Are These Genetic Cancer Tests Perfected? (Angelina Jolie)
I have friends who did this - went and took out, and took off everything because their genetic test showed high cancer risk. Are these tests accurate, or is this still controversial, with more tests needed to confirm the science behind it?
How would you feel if you went and got cut up and such tests were proven junk science down the line?
It just seems like such a leap at this point - using genetic testing to prove if one could develop cancer, and give people a percentage too. We don't even have cure for cancer yet, nor testing for mental illness. We still don't know what every gene is responsible for.
It just seems so extreme to start taking out your ovaries, taking off your breasts, etc. What's next? Taking off your testicles?
Not every cancer is the same, but BRCA1, the gene that Angelina apparently carries, is a pretty good predictor that her chances of getting breast cancer, especially given that her mother died of it so young.
BRCA1 is what's called a tumor-suppressor gene, which codes for a protein that helps prevent a cell from becoming cancerous. So, she likely has one mutant gene that doesn't make the correct protein, and one copy of the normal gene, which prevents the cell from turning into a cancer cell. But if that normal gene is somehow damaged, that can turn a normal cell into a cancerous cell.
Tumor-suppressor genes were first discovered when doctors where studying hereditary retinoblastoma, which are malignant tumors of the retina, and that tend to happen within the same family.
So, while there's nothing to say that Angelina would have definitely gotten cancer, she would have a much higher risk than someone who had two normal copies of the BRCA1 gene. For that person, one gene is damaged, there's one to fall back on.
The Voice of the Night
[quote]Tumor-suppressor genes were first discovered when doctors where studying hereditary retinoblastoma, which are malignant tumors of the retina, and that tend to happen within the same family.
Interesting. I know a father and teen son who each had an eye removed because of retinoblastoma. At the time their doctors didn't have the clinical data to for certain it was hereditary, although substantial anecdotal evidence had been amassed.
Angelina Jolie's mom died of ovarian cancer, Angelina hasn't had her ovaries removed. That is all.
r3, it was announced today that she's getting more surgery. She will be getting her ovaries removed.
R3, it has been announced that she is going to have her ovaries removed. It will probably be done as soon as she has healed from the breast surgery.
Let's face it, she has enough kids.
Hey, is her voice gonna go all deep now? Is she gonna get fat?
She'll probably go on hormone replacement therapy, at least at first, if for no other reason than to help preserve her bone density.
Is she just having an oophorectomy or a hysterectomy too?
The Voice of the Night
The BRCA1 marker runs in my family. I have a second cousin who had both surgeries. Many of the women in my mother's family died in their 40s from breast cancer. My cousin is a medical researcher and did extensive research on the family as well as the risks etc. before doing it.
What R1 said is correct. Of course no genetic test can tell if you if you going to get cancer, it can tell you the correlation of how someone with that allele has a X% higher chance of getting cancer than someone who doesn't have that allele.
What you choose to do with that information is up to you.
So far I've only heard oophorectomy, but I'd be very surprised if it isn't a complete hysterectomy. That seems to be normal prophylaxis.
You know, without wishing to turn this into an Angelina slobbering lovefest, while I know she's got money to get the best medical care in the world, I hope she's also getting some kind of support counseling. Perhaps it's wrong for a penised-person to say this, but I can't imagine it's easy losing everything that most people would say would make her female.
Still, if her going public about this helps educate a few more women, good on her.
The Voice of the Night
Please! Don't buy this PR of hers. She went to have reconstructive surgery after having kids like so many women do...because your breasts start to resemble udders. So she spun it into a cancer story. I've known of patients who opted for this surgery when their mothers and sisters all had actual breast cancer. Her mother Marcia didn't even have breast cancer! All of this gene talk is a cover up for her going topless in future films. There was a blind item about this around Christmas time. Going to look for it now. Anyone else know of this blind? She is disgusting and never believe a word she or Madonna ever have to say. Many people thought the blind was Madonna.
R13=Jennifer Anniston, still single.
The Voice of the Night
[quote] What's next? Taking off your testicles?
Testicular cancer is highly curable. You'd be a fool to lop those off just because there's a risk you might get testicular cancer.
That's beneath you, VOTN. I thought you had a lot more class.
