Huffington Post article by Dr. Weiss

Options
1910111214

Comments

  • lago
    lago Member Posts: 17,186
    edited March 2011

    I never ate that much dairy or red meat. (Did drink a lot of milk as a kid). I do eat yogurt and low fat cheese but not a lot. Maybe that contributed to my osteopenia.

    I don't think removing things from our diet completely is the answer but going organic seems to be a better solution. Chicken too has hormones and we don't want to talk about all the crap in fish.

    Seems you can't win

  • LtotheK
    LtotheK Member Posts: 2,095
    edited March 2011

    It's not just the hormones.  A lot of naturopaths and nutritionists think cow milk is virtually indigestable, and causes an immune response (hence all the mucous).  Studies show for and against dairy products, but to me, without knowing which way, to team up with Stonyfield is ridiculous and misleading.  Teaming up with carrot farmers, okay.  But dairy has not been proven to help, and many feel it may hinder.  Stonyfield doesn't even do goat or sheep yogurt, which is widely understood to be better for human consumption.

    Stonyfield Farm is also virtually mega-corporate.  What is really needed is smaller farms.  Part of the reason our organics taste like cardboard is because they are picked way too early, and shipped too far.  They are nutritionally devoid compared to our European small farm neighbors--just taste their produce.  It's easy to forget what food should taste like.

    There's a lot more to eating well than buying organics wrapped in plastic from Mexico at the grocery.

    I don't take offense to most posts, and I think it's important to be able to be open and honest with opinions and information.  For instance, some folks wrote that research shows the number of periods over a lifetime affect breast cancer rates, and BC is considered an affluent disease.  That makes total sense to me, it means that first world, well-fed, childless women have the most exposure.  And those who stay pregnant most of their fertile years, unlike Westerners, have the least.

    That changed the way I think about this disease.

  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited March 2011

    Well guys my father didn't have any periods at all and he still got bc...  (good thing I have a sense of humor).  but seriously there will be more genetic connections found in the future and although I am not suggesting that hormones in food are good for us, the human body has had to deal with so much over a lifetime the diseases find the weakest point in our armor and some of us get bc some lung problem some neurological so it's a crap shoot!!!  I think we can make a personal difference to our lives if we TRY to eat better, excersice and sleep well (not to mention have a good sex life) but it's not a guarantee of anything and it's most certainly is not a cure - but perhaps it can help us be in our lives more fully..  (as was mentioned above the word cure in this context doesn't make any sesne at all!)  And let's face it, we all have to die from something (unless someone knows something they're not telling).   So I certainly wouldn't have a problem with her article IF it was directed at people in general and perhaps young people more specifically.. It (the article) has no real consequence when it comes to curing anything IMO.   But perhaps this is where the pink stuff is taking us BECAUSE they have no cure?  After all this time and money they are coming up with excuses for us getting cancer instead of focusing on finding a cause and a cure..  That's what the politicians do - blame the people - why wouldn't a powerful organization like the pink thing not end up with the blame game!

  • River_Rat
    River_Rat Member Posts: 1,724
    edited March 2011

    I have no problem with the article being ideas for risk reduction.  My problem is with the concept that prevention is the best cure.  Prevention isn't the cure for those of us that already have breast cancer.  And there are so many things in society over which individually we have little control.  All in all the ideas in it aren't really controversial, at least to me, mostly just common sense things.  It's just the way they're using that one line to promote it.

  • kira1234
    kira1234 Member Posts: 3,091
    edited March 2011

    I must say I do agree with the milk not tasking very good. I remember when I lived in the chicago area here was a local farm that believe it or not still delivered milk to peoples homes. I taught at a private school at the time, and some of the kids would bring milk for snack, and boy was that great  tasting milk I have no idea if it was hormone free or not, but wouldn't be surprised if it was. By the way this was just 9 years ago.

    I also agree just buying organics wrapped in plastic is not the way to go. I go to a local natural foods store. It costs so much more, but it's my life I am fighting for now. I have also grown my own vegetables and frozen them for the winter months.

