The ''Root Cause" of Cancer From One of Only Two Origins.
Comments
-
On another forum I belong to (not bc related), they refer to themselves as "white rats". Ideas are put forth every day. I know researchers are reading that forum. Having an open mind to new concepts can't hurt.
-
" border="" hspace="" vspace="" width="" height="" align="" /> -
LFMAO. This is great entertainment.
The junk science is stupendous. Thanks Madlyn and Timothy but I think its a fruitless task. I for one will stick with people who are doing real research be in alternative, complementary or conservative.
-
RunsWithScissors -- that cartoon is priceless!!!!!!!
I think I'd better print it out and carry it in my wallet -- with a sponsor to call if I can't overcome the urge to "correct"!!!
LOL
-
Aaaaahahahaha - love the cartoon! I resemble that remark, but it can't be me - my hair is finally growing back, LOL!
AnnNYC, LOL - some people have far worse urges than that!
-
-
Runswithscisors: with reguards to the follow the money comment:
I've got enough on my plate right now without the need to launch a conspiracy theory. I did include the line in the original post, "It would not be sensible for us to expect them ( pharmacy industry) to turn the microscope in onto themselves". It is a legitimate concern, and part of my problem having an idea that doesn't fit nicely into their approach, and they have both the rule book and the check book and call all the shots. A philosopher in a medical arena has as much clout and social status as a b@stard at a family reunion.(there are probably more appropriate clichés that I could have used there but I can't think of any.)
-
Member_of_the_Club, you wrote this:
"....Why this doesn't count, I don't know, but since a third of breast cancers are her2neu positive, the revolution of herceptin, even if it just targets that subset, will make a huge overall dent."
And then, you wrote this:
"....You have a lot of time on your hands. This is all just silly. ..."
On the second point, I would just say this: considering that I see you here every time I am here myself (and I am happy to see you, because I appreciate your calm, measured responses)...... it would appear that you, too, have plenty of time on your hands (so faithfully reading all these threads
).On your first point: you are here, like most of us, to partially validate your treatment choices, not simply to learn. And you should: believing that one is doing one's best to beat cancer is just as important as any drug or supplement.
However, while some posts might contain what you describe as "sentences that are just not true," so do some of yours. So, concerning HERCEPTIN, I am an active, card-carrying member of the National Breast Cancer Coalition Fund (NBCCF), whose President is Fran Visco. The NBCCF is responsible for the funding that allowed Dr. Dennis Slamon to continue his work on HERCEPTIN, and make it a reality. And this is a fact: you can find it on the NBCCF web site, and everywhere else. My feet start aching when I recall the amount of walking I have done on "Lobby Days" for NBCCF, in order to help maintain/obtain more breast cancer research funds. The NBCCF is rightfully proud of what advocacy has achieved in the case of HERCEPTIN.
However, our outspoken Fran Visco has had confrontational conversations with Dennis Slamon about the dreadful side effects of HERCEPTIN, which, once again, threaten to wipe much of the benefits that women potentially stand to reap from this drug (the story of cancer treatment?). I have been present as an activist during such conversations. Besides, Fran Visco has also written this now-famous article:
"We fought cancer and cancer won": http://www.newsweek.com/id/157548/. Self-explanatory.
-
purple_X wrote:
with reguards to the follow the money comment: I've got enough on my plate right now without the need to launch a conspiracy theory.
****************
Interesting. I never really equated "follow the money" to conspiracy theories. It see it more as just tracing a problem back it's source. I don't imagine there is a master plan behind it. Rather, just a bunch of people chasing the shortest route to maximum profits.
The fact that no one has stumbled upon the cure on their way to the bank is a just a coincidence. Unfortunately, it's a likely and predictable coincidence.
bluedahlia wrote: On another forum I belong to (not bc related), they refer to themselves as "white rats".
****************
I would love to hear more about white rats...