R13, you sound mighty sure about that - so you're saying the breast cancer center she cited in her editorial piece is lying too?
OP, as others have mentioned you also need to have a family history to go with the genetic tests, especially for insurance to cover the preventative surgery (many insurers do, as it's much less expensive than treating the cancer.)
Hi, Angelina. This is Francine at the Beverly Hills Clinic for Maximizing Image with Medicine. We're sorry but I apparently mixed up the test results a little when we gave you your data a while back. It was for Jolie something or other. You can see how easy the mistake was. I'm real busy and we've been down a receptionist. Anyhow, forget what I said and just 'member to get that first mammogram when you turn 50. Sorry for any inconvenience, but these things do happen. Bye now.
VOTN - that was really beneath what most people respect about you. Embarrassing.
She doesn't have a family history of breast cancer. Her mother had ovarian cancer. Some of the fangurls here are claiming bs that the mother had bc, but it's not true and there are no links. Angelina even said in her NYT piece that her mother had ovarian cancer. No mention of any breast cancer.
The Breast Center isn't lying. She didn't have cancer...yet has made this into a cancer story citing her children and mother as reasons. You can't see that?
Jolie didn't mention that the Supreme Court is currently determining if human genes can be patented. Myriad owns or licenses two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.
If you need BRCA1 or BRCA2 testing, as Jolie did, Mryiad has your fate in its hands. The Supreme Court ruling is expected next month.
There can be a link between breast and ovarian cancer. BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes are responsible for about 5 to 10 percent of all ovarian cancers.
Other things to know:
The majority of people who develop breast cancer didn’t inherit an abnormal breast cancer gene and have no family history. But about five percent of people have a genetic mutation which predisposes them to cancer.
Two abnormal genes BRCA1 (BReast CAncer gene one) and BRCA2 (BReast CAncer gene two) are associated with a higher lifetime risk of developing breast and/or ovarian cancer.
All of us have BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. The function of the BRCA genes is to repair cell damage and keep breast cells growing normally. But when these genes contain abnormalities or mutations that are passed from generation to generation, the genes don’t function normally and breast cancer risk increases.
Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jews are 10 times more likely to have mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA 2 genes than the general population. Approximately 2.65 percent of the Ashkenazi Jewish population has a mutation in these genes, while only 0.2 percent of the general population carries these mutations.
Most US Jews are Ashkenazi(their ancestors came from Eastern Europe) vs. Sephardic (their ancestors came from Spain, Portugal, North Africa and the Middle East).
Having an abnormal BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene doesn’t mean you will be diagnosed with breast cancer: Only seven percent of breast cancers in Ashkenazi women are caused by alterations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 (See www.genome.gov/10000507.)
Christina Applegate had similar surgery in 2007.
Are BRCA1 and BRCA2 associated with virulent cancer strains?
R22, stop justifying for this mentally ill PR meister. You still don't go around lobbing off body parts on the fear you'll get sick. She ended up with tube titiies and like many wives of the wealthy, demanded a boob job after having children. That's all this is. She crafted it into a cancer story, using her mother and God forsaken children! SHE DIDN'T HAVE CANCER!
[quote]However, not every woman in such families carries a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, and not every cancer in such families is linked to a harmful mutation in one of these genes. Furthermore,[u] not every woman who has a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation will develop breast and/or ovarian cancer.
[quote]According to estimates of lifetime risk, about 12.0 percent of women (120 out of 1,000) in the general population will develop breast cancer sometime during their lives compared with about 60 percent of women (600 out of 1,000) who have inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 (4, 5). In other words, a woman who has inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is about five times more likely to develop breast cancer than a woman who does not have such a mutation.
[quote]Lifetime risk estimates for ovarian cancer among women in the general population indicate that 1.4 percent (14 out of 1,000) will be diagnosed with ovarian cancer compared with 15 to 40 percent of women (150–400 out of 1,000) who have a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation (4, 5).
All of us have BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. If genetic testing reveals you have the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation, you may be at high risk for breast and/or ovarian cancer. (You can acquire the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation from your mother or father.)
Note that having the mutation doesn't necessarily mean you will go to have cancer. Family history of breast and ovarian cancer (as Jolie has) increases risk.
