Susan G Komen

jyg · July 2011

@Leia - you can converse with me on this board without calling me "so clueless".

There is an enormous difference between statistical and clinical significance. 4% vs. 6% risk of recurrence is not very different in terms of effect for an individual woman. BUT any difference in any study can be statistically significant if the numbers are large enough (There are other methods to increase statistical power other than sample size. Just realize any difference can be STATISTICALLY significant, but it is up to the reader to determine the clinical significance.)

I would be delighted to discuss the nuances of study design and data interpretation of any study if you remain civil. Until then, I am so out of here

Member_of_the_Club · July 2011

There was an article a year or two ago in the new York Times about how nothing has really been shown to prevent Alzheimers. There have been all sorts of hints that mental stimulation, exercise and other things can help but further study always fails to have it pan out. There is something largely genetic going on with Alzheimers and it has also been linked to head injuries at some point in a person's life. So maybe the best thing you can do is try not to have a head injury.

There are other forms of dementia and some have to do with reduced blood flow to the brain, so diet and exercise would help prevent that. But remember Alzheimers is a broadly degenerative disease. It doesn't just affect memory, but other brain functions as well and ultimately is fatal, unlike some other forms of dementia. People tend to lump them altogether, but they are not the same.

sweetbean · July 2011

Ah Big Pharma, the Big Bad. Honestly, Big Alternative is just as profiteering - Burysinki (sp?) charges $25,000 just to start. Gonzalez charges $4,000 just for the first appointment. And I remain unconvinced that the Budwig Protocol cures cancer at any sort of significant rate. It may in some, but I just haven't seen the evidence that it does for a majority. And a study wouldn't be THAT hard to do - all you would need is one person willing to follow a bunch of BP clients for 5 years. Cost you a couple hundred grand for a study like that. So the fact that there is no epidemiology (again, spelling, sorry) suggests that the results just aren't out there. And a Yahoo group does not a study make, no matter how passionate they are.

The problem with research isn't the people involved. Everyone has been touched by cancer and EVERYONE would like a cure. Unfortunately, the way research is funded is completely messed up - until we clean up the way we do things, we won't get the results we want. Check out the Myelin Repair Foundation - they do research right for multiple scelrosis. Very progressive stuff.

apple · July 2011

if prevention is a cure, why not treat early breast cancer? and pretending to know what causes Alzheimers serves no one well. My dad died of Alzheimer's Disease and my mom and most of her sisters had dementia. There are genetic links. the brain cells accumulate Not a great way to die... Healthy living contributes to long life no matter the disease one succumbs to, if not old age.

As far as I know, they all led healthy lives... no drinking no smoking no etc.

apple · July 2011

thank you ... will do. My brain needs a little help in the short term memory department.

I won't even share the video of eating living squid shot it Japan. eek

sweetbean · July 2011

SusanK8, while a Vitamin B12 deficiency can result in nerve damage, Vitamin B12 supplementation doesn't repair myelin in any meaningful way for anyone suffering from a genetic disease that causes demyelination. (I used to work for an organization that worked on those types of genetic diseases.) It just can't keep up with the congenital factors.

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Leia -- It might be a good idea to do some historical research (not too far back, just 10 years or so) to find out why the US isn't manufacturing much these days. A visit to your local library might yield some enlightening info.

And yeah, jyg, you've got the right idea! Time to get priorities straight, starting with the health and welfare of U.S. citizens.

This is good you brought this up. I started working for a large, Texas company that does outsourcing contracts, and starting in 1996, we starting sending manufacturing for 3 very large household manufacturing brands (think dishwashers, fridges, and food processors. I objected to my manager, asking to be removed from these projects, as I believed that outsourcing manufacturing was unwise. (I work in marketing), She laughed and told me that this was the future of business. So now, look where we are. The previous poster was right. We have NOTHING to trade, and all we're doing is importing.

This is going to impact everything in our lives, from healthcare to our everyday standard of living. Kiss it all goodbye, unless something changes dramatically.

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

P.S. The outsourcing bit was just an aside. Susan Komen Fdtn is HQ'd here, and yes, the amount of $$$$ for administration is phenomenal. Who ever said non-profit wasn't profitable? Wink

Leia · July 2011

SusanK8, that is exactly right.

