427271 wrote: I think it's best to address the cancer itself instead of getting into organ removal simply because one doesn't plan on using the organ any longer. I just don't think like that. If the cancer is unavoidable, I could understand, but it's a myth that cancer is unavoidable. We now know that cancer is avoidable in what is looking like might be overwhelming numbers.


You continue to remain Ignorant.

Most women developing breast cancer will have a double mastectomy and removal of the lymph nodes. There Is every chance the cancer will spread to the lungs so the woman has to undergo aggressive Chemo also.

Have you ever actually spent any time with a woman who Is under going aggressive chemo and has a festering sore In place of her breasts? It Is far worse than trying to recover from any other surgery because the Chemo will knock the womans recovery rate. When I visited my sisters hospice at the end after 9 bouts of chemo, her breast tissue still had not healed. She was In agony every day of her life from a festering sore that the Chemo sapped from healing.

And you think any woman should go through that than have her breasts removed now while she's In prime health?.... Dear God

[LarsMac]

As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about Breast cancer.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1427474 wrote: As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about Breast cancer.Any male doctors or otherwise who encouraged or advised Jolie to have the procedure instead of simply supplying her with ALL the information would have been out of bounds?

[Oscar Namechange]

Ahso!;1427478 wrote: Any male doctors or otherwise who encouraged or advised Jolie to have the procedure instead of simply supplying her with ALL the information would have been out of bounds? Do you really write these posts just to wind people up or are you really that arrogant and Ignorant ?

Angelina Jolie and her partner Brad Pitt are multi millionaires with connections even In the White house.

Do you really believe that this woman who Is a Special Envoy and Goodwill Ambassador for the United States, a Goodwill Ambassador for UNHCR who has carried out field operations In Syria on behalf of the USA government Is so brainless that she has been persueded by some back street quack to have her breasts removed?

Are you really Insulting her Intelligence to that level or are you just plain stupid?

So you think with all her wealth and her connections that some faceless nobody like you on a chit chat forum knows more than her?

[Snooz]

[YZGI]

LarsMac;1427474 wrote: As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about Breast cancer.


As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about (insert any topic).

[Saint_]

YZGI;1427560 wrote: As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about (insert any topic).


You got that right! A girl's logic is only logical to another girl. (took me fifty years to learn that...)

[Oscar Namechange]

When my sister died, she left three young children.

I defy anyone to stand In a graveyard and watch three very young children throwing roses on the their Mother's coffin as it's lowered Into the ground and then tell me that Ms Jolie with 6 young children did not do the right thing.

It's all very well saying treat the cancer once it's there but If It's already In the lymph nodes and on it's way to the lungs when It's first diagnosed, It may be too late,

My Sisters children were condemmed to a life of sadness.. They don't get over losing their mother at that age and anyone who thinks It gets better with time, is an arrogant, Illinformed moron. Just old enough to remember her voice and what she smelt like but too young to remember events.

Those children grow up with events In their lives that we take for granted always tinged with sadness.

Their first day at school....... Their Mother Is not there to see them.

Their appearence In the school concert...... their Mother Is not there to see them.

Their 16th birthday party..... their Mother Is not there to see them.

Their wedding.....their Mother Is not there to see them.

the birth of their first child..... Their Mother Is not there to see It...

And on and on it goes. Every event of their lives Is tinged with great sadness.

My sisters children describe not having their Mother as ' Being robbed' and their children have also been robbed of a beautiful grandmother.

Angelina Jolie absolutely did the right thing.

[Accountable]

My mother died when I was young. It's hard, but not as hopeless and forlorn as you make it out to be. You probably feel more sadness at those times than they do because you know what they're missing. They don't, really.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1427474 wrote: As a man, I would never even attempt to second guess a woman's choices about Breast cancer.Are you equating breast cancer with abortion? They're not the same - for one thing males are also subject to breast cancer, though in much smaller numbers.

[Oscar Namechange]

Accountable;1427597 wrote: My mother died when I was young. It's hard, but not as hopeless and forlorn as you make it out to be. You probably feel more sadness at those times than they do because you know what they're missing. They don't, really. With the greatest of respect Accountable, I think It's tougher for girls when they lose their Mother young.

[AnneBoleyn]

oscar;1427703 wrote: With the greatest of respect Accountable, I think It's tougher for girls when they lose their Mother young.


For Accountable & Oscar---how one relates to death of a parent is as individual to a person as any other thing in life, no more/no less. We react how we react, no better, no worse. And just because a boy may not feel as free to show it, the depth of his feeling may still be great.

It also helps if there are supportive adults around. When a parent dies, as my son's father did, the focus given was to me, the widow.

Lots of factors involved.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1427613 wrote: Are you equating breast cancer with abortion? They're not the same - for one thing males are also subject to breast cancer, though in much smaller numbers.


Where did you come up with THAT?!?

[Accountable]

AnneBoleyn;1427704 wrote: For Accountable & Oscar---how one relates to death of a parent is as individual to a person as any other thing in life, no more/no less. We react how we react, no better, no worse. And just because a boy may not feel as free to show it, the depth of his feeling may still be great.

It also helps if there are supportive adults around. When a parent dies, as my son's father did, the focus given was to me, the widow.

Lots of factors involved.
No doubt.

The place I was coming from was that spending my youth in foster care I've known dozens (hundreds, come to think of it) of kids who lost their parents either through death, prison, abuse, etc. Weird as it sounds, whatever environment a child grows up in is "normal" to that child. I'm sure it's part coping mechanism and part lack of perspective, but I think it's a huge reason kids are so resilient.