I don't believe Jolie is Jewish. People of Ashkenazi Jewish descent are thought to have acquired the BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation via the
Scientists believe that certain disorders became more common among Ashkenazi Jews because of at least two processes: the "founder effect" and genetic drift.
"Founder effect" refers to the chance presence of these genes among the "founders" or ancestors who immigrated to Eastern Europe at the time of the Diaspora (70 C.E.). Prior to this time we presume that these disorders were no more common among Jews than among any other people.
Genetic drift refers to the increase in frequency of the genes for these disorders in this group, as a result of chance. Because Jews tend to not marry outside of their faith and community, the relatively high frequency of these genes among Jews did not pass into other communities, nor was the frequency lessened by the introduction of other genes from outside the Ashkenazi Jewish community.
Can silicone implants cause cancer? What about that, hmm?
Historically ovarian cancer was called the “silent killer” because symptoms were not thought to develop until the chance of cure was poor. However, recent studies have shown this term is untrue and that the following symptoms are much more likely to occur in women with ovarian cancer than women in the general population. These symptoms include:
Pelvic or abdominal pain
Difficulty eating or feeling full quickly
Urinary symptoms (urgency or frequency)
There's no screening test for ovarian cancer. By the time you learn you have it, it often found at an advanced (and incurable) state.
“She is a special case, and you can completely understand why she did it,” said Dr. Susan Love, the author of a best-seller, “Dr. Susan Love’s Breast Book,” and a breast surgeon.
“But what I hope that people realize is that we really don’t have good prevention for breast cancer. When you have to cut off normal body parts to prevent a disease, that’s really pretty barbaric when you think about it.”
R27 if that were true my oncologist would be practicing at Dolly Parton/Pamela Anderson Center for Breast Neoplasms....
r27 that's what I'm thinking too. I have a friend who got breast implants several years ago. I, and everyone else tried to talk her out of it - including her bf and she insisted on getting them.
About 1 year later or less she came down with IBS/IBD/Crohn's Disease (she is not Jewish), and has had at least 1 or 2 operations a year on her intestinal tract. It has been 5 or 6 years with this.
Is there a correlation? I think so, well in my mind there is. I don't know if it's scientific or not.
This is my only question, do they remove the nipples also...because from what I've seen, they don't do a good job when trying to replicate a nipple.
When Christina Applegate said she was having her breast removed because of the probability of breast cancer, I kind of thought she was lying.
r26- it's entirely possible that Jolie has that gene from the drifter effect- there are plenty of Russian/Bulgarian/Polish/Ukrainian Jews to prove that.
There's a troll on here that is just full of shit and some crazy hate.
No one needs to call out VOTN for calling out a nutcase trying to derail a serious discussion with silly gossip. Kudos to VOTN.
Angelina's mother had both breast cancer and ovarian cancer but she died of ovarian cancer.
Angelina's maternal grandmother died of ovarian cancer at I believe 45. A maternal uncle also died of cancer at an early age - I am unsure of what kind of cancer.
This info is available at the link. Careful though as I found the medical details difficult to read - I can't imagine enduring it. Again my hats off to those who have.
These deniers are hilarious. They just make it up as they go along. They need to just fuck off. They are most assuredly straight women and they don't belong here - though I'm sure they'll say they are gay men. LOL! DL doesn't need this kind of junior high bullshit.
[quote]stop justifying for this mentally ill PR meister. You still don't go around lobbing off body parts on the fear you'll get sick. She ended up with tube titiies and like many wives of the wealthy, demanded a boob job after having children. That's all this is. She crafted it into a cancer story, using her mother and God forsaken children! SHE DIDN'T HAVE CANCER!
You are an idiot. Before you embarrass yourself any more, please do some reading. Start with posts here and their links.
As a preventive measure people absolutely DO have their body parts "lobbed off" to use your interesting turn of phrase. See link below (see stats at bottom of page).
The moronic cynicism of some posters on the DL is so boring. There are plenty of legitimate things to be cynical about e.g. the US gun lobby. They're winning. They've managed to cower the entire nation, yet some of you guys just don't give a fuck. You'd rather pour shit on a celeb who is actually doing the right thing both for herself and for others with the same gene defect.