There is no incentive, now, to cure cancer. Or, to cure any disease. As has been touted, endlessly, we spend 16.5% of our GDP on medical payments. If we didn't do that, anymore, how many countless people would be out of a job.

Of course, if we could just take what is currently known, Budwig, Vitamin D, Burzynski, Gerson, the list goes on and on and on and just prevent disease, as you said. All of those newly healthy people, what propsperity might they create. Not to mention the former health care workers, freed up to improve our economy, even further. By taking productive jobs.

Yet, we cling to this self-induced disease/treatment mentality.

It is really sad.

ruthbru · July 2011

It is very important to live a healthy lifestyle to reduce the likely hood of many, many diseases and conditions.....unfortunately there is not a 100% foolproof guarantee of prevention. There are many people on these boards who have lived very healthy lifestyles, and yet we have all been diagnosed with breast cancer.

thenewme · July 2011

Leia,

You said, "Yet, we cling to this self-induced disease/treatment mentality. "

Are you saying you believe we have caused our own cancer?

Leia · July 2011

I'm saying we can, you and me, take steps to cure our cancers.

Our bodies are on a relentless pursuit, to continue to exist. No choice from us, this is just biological. Yet what we can do is to help our bodies, along. By what we put into our bodies.

My view, everything that we eat or drink directly affects our bodies. If a person eats primarily sugars and processed foods, our body starts fighting those toxins. And the inflammation levels go up. And it is high inflamation that causes most disease.

Like cholesteral. 95% of cholesteral is produced by our own bodies. And in heart disease, cholesteral is produced by our own bodies in a response to inflamation. Due to the lack of good foods, our arteries get inflamed. And our bodies produce cholesteral to cover the inflamation. They are trying to "fix it." Cover it over. To sustain the bodies life. But if the inflamation continues, the cholesteral continues to the point where it just blocks the arteries.

My point; back to this board, the breast cancer. I believe that we can prevent our cancers. I've already had two cancers. And have come to realize that the source of all cancers is inflamation. So, just take that away.

And you can do that with the FOCC. Another thread. And the D3. Another thread, as well.

But this Susan Komen thread, cancer isn't cured by giving $$$ to Pink Ribbons. Cancer is cured by eating healthy food.

You women who ate healthy food and got breast cancer, anyway, well that is why we have health insurance. To take care of you.

But for women like me, I have been eating healthy food and have had NO cancer recurrence, with no MIC treatments, my point of view should be recognized.

Between both of these groups, the focus should be on eating healthy foods. Not how many more chemo and radiation "treatments" that we can offer, to everyone.

The point of our discussion is that we should be doing all that we can to be healthy.

digger · July 2011

And have come to realize that the source of all cancers is inflamation. So, just take that away.

Wow, that is so cool that you figured out the source of all cancer, Leia. That's a huge breakthrough! And you just need to treat that inflammation with the FOCC and some D3. How cool is that?

Anyone else find it interesting that Dr. David Servan-Schreiber treated his brain cancer with both conventional and complementary methods? But I guess, Leia, you know better and if he'd treated it just as a little inflammation, then he wouldn't have had to go through any other methods, uh? Well, at least he had health insurance when the cancer recurred.

Leia · July 2011

digger,I'm just sharing what has worked for me. That I have been eating healthy food and have had no cancer recurrence. After five years. My 2cm IDC. Diagnosed May, 2006. Taken out surgically, with wide margins, August 1, 2006. No radiation. No taxomifen. No further treatments.

And I'm fine. NED five years later.

Plus, NED from my Leiomyosarcoma cancer. That diagnosis, December, 2004.

I HAVE figured out the source of cancer, digger. As I said, above, It is inflammation. That causes all cancers.

What does "Dr. David Servan-Schreiber" have to do with our discussion? Who is that?

And just to say, if either of my cancer recurs, the breast cancer or my Leio cancer, my response will be to go on the Budwig Protocol Full Time. I will never do any of these Medical Industrial Treatments.

And I am just saying this. On this alternative thread.

Which I hope are what alternative threads, are for.

MarieKelly · July 2011

I've had no recurrence of my breast cancer in over 7 years after just having had a lumpectomy. No chemo, no radiation, no tamoxifen, no arimidex...and I'm 30 lbs overweight, a junk food junkie and I smoke! I've decided that just doing what I've always done and not doing a blessed thing to change my lifestyle or eating habits has worked so well for me that it must be the cure for breast cancer!

digger · July 2011

Um, that's really cool to hear about inflammation causing all cancer. Just curious, inflammation where? Anywhere in the body? And what exactly is inflamed?

thenewme · July 2011

.