-
-
Timothy: you have me quoted as having said "The definition of cancer is a cause from outside the individual cell", but if you look closely you will see that I wrote "This definition of cancer..."referring to my definition which places the blame on the immune system as opposed to the DNA. You also have me saying" children have different cancers because they don't form scar tissue like adults."I actually said "A wound that would result in a scare formation on an adult is less likely to form scar tissue when a similar wound is received by a child. Much of the required repair would be undertaken by the DNA process of cell replacement, which does not have the cosmetically and functionally inferior qualities as does the scar tissue". You mention in your post the uniqueness of scar tissue and how it is easily identifiable. This is one of the problems that I have with the DNA method of cell replacement, because if that theory were to hold true, cancer wouldn't be identifiable, aside from the mass. The resulting cells shouldn't be any different. Fibroblast, collagen matrix (connective tissue), these are all terms associated with scar tissue that make it unique to the surrounding tissues. There is much correlation between the properties of scar tissue and cancerous tissue. Here is a quote from an article entitled Promotion of collagen production by human fibroblasts with gastric cancer cells in vitro "These results demonstrate that gastric cancer cells enhance collagen production by fibroblasts in vitro"
It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be some occurrences of ‘heart cancer'. The heart is a vital organ with access to an unlimited blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. Yet I have never heard the term ‘heart cancer' being used. Hardening of the arteries could be accounted for by the immune system repairing the cells of the artery walls with the formation of scar tissue. Scaring can be observed in many of the heart attack victims. Post-mortems and biopsies of heart attack victims have shown that there is both fat and fibrosis (scar tissue) replacing the muscle cells in the heart. Often a patient can be identified as having suffered a heart attack by observing scaring of the heart tissue, even if the patient is not aware that he or she has had a heart attack. A long drawn out fight with the disease is unlikely because any blockage or restrictions caused by the scar tissue will have immediate and severe consequences. Perhaps this is why we have not needed the term "heart cancer". When we compare the similarities between the two diseases, we could deduce that the same element exist in heart disease, as in cancer. Both diseases were relatively scarce as recent as a century ago. According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, heart attacks caused less than three thousand deaths in the United States as late as the year 1930. Your lifetime risk of developing heart disease now is one in two if you are male and one in three if you are female. Cancer statistics have had an equally poignant escalation in numbers over the same period. In fact they are identical. It is also of interest to note the resemblance between global cancer events, and global heart disease. The latest available data from the World Health Organization (WHO) MONICA Project indicate that the coronary event rate (per 100,000) in men was highest in Finland (North Karelia,835) and lowest in China (Beijing, 81). A global map of coronary events show that you are more than ten times as likely to have heart disease if you are raised in Finland as opposed to being raised in China. These WHO global maps of cancer clusters show that you are forty times more likely to acquire cancer from being raised in Denmark, as compared to being raised in Thailand. Both of these diseases have been attributed the term ‘modern disease', and as a result, the focus of finding the cause has been confined to ‘modern' practices (modern food additives, modern lifestyles, etc.) Practically every aspect of our modern lives have been studied and considered as a possible cause. But the one thing that has avoided being studied, and is most definitely a modern phenomenon, is our treatment of the immune system itself. The modern tendency to supply the body with these immune enhancing pharmaceuticals are the one thing that has avoided being studied, primarily because such studies into the causation of diseases are conducted and financed by the pharmaceutical industry itself.
You ask "What leads you to believe that the immune system stimulates division of breast, lung, brain or other cancerous cell types?" I am not saying the immune system stimulates cancer, or causes cells to become cancerous. I am saying that the inability for the immune system to stop itself IS the cancer. The creation of unwanted cells is cancer. If the immune system does not receive a stop code, it becomes the cancer by virtue of the fact that it is now generating unwanted tissues. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...maybe it's a duck.Something is malfunctioning, either the DNA or the immune system. What leads me to believe it is the immune system is outlined in the post.
-
I am not saying the immune system stimulates cancer, or causes cells to become cancerous. I am saying that the inability for the immune system to stop itself IS the cancer. The creation of unwanted cells is cancer. If the immune system does not receive a stop code, it becomes the cancer by virtue of the fact that it is now generating unwanted tissues. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...maybe it's a duck.Something is malfunctioning, either the DNA or the immune system. What leads me to believe it is the immune system is outlined in the post.
Can you be a little briefer and more precise in laying out what your theory is? What are the key elements and the evidence to support them? Its really hard for me to gleem from the writings what role these various things (outside factors, age of individual, immune system) play in your theory.