We're dissecting a PR campaign, you fool. Logic doesn't add up.
The idea that an actress would have to go through an elaborate ruse to get a boobjob is silly and downright ignorant. Breast enhancements and lifts do not involve anymore than a small incision and removal of minimal tissue. No overnight hospital stay and very little scarring. I would say the whole process takes 4 to 5 hours including anesthesia. Most actresses have had this work done although it may be noticed and speculated upon in the tabs by no means would it cause controversy or be on record in the media. No one would choose a mastectomy over cosmetic breast surgery for the simple reasons of scarring risk,and pain.
[quote]VOTN - that was really beneath what most people respect about you. Embarrassing.
I can get rowdy too sometimes. However, maybe I'm just naive, but I refuse to believe that anyone would fake this.
I'll stick to my normal know-it-all self and leave the pointless bitchery to the rest.
The Voice of the Night
Last year my oldest friend died after three horrific years with ovarian cancer. she left behind a five year old, and made it just far enough to see him to kindergarten (her stated goal. she died three days later at the age of 44). She had this gene mutation, but it was not identified until after she was sick. She wanted nothing more than to see her boy grow up and that was taken from her. To me, AJ's decision speaks volumes about her authentic concern for her kids and their well being. I think it is an amazing brave decision. I miss my friend everyday, and her son is now growing up without a mother. Perhaps AJ wanted to spare her children this devastation?
I realize this is DL, but for the love of christ....whats with all the snarky shitty comments? Perhaps we could identify the gene that makes us gay folks such hateful assholes to others for no apparent reason?
R38 Sorry about your friend. The crazy poster is a woman. She is a Jennifer Aniston fan who can't get over the divorce and probably is a regular poster on the Female First Forum. She is likely pulling her hair out at all the sympathy and praise Angelina is getting.
R34, I'm so embarrassed for you. Falling for this. She didn't have cancer. She justified a breast reconstruction using her dead mother and her children as motives. Like most women, her breasts were wrecked after having children. Wealthy people get this fixed. She just can't admit the real reason and is spinning this into a PR extravaganza. She went to a breast center for reconstruction. She's not going through rounds of chemo and radiation. What the hell is wrong with you?
R36, you dolt. Of course a Hollywood celeb would go through all of this if she wants it done correctly. She is insuring she can save the nipple so it is a two part process. You're talking out of your ass.
R13, 21, 24, etc, you really look like a fool. The science is very clear behind this, although people have various options, which was the point of her op-ed. Just because her mother had ovarian cancer, doesn't mean that AJ wasn't at a high risk of developing breast cancer. It's the same gene. The risk of getting breast cancer with this gene is much higher than ovarian cancer, although the ovarian cancer risk is high as well. If you are even going to enter this discussion, you need to read up on the issue.
Jennifer Aniston? How does she factor into this story?
R43, JA is only part of this because some posters can't discuss AJ without dragging JA into it. It's childish and ridiculous, but they keep doing it.
They don't seem to get that JA is probably relieved that she dodged that bullet. Who would want to live like Pitt and Jolie with that herd of spoiled nasty children?
Read up on it? I've lived it! So should all women who are positive with HPV go and get their cervix removed because of the high risk? No. Would a man have his testicles removed because of a high risk factor? No. If I was going to have my wrecked breasts reconstructed, I'd probably opt for what she went through as a safe measure and call it a day but I sure wouldn't be using that as an excuse. If she simply said she wanted a reconstruction and then decided to go the route she did, I'd have no trouble with that. But to use your dead mother, children and genetic possibilities, hell no! Then to write an article justifying it? I'd respect her if she admitted her breasts had changed after childbirth and she decided to kill two birds. Fine. Spinning it like she did is disgusting and a slap in the face to all women.
I thought it was odd that they had adopted children but still chose to have three of their own. The twins are obviously turkey baster kids. Twins pop out every other day now, because people are rather foolish. A woman's body is made to carry one baby at a time, twins have become the norm, how many come out damaged? I guess there isn't a study.
R13-45 is unhinged and uninformed. (and R20, the gene puts the person at very high risk for breast and ovarian cancer which is why Jolie will next have an oophorectomy. He mother died of ovarian, and probably had the gene as well, but of course one cannot be certain.)
