ForumGarden

I'm sure everyone's heard about Angelina Jolie's decision to have a double mastectomy to avoid getting breast cancer in the future.

Opinion: Angelina Jolie's brave message - CNN.com

While I admire her openness in discussing this and helping people be aware of genetic testing, is it really "heroic" of her to have this done when the odds were 87% that she'd get breast cancer sometime in the future? Brave yes, but isn't it a decision most of us would ultimately choose if we wanted to live to see our small children grow up?

And all she needs to do is get her vitamin D levels up. Very drastic decision borne out of ignorance.

What she did was brave In a precautionary sense. Many young woman take this choice especially If like her. they have young children. at odds of 87 percent, I think she was well advised.

Ahso!;1427008 wrote: And all she needs to do is get her vitamin D levels up. Very drastic decision borne out of ignorance. My sister died young from breast cancer. She left 3 young small children. It devastated her children and our family. She died a very slow, long death but silly me, I was so ignorant that I didn't just tell her to get her vitamin D levels up. Wanker.

Jolie's mother died of cancer at a relatively young age, she's probably got a horror of getting it herself. I can't blame her for getting this done, to me it seems like a 'no brainer.'

SnoozeAgain;1427011 wrote: Jolie's mother died of cancer at a relatively young age, she's probably got a horror of getting it herself. I can't blame her for getting this done, to me it seems like a 'no brainer.' My mother's sister died from breast cancer although she survived It, my maternal grandmother also had breast cancer. So after my Sister died, over the years, all females on my Mother's side have been tested. But then, all they had to do was get their Vitamin D levels up.

Yeah, I heard that. Fortunately, I take D supplements, so I should be safe.

SnoozeAgain;1427013 wrote: Yeah, I heard that. Fortunately, I take D supplements, so I should be safe. That's OK then, you'll be totally Immune now.

oscar;1427010 wrote: My sister died young from breast cancer. She left 3 young small children. It devastated her children and our family. She died a very slow, long death but silly me, I was so ignorant that I didn't just tell her to get her vitamin D levels up. Wanker.You blame yourself for your sisters death? It's not your fault so you can stop calling yourself a Wanker. The research may not have been there then, I don't know. However, it's there now and if a physician neglects to inform a patient of that research that's why second and sometimes third opinions are important. We also have the internet and the vast amount of information that non-experts were not privy to in the past.

None of us knows how much research Jolie did in reaching her decision, and it's her body and her life. I just know that a double mastectomy because of the fear of cancer appears to be an extreme decision. If she was informed of the research involving vitamin D why not get the levels up and monitor it closely?

Ahso!;1427016 wrote: You blame yourself for your sisters death? It's not your fault so you can stop calling yourself a Wanker. The research may not have been there then, I don't know. However, it's there now and if a physician neglects to inform a patient of that research that's why second and sometimes third opinions are important. We also have the internet and the vast amount of information that non-experts were not privy to in the past.

None of us knows how much research Jolie did in reaching her decision, and it's her body and her life. I just know that a double mastectomy because of the fear of cancer appears to be an extreme decision. If she was informed of the research involving vitamin D why not get the levels up and monitor it closely?


Instead of just being an arssehole.... prove It.

Show me factual, documented scientific evidence that an Increase In Vitamin D will slow down or halt gene related breast cancer thus eradicating the need for women to undergo a The BRCA gene scan to determine If they are at risk.

You do realise what you are actually saying here? That Vitiamn D cures a specific cancer.... or are you just talking complete bollocks again ?

Should we call you a taxi? What I'm saying is that this isn't what makes you a Wanker.

Ask nicely.

Ahso!;1427023 wrote: Should we call you a taxi? What I'm saying is that this isn't what makes you a Wanker.Show me factual, documented scientific evidence that an Increase In Vitamin D will slow down or halt gene related breast cancer thus eradicating the need for women to undergo a The BRCA gene scan to determine If they are at risk.

https://www.google.com/url?url=http://s ... Qw&cad=rja

If that's too long and technical

Vitamin D | Vitamin D Council | Providing information on vitamin D

Or if you'd like a short video

Breast Cancer Prevention - Grassroots Health 10-8-11 - YouTube

I'll throw some press coverage in for good measure

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/521581/ ... -vitamin-d

Yes, please, show us the evidence.