-
purple_X wrote: It is reasonable to expect from what we know about cancer, that there should be some occurrences of ‘heart cancer'. The heart is a vital organ with access to an unlimited blood supply, just as the liver, pancreas, lung etc. Yet I have never heard the term ‘heart cancer' being used.
Perhaps the reason you've never heard of "heart cancer'" is because you're not using the commonly used terminology for cancer occuring in cardiac tissue. It's rare, but it does occur, even in children. Do a search using the term cardiac sarcoma.
-
Yazmin, I didn't have herceptin because I was her2neu negative so I'm not validating my choices. I don't see how awful side effects (and i would never gloss over side effects) wipe out the benefits. When i was diagnosed herceptin could only be obtained in clinical trials and I was told if I was positive for her2neu overexpression I would (a) have a particular deadly form of bc, and (b) could enter a clinical trial for herceptin but would only have a 50% chance of getting the drug. Turns out I didn't need it, but I was terrified at the prospect of needing it and not getting it.
I'm not sure what I said about it wasn't true. Now that it is being given for early stage cancers, the survival rate for these previously deadly breast cancers is going to rise dramatically. This is a fact. And since one third of breast cancers involve her2neu overexpression, this is absolutely going to make a dent in overall survival.
I am definitely posting too much on this thread, you are right.
-
purple_X wrote:
as a result, the focus of finding the cause has been confined to ‘modern' practices (modern food additives, modern lifestyles, etc.) Practically every aspect of our modern lives have been studied and considered as a possible cause.
***************
Environmental Carcinogens are only recently being considered as a probable cause:
" The methods that have been used to attribute cancer risk to environmental exposures are
outdated and flawed, and should no longer be used to determine policy or set research priorities.
Consensus Statement on Cancer and the Environment ~ October 2008
In 1981, Richard Doll and Richard Peto8 estimated the percentage of cancer deaths that would be avoided if certain risk factors were addressed, including occupational and environmental......These well-cited sources estimated that only a small percentage of cancer deaths could be prevented by reducing exposure to cancer risks in the environment (~2%) or in workplaces (~4% - 5%), while the majority of cancers would be avoided by improvements in diet and eliminating exposure to tobacco smoke...
...These estimates of attributing cancer risk do not reflect our new understanding of the complexity of cancer causation.
As acknowledged later by Sir Richard Doll, the calculation of attributable fractions fails to account for the fact that exposures interact with each other, making the attribution of cancers to single causes highly speculative and uncertain. National cancer research and intervention priorities over the past 37 years have been strongly influenced by Doll and Peto’s attributable fractions. Those priorities need to be reset to reflect our new understanding of the complex causes of cancer.
Carcinogenesis is a multistage process that may begin as early as embryonic development and unfolds over a person’s life. It includes tumor initiation, promotion and progression. Risk factors for cancer can act alone to trigger a single stage in this process, or through the interaction with other factors to either directly or indirectly initiate one or more of the stages of carcinogenesis.From the Consensus Statement that has been prepared for submission to the President's Cancer Panel,
which is holding the four national meetings in 2008/2009 on cancer and the environment.
-
Runswithscissors;
This quote in my opinion is merely an attempt to justify the observable data, that the long lists of carcinogens are not leading us to victory over this disease. When we discovered that tobacco smoke was strongly linked to cancer, and sales of tobacco products dropped off, but the incidents of lung cancer did not follow, then it was suggested that it was second hand smoke that was responsible. Laws were put in place to limit the exposure to second hand smoke in restaurants and the workplace. Again, the lung cancer statistics did not follow.One needs to modify the model to account for the data, which is what the following statement is doing..."the calculation of attributable fractions fails to account for the fact that exposures interact with each other, making the attribution of cancers to single causes highly speculative and uncertain."
This is a ‘catch- all' phrase to justify the observable data, which shows that cancer statistics are getting worse despite our new found knowledge of what causes it. If we are to embrace this as our new reality, then compiling lists of carcinogen is fruitless. This seems to imply that we need to come to terms with the concept that cancer is here and there is no avoiding it, unless you are willing to revert back to the Stone Age. But all this is contingent on the root cause of cancer being from a flaw in the cell itself.
