Huffington Post article by Dr. Weiss

What ?

I pulled up Huffngton Post.... and Dr Weiss.... google did not find it?? Post it so we know what you are speaking of. TY!

ddd may be referring to an article discussing Dr. Weiss' how-to guide for reducing breast cancer risk by eating organic, cutting back on meat and alcohol, etc...

Here's the link:   http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marisa-weiss-md/breast-cancer-prevention-_b_837311.html

I just quickly skimmed it, but it looks like an excellent article to me.  At last, an intelligent essay on prevention, and not just more awareness.  Bravo for her for speaking out!!!  Hopefully we have turned a corner this year in starting to talk about possible environmental causes (maybe not in all cases, but at least for some of us) and prevention.

ddd, I don't think she puts the blame on us at all.  I take it to mean that there are so many hidden chemicals in our lives that might be impacting our genetic makeup.  If the dangers have been hidden from us, we're not to blame.  But again, I've just skimmed the article.  I'll read it more closely tomorrow.    Deanna

ddd I'm with you. I put myself at risk by not becoming pregnant, having a baby and breast feeding. That is the only thing that was under my control. Other than that there wasn't much else I could do other than live in a less industrialized nation.

I also noticed that all the experts are promoting their own books which contain the specifics. Why does everything have to have a profit motive? If they were truly sincere in wanting to help, the books would be available on line and free of charge

I am also pissed off at this whole message - I was thin and active BUT did not have children (wasn't married till I was 28 and dh had other children), tried to live a pretty clean lifestyle (didn't always succeed but better than average) did everything - then when I was 62 had bc - GUESS WHAT - found out day after second chemo that my birth mother (had been searching for records for 50 years) had died of mets bc when she was 40 in 1954!!!!!!!  So people what are we going to blame ourselves for Lord knows I've got a whole list to choose from - yup, this book has me pretty ticked off - so much for Stoneyfield Farms as well - just gotta love that everything has an angle - even our illness (btw my beloved adopted sister passed away in 2003 from bc - she had a totally different kind from me - had three children young, but who knows what her gene pool was like she never looked and never found out) - gotta love the fact that adoptees still don't have any human rights and looks like bc is just another cross for us to bear.  Off my soapbox now,

Sandy

I've had moments of feeling blamed for bringing this on myself but Dr. Weiss's article didn't make me feel that way.  She's trying to educate re: some factors that impact this - that's all.  Re: Stonyfield Yogurt's involvement with bc, the founder/ CEO's wife had breast cancer 10 years ago and they're big believers in organic!  So I'm thinking their involvement is coming from a positive place.  Just my 2 cents...  Wishing everyone a great weekend.

At the risk of sounding sexist, breast cancer prevention measures need to be taken at the level of gray suits - not pink ribbons. A nation's resources --its anti-pollution laws, school based- education resources and public health advisories need to incorporate cancer as a threat just as the flu is a threat. People and institutions have to be mobilised at all levels in order to fight this disease. We need to take the greedy PR profiteers out of it and keep a staid collaboration between government, big pharma and other private industry and all sorts of foundations. These little pom-pom-wielding campaigns just won't do it.

I com from a family with cancer and I'm not BRCA1or2. My mother died young (32) of melanoma, my father died of prostate cancer at 70, one of my younger brothers was diagnosed with prostate cancer in his 40s another brother diagnosed recently with prostate cancer in his early 50s my maternal grandfather died of prostate cancer in his late 80s, my maternal aunt is living with BC after umx in her early 40's ( no children) and a 2nd BC on her remaing breast in her 60's ( currently still living and in her late 70's had lumpectomy, rads and tamoxafin). What we all have in common besides our genes is that we lived in cities with industrial pollution when we grew up. We breathed in air that was toxic. I grew up in a steel town. The snow turned grey with black specs after 24 hrs. My mother grew up in NYC and my father grew up just outside the city in heavy industrial area. We all should be concerned about pollution from all sources including our food and cleaning products. I live in the country now far from polluting sources. I have lived here for more than 30 years yet I still got BC in my 50's. In my very small town there are quite a few BC survivors who grew up here in the country with fresh air. Some of them have cancer in their families some are the first ones. Many of the BC survivors here that I have met smoked cigarettes starting at an early age. In fact, I have only met one women in my small community withBC that didn't smoke and she is BRAC1. I never smoked but my mother did when I was young and my friends did in high school. I bet there is a lot more correlation to BC and smoking and air pollution than is accounted for.