Yes, she does not yet have either cancers, she is pre-empting and in my opinion (and many of my colleagues) she is doing (did) the right thing.
This particular gene predicts breast and ovarian cancer pretty accurately as has been described on this thread and others via links and intelligent posts.
R13 is full of some sort of unrelated anger specific to Jolie (or wealthy celebrities) and does not seem to know the facts- and thinks Jolie is lying. Very silly- no reason to lie about his and of course it is all verifiable.
[quote] the gene puts the person at very high risk for breast and ovarian cancer which is why Jolie will next have an oophorectomy. He mother died of ovarian, and probably had the gene as well, but of course one cannot be certain.)
I agree. I would have had the same reconstruction. I have no problem with that. I have a problem with how she's spinning it is all.
how is she "spinning it"? she told her story, and her reasons. that's it. she didn't volunteer your breasts for removal and she isn't advocating a Federal law to require all women with this mutation to have their breasts removed. She made a decision that made sense to her and her family. Of course she would have to talk about it in public, because if she didnt, then some ass hat tabloid would claim she had her breasts done. Oh wait, some assholes on here already claimed that! See how that works?
you could not pay me to be a celebrity!
A friend of mine had both a hysterectomy and a double mastectomy because of this, too. She has a grade school age daughter and a son in his early 20s. Her own mother died while she was in high school from breast cancer. My friend, years after the surgeries, is still uncomfortable with her "new" body, mostly the fake boobs, but she's enjoying doing speaking events about the surgeries as preventative medicine.
If Angelina had been totally honest and said something like "After my pregnancies, especially after the twins, my breasts never recovered, like a lot of other moms out there. When I researched my options, the doctors decided to test my DNA to see how much of a risk my genetics posed. I opted for removal of all breast tissue because I couldn't rest easy always wondering if my mammograms would come up positive for cancer." I can respect that. She has the financial means...I would have done the same thing. The problem I have is she doesn't admit upfront that she was going for a boob job anyway.
Dita von Teese made up a similar story about why she had a breast enhancement. I believe she blamed drugs for ravaging her breasts. There's no need for that. You're in the business. Understandable.
I'm still waiting for the link that said that Jolie's mother had breast cancer. As far as I know she did not & all would have known since Jolie & her mother were famewhores, & her mother was also a huge stage mother.
No. I had it done. It said I had a lower risk for things I actually DO have. It said I have a higher risk for a couple of things there is some evidence for. It's not even a high percentage thing. You can show double, triple the risk for something and not get it. For instance, the average risk can be 15%...yours could be 45%..it doesn't mean anything..in fact.
It did say I have a higher risk for something that is becoming a problem for me, so it's hit and miss.
Oh I forgot to mention. 95% of the people who actually get the cancer that it said I had twice the risk for, do NOT have the gene, at all. AT
Yeah, the Marcheline breast cancer then ovarian cancer doesn't work. Breast cancer usually metastasizes differently, doesn't it? I know colon cancer moves onto the liver, then lungs and brain and in that order. Some of the patients with breast cancer went on to evolve another cancer later. Usually brain cancer. Not ovarian, though. Some people justify for the same gene but you'd be hard pressed to find anything referring to her mom having breast cancer. Just an excuse for a first class reconstruction. Angelina was strangely quiet during the National Enquirer discussing the twins' possible retardation.
What's fucked up is that a company, Myriad Genetics, patented BRCA1 and BRCA2. Patented genes! What the fuck?
The ACLU initiated a lawsuit against Myriad.
Reasons this is fucked, from an article on Huffington Post (but the ACLU site has more information):
Myriad retains exclusive rights to all testing and research on BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. This means that sharing of data and analysis is blocked, undermining further collaborative scientific research efforts.
Myriad can keep testing costs high indefinitely (and they have).
Second opinions are impossible.
The patents mean continued limited access/information/treatment for underserved populations.
This monopoly creates a barrier standing in the way of further breast and ovarian cancer research.
The idea that human genes can be patented is flawed, sets a dangerous precedent and is just plain wrong.