[Ahso!]

LarsMac;1427710 wrote: Where did you come up with THAT?!?In reality we're not talking about choice per se as much as we're talking about informed choice.

The question is: if people who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene knew that science research showed a likelihood of therapy treatment of the gene[s] themselves could reduce their chances of developing breast cancer would they choose a mastectomy instead?

We have a medical and pharmaceutical industry which are both linked to cancer and its research that for the most part refuse to acknowledge the findings of a natural occurrence and healing abilities of the body and nature. The general population and females in particular have been scared into thinking that if you're not careful the cancer monster will get you.

The problem is not the gene, but the breakdown of the gene, and that's what vit-d3 addresses. If the gene could be prevented from breaking down that would prevent cancer. Breakdown of gene integrity is what cancer is.

There's a lot of money made off cancer, like it or not and believe it or not.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1427714 wrote: No doubt.

The place I was coming from was that spending my youth in foster care I've known dozens (hundreds, come to think of it) of kids who lost their parents either through death, prison, abuse, etc. Weird as it sounds, whatever environment a child grows up in is "normal" to that child. I'm sure it's part coping mechanism and part lack of perspective, but I think it's a huge reason kids are so resilient.Sounds like a survival adaptation to me.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1427722 wrote: Sounds like a survival adaptation to me.
Yes, probably, but are you implying that you disagree? Is there a difference between a survival adaptation and a coping mechanism?

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1427769 wrote: Yes, probably, but are you implying that you disagree? Is there a difference between a survival adaptation and a coping mechanism?I'm saying coping mechanisms are adaptations.

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1427772 wrote: I'm saying coping mechanisms are adaptations.
Got it.

[LarsMac]

Ahso!;1427721 wrote: In reality we're not talking about choice per se as much as we're talking about informed choice.

The question is: if people who carry the BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene knew that science research showed a likelihood of therapy treatment of the gene[s] themselves could reduce their chances of developing breast cancer would they choose a mastectomy instead?

We have a medical and pharmaceutical industry which are both linked to cancer and its research that for the most part refuse to acknowledge the findings of a natural occurrence and healing abilities of the body and nature. The general population and females in particular have been scared into thinking that if you're not careful the cancer monster will get you.

The problem is not the gene, but the breakdown of the gene, and that's what vit-d3 addresses. If the gene could be prevented from breaking down that would prevent cancer. Breakdown of gene integrity is what cancer is.

There's a lot of money made off cancer, like it or not and believe it or not.


Ummm, ...,

OK

[Accountable]

Just heard on the "news" (Today, on NBC) that the surgery dropped Jolie's chances of cancer from 87% to 5%. I think I'd have my leg amputated for that, especially after watching a family member suffer and die.

NOW she should be taking vit D to knock out that last 5%.

[AnneBoleyn]

Her maternal aunt died today or yesterday from breast cancer & she had the same genetic problem.

Angelina Jolie's aunt dies of breast cancer | Film | guardian.co.uk

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1428189 wrote: Just heard on the "news" (Today, on NBC) that the surgery dropped Jolie's chances of cancer from 87% to 5%. I think I'd have my leg amputated for that, especially after watching a family member suffer and die.

NOW she should be taking vit D to knock out that last 5%.In what way will increasing Vit-d3 levels help Jolie?

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1428197 wrote: In what way will increasing Vit-d3 levels help Jolie?
How should I know? You're the advocate.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1428207 wrote: How should I know? You're the advocate.So you've just been trolling?

[Accountable]

Ahso!;1428210 wrote: So you've just been trolling?
Holy sh!t, I can't even give your ideas support without you sniping. Phucking loser. Go away.

[Ahso!]

Accountable;1428213 wrote: Holy sh!t, I can't even give your ideas support without you sniping. Phucking loser. Go away.That's a pretty strong denial, a little over the top I'd say. Like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

You said you read and understood the research. However, your post of knocking out the last 5 percent says differently. You didn't like being called on it, that's all.

Here I thought we had had a real exchange. Oh well!

[AnneBoleyn]

Geesh here they go again.

[Snooz]

Ahso!;1428214 wrote: That's a pretty strong denial, a little over the top I'd say. Like a kid who got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

You said you read and understood the research. However, your post of knocking out the last 5 percent says differently. You didn't like being called on it, that's all.

Here I thought we had had a real exchange. Oh well!


I didn't read it that way at all. The percentage for her getting cancer was very high and (IMHO) drastic measures were needed. Now that she's at a much safer 5%, she can use Vitamin D to circumvent the odds to zero percent. I'm pretty sure that's all he meant.

[Ahso!]

SnoozeAgain;1428221 wrote: I didn't read it that way at all. The percentage for her getting cancer was very high and (IMHO) drastic measures were needed. Now that she's at a much safer 5%, she can use Vitamin D to circumvent the odds to zero percent. I'm pretty sure that's all he meant.I'm certain you're right, but that's not what the research regarding cancer says. That's the point. Acct claimed he took the time to actually read and understand the research papers I provided, he even went so far as to say I misunderstood them.

[AnneBoleyn]

Ahso!;1428223 wrote: I'm certain you're right, but that's not what the research regarding cancer says. That's the point. Acct claimed he took the time to actually read and understand the research papers I provided, he even went so far as to say I misunderstood them.


Schtickler. That's what my mother would call you.

[Oscar Namechange]

An Also ran.... That's what my Mother would call him.