-
You almost had me there Purple! I agree that we cannot avoid carcinogens without moving back into caves... and not using fire for heat. Or going out in the sun....
So it doesn't really matter whether the cause of cancer is cellular or molecular then does it?
Just figure it out!
-
Could it be that our bodies were designed with the ability to fight toxins via the lymph system? We in modern America aren't harnessing it because we live in a convenience obscessed society that refuses to MOVE their bodies and sweat out toxins through our sweat glands? My geneticist asked me this question when I had mt BRCA testing done....."Do you use anti perspirants? How long?" I found this question odd and asked him if they hadn't already de-bunked the theory that anti-perspirants CAUSE breast cancer? He told me that, no, it doesn't "breast" cancer, but it prevents us from sweating and they do believe that this is a contributor to breast cancer - the fact that we are not sweating. Those glands are right there draining the breast tissue under the arm pit. Hmmm...food for thought. Cultures where they do not have access to anti perspirants or where they do a lot of lifting, moving, walking, climbing, sweating (like we use to here years ago before all of our modern conveniences), those cultures see a lower incidents of breast cancer. Made sense to me!
-
Timothy: the gist of my approach would be the health of the immune system would determine the likelihood of that individual coming down with some form of cancer. But the health of our immune system is determined by how much exercise it gets. The true health of the immune system seems to be counterintuitive. We, in modern times, tend to employ behaviour thinking we are promoting our health, which may actually be demoting our health. Enhancing, invigorating, revitalising, etc. our immune system with the many pharmaceuticals that are available to us, may be having the tendency to weaken us against carcinogens in our environment. The observable data that I use to support this proposition is global mapping of cancer statistics from the World Health Organization. Countries with the reputation of promoting and enhancing their own health (Scandinavian countries) have the highest rates of cancer. Countries with the lowest rates of cancer tend to be higher density populations huddled around a river system that provides for their transportation needs as well as their drinking bathing and waste removal needs. To exist in this environment, a prerequisite would be a well armed, well exercised immune system. An unhealthy weak immune system may become flawed and cause repairs to be undertaken that are not warranted. This line of thinking would help to understand both why cancer is a modern disease, and why it is predominantly a western disease.
KorynH
This is interesting. From within the western culture there is a disturbing counterintuitive point called the "couch potato paradox" also known as the' exercise paradox'. It has been observed that individuals, who don't look after themselves, tend to outlive those who do. But to account for this, it has been suggested that those who exercise are stimulating the production of free radicals and in turn are sweating out antioxidants. It could be argued from this, that the use of antiperspirants would hamper the removal of the antioxidants, and should therefore follow that antiperspirants would be linked to lower cancer statistics.
-
another way to interpret your global mapping statistics would be the more developed countries also have better systems of reporting/tracking causes of death - and can id cancer where those country's whose populations are huddled around fetid river systems might not have the resources to do so.
2. In those countries without sophisticated/cancer causing? health practices, perhaps the populations' immune systems, instead of being strengthened, are infact being defeated by infectious and parasitic diseases (typhoid/malaria/tb/cholera) BEFORE the Relatively slow progress of cancer can claim them.
Just some other ways to look at it!!
Julie E
-
Well, if "how you got here" DOES matter to you, then I suggest you STOP reading charlatans and their messed up, mangled pseudo-science and poor understanding of even the most basic biological issues.
It's pretty SAD that a SIXTH GRADER can figure out how to use the scientific method to work through an hypothesis, do research and formulate a solid, TESTABLE hypothesis, and this poster cannot. Dude, you don't have to be a scientist to learn to use legitimate research disciplines. Just ask any sixth grader. They do it all the time!
Instead we've got some wiener who sits alone at his computer all day and scours the InterTubes for questionable resource material at best, who then weaves into a framework that HE feels would "look good" or sound good, and then, disregarding even his OWN claim that he is a practiced philosopher (which philosophers also use a logical framework similar to the scientific method to formuate their theories as well), and he comes up with junk science, dots connecting where they don't connect in any other study, plus literally NO source reference to peer reviewed materials to back up his assertions?