Ahso!;1427026 wrote: https://www.google.com/url?url=http://s ... Qw&cad=rja

If that's too long and technical

Vitamin D | Vitamin D Council | Providing information on vitamin D

Or if you'd like a short video

Breast Cancer Prevention - Grassroots Health 10-8-11 - YouTube


It's research, trend and theory not actual evidence.

Show me factual, documented scientific evidence that an Increase In Vitamin D will slow down or halt gene related breast cancer thus eradicating the need for women to undergo a The BRCA gene scan to determine If they are at risk

Taken from lined cancer site.

A recent study found that women with early stage breast cancer who had low levels of vitamin D were more likely to have their cancer come back in a distant part of the body and had a poorer outlook. More research is needed to confirm this finding, and it is not yet clear if taking vitamin D supplements would be helpful. Still, you may want to talk to your doctor about testing your vitamin D level to see if it is in the healthy range.



What's new in breast cancer research?

Taxi for Ahso :driving:

If you can't believe the scientists you ain't gonna believe me. I'll give you one more but it's up to you to do the reading. Search google, it's all over the internet.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/vitdcancerpaper

oscar;1427030 wrote: Taken from lined cancer site.

A recent study found that women with early stage breast cancer who had low levels of vitamin D were more likely to have their cancer come back in a distant part of the body and had a poorer outlook. More research is needed to confirm this finding, and it is not yet clear if taking vitamin D supplements would be helpful. Still, you may want to talk to your doctor about testing your vitamin D level to see if it is in the healthy range.



What's new in breast cancer research?

Taxi for Ahso :driving:You do realize that you just lent support to my case, don't you?

What the evidence shows time and again is that where cancer is present vitamin D serum levels are below 30ng/ml. I don't know of any cases where the serum levels are at or above that and cancer is present. That in itself is good evidence.

The fact that you can't say that vitamin D is actually preventing cancer because you don't know who would have developed it in the first place among people who don't have it. And since there's no record that I've seen it's a fair assumption that combined with the research that's been done, most cancers, including breast and colon are not present in patients with sufficient levels of vit-d.

The link you provided stated that tests were carried out on men and women. It offers no actual evidence that It halts or slows down breast cancer.

I have also provided you with a link from the cancer site stating there Is no actual evidence of this.

You can stick as many links as you like here, as yet, It Is merely research.

The only way this could be scientifically proven is If you took 2,000 women who were found to be of high risk following a BRCA gene scan and deprived 1,000 of them of Vitamin D.

Alternatively, take 2,000 women In the early stages with a breast cancer tumor, deny half of them Vitamin D and wait and see which one's die.

There will never come a day where research such as that could be proven because the former suggestion I made, would have to be enough women with the exact same risk factor as each other and the latter trial would not see all the women taking part ith the same Gleeson scale rating.

With an 87% chance of getting breast cancer, while extreme, I understand her decision to have them removed. Surgery after you get cancer in tandem with radiation and chemo is a lot harder on your body than removal and reconstructive surgery (possibly at the same time.)

I have a co-worker that's recovering from breast cancer/double mastectomy and they took so much skin during the removal that they had to transplant skin from her lower back when they were ready for reconstruction... not to mention they had to put balloon things in to stretch the skin first. She was in a lot of pain.

SnoozeAgain;1427041 wrote: With an 87% chance of getting breast cancer, while extreme, I understand her decision to have them removed. Surgery after you get cancer in tandem with radiation and chemo is a lot harder on your body than removal and reconstructive surgery (possibly at the same time.)

I have a co-worker that's recovering from breast cancer/double mastectomy and they took so much skin during the removal that they had to transplant skin from her lower back when they were ready for reconstruction... not to mention they had to put balloon things in to stretch the skin first. She was in a lot of pain.Like I said, it's her life and body and I understand your point. However, if this was one of my daughters, I believe I would have counseled her not to have the surgery under those conditions. But who knows, under duress there's always the possibility that I would have sided with the doctor, abandoned my position and said do it. I would support my child either way, (after beating her for disobeying me, that is).

I'd also like to note that that 87% is ignoring the vit-d factor. I will not be surprised when in a few more years when we come to admit that that 87% is significantly reduced or completely eliminated with the mindset of preventing, instead of curing cancer.

Ahso!;1427047 wrote: Like I said, it's her life and body and I understand your point. However, if this was one of my daughters, I believe I would have counseled her not to have the surgery under those conditions. But who knows, under duress there's always the possibility that I would have sided with the doctor, abandoned my position and said do it. I would support my child either way, (after beating her for disobeying me, that is).


