Huffington Post article by Dr. Weiss

I don't believe either the 2002 nor the 2006 studies looked at that issue.  Since the data was mined differently to draw the conclusion pertaining to the triple negative/hormonal contraceptives link, I would have no reason to question that conclusion.  I am not triple negative, so I admit to some ignorance in that area.

I think that all of this is the definitive example of "hijacking a thread".

I think I disagree with the main premise of this article:  that all women can take steps to reduce their risk of this disease.  I have triple negative, and from what I see no one knows what causes triple negative BC.  So what could I have done to reduce my risk?  Probably nothing.  I think some of us are programmed to get this.  And the article says only 10 percent of cases are linked to BRCA mutations.  From what I understand, it may be inherited in some cases where no one in the family has the BRCA mutation also.  

On Apple's last point:

It would help if the moderators enforced their own bans. The person posting as Rubyeye has been banned at least twice in the last six months under other names. No other moderation reforms or efforts by the posters to weed out cyberbullying/stalking etc.... can work if the moderators do not enforce their own rules.

This person's aliases include:

Daisy6/Daisy62/Melody/Janey/Erica31/Sammysmom/janewell/alexander3/blah2/rubyeye 

I'm sure there are more. I can't keep up. 

This person has bullied and stalked high and low in BCO and is now claiming to be a victim of bullying, but one of her MOs is to deliberately stir the pot. It isn't just about abortion. She has stirred up pots about all sorts of topics, ranging from Canadian healthcare to that television show about dancing with the stars, to stalking someone on DCIS threads to intimating accusations against someone else and, last but not least, changing her alias to be as similar as possible to that of another poster whom she appears to have hostile feelings about.

This is beginning to sound like the justice systems of some countries: complete impunity. 

Melissa, this is demoralizing. This should be out here in case anyone wonders why some of us appear so harsh. It's been months and months of the same thing. 

If we are talking about prevention and risk reduction, this person is a health hazard of a different kind. It's hard to put her on "ignore" because she keeps changing accounts. The moderators come here and post on this thread apparently doing nothing about this repeat offender. I don't understand. Please advise....

FYI, for anyone who is curious: A very, very basic forensic writing/style analysis proves it is the same person. Her style has unique features that are easy to spot. I have pointed those out to the mods buyt will not do so here.

I will say it again: this is very, very demoralizing.  

2tzus, you are contradicting yourself with this comment:

Just because some scientists may agree with one study, there may be many others who dont. We all know that the "scientific community" do not agree with each other on a regular basis. There are many scientists out there that do not agree.

So it's all just a matter of "My Dad is better than your Dad." We are free to agree with whatever we read or not. And why the HECK would we want to read a 60 year old study?? Does NOT make sense to me. It would be like watching black and white television when you don't have to!

And, just because there's been "a study" does not make the study true! "They" are scrambling around to try to find a reason, that's all. Keep it simple. Someone got a grant to do a study. Hmmmm, what shall we study? Do all women with breast cancer have cavities? Ah ha!! Cavities lead to breast cancer!! NEXT!!

AND, finally I saw the word "induced" with the word abortion. Abortions aren't all induced with hormones. Most are simple D&C's as I mentioned pages and pages ago. Maybe, just maybe, those induced with hormones overloads the body for an hour or two. Just enough time for nasty old breast cancer to establish a new home. Who knew??

I just don't think you can manage all the possible risk factors, and it's true whenever a new link is made to breast cancer, especially regarding "bad" behaviors, such as drinking, smoking, obesity, etc. the finger gets pointed at the patient.  But -- as already noted in this discussion -- there are so many things that can't be controlled that, to me, it makes little sense to suggest that you can change your risks. For instance this link (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/03/010301072749.htm) indicates that mononucleosis might be associated with breast cancer -- I had mono when I was younger-- but I couldn't have controlled it. I didn't even kiss anyone.  So, in general, I find the idea that you can somehow change your risk by trying to control a million uncontrollable factors unrealistic, and yes, it does start to point fingers at the patient, which is unfair and unkind.

Barb:

Well, there ya go!

Hugs, Sandy

The Daily Mail has reported: 20 things that cause cancer:

http://www.thedailydust.co.uk/2009/02/19/20-strange-things-the-daily-mail-say-will-cause-cancer/

1.FACEBOOK: Social networking sites such as Facebook could raise your risk of serious health problems by reducing levels of face-to-face contact, a doctor claims.

2.  WINE: Drinking just a small glass of wine a day can more than double the risk of cancer, a study claims. It says that consuming just one 125ml glass of wine increases the chance of developing mouth and throat cancer by 168 per cent.

3. A COLD:  The common cold could be a major cause of childhood cancer, a new study claims. Researchers claim that an infection during pregnancy or in early childhood could leave children more susceptible to cancers like leukaemia or brain tumours.

4.  DEODORANT: New research suggests that the aluminium in many anti-perspirants has a potential link with breast cancer. Here, a leading breast cancer specialist explains why he explains why he suggests avoiding the products.

5.  CHIPS: Parents are being urged to stop giving their children chips amid fears they dramatically increase the risk of breast cancer. Serving under-fives chips just once a week raises their risk of breast cancer by 27 per cent, shocking new research has shown

6. ORAL SEX: Oral sex raises your risk of throat cancer scientists have warned. A new study found the sex act can pass on the human papillomavirus (HPV), which can trigger a specific type of throat cancer in both men and women

7. VITAMIN E: Vitamin E supplements may raise the risk of lung cancer, doctors have warned. A study of more than 77,000 people found that taking moderate to high doses of vitamin E led to a 'significant' increase in risk of the cancer that kills on Briton every 15 minutes.