I'll give you an example:
Assertion: But the health of our immune system is determined by how much exercise it gets.
Based on what?
Please cite the source for this.
Assertion: But to account for this, it has been suggested that those who exercise are stimulating the production of free radicals and in turn are sweating out antioxidants.
Suggested by whom? Based on what study?
The folly with this person is that he is coming to a site like this and spouting nonsense that someone in a vunerable state may latch onto, unaware of his complete lack of knowledge or background in ANY of the areas he's claiming enquiry or making assertions about, and that person may, as a result, alter her treatment plan, based solely on the ramblings of a wannabe expert.
I've seen it happen in other areas, and its despicable.
It's pointless even arguing or debating with this troll because he will continue to make faulty correlations and incorrect or baseless assertions that he cannot support with legitimate literature or peer reviewed studies.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if he is actually in the throes of some mental illness that compells him to write these meandering, baseless, medically and scientifically unsupported essays. He would probably have been better off taking his meds as directed.
-
Multiple insults to a susceptible host. It makes sense starts at the genetic level. But, what triggers it in some and not in others living the exact same lifestyle? So interesting to me.
-
....the final two sentences in his last post contradict each other....
-
Oh, by the way, another bogus assertion based on faulty interpretation of date:
"When we discovered that tobacco smoke was strongly linked to cancer, and sales of tobacco products dropped off, but the incidents of lung cancer did not follow, then it was suggested that it was second hand smoke that was responsible. Laws were put in place to limit the exposure to second hand smoke in restaurants and the workplace. Again, the lung cancer statistics did not follow."
I would like you to cite your studies that support these two assertions. Because I have seen data that DOES show the exact opposite, in BOTH cases, the reduction of tobacco use and the reduction of secondhand smoke leading to lower incidents of heart disease AND lung cancer. In the case of heart disease, the affects are almost immediate.
You are so bogus it makes my head spin. And it's clear that you are really doing this for the ego.
What a putz.
-
barbe1958 wrote:
....the final two sentences in his last post contradict each other....
Barbe, he's really all over the board. He has this "idea" and he's going to "find" data (which is questionable) and LINK it so that it supports his "idea," regardless of there being a legitimate correlation or not.
And he has already admitted he's not capable of understanding the science and medicine behind any of it. But that doesn't deter him from making vastly unsupported (and unsupportable) assertions and moving along as though somehow they are a "well known fact" of somekind, when in reality they are only nonsense made up in his own mind!
-
Well, Member_of_the_Club, we are just not going to agree. When you say:
"....Now that it is being given for early stage cancers, the survival rate for these previously deadly breast cancers is going to rise dramatically. This is a fact."
I admire your optimism. While you continue to say that, I will continue to stress the fact that HERCEPTIN will help a lot......a very small number of people; and that its side effects are just not what we (the people who walked miles and miles to help obtain the financing for its research) had been hoping for.
However, I do value many of your opinions and again, I feel you have that rare quality of being able to avoid needless controversy and go straight to the important points.
Take care....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is copied from our own trusted and highly appreciated web site here: breastcancer.org:
Herceptin causes flu-like symptoms in about 40% of the people who take it. These symptoms may include:
- fever
- chills
- muscle aches
- nausea
Side effects generally become less severe after the first treatment. Your treatment team will monitor you during your infusions, especially your first dose, and can adjust the infusion if you are very uncomfortable. If you are receiving Herceptin every 3 weeks, you may have stronger side effects.
If you are receiving Herceptin with chemotherapy, you may also experience chemotherapy side effects.
Serious heart side effects
Less commonly, Herceptin can damage the heart and its ability to pump blood effectively. This risk has ranged between 5% to 30%. The damage can be mild and result in either no symptoms or signs of mild heart failure, like shortness of breath. Less commonly, the heart damage is bad enough that people experience life-threatening congestive heart failure or a stroke. The risk of heart damage, especially severe damage, is greater when Herceptin is given along with other chemotherapy medicines known to cause heart damage. Adriamycin is an example of a chemotherapy that can cause heart damage.
Women who experience mild or more serious heart damage can stop taking Herceptin and start taking heart-strengthening medications. This often brings heart function back to normal.