  • AnnNYC
    AnnNYC Member Posts: 4,484
    edited March 2011

    About early puberty -- this may be a "tin-foil hat" theory, but fluoride affects the pineal gland, and the pineal gland plays a big part in initiating puberty.

    http://www.fluoridealert.org/health/pineal/

    Quote from the work of Dr. Jennifer Luke, University of Surrey, England:

    "In conclusion, the human pineal gland contains the highest concentration of fluoride in the body. Fluoride is associated with depressed pineal melatonin synthesis by prepubertal gerbils and an accelerated onset of sexual maturation in the female gerbil. The results strengthen the hypothesis that the pineal has a role in the timing of the onset of puberty. Whether or not fluoride interferes with pineal function in humans requires further investigation."

    I feel like all my life I was taught to consider warnings against fluoridation as "nut territory" -- fluoridation has certainly improved dental health, and dental health is important to general health (especially heart health), but... I guess I'm starting to wonder whether it's totally nutty to be suspicious of fluoride...

  • JoanDavies
    JoanDavies Member Posts: 160
    edited March 2011

    I teach a public speaking class, and during the lecture on "persuasion" we talk about the use of statistics. I tell my students that a number is a number is a number. But that number can be twisted any way you want to mean whatever you want it to mean. Take the familiar statistic "4 out of 5 doctors recommend..." Who are those four doctors, exactly? Is one a podiatrist, a psychiatrist, a pediatrician and an ob-gyn? And why doesn't that fifth doctor agree with the other four - what does he know that they don't know? Why isn't is unanimous? And if it is unanimous, why? Couldn't they find anyone who disagreed?

    Research is important. As humans we need to understand WHY something happens or why we have to do something ("Because I said so" only works until your kid is 2 years old, and that's if you're lucky). But it's up to us to interpret the research in ways that are meaningful to our own situations. 

    The same goes for separating fact from opinion... I use an example in class of a chair, asking the students to give me some facts about the chair I point out. They say things like, four legs, plastic, metal, on the table, blue. Most of those can be proven as facts. But we discuss the color of the chair when someone points out that it's blue. I say it looks more like a gray to me. So saying the chair is blue is an opinion. But saying the chair is not white...that's a fact.

    Sometimes the lines between fact and opinion get blurred, and the numbers get all jumbly, because we want to make sense of it. The reality is...it's very subjective, so use what pertains to you, because that's what matters most anyway. IMO  

  • lago
    lago Member Posts: 17,186
    edited March 2011

    Kira you can still buy Oberweis milk in returnable/delivered bottles. Must admit I still get my occasional kid sized frozen chocolate yogurt there every so often.

     Read up on their milk

  • cookiegal
    cookiegal Member Posts: 3,296
    edited March 2011

    I'll give stonyfield this...they have the lowest calorie frozen yogurt that does not have artificial sweetners. The whole pint has 440 calories in the vanilla.

    Listen not all BC women think alike. And I actually like that.

    Listen as a fairly young survivor...42 at DX...almost all of my YSC peers here in NYC are slender and active.

    Three of us who stayed in the same summer house got cancer..2 breast, one pancreatic. But it's in a fairly rural area on the water. Go figure.

  • kira1234
    kira1234 Member Posts: 3,091
    edited March 2011

    lago, You know the milk I'm talking about. The best milk and frozen treats around. How I miss living in Naperville. I wish they had stores in Florida. Miss the great parks we loved walking in as well.

  • barbe1958
    barbe1958 Member Posts: 19,757
    edited March 2011

    Saying milk is organic doesn't necessarily mean it has no hormones. Just means it didn't eat other animals as its food base (in other words, was grain fed). Also, you have to take into consideration "homogenization". That changes the taste of milk, too.

    I still don't see where the article tells my daughter how to prevent cancer. That's the whole point.

    I do like Joans' post about fact! VERY good points!!

  • dragonflymary
    dragonflymary Member Posts: 356
    edited March 2011

    Have to weigh in here re:  the blame game and cancer.  My husband ate nothing but health food for his entire adult life, was thin, exercised, meditated, took supplements and still got colon cancer at 53.  His brother had the audacity to suggest that he got sick because I was working too much and didn't make enough salads. 

    Me, ditto--health food, the works, and first I had a stroke at age 63 then BC at 64.  Some is genetic, I suppose, but until there is real scientific evidence that is more than anecdotal I'm not buying the idea that any of us could have prevented our disease. 

    That said, the Mar. 21 issue of the New Yorker has an excellent article re:  the relationship between childhood trauma and health status later in life.  Both my husband and I came from violent, argumentative homes with alcoholism and other nonsense.  That certainly didn't help either one of us.