Then you are an Idiot who would be meddling and gambling with your daughters life.

10% of women diagnosed even In the very early stages, the stage where the woman first discovers a lump, has already had the cancer spread to the lymph nodes as did my Sister. In some extreme cases, It can already be on the way to the lungs and liver as was my sister.

You can bet your bottom dollar that Ms Jolie would have had the very best and skilled consultants and doctors and would have discussed all options with her. The decision she has made Is not some whacky off the wall drastic measure. Many women all over the world have double mastectomys when found to be high risk.

Besides, you are not thinking this through. If a woman Is high risk as Ms Jolie was and Is later found to have breast cancer, one of the first options a surgeon will take Is a double mastectomy and removal of the lymph nodes to stop It spreading as Snooze said. You think that's a walk In the park for a woman do you Ahso? Imagine a festering sore the size of your chest. Then If you survive the cancer, the woman has to undergo skin grafting akin to a burns victim. That can take months and months of highly painful skin grafts and even breast reconstruction If the victim is a young woman who has to deal with the pyscological effects of having her breasts removed.

But what you are saying Ahso, Is that you would rather a young woman go through all that when she can take a preventive course of action that may just save her life also.

I've researched this pretty extensively and I believe the the science. Otherwise, Oscar, take a pill or something and relax. You've said your piece and we all see what an expert you are on cancer because some members of your family have allegedly had to deal with it.

Ahso!;1427049 wrote: I've researched this pretty extensively and I believe the the science. Otherwise, Oscar, take a pill or something and relax. You've said your piece and we all see what an expert you are on cancer because some members of your family have allegedly had to deal with it. This Is a forum Ahso, If I have to keep posting just so the chance of any poor woman being misled by your garbage Is negated, then I shall keep posting here.

Unlike you, I am not spouting half baked Idea's based on unproven research. What I have posted Is facts.

Forums are full of people like you who think they know It all.... Jack of all trades and master of **** all.

You can not research any " Science " when the science Is not there. I have linked the cancer site earlier who stated your theory is not proven.

There Is no science. It Is theory, research and a trend.

Let's try another angle.

Every year approx 40,000 women die of breast cancer In the USA.

Prove to me that every one of those 40,000 women had low levels of vitamin D.

Go on... show us the evidence.

You've read both of the papers I listed, Oscar? They are not theory, they are scientifically peer-reviewed papers. Do you know the difference?

Ahso!;1427052 wrote: You've read both of the papers I listed, Oscar? They are not theory, they are scientifically peer-reviewed papers. Do you know the difference?


Peer reviewed papers Is not scientifically proven clinical testing. the results of the tests you linked were tested on both men and women and not specifically breast cancer.

Or do you not know the difference between research and specific clinical testing?

An average of 40,000 women die every year In the USA from breast cancer. Show me scientific proven evidence that all 40,000 women had low levels of Vitamin D

oscar;1427051 wrote: Let's try another angle.

Every year approx 40,000 women die of breast cancer In the USA.

Prove to me that every one of those 40,000 women had low levels of vitamin D.

Go on... show us the evidence.The world does not revolve around how you'd like information spoon fed to you, Oscar. That's how children think, you know. The research is there, just read it. Anyone who has half their wits about them can understand the evidence. I realize you don't know this, but what I've supplied you with has been enough for experts on the issue.

oscar;1427054 wrote: Peer reviewed papers Is not scientifically proven clinical testing. the results of the tests you linked were tested on both men and women and not specifically breast cancer.

Or do you not know the difference between research and specific clinical testing?

An average of 40,000 women die every year In the USA from breast cancer. Show me scientific proven evidence that all 40,000 women had low levels of Vitamin DOkay, you don't know the difference. Enough said.

Nice job of hijacking a thread, you two.

LarsMac;1427057 wrote: Nice job of hijacking a thread, you two.Sorry.

Forgiven

Ahso!;1427056 wrote: Okay, you don't know the difference. Enough said. And you have absolutely no evidence that the 40,000 women who died of breast cancer In the USA last year all had low levels of Vitamin D.

As usual, you are not thinking this through. All the sites on Vitamin D say that It may slow down growth In some tumours. Not all, some.