Member_of_the_Club · July 2011

Inflammation is an immune response to a threat. Generally, it can be a helpful element of the healing process. Sometimes it can cause other problems. In other words, there is good inflammation and bad inflammation.

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Hello,

Here's a study that shows a correlation between inflammation and cancer.

http://cancer.osu.edu/mediaroom/releases/Pages/Study-Shows-How-Inflammation-Can-Lead-To-Cancer.aspx

Excerpt: COLUMBUS, Ohio - A new study shows how inflammation can
help cause cancer. Chronic inflammation due to infection or to conditions such
as chronic inflammatory bowel disease is associated with up to 25 percent of all
cancers.This study by researchers at the Ohio State University Comprehensive
Cancer Center - Arthur G. James Cancer Hospital and Richard J. Solove Research
Institute (OSUCCC - James) found that inflammation stimulates a rise in levels
of a molecule called microRNA-155 (miR-155).

Funding from National Institute of Cancer for this research. The press release goes on to discuss the gene mutations involved in breast cancer as well.

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Here's another study linking chronic inflammation in stomach cancers, usually caused by H. Pylori.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/110340.php

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Study published by NIH

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11866137

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Inflammation and cancer study

http://defeatosteosarcoma.org/2011/04/chronic-inflammation-and-cancer-the-role-of-the-mitochondria/

MariannaLaFrance · July 2011

Breast cancer and inflammation:

http://breast-cancer-research.com/content/9/4/212

Abstract:

Abstract

Recent insights into the molecular and cellular mechanisms underlying cancer development have revealed that immune cells functionally regulate epithelial cancer development and progression. Moreover, accumulated clinical and experimental data indicate that the outcome of an immune response toward an evolving breast neoplasm is largely determined by the type of immune response elicited. Acute tumor-directed immune responses involving cytolytic T lymphocytes appear to protect against tumor development, whereas immune responses involving chronic activation of humoral immunity, infiltration by Th2 cells, and protumor-polarized innate inflammatory cells result in the promotion of tumor development and disease progression. Herein we review this body of literature and summarize important new findings revealing the paradoxical role of innate and adaptive leukocytes as regulators of breast carcinogenesis.

Introduction

Breast cancer is the most frequent malignant tumor of women in North America [1]. Standard treatment modalities have improved the overall outlook and quality of life for women with breast cancer; however, the fact that 40% still succumb to disease highlights the need for new therapeutic approaches and identification of new therapeutic targets. While genetic and epigenetic changes in genes that regulate mammary epithelial cell proliferation, survival, polarity and/or differentiation are probable 'initiators' of breast carcinogenesis, several lines of evidence indicate that stromal cell responses in premalignant mammary tissue may 'promote' progression to cancer and/or the metastatic capability of malignant mammary epithelial cells. Cellular components of tumor stroma include (myo)fibroblasts, vascular cells, infiltrating leukocytes and specialized mesenchymal support cells unique to each tissue microenvironment. A growing body of evidence has recently implicated tumor-infiltrating leukocytes as causal players in cancer development [2-8].

The present review focuses on the paradoxical roles of innate and adaptive leukocytes as regulators of breast carcinogenesis, and highlights recent experimental data indicating that therapeutically targeting these diverse immune cell types by either neutralizing and/or bolstering their specific bioactivities may provide a therapeutic advantage to patients with breast cancer.

Leia · July 2011

MarieKelly, I just want to thank you once again. It was your posts in the summer/fall of 2006 when I was diagnosed with my 2cm IDC, Stage 1, Grade 1, 0/2 nodes, ER+/PR+. HER2- that finally cemented my oppostion to the whole breast radiation. That had never made any sense, to me. And you just clarified it. So, thanks.

Although, it was my oncologist who said to me that if I was refusing the Whole Breast Radiation, the benefits of the Tamoxifen were basically, nonexistant. Not that I was going to do that anyway.