    The thing I really hate--that old saw about there being a "cancer personality."  Supposedly if you're passive agressive you have a bigger instance of cancer.  Well, I'm not passive agressive, just plain agressive!  And mad as a hornet!  So that leaves that one out!!

    Off the soap box now--just got me some good junk food.   

  • Lynn18
    Lynn18 Member Posts: 416
    edited March 2011

    Apple:  Thanks for posting the article for us.  Enjoy your mommydaughter time today.Cool

    I am worried this brochure will mislead people into thinking, why work for a cure?  When breast cancer is easily preventable.  The title of the brochure is "Breast Cancer Prevention:  A Huge Missed Opportunity."

    I also was surprised that Stoneyfield was sponsoring this, as a lot of people I talk to here avoid dairy, along with red meat.  But I guess it is profitable for them to tell women they can prevent breast cancer by going organic. 

    And the statement that women are missing out on the protective effects of pregnancy?  There is a new study I read here on BCO that suggests women who have several pregnancies are more likely to get triple negative BC, as compared to those who have no pregnancies.  

    The last time I was at my surgeon's office, there was a women being diagnosed with TNBC who has just had her sixth child.  Many women are diagnosed with TNBC while nursing an infant.

    I guess my point is, we really, really don't know yet what causes breast cancer.  There is so much conflicting information out there.  This brochure suggests there is a lot we can do to prevent ourselves from getting breast cancer, but I am not convinced.  We still need a cure.

  • barbe1958
    barbe1958 Member Posts: 19,757
    edited March 2011

    Again, it 'suggests' there is a lot we can do, but it doesn't spell it out! Step one: Do/don't do this.... Step two: etc....

  • barbe1958
    barbe1958 Member Posts: 19,757
    edited March 2011

    I think I finally figured out what bugged me about this article! It's what I would call "blowing smoke up your butt". They aren't saying a lot of anything! Just using the words you expect to hear in this kind of a topic, stringing them along in some kind of sentence form and then just spitting them out. No sense. Nonsense.

    It's like if you were told to do a story on a tsumani:

    First you would think of all the words that belong in a story about a tsunami:

    earthquake, registered, severe damage, collateral damage, lives lost, homes ruined, epicentre, after temours, after quakes, property damage, hospitals put to the test, emergency teams overloaded, power loss, food tainted or destroyed, wave projections, animation, synthesized movement, anticipated water levels, warnings, holy shit getoutoftheway!!!!

    Then, string them all along into a proper sentence and do or don't have a climax. Was there a tsunami? I don't know, didn't you read the story?

    Is there a prevention? I don't know and I DID read the story!?!?!?!

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited March 2011

    One thing I realized in reading this thread is that I identify more with being a cancer patient than a BC patient.  Yes, 1 in 8 women get BC but 1 in 3 women will get some type of cancer in their life time and 1 in 2 men.  This is shocking and involves more than just the food we eat.  I can't tell you how many people we know with some form of cancer.   

    The general public wants to believe that there is some way to ensure that they will not get some form of cancer but given the 1 out of 2 and the 1 out of 3 odds, I think it is out of our control based on the current state of science.

    Please don't think that I don't believe in leading a healthy life - I do and I always have.  I was raised on a farm and currently live in a state that is supposed to be one of the healthiest in the US.  Something else accounts for the high levels of cancer in this country - they just haven't found it yet.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited August 2012
  • Lynn18
    Lynn18 Member Posts: 416
    edited March 2011

    barbe1958:  Your post is making me laugh.  I agree with you, but I still worry people are going to get the wrong idea and think "prevention is the cure."

  • barbe1958
    barbe1958 Member Posts: 19,757
    edited March 2011

    Fluoride is actually a bi-product of something else being made (of which I forget) and they didn't know what to do with it. They found that fluoride helps make teeth strong so they dumped it in the water systems. Nothing proves that fluoride on the outside of your teeth helps, but hey it didn't hurt I guess.

    In England they don't dump the fluoride and they have terrible teeth (watch those TV shows) but they also get bc....okay...it's not the fluoride....NEXT!!!

