Is the higher death rates with Er positive BC?

I know the feeling...I have them often, I'm having a major hard time moving on.  Maybe more die from that type because more get that type, does that make sense...I guess that's what you were saying   I read a study once that when hormone + BC learns to work without the hormones they start giving hormones again to confuse it....I think I got that right, it does make sense, wonder if it works.  Hopefully, they're working & come up with more drugs and cures soon.

I've read that she was "weakly er positive" and that doctors called her particular cancer "stubborn."

When I read scary statistics I try to remember that everyone's cancer is unique. 

D4Hope, Since 80% of breast cancers are ER+, the number  of deaths can  be higher even if the rate is lower.  Here's a link from the main section of BCO that explains about  the hormaonal status:

http://www.breastcancer.org/symptoms/diagnosis/hormone_status/read_results.jsp

My MO  always reminds that there are no guarantees and everyone is different.  I don't know what you read, but nowords  was right, if look around you can find that there are studies that contradict each other.

You might want to talk to a counselor if thinking about this is encroaching on you everyday life. It looks we've been on this journey about the same amount of time.  I've seen a sig here that sound  like good advice -- Don't let fear of the future rob you of the joys of today.

A good novel sounds like a great idea.

D4Hope, just wanted to tell you that I did exactly the same thing and had exactly the same reaction. Soon after my diagnosis, on a dark day, I began thinking about all the women I had known or known of who had died from the disease I had just been diagnosed with. I always had admired Elizabeth Edwards, so I Googled her and, like you, read that her cancer was similar to mine and that "more deaths result from ER+PR+ breast cancers." After that, I fell into an even deeper funk.

 Luckily, I found this site and learned that almost every woman is different and every woman's BC is different. There is little value in comparing generalized information.

 I've quit Googling BC stuff and am sticking with a few, reputable sites. And I'm learning to tune out all the "helpful" links that friends send me about cancer being caused by dairy products, beef and deodorant. And I also try to tune out every new cancer study touted on TV news.

It makes for a much more comfortable ride. 

You've gotten a lot of good advice and I think Megadotz is right; ER+ is more common so even if the rate is lower the actual numbers of deaths may be higher.   I think it's tempting but probably incorrect to try to extrapolate from anecdotal info of a single case (i.e. the Eliz. Edwards) because there are so many variables and unknowns. (i.e. some of her health decisions are private info). If you're really worried about it, I would ask your doc. (but since ER status isn't anything you can change, part of me feels like it's not worth worrying about. Easier said than done, I know.)

Edit: I just checked cancermath.net and ER status is one of the variables. According to them, being ER+ gives you a slightly better outcome than being ER-.  I used data for stage 1.