Like you, I'm a smoker. And after my diagnosis and successful surgery I didn't change anything in my life. Up until January, 2009, when I got a BIRAD 5 (certain cancer) MRI that turned into a BIRAD 0 biopsy. No cancer. The docs were all confused and then wanted me to do an MRI biopsy. And I just said, NO. What, they don't trust their own biopsies?!

Yet, it was a wake up call, for me. I immediately went on the Budwig FOCC. January, 2009. I went on it before I even got the biopsy results back. Even if it had been cancer, I knew I would never go through those MIC treatments, again.

And I look on starting the FOCC as the start of my new life. My life of calm and equanimity. It literally changed everything about my life. I just started feeling great. For me, it was that I didn't know how bad I had been feeling before the FOCC until I was on it. When I started feeling great. As I do to this day. And negative mammos ever since.

Smoking is not good, but I enjoy it. And smoking is just one of the VERY many known carinogens that all of us face. For me, I'm convinced that I just have to give my body the nutrients to fight back against all carcinogens. Which is what I am doing.

Only 10% of smokers get lung cancer. What about the other 90%? They don't get lung cancer because their bodies have fought off the carinogenic effects. But to read the Main Stream Media, Smoking=Lung Cancer. What nonsense.

Thanks, again, MarieKelly.

1Athena1 · July 2011

Only 10% of smokers get lung cancer. What about the other 90%? They don't get lung cancer because their bodies have fought off the carinogenic effects. But to read the Main Stream Media, Smoking=Lung Cancer. What nonsense.

Well, it's probably because heart disease, throat cancer and emphysema gets them first.

I can't believe I'm reading what I just read.

Anonymous · July 2011

Leia wrote: "Cancer is cured by eating healthy food."

Did I really just read that in an earlier post.

I value Dr. David Servan-Shreiber's book AntiCancer. Believe he made a valuable contribution to all of us with his work. His obituary is in many threads in this Forum. So sad, so young, but he did all he could with current medical technology and all he could do to help himself. In doing that, he helped all of us.

luv_gardening · July 2011

So many things are associated with cancer and few are proven but the statistics for smoking are huge. I'm thankful I never took it up and I don't envy those of you who are trying to give it up.

Ladies, it would be polite and kind not to jump on every minor error in logic, generality, spelling or grammatical slip up. This isn't school and none of us are perfect. My spell check gets a good workout. Embarassed

I was aware that Luan said she had the mouth problems temporarily during chemo so she had the opportunity to show her mouth sores to a health worker and I assumed she did. I had a cold sore during chemo. Normally it goes away with a few dabs of zovirax anti-viral but this one was a big ugly thing. I've also had a mouth full of painful ulcers in my teens. I feel for those of you with continuing mouth thrush and wish I had a solution.

I could see that Leia meant "some" inflammation, not "all" inflammation.

Cancer isn't cured by diet but it may delay a recurrence and for Dr Servan-Schreiver it may have prolonged his life by decades.

It's getting hard to have a normal conversation here without constant interruptions and "policing" by the same people. It's irritating and it's no wonder that tempers flare at times. Do you really want peace here, or do you want to be "right" at the expense of peace?

Please ladies, give us a break! Let's all be friends as it's cancer that is the enemy, not each other as I'm sure we're all friendly, considerate people in other settings.

ruthbru · July 2011

Sorry about the following for those who will be offended, but to think that smoking is a perfectly harmless little hobby being picked on by the media is a very, very dangerous point of view. Not only for the smoker, but for the people around them and society as a whole, who ends up paying the price tag.

Deaths & Disease in the USA from Tobacco Use

People who die each year from their own cigarette smoking: approx. 400,000

Adult nonsmokers who die each year from exposure to secondhand smoke: approx. 50,000

Kids under 18 alive today who will ultimately die from smoking (unless smoking rates decline): 6,000,000+

People in the USA who currently suffer from smoking-caused illness: 8.6 million

Smoking kills more people than alcohol, AIDS, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, and suicides combined, with thousands

more dying from spit tobacco use. Of all the kids who become new smokers each year, almost a third will ultimately die

from it. In addition, smokers lose an average of 13 to 14 years of life because of their smoking.