Athena,

Imagine if the "gray suits" could get BC - where we'd be now in finding a cure!

Appreciate what Silia has written about Stoneyfield's support of bc - but this arrangement just reeks of Pink Profits.  Just as ING is hoping to get business - not as bad as far as I'm concerned as IMPLYING that women who do get bc somehow haven't done the "proper prevention" as if eating yogurt could make a difference.  I am THRILLED to be DAIRY FREE - and free of mucus, and bloat - everybody else can have my"share" of the yogurt - if it's so good for us, Stoneyfield is planning to give it to all members of BC.org for free -aren't they???????????????????????

Reducing our odds is not the same as eliminating or finding a cure.  It just means "less likely".

So mostly the same things we need to do in order to stay healthy anyway, with the main differences being around having children, and use of hormones in birth control/treatment of menopause symptoms.

Unless genetically predisposed, most of us will never know "why".  And it doesn't matter.

What Dr Weiss says is nothing new, and urging women to live healthier lives is never a bad thing.  One thing that would be helpful is much more effective screening techniques.  Not sure how this would work when in the self-contained stage, but this would be major beneficial.

We have so far to go.

I agree with Claire. Dr. Weiss is only putting down factors that could lead to BC.

I don't particularly find this article upsetting but I do find it a little bit incomplete.  It certainly does not cover the triple N's and the double N's who obviously are not suffering from "excess" estrogen in their bodies.

I'm 64, very fit (former figure skater, very good downhill skier, hiker, biker), never smoked a cig in my life but I did take hormone replacement therapy for menopause for many years (probably 10 years).  I've had BC for 4 1/2 years and been on chemo for a lot of this time.  Most of the BC women I see today are pretty young.  I believe that when they stopped pumping hormone replacement into women just to avoid menopause, much of the BC that remains is hereditary.  I find the BC in young women very troubling. 

And women out there in the world - if a gyn tries to give you hormone replacement therapy for menopause, run like your hair is on fire.   

A couple of comments.  The John Rock story sounds so like Kinsey.  I wonder too how many lives were saved by women not dying in childbirth.  We would certainly be a much more populous country w/o oral contraceptives.

There is also a very interesing video on the MSK site that talks about breast cancer as being a "disease of affluence".  That is, we have a longer fertile period because of available food, and of course, most of us aren't incessantly pregant.

I don't think the demographics of the women on these boards mirror those of the population of women who have had breast cancer.  Skews much younger, based on the medium of communication.  Of course, there are older women, but younger women are over-represented.

The type of "cure" I would be looking for is something that would be game-changing.  What if there were a reliable blood test that would detect ER+ breast cancer when it could be measured in millimeters?  And the treatment were minor surgery plus five years of anti-estrogen therapy with a drug more effective and with fewer side effects than anything we have today.

I realize that anyone not ER+ would be out of luck (breast cancer is at least 5 different diseases) but what I described above really would be game-changing.  That is where we need to be going.

What a confusing article (the one by Dr. Weiss; I haven't had a chance to read the one by Malcolm Gladwell yet)! 

Okay, so prevention is the best cure..... and what exactly are we supposed to be doing?  There's lots of talk about environmental pollutants and chemicals that we ingest with our food, but there's no discussion about what we are supposed to do about that.  The only specifics that are mentioned are:

• Early puberty  - sorry, I wasn't able to control that
• Childbirth - yes, I could control that but changing my entire life as a way to maybe (but just maybe) prevent BC seems a little drastic and suggesting to young women that they pass on taking contraceptives probably isn't a message that's going to get through to many of them
• Obesity - yes, most of us can control that; in my case, I've never been overweight so this factor doesn't play into my diagnosis.