Testing your heart before and during Herceptin treatment
Before starting Herceptin therapy, you should have an echocardiogram or a MUGA (multigated blood-pool imaging) scan to check how well your heart is functioning.
- An echocardiogram uses sound waves to take detailed pictures of the heart as it pumps blood. For this quick test, you lie still for a few minutes while a device that gives off sound waves is briefly placed on your ribs, over your heart. There is no radiation exposure with this test.
- A MUGA scan takes about an hour. In this test, a tiny amount of radioactive material is injected into a vein in your arm. This material temporarily hooks onto your red blood cells. You lie still while a special camera that can detect the radioactive material takes pictures of the blood flow through your heart as it beats.
When you first start taking Herceptin, your doctor might want you to have MUGA scans or echocardiograms every few months to detect any sign of heart failure. But after you've been on Herceptin for a while, you may need a heart-monitoring test only every 6 months or so. This is because heart failure is less likely to occur the longer you take Herceptin.
Notify your doctor immediately or go to the nearest emergency room if you're taking Herceptin and you develop any symptoms of heart failure, such as shortness of breath, difficulty breathing, a fast or irregular heartbeat, increased cough, and swelling of the feet or lower legs.
Serious lung side effects
Herceptin can rarely cause two possibly related serious reactions that interfere with breathing. One of these is a reaction during or shortly after Herceptin is being administered. This is like a bad allergic reaction, with symptoms that include hives, as well as wheezing and trouble breathing due to sudden swelling and narrowing of the airways. The other reaction, called pulmonarty toxicity, results in swelling of the lung tissue, low blood pressure, and possibly fluid buildup around the lungs (called pleural effusions).
The risk of these life-threatening reactions is rare -- much less than 1%. In most cases, these reactions happen during infusion or within the first 24 hours of the first dose of Herceptin. Less commonly they can happen within a week of the first dose. Only occasionally do these reactions occur with the second or later doses. The lung reaction can be more severe when lung disease, such as asthma or emphysema, already exists, or if the breast cancer has spread significantly into your lungs. If you are currently undergoing treatment with Herceptin and have been tolerating it well, you're unlikely to develop these serious reactions.
Even though the severe side effects are relatively rare, your doctor should check you carefully for any heart or lung problems before starting to treat you with Herceptin. You should also be monitored closely for these serious side effects during treatment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Purple_x -
An immediate drop cancer incidence would only correspond to these efforts if you could erase former smokers and second hand smoke from the equation.
The rate of lung cancer has been dropping among men for several years and is fairly stable among women. The risk for developing lung cancer is higher for smokers, and lower for non-smokers. - from the ACS website on lung cancer statistics
Dr. Michael Thun of ACS states that there has been little to no change in either lung cancer incident or death rates among lifelong non-smoking American men and women since the 1930's.
In addition, research regarding carcinogens has been very limited. Clinical trials would be unethical. You can't do double blind tests exposing some folks to a known cancer causing substance. The lack of being able to conduct such tests does not mean the chemical is not a culprit.
Also, the huge number of chemical substances we exposed to, creates an astronomical number of possible combinations, any of which could be "the cause".
I personally dont believe we need to go back to the stone age in order to reduce our exposure to carcinogens. Neither can we continue down our current path, which has been to look the other way.
Start by eliminating the most vile of the substances, that impact the greatest number of people with the most frequency, and work your way down.
Edited to add: sorry Ezscriiibe, I did not see you post before I made mine.
-
Member_of_the_club
I have been reading this whole thread in amazement. I provided good entertainment, until I read your comment about the side effects of Herceptin being worth it.
That may be true unless you are (like me) one of the people with life threatening, persistant heart failure. With heart failure my chances for 10 year survival are about 20%. The Herceptin was adjunctive therapy for me. It was supposed to bring my 10 yr survival rate from 70% to 90%.
I am also on 3 heart meds and have no energy. The side effects from Herceptin put me in the hospital at death's door. Maybe you did not know how serious they can be,
-
This is a fascinating study in Internet (faceless) communication in addition to the topic at hand.
-
rosemary-b:
See, that's what I am talking about (on a very large scale).
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team