Tobacco-Related Monetary Costs in the USATotal annual public and private health care expenditures caused by smoking: $96 billion- Annual Federal and state government smoking-caused Medicaid payments: $30.9 billion [Federal share: $17.6 billion per year. States' share: $13.3 billion]

- Federal government smoking-caused Medicare expenditures each year: $27.4 billion

- Other federal government tobacco-caused health care costs (e.g. through VA health care): $9.6 billion

Annual health care expenditures solely from secondhand smoke exposure: $4.98 billion

Additional smoking-caused health costs caused by tobacco use include annual expenditures for health and developmental

problems of infants and children caused by mothers smoking or being exposed to second-hand smoke during pregnancy or

by kids being exposed to parents smoking after birth (at least $1.4 to $4.0 billion). Also not included above are costs from

smokeless or spit tobacco use, adult secondhand smoke exposure, or pipe/cigar smoking.

Productivity losses caused by smoking each year: $97 billion

[Only includes costs from productive work lives shortened by smoking-caused death. Not included: costs from smokingcaused

disability during work lives, smoking-caused sick days, or smoking-caused productivity declines when on the job.]

Annual expenditures through Social Security Survivors Insurance for the more than 300,000 kids who have lost atleast one parent from a smoking-caused death: $2.6 billion

Other non-healthcare costs from tobacco use include residential and commercial property losses from smoking-caused fires

(about half a billion dollars per year) and tobacco-related cleaning & maintenance ($3 billion).

Taxpayers yearly fed/state tax burden from smoking-caused gov't spending: $70.7 billion ($616 per household)

Smoking-caused health costs and productivity losses per pack sold in USA (low estimate): $10.47 per pack

Average retail price per pack in the USA (including sales tax): $5.29

Tobacco Industry Advertising & Political Influence

Annual tobacco industry spending on marketing its products nationwide: $12.8 billion ($35+ million each day)

Research studies have found that kids are three times as sensitive to tobacco advertising than adults and are more likely to

be influenced to smoke by cigarette marketing than by peer pressure; and that a third of underage experimentation with

smoking is attributable to tobacco company advertising and promotion.

Annual tobacco industry contributions to federal candidates, political parties, and PACS: Over $2 million

Tobacco industry expenditures lobbying Congress in 2010: $16.6 million, 162 employees

Tobacco companies also spend enormous amounts to influence state and local politics; and, when threatened by the federal

McCain tobacco control bill in 1998, spent more than $125 million in direct and grassroots lobbying to defeat it. Since 1998,

Altria (Philip Morris) has spent more on lobbying Congress than almost any other business.

Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, February 16, 2011 / Jessica GuilfoyleTOLL OF TOBACCO IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICASources of Information for Tobacco's Toll in the USAYouth tobacco use. 2009 National Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS). The 2009 National

Youth Tobacco Survey (YTS) found that 17.2% of high school students smoked and 11.6% of high school males used smokeless tobacco, but the YRBS

cannot be compared to the YTS because they use different methodologies. Current smoker defined as having smoked in the past month. YRBS is done in

odd-numbered years, YTS usually in even. See, also, Inst. for Social Research, Univ. of Mich., Monitoring the Future Studies,

http://monitoringthefuture.org/new.html. Youth initiation. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), HHS, Results from the 2009 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, NSDUH: Volume I Summary of National Findings.

http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/NSDUH/2k9NSDUH/2k9ResultsP.pdf. Secondhand smoke exposure. CDC, "State-Specific Prevalence of Cigarette

Smoking Among Adults, and Children's and Adolescents' Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke - United States 1996," MMWR 46(44):1038-1043,

November 7, 1997. Good data not currently available re adult exposure to secondhand smoke at home or the numbers of adults or kids exposed to SHS

outside the home. Smoke-free workplaces. Giovino GA, Chaloupka FJ, Hartman AM et al. Cigarette Smoking Prevalence and Policies in the 50 States: An Era of Change - The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ImpacTeen Tobacco Chart Book. Buffalo, NY: University at Buffalo, State University of New

York, 2009. Data from the Current Population Survey Tobacco Use Supplement, 2006 to 2007.

http://www.impacteen.org/generalarea_PDFs/chartbook_final071009.pdf Packs consumed by kids. DiFranza, J & Librett, J, "State and Federal

Revenues from Tobacco Consumed by Minors," American Journal of Public Health 89(7):1106-1108, July 1999; Economic Research Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Tobacco Briefing Room, Table 8, http://www.econ.ag.gov/Briefing/tobacco/. See, also, Cummings, et al., "The Illegal Sale of