So what else can we do?  Ah, come to breastcancer.org to get the booklet.  What a great way to increase readership of BCO!  Not to suggest that there is a revenue motive here, but as we know, the more readership that a website has, the better it is able to generate revenue from advertisers and supporters.  Is that why more details weren't included in the article itself, making the article so incomplete?  Or did the Huffington Post just not want to include a longer article?  Either way, it's confusing that no specific actions were mentioned that can help with prevention.

Back to the article itself.  While there's not much that's new and while it's all factually correct, I find the article to be misleading in the conclusions that it's trying to get you to reach. For example, there is this statement:

"It's just not true that all breast cancers run in families. Only about 10 percent of cases are associated with an inherited abnormal breast cancer gene (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2). Plus, these abnormal genes only make an individual prone to breast cancer; they don't cause cancer on their own. In order for breast cancer to start, other genetic changes have to occur. It is often the wear and tear of living, heavily influenced by lifestyle and environmental risk factors, can trigger the development of breast cancer." 

All true, but.....

...While currently it's believed that only 10% of BC cases are caused by an abnormal breast cancer gene, most genetic specialists in this area will tell you that it's believed that there are other genes yet to be discovered.  So the percent will probably go up over time as science discovers other genes.  I'm BRCA negative and yet there is quite a bit of cancer - of various types - on both sides of my family.  There's no connection in where we lived or our lifestyles. All the cases might be random, but I'm guessing that there is a genetic link in there somewhere.

...Then there is the point about what triggers the development of BC. The way the paragraph is written makes it sound as though even those who are BRCA positive caused their own BC because of lifestyle choices that triggered the development of the cancer (that they were prone to but not certain to get). As I understand it, when someone is BRCA positive, it means that they have only one healthy version of that particular gene instead of two. Over the normal course of life, it often happens that one of the genes is damaged.  For someone who has two healthy genes, that's not a problem - there's still one healthy gene left.  But for someone who is BRCA positive and started with only one healthy gene, damage to this one good gene means that there is no functioning gene remaining, and that's what leads to the development of breast cancer. Could it be that the healthy gene was damaged by an individual's lifestyle choice? Possibly, but that's impossible to know.  From my reading, my understanding is that damage to a gene is commonplace and pretty much expected to happen - that's why the BC rate among those who are BRCA positive is so high. So to suggest that there is an element of control there might be somewhat true, but it's stretching the truth.  I'd be happy to be corrected on this if someone knows differently.  

...And what about other inherited factors, separate from gene mutations?  My mother is in her 80s and still has extremely dense breasts.  I have extremely dense breasts.  Did I inherit that trait from my mother?  And how interesting that high breast density is considered to be one of the strongest risk factors for BC, and both my mother and I have had BC.  So was my BC genetic?  Probably, I think.  

Then there is the reference in the article to "reducing your risk".  Yes, there are changes that we all can make to reduce our risk.  But by how much?  1 in 8 women will get breast cancer; this means that every woman has a 12.5% chance of getting BC during her lifetime.  If you look at a list of risk factors, you'll see that the highest risk factors are all things that we cannot control.  There are also risk factors that are within our control, but these are low risk factors.  So by making the changes to the things that we can control, how much will we be able to reduce our risk?  From 12.5% to 12%?  10%?  Maybe even 8% if you're lucky?  Probably not much more.  So instead of saying "all women and girls can take steps in their everyday lives to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer " perhaps the statement should be "all women and girls can take steps in their everyday lives to reduce their risk of developing breast cancer although most who are prone to getting BC are going to get it anyway".  Here's a great risk factor table from Komen:  http://ww5.komen.org/BreastCancer/BreastCancerRiskFactorsTable.html

I think that prevention of is a wonderful goal.  But if we are asking women and girls to make major changes to their lives (have lots of babies when you weren't planning to), we should at least tell them how much effect this will have on their risk level.  And if the changes are relatively minor (diet and exercise), what will be benefit be?  How many women of the 1 in 8 will be able to avoid BC by doing this?  And how many will get it regardless?  That's not what anyone wants to talk about in a discussion of this sort, but that's really what it comes down to for all of us who've already been diagnosed.