Particually In breast cancer some Is far more aggressive than others and there is a chance that even if the research was proven, Vitamin D could have little effect or no effect on those aggressive forms.

But what you are saying, is that women should take the gamble.

Spoon fed ? No. Being every step of the way with my sister, Father and husband and being In on consultations with expert Doctors and consultations Is an Insight.

Getting back to Ms Joile... she has 6 very young children to consider. I can only Imagine she weighed up all the options with experts and as a Mother and from what I have read, a devoted hands on Mother, and decided not to gamble with her life. For that I commend her.

I'm sorry for the losses you've suffered, Oscar. I didn't say anything about what any women should do. I merely gave my input, said what my counsel would have been, backed it up with sound reasons why and that's it.

Let's now drop it, Oscar, and permit others to take from the exchange what they will. Deal?

What I'd like to say about Angelina Jolie is this: Jolie is a person who takes some tough stances on certain issues. She uses the influence that her name carries very unselfishly and for what she considers the good of her world. I admire her greatly. She made her voice heard, that's what counts.

LarsMac;1427057 wrote: Nice job of hijacking a thread, you two.


I don't mind, at least they're on topic.

Ahso!;1427064 wrote: I'm sorry for the losses you've suffered, Oscar. I didn't say anything about what any women should do. I merely gave my input, said what my counsel would have been, backed it up with sound reasons why and that's it.

Let's now drop it, Oscar, and permit others to take from the exchange what they will. Deal?


Why should you be? You don't know me and you don't know those I have lost... I didn't write that to get your sympathy just to make a point that I have sat through more Oncology Consultations and listened to more advice from the UK's Oncology Specialists than you can shake your dongle at... Sure, I don't know It all but I do have an Insight Into the subject.

End of.

Ahso!;1427052 wrote: You've read both of the papers I listed, Oscar? They are not theory, they are scientifically peer-reviewed papers. Do you know the difference?You're right they're not theory. Not even close. Peer reviewed papers merely state the result of tested hypotheses. Much more thorough research needs to be done before a hypothesis qualifies to be called a theory.

In short, those papers are little more than a scientist thinking out loud. One researcher acknowledges as much when (s)he hopes someone can confirm his/her findings.

To me, the most shocking information revealed by the stories about Ms Jolie is that some corporation "owns" the gene that predicts breast cancer. Because they "own" it, they can charge $3,000 for the test, which makes the test unavailable to many women who would like to know.

Ahso!;1427008 wrote: And all she needs to do is get her vitamin D levels up. Very drastic decision borne out of ignorance.
Followed by a devastating self-rebuttal:

Ahso!;1427016 wrote: None of us knows how much research Jolie did in reaching her decision,
With a backflip/double-twist:

Ahso!;1427016 wrote: If she was informed of the research involving vitamin D why not get the levels up and monitor it closely?


Your links that you apparently googled and threw up without reading:

http://www.direct-ms.org/sites/default/ ... ANES.pdfIn conclusion, the findings of this cohort analysis indicate a protective role of sunlight exposure and dietary vitamin D intake on breast cancer risk among white women. If confirmed,our results would be particularly promising for the primary prevention of breast cancer Unconfirmed study is hardly firm proof.

The second link, Vitamin D | Vitamin D Council | Providing information on vitamin D, had nothing at all about cancer, but a quick search revealed

Breast cancer and vitamin D | Vitamin D CouncilThe rate of breast cancer appears to decrease by approximately 30% when vitamin D levels in the blood are greater than 40 ng/mL (100 nmol/L) compared to lower levels of 20 ng/mL (50 nmol/L).Oh goody! Risk would APPEAR to be reduced from 85% down to a paltry 60%.

The third is a straight-up infomercial. I can't be arsed to waste that much time.

The fourth only has another unsubstantiate claim:

GRASSROOTSHEALTH | Eradicate Breast Cancer With Vitamin D?

... Garland, whose presentation was entitled "Breast Cancer as a Vitamin D Deficiency Disease" presented data showing that raising one's vitamin D status near those levels decreased breast cancer risk more than 77 percent.


Your last one wasn't even about breast cancer.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/d ... 021811.pdf

Conclusion: Universal intake of up to 40,000 IU vitamin

D per day is unlikely to result in vitamin D toxicity.


So your claim that "all she needs to do is get her vitamin D levels up" is sophistry.