  • luv_gardening
    luv_gardening Member Posts: 1,393
    edited March 2011

    Sometime ago I read about the men who developed breast cancer who had all stayed at the same place in America.  I did the maths and they'd been diagnosed around 25 to 28 years after their short stay in that area, drinking the contaminated water. Because it's so rare in men the common factor of drinking the water does look likely to be the cause. The fact that all men staying there didn't get cancer shows there was some other factor involved. But it means the cause could be something we consumed nearly 30 years ago.

    As for developing breasts early, I have pics taken on the beach when I was nearly 16 and refused to take my outer top off as I was completely flat chested.  I was skinny till after I had my kids.  So much for developing breasts and obesity.

    And I think we've forgotten the reason this article does harm, because others start to think it's our fault we got BC and even say so to our faces. And we start to feel guilty, should we have done something to avoid this?  That's why I want disclaimers to say that the cause is not known and it's unfair to blame the victim. 

  • Lynn18
    Lynn18 Member Posts: 416
    edited March 2011

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/gossip/2011/03/laurie-david-breast-cancer-think-pink-live-green.html

    It seems like the "think pink, live green" may be a big movement,  There are a lot of celebrities involved in this.

  • konakat
    konakat Member Posts: 6,085
    edited March 2011

    I wonder how much of this BCO/Stoneyfield collaboration is really about breast cancer and how much is about an investment strategy and making money from the pink bandwagon.

  • Lynn18
    Lynn18 Member Posts: 416
    edited March 2011

    Konakat: It does make me wonder also.

  • Lena
    Lena Member Posts: 1,036
    edited March 2011

    Thank you for the lesson in factual perception, critical thinking, how it is possible to lie with statistics, and especially the base in rational epistemology, Joan. GOOD JOB! It's too bad most people just don't get it.  :::::sigh:::::

    Still I want to vent some more though....

    IMO it's unreasonable to expect or suggest to people, especially in the presence of many who already have breast cancer, how they should live -- or worse, how they SHOULD HAVE LIVED their lives to prevent it -- when NOBODY REALLY KNOWS FOR A FACT *EXACTLY* WHAT CAUSES IT! Yeah right! F*** that entirely!  Oh yes, and as if anybody even has the OPTION to rewind life like a tape and do it over, and even if they did, it still might not do any good because nobody knows the exact cause of breast cancer, and the only way to have zero risk is to not have breasts -- which are a NATURAL PART OF THE BODY! GRRRR!

    When it is ACTUALLY, CERTAINLY KNOWN, for instance, that smoking causes 90% of lung cancer cases, it makes a lot of sense to suggest that in order to prevent or at least greatly reduce the risk of getting lung cancer, people shouldn't take up smoking and that existing smokers should quit. And when smokers quit, it does no good to continue to point fingers at them for their past unhealthy lifestyle. True, it was dumb to have started smoking in the first place, but the immutable FACT is, they DID! But once they quit and as such, have done the right thing in the here-and-now, which is the only control anybody has -- over their actions in the present -- they have done all they can to lower their lung cancer risk in the PRESENT. Maybe it won't be as low as that of a lifelong nonsmoker, but if they quit, they ARE able to lower it and DID. And besides, what are we going to do anyway, point at them and say "You smoked!"  to someone that quit? IMO, the only sane reply to THAT is, "Duuuh, yeah, you stupid shit, don't you think I know that already? What the hell do you want from me -- I already quit! Should I start up again?"

    Ohhh, and I totally DESPISE this pink pollyanna dripping with icky sticky positivity-and-hope culture bullshit too, BTW. I lurked at, then joined BCO, for the information, and also thinking it would be a good idea to "hang out" with other BC patients, since I knew that healthy (non-cancerous) people wouldn't REALLY understand what it was like to have, and deal with, this disease.

    Anyway....yeah. LIFE is a sexually transmitted disease, so the only thing you can do is eat right, get plenty of exercise, don't smoke, don't drink, and still die anyway.

    :grumble grumble: 

    Thanks for listening to my vent, all.  

  • ruthbru
    ruthbru Member Posts: 57,235
    edited March 2011

    O.K. so do I have this right?

    1. Don't put fluoride in the water because leads to cancer; BUT don't put fluoride in the water and it leads to worse dental hygiene, worse dental hygiene leads to gum infections, which lead to germs getting into the blood stream and causing heart attacks!

    2. don't eat meat or chicken because they are pumped full of hormones, or fish because they are full of all the chemicals pumped into the water as sewage. BUT you need protein in order to be healthy. So you eat soy, BUT that may increase your risk for BC.