Cigarettes to US Minors: Estimates by State," American Journal of Public Health 84(2):300-302, February 1994. Adult smoking. National Center for

Health Statistics, 2009 Nat'l Health Interview Survey. Smoking deaths. CDC, "Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and

Productivity Losses-United States 2000-2004," MMWR 57(45), November 14, 2008 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5745a3.htm. See

also, California EPA, Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant, June 24, 2005,

http://repositories.cdlib.org/tc/surveys/CALEPA2005C/. Smoking-caused disease. CDC, "Cigarette Smoking-Attributable Morbidity - United States,

2000," MMWR 52(35): 842-844, September 5, 2003. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5235.pdf. See, also, U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO),

"CDC's April 2002 Report on Smoking: Estimates of Selected Health Consequences of Cigarette Smoking Were Reasonable," letter to U.S. Rep. Richard

Burr, July 16, 2003, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d03942r.pdf.

Smoking-caused costs: CDC, "Annual Smoking-Attributable Mortality, Years of Potential Life Lost, and Productivity Losses-United States 2000-2004,"MMWR 57(45), November 14, 2008. See also, CDC, Sustaining State Programs for Tobacco Control: Data Highlights 2006 [and underlying CDC data and

estimates], http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/state_data/data_highlights/2006/index.htm. Zhang, X, et al., "Cost of Smoking to the Medicare

Program, 1993," Health Care Financing Review 20(4):1-19, Summer 1999 [nationwide smoking-caused health costs = $89 billion in 1997 or $108 billion in

2002 dollars]. Health Care Financing Administration [federal gov't reimburses the states, on average, for 57% of their Medicaid expenditures]. Office of

Management and Budget, The Budget for the United States Government - Fiscal Year 2000, Table S-8 at page 378, January 1999. CDC's Data Highlights 2006 provides cost estimates that have been adjusted for inflation and put in 2004 dollars. To make the other cost data similarly current and

more comparable, they have also been adjusted for inflation and put in 2004 dollars, using the same CDC methodology. Pregnancy-related costs.

Adams, EK & Melvin, CL, "Costs of Maternal Conditions Attributable to Smoking During Pregnancy," American Journal of Preventive Medicine 15(3):212-

19, October 1998; CDC, "Medical Care Expenditures Attributable to Cigarette Smoking During Pregnancy," MMWR 46(44), November 7, 1997; Aligne, CA

& Stoddard, JJ, "Tobacco and Children: An Economic Evaluation of the Medical Effects of Parental Smoking," Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151:648-653, July 1997. Stoddard, JJ & Gray, B, "Maternal Smoking and Medical Expenditures for Childhood Respiratory Illness," American Journal of Public Health 87(2):205-209, February 1997. SHS Costs. Behan, DF, et al., Economic Effects of Environmental Tobacco Smoke, Society of

Actuaries, March 31, 2005, http://www.soa.org/files/pdf/ETSReportFinalDraft(Final 3).pdf. Smoking & SSSI costs: Leistikow, B, et al., "Estimates of

Smoking-Attributable Deaths at Ages 15-54, Motherless or Fatherless Youths, and Resulting Social Security Costs in the United States in 1994,"

Preventive Medicine 30(5):353-360, May 2000 [put in 2004 dollars]. Fire costs. Hall, Jr., JR, National Fire Protection Association, The Smoking-Material Fire Problem, November 2007, http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files//PDF/OS.SmokingMaterials.pdf; U.S. Fire Administration/National Fire Data Center, U.S.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Residential Smoking Fires and Casualties, Topical Fire Research Series 5(5), June 2005,

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i5.pdf. Cleaning and maintenance costs. Mudarri, D, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Costs and Benefits of Smoking Restrictions: An Assessment of the Smoke-Free Environment Act of 1993 (H.R. 3434), submitted to Subcommittee on Health and theEnvironment; Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. House of Representatives, April 1994. CDC, Making Your Workplace Smokefree: A Decision Maker's Guide, 1996. Other non-health costs. U.S. Dept. of the Treasury, Economic Costs of Smoking in the U.S. and the Benefits of ComprehensiveTobacco Legislation, 1998; Chaloupka, FJ & Warner, KE, "The Economics of Smoking," in Culyer, A & Newhouse, J, (eds), The Handbook of Health Economics, 2000; CDC, MMWR 46(44), November 7, 1997. Tobacco tax burden. Smoking-caused federal/state tax burden equals listed government

expenditures plus 3% of total tobacco-caused health costs to account for unlisted federal/state smoking costs. CDC, "Medical Care Expenditures