It seems to me that Ms Jolie took a much lower risk option than that which you so glibly recommend (Take a vitamin and maybe you won't die ... we think). She opted instead for a relatively safe procedure to remove parts that the evidence overwhelmingly indicates could hurt or kill her -- parts that she was finished with and would no longer use.

Makes sense to me.

Cute!

Accountable;1427082 wrote: Your links that you apparently googled and threw up without reading:

http://www.direct-ms.org/sites/default/ ... nconfirmed study is hardly firm proof.Nope, I've read it and knew exactly what it said. It's proof that I wasn't exaggerating the claim. There are plenty of articles out there that appear more confident but aren't listed as peer reviewed. The worst you can say is that I remained cautious.

Accountable;1427082 wrote: The second link, Vitamin D | Vitamin D Council | Providing information on vitamin D, had nothing at all about cancer, but a quick search revealed

Breast cancer and vitamin D | Vitamin D CouncilOh goody! Risk would APPEAR to be reduced from 85% down to a paltry 60%.Don't know how that happened, the page your link brought me to was the page I meant to cite and the one I copied my link from. Again being conservative and attempting to make it easily understood. The point I was making here is that the research supported reduced incidence and control over already cancerous conditions and not in a preventative circumstance.

Accountable;1427082 wrote: The third is a straight-up infomercial. I can't be arsed to waste that much time.Again, trying to make it short and easy. Here's the long versions. They are talks at USC on UCTV. Search Results ( cedric garland ) - UCTV - University of California Television

Accountable;1427082 wrote: The fourth only has another unsubstantiate claim:

GRASSROOTSHEALTH | Eradicate Breast Cancer With Vitamin D?Here's more for you. Low Vitamin D Levels Linked to High Risk of Premenopausal Breast Cancer

You and I differ on how we would have counseled a person in the same position as Jolie, that's no big deal. She made her decision. Again, I'll believe the scientific research.

Accountable;1427082 wrote:

Your last one wasn't even about breast cancer.

http://www.grassrootshealth.net/media/d ... .pdfErased this by mistake above. The link is about Cancer and Vit-d. It's a pretty convincing research paper.

Ahso!;1427086 wrote: Again, I'll believe the scientific research.
The scientific research says nothing conclusive about vitamin D vis a vis breast cancer. The scientific research shows optimistic hypotheses in need of confirmation. The scientific research says that removing a breast removes the possibility of breast cancer.

I know that if I was threatened with an 85% risk of getting testicular cancer, considering that I'm done trying to have children, I'd have those babies removed yesterday rather than take a vitamin that some researchers and salesmen think that maybe will reduce the risk by 30%.

Is there a danger in having a breast removed that threatens health or life greater than would a 60% chance of developing breast cancer?

Accountable;1427094 wrote: The scientific research says nothing conclusive about vitamin D vis a vis breast cancer. The scientific research shows optimistic hypotheses in need of confirmation. The scientific research says that removing a breast removes the possibility of breast cancer.

I know that if I was threatened with an 85% risk of getting testicular cancer, considering that I'm done trying to have children, I'd have those babies removed yesterday rather than take a vitamin that some researchers and salesmen think that maybe will reduce the risk by 30%.

Is there a danger in having a breast removed that threatens health or life greater than would a 60% chance of developing breast cancer?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.

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. Also, that nobody in the media is asking is more indication that this research is not getting out.

The question of why the information is not out there as it should be is the meat of the story for now. In 2006 the VA changed its safe levels of vit-d serum levels from a maximum of 42ng/ml to 100ng/ml while the national cancer institute, the arm that he government relies on on its public website refuses to budge. Why might that be? I know what I think about that. Yet even the NCI is being forced to tone down their resistance.

There are significant organizations out there that stand to loose a lot of funding if the vit-d story is told honestly. As in this quote they are finally beginning to admit that the doses of vit-d in trials is way too low, which is what the people pushing for more studies has been asserting for a long time now and have been brushed aside until recently.




Is there evidence that vitamin D can help reduce breast cancer risk?



Epidemiologic studies of the association between vitamin D and breast cancer risk have had conflicting results. Although several studies have suggested an inverse association between vitamin D intake and the risk of breast cancer, others have shown no association or even a positive association (that is, individuals with higher intakes had higher risks). A meta-analysis of six studies that investigated the relationship between vitamin D intake and breast cancer risk found no association (19). However, most women in these studies had relatively low vitamin D intakes, and, when the analysis was restricted to women with the highest vitamin D intakes (>10 μg, or 400 IU, per day), their breast cancer risks were lower than those of women with the lowest intakes (typically 19).