    3. Eat lots of fruits and vegetables...yikes, they are all sprayed with pesticides.....and I really can not wash each lettuce leaf individually without losing what is left of my sanity!!!! and I can not afford to buy everything organic...I can barely afford to buy the tainted fruits and vegetables at the store!

    4. Don't drink milk because (I can't even remember why on that one), BUT you need calcium or your bones will collapse AND you need the vitamin D in dairy products because without it you increase your risk of developing all sorts of problems including breast cancer.

    5. You should drink a glass of red wine nightly for heart health. OH NO, you should not...increase your risk of developing breast cancer.

    6. Start early and have a ton of kids and breast feed them all to decrease the risk of breast cancer, BUT WAIT, that increases risk of triple negative breast cancer.....plus multiple pregnancies, close together can increase the risk of many of complications of pregnancy, tooth loss (back to the heart attack), post-partem depression for the mother, and low birth weight, and birth defects in the baby......to say nothing of the problems of having 6 children in diapers, with drivers permits, paying for college etc. etc. as they go along in life.

    7. Have kids when you're older or not at all....increases the risk of  BC.

    8. Take BC pills and you'll increase the risk of BC. Don't use birth control.....then you have the taboo abortion issue or refer to number 6 for the problems associated with pregnancy/childbirth/motherhood!

    9. Be too fat, increases the risk of BC. Be too thin, increases the risk of osteoporosis.

    9. Take HRT, increases the risk of BC. Don't take HRT increases the risk of all the other health problems a person is prone to without the benefits that estrogen does give to a woman's body.

    Did I miss anything?

    My bottom line;You can't change your past, it really doesn't matter what you should have done or not done. You lived how you lived. PERIOD. Certainly it is good to point out to young women in our lives that (for instance) they should watch their alcohol intake (although I doubt many will listen to that or any other advice because, of course, kids have always 'lived in the moment' and feel invincible), and it is, of course, smart for us to get some exercise, eat more natural and less processed food, maintain a healthy weight, support causes and candidates that are pro-environement etc. etc. But I think to DWELL on all the woulda/shoulda stuff sucks all the enjoyment right out of life. From my experience, what I want to take from it is.....how much good can I do, how many fun and interesting memories can I make with my family and friends, how many sunsets can I watch, how many good books can I read. Really, I want my focus to be, 'How fully can I live?"

    There is my rant/speech on this topic!

  • luv_gardening
    luv_gardening Member Posts: 1,393
    edited March 2011

    Brilliantly put Lena.

    I think I'm finally over it.  I've vented here and on facebook and now I feel empowered!  If I complain too loud I'm over emotional or aggressive.  If I stay quiet I'm too timid or a door mat.  If I feel resentful then I'm passive aggressive.  It's impossible to please everyone since everyone has different ideas about how I should behave.  So I'll just try to be me, whatever that is, and try not to people-please.  

  • luv_gardening
    luv_gardening Member Posts: 1,393
    edited March 2011

    LOL Ruth.  I thought of some of those and more, but you put it so well.  We can't win so let's just eat healthy-ish and within our budget and enjoy life.

  • kira1234
    kira1234 Member Posts: 3,091
    edited March 2011

    Ruth, So well put. Plus you gave me a chuckle with it. I agree what we did or didn't do in the past is just that the past. No one really knows why some of us get BC and others never do. It's just a crap shoot.

  • lago
    lago Member Posts: 17,186
    edited March 2011

    Ruth I too have been thinking the same. Half the "don't do's" need to be studied further. Just read an article today on "Should you go paraben-free?" that I found rather interesting. Lots of inconclusive info out there.

    I have read over and over again "the sugar feeds cancer" is a myth too… granted sugar isn't good for you anyway. You can drive yourself crazy. So you do all this stuff to prevent cancer then die of something else because you weren't getting the right neutrients. Bottom line, be healthy both in body and mind. I still think (work) stress was the worst thing I did to myself over the past 8 years.

    BTW the milk thing is because those cows injected with hormones will also have it in their milk.

  • AnnNYC
    AnnNYC Member Posts: 4,484
    edited March 2011

    Ruth, I love your list !!! And Sheila, I love your examples of how any and every emotional response can be "pathologized" !

Categories