Attributable to Smoking-United States, 1993," MMWR 43(26):1-4, July 8, 1994. Average retail price per pack. Orzechowski & Walker, The Tax Burden on Tobacco, 2009, and media reports.Tobacco marketing. U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Cigarette Report for 2006, 2009, http://ftc.gov/os/2009/08/090812cigarettereport.pdf. See

also, FTC, Smokeless Tobacco Report for the Years 2006, 2009, http://ftc.gov/os/2009/08/090812smokelesstobaccoreport.pdf. Data for top 5

manufacturers only. See, also Campaign factsheet, Increased Cigarette Company Marketing Since the Multistate Settlement Agreement Went into Effect.

Tobacco marketing studies. Pollay, R, et al., "The Last Straw? Cigarette Advertising and Realized Market Shares Among Youths and Adults," Journal of Marketing 60(2):1-16, April 1996. Evans, N, et al., "Influence of Tobacco Marketing and Exposure to Smokers on Adolescent Susceptibility to Smoking,"Journal of the National Cancer Institute 87(20):1538-45, October 1995. Pierce, JP, et al., "Tobacco Industry Promotion of Cigarettes and AdolescentSmoking," Journal of the American Medical Association 279(7):511-505, February 1998 [with erratum in JAMA 280(5):422, August 1998]. Tobacco industry political contributions, lobbying, political advertising. Federal Election Commission. Common Cause, http://www.commoncause.org. Public

Citizen, http://www.citizen.org/tobacco. Center for Responsive Politics, http://www.opensecrets.org. Media reports. TFK website,

http://tobaccofreekids.org/reports/contributions. Center for Public Integrity, http://www.publicintegrity.org.

MarieKelly · July 2011

Leia, I'm very happy that you're doing well. You seem confident that you've taken control of your health by following the Budwig diet and you're feeling very positive about it...nothing wrong with that. I'm sure that following a healthy eating plan and lifestyle does wonders for a person. The problem I have however with your concept of alternative treatment is the same that I have with many others who are vigourously promoting various alternative approaches - you tend to loose prospective and so any lack of recurrence or disease progression gets enthusiastically translated into proof positive that the alternative treatment is responsible for any success. The thought processes end up so far out in left field that all credibility is lost.

If I'm recalling correctly, you had a grade 1 breast cancer and also a grade 1 leiomyosarcoma (of which there are many different varieties just like BC) - neither of which will necessarily be life threatening. Wide excision alone may well have been all that was necessary in either case so honestly, how can you credit diet for keeping things in check when the surgery was very likely to have been curative in the first place? I just don't understand that way of thinking. The simple fact that many/most breast cancers will not reoccur anyway and will not result in eventual death seems to quickly be forgotten by those promoting alternative treatment.

As you already know, I'm very supportive of almost anyone who makes a decision to decline any treatment other than the wide excision for CERTAIN TYPES of breast cancer. It's not necessarily the best decision for everyone, though. And although I'm totally against using radiation prophylactically (just in case) and other systemic therapies for the same reason, I would have used any or all of them in a heartbeat if my cancer had been aggressive or metastatic or there was any significant indication that it might eventually end up that way. So, although we agree on the non-necessity of conventional therapy to a certain point, our opinion paths diverge in completely opposite directions when it comes to discounting conventional treatment in all cases.

I wish you the best, Leia - I really do. Just don't let yourself get too far out there. I agree with a lot of the things you say, but everything isn't just black or white, conventional vs alternative. There are many shades of gray, so don't just put on the blinders, latch yourself onto one view and completely discount another.

And by the way, BIRAD 5 in not certain cancer. It's highly suggestive, something like 80% or so I think, but not certain cancer. Some BIRAD 5's are found to be benign. There's also a BIRAD 6 rating and THAT is certain cancer, already biopsy proven.

1Athena1 · July 2011

Thanks, ruthbru.

Joy: Your point is well taken and I have liked reading you and your wisdom. The point is not against the poster but the information. It's not personal.

Susan G Komen

Comments

Categories