8. SAUSAGES AND BURGERS: A red dye used in sausages and burgers is being banned because it could cause cancer, the European Commission said today. The move will come into force within days

9.  SOUP: People who regularly have soup with a high salt content could be increasing their risk of stomach cancer, according to an expert.

10. HAIR DYE: Women who use permanent hair dye may be putting themselves at increased risk of bladder cancer. If you have used hair dye for at least 15 years, the risk is three times greater, says new research

11. MOUTHWASH: There is now 'sufficient evidence' that mouthwashes containing alcohol contribute to the increased risk of cancer in the mouth, according to a scientist.

12. SUN CREAM: Sun creams could raise the risk of getting skin cancer, warn experts. Although they help prevent sunburn, lotions fail to block out the ultraviolet rays which can cause the disease

13. PRINGLES, HULA-HOOPS & PRINCE CHARLES' ORGANIC CRISPS: An organic product sold under Prince Charles's Duchy Originals brand has been found to contain elevated levels of a cancer causing chemical.

14. X-RAYS: Diagnostic X-rays are linked to a small raised risk of cancer, according to researchers. The radiation could be the cause of 700 cancer cases per year in Britain

15. TALCUM POWDER: Women who use talcum powder every day to keep fresh are 40 per cent more likely to develop ovarian cancer, according to alarming research.

16. MOISTURISERS: Moisturisers used by millions of women every day may be increasing their risk of skin cancer, scientists have warned.

17. MOBILE PHONES: Mobile phones can take as little as ten minutes to trigger changes in the brain associated with cancer, scientists claimed yesterday. They found even low levels of radiation from handsets interfere with the way brain cells divide

18. RED MEAT: Eating large amounts of red and processed meat leaves you at greater risk of cancer, a major report has warned. One in ten cases of both lung and bowel cancer could be prevented if people cut down on beef, lamb, pork, sausages, ham and bacon, scientists say

19.TOOTH WHITENER: Dentists are warning the public over the proposed sale of super-strength tooth whitener linked to cancer. Under European Commission plans, the limit on concentration levels of bleach in over-the-counter products will rise 60 times

20. CHOCOLATES AND BAGGED SNACKS: Chocolates and bagged snacks are being pulled from shop shelves after potential cancer-causing toxins were found in a batch of rice flour

OH MY....  I have used/done/eaten/drank all of these things!!  Forget that I am BRCA positive.  Now I know why I got cancer!!  If I would have only known ....  

PatMom - Can you link or cite where you came up with your statement that "most women who spontaneously miscarry attempt to become pregnant again at the first opportunity, and many of them successfully carry that pregnancy to term".   It may be true, but it sounds like opinion without facts to back it up.  

"Someone got a grant to do a study. Hmmmm, what shall we study? Do all women with breast cancer have cavities? Ah ha!! Cavities lead to breast cancer!! NEXT!!"

Bravo Barbe!  We don't know what causes breast cancer.  So we speculate and do this or not do that and just hope that it might possibly maybe make a little difference.

Breast cancer existed long before birth control pills and HRT did for example.  So it makes sense to me that maybe that 'feeds' it but 'cause' it ... no.  Staying barefoot and pregnant all their lives didn't prevent women in the past from getting breast cancer.  If the rates were lower when women had more children maybe it was because women died in childbirth, or of other diseases, earlier and more often ... and women who already died of something else don't get breast cancer.

I hate to be a cynic but I think the main reason we have so many studied 'risk factors' is because there is money out there to do the studies.  And statistical studies are pretty easy to do.  And statistics can be and are manipulated quite often to come up with the conclusions that the 'researchers' want.   So you do have to consider the source of the information and any agendas or financial motivations that might be driving them. 

So saying that something is a 'risk factor' or that we can decrease our odds on an individual basis is nothing more than speculation  IMO.  Others may disagree and see value in doing or not doing this or that ... and that is fine too. 

Edited to add:  I took a phone call in the middle of writing this post.  You all were busy while I was away ... excellent points

Mollynminnie - great post!

Starbeauty - absolutely - that is what I was trying to say - not just the stages, but the different diseases as well - Triple Neg and Triple Pos are not the same disease nor any of the other combinations (ER+, PR-, Her2-, etc).  I think they may be moving towards this with the attempt to pesonalize treatments, but I don't think enough research has been done to support the personalization of treatments.  The studies need to be more specific.

I can't speak about causes but I can say that my behavior prior to getting bc was, according to a risk calculator I used, reduced my chances of getting this nasty disease by over 95%. I had my first baby at 20. I breastfed 6 of my 7 children, five of them for over a year.

I can not live my life afraid of doing something that will cause a recurrance. I will live my life as me doing the things I do and being who I am . I firmly intend to live until I die.

"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics".  (Can't remember the author).

I agree that it seems as though we're not getting the results of studies that can actually help us - either to avoid recurrence, or keep our offspring (if any) from developing BC.  Instead, we're getting the results of meta-analyses or else small "unique" studies in an area that hasn't been looked at before, so they get published and publicized.

BUT.....I have to remind everyone that basic research which must first take place in the lab takes years and years, and is the most expensive type of research to do.  When results are published, it's because other labs have been able to duplicate the work.  But that is ONLY the first step, and it can take 10 to 20 years for that basic research to turn into a treatment form.  Then, we wait another few years for clinical evaluation (trials) to determine its safety and efficacy.

I get truly tired of these small "research" articles that say "You should do this, or you shouldn't do that".  Inevitably, further studies will show that previous studies were dubious at best.  And then we have heavily funded studies by special interest groups who direct their researchers to come up with the answers they want.  About as useful as a freezer is to an Inuit.