In the Women’s Health Initiative, calcium plus vitamin D supplementation for an average of 7 years did not reduce the incidence of invasive breast cancer compared with placebo (20).

The association between blood levels of vitamin D and breast cancer risk was examined in a cohort of postmenopausal women who were enrolled in NCI’s Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial and from whom blood was drawn at study entry. During the subsequent follow-up period, 1,005 of these women developed breast cancer. When researchers compared the blood vitamin D levels of these women with those of 1,005 similar control women who did not develop breast cancer, they found no association between vitamin D status and risk of breast cancer (21).


http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/fact ... /vitamin-D

And this is the reason the claim of insufficient results is there. However, organizations such as the Vitamin D Counsel and Grassroots Health have been mounting their own research efforts, since they've been shut out of the funding for studying the issue like it needs to be with higher levels of vit-d levels in the blood.

One more quote and link:

What are Optimum Blood Levels of Vitamin D?

For numerous reasons (optimal calcium absorption, maximal suppression of PTH, reduction in blood pressure, decreased incidence of various cancers, retarding the progression of osteoarthritis, reducing the incidence of autoimmune illness, reduction in CRP, etc), healthful blood levels of calcidiol [25(OH)D] are between 35 and 50 ng/ml although commercial labs usually report “normal or Gaussian distributions of between 8-72 ng/ml depending on the latitude of the lab’s population.

Therefore, commercial reference laboratories also mislead physicians and their patients by reporting “normal (Gaussian distributions of a deficient population) instead of healthful calcidiol levels. Patients need to know these facts before asking their physician for the calcidiol [25(OH)D] blood test.

Until the medical profession becomes knowledgeable on this matter, patients need to become educated, educate their physicians, get the proper blood test and then take steps to raise their calcidiol level if it is less than 35 ng/ml. We know of no reason to exceed 50 ng/ml.

Populations around the equator (where man evolved) and groups spending time outdoors without many clothes (lifeguards), have levels of around 50 ng/ml. Such observations have important implications for the vitamin D conditions under which humans evolved.

In other words, it suggests humans have had 25(OH)D levels of around 50 ng/ml for 99.99 percent of the time they have been on earth. Only in the last several hundred years has urbanization, industrialization, glass (UVB does not penetrate glass), excessive clothes (UVB does not penetrate clothes) and sunblock lowered 25(OH)D levels to their current deficient levels.

Source

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.

We'd recently taken our intake levels down to 5,000iu per day.

Wandrin;1427081 wrote: To me, the most shocking information revealed by the stories about Ms Jolie is that some corporation "owns" the gene that predicts breast cancer. Because they "own" it, they can charge $3,000 for the test, which makes the test unavailable to many women who would like to know.That's outrageous, isn't it. That genes inside my body can be and are owned by corporations. The patent system needs changing.

posted by wandrin

To me, the most shocking information revealed by the stories about Ms Jolie is that some corporation "owns" the gene that predicts breast cancer. Because they "own" it, they can charge $3,000 for the test, which makes the test unavailable to many women who would like to know.




Actually they don't.The genome isn't owned by anybody. What it is is that some biotech companies want to patent all and any possible applictions. In other words the raw data can't be patented the debate is over who owns the products that come from it. The main thing to bear in mind is we don't have to let private comopanies hold everybody to ransom. That a private company wants to charge charitable cancer research groups for using the gene in their research is an obscenity we should not allow. Especially when it was an international effort that completed the research in the first place.

BBC News | HUMAN GENOME | Who owns the genome?

No In the UK.... Testing Is free as are mammograms.

Breast cancer genes - Live Well - NHS Choices

My mother's breast cancer is being treated with the drug Letrozole which she takes in pill form. She has no side effects from it except for the positive one of the cancer disappearing rapidly. May we all live to see the day when all cancers can be successfully treated with a simple pill!

The oncologist also has her taking 2000 iu of vitamin D daily as part of her regimen. I started taking the vitamin D myself after I saw how much the doctor stressed it.

As for the decision Ms. Jolie made, I don't know which route I'd take if it were me. It's easy to speculate but difficult to know for sure until we're actually faced with it.