Thank you R56 for mentioning what is going down right now in the legal news. Watch for a connection with investors? Private or public company? This indeed is the issue but peppering with Angelina PR Maestro proof tidbits is fascinating. Her nose job(s) and other surgeries made a masculine looking woman into some otherwordly beauty who is really that skank that every neighborhood is familiar. She pushes everything not because she's so great and impervious but really a skanky goth chick with a kickin' death wish. Unfortunately, some know the type. She doesn't value her life. Really. She has a death wish and is a mother to six children. Her father wasn't kidding when he begged for support to get her psychiatric help in that now infamous news cast. People tell you who they are but if you're too wrapped up into your own self to acknowledge it, it does you a great disservice. Both Pitt and her fans are victims. People tell you who they are so you need to really listen.
R47, you poor dear. I'm also wealthy and that is how I can spot the usual breast job after having children. Everyone gets it here. I can now see how the "have-nots" fall for her bullshit. Nobody without means gets a well worked out reconstruction nor are they familiar with high end street drugs. It's not crack, Colt45 and dirtweed for these people. I'm starting to get a sense of Jolie's fans. It isn't because she adopted Miss Zahara, is it? Come on, is it?
R59 et al, fuck off.
You are mentally ill and have some kind of juvenile rage issues.
I have provided the link twice now for the fact that Angelina's mother had both breast cancer and ovarian cancer. It says she died from ovarian cancer. But clearly you do not read - you just shoot your mouth off on some embarrassing rant.
You are a rage-aholic, delusional frau and don't belong here. It is scary as shit that your claim of having children could be true.
Still, we are waiting for the link where it says that Jolie's mother had breast cancer. There is no evidence of that from your links, plus you're losing your shit on this thread. Calm down.
For the third time here is the link to Angelina's related medical history.
[quote]I have friends who did this - went and took out, and took off everything because their genetic test showed high cancer risk. Are these tests accurate, or is this still controversial, with more tests needed to confirm the science behind it?
Last I heard the *breast-test* had a very low prediction accuracy but that may have changed. It's best to talk to people who are not married to orthodoxy or have investments in vaccine, tests companies etc.. Like someone behind the scenes who works in research, obviously it helps to know people who work in that area.
R60, I don't have children.
R63, you're a silly queen.
r62 it doesn't say it on your link. She says on that link that her MOTHER had ovarian cancer.
r62 it says this
"Given the high likelihood of getting breast or ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations, family history usually triggers testing for the gene. Angelina’s mother had breast cancer,"
but Angelina NEVER SAID THAT, it was never posted anywhere, they are just SURMISING, the person that wrote the article doesn't KNOW Jolie, she just THINKS it, since AJ never SAID IT. EVER.
R62 A-HA! Show us the link oh great welfare case.
Has Jennifer sent well wishes? She should release a public statement of support.
This is where I give Debbie Reynolds credit. When Liz was sick, Debbie knew to stop and send Liz kind words. Jennifer needs to grow up.
"Has Jennifer sent well wishes? She should release a public statement of support."
No, she should stay quiet and act like she can't remember who Brad Pitt is. If she gets dragged back into Angie's PR maelstrom, it'll swamp whatever's left of her career.
You've got to hand it to Angie, she's an absolute genius at publicity! Even better than Madonna.
I don't think Jennifer Aniston is obligated to say anything. She is actually very active in cancer charities. Oh an Liz and Deb were friends before Eddie Fisher which is why it was easier to repair the friendship after Liz dumped him.
That being said if Ms. Aniston's personal pitbull Chelsea Handler starts making unfunny and cruel jokes about Angelina again when this controversy dies down you can bet it's with Jen's blessing. Handler is an infamous CAA lapdog who shares the same publicist.THAT would be despicable.
I guess Brad Pitt never found himself a truly remarkable woman. He doesn't deserve one is why. Hick.
No link to document her mother's breast cancer, of course. This whole thing stinks.
From the sound of what the skeptics on this thread are saying, I think there is reason to believe that Angie could be putting a positive spin on all this to help powerful groups sway public opinion towards compliance about genetic testing and/or cloning to prevent future illnesses. While there are certainly positives that can come from scientific studies, we can also see how advances in the name of progress can be used for malevolent purposes on an unwitting public.
Reserve the right to be skeptical
74, and I wish that God existed.
Oh God. Angelina Jolie is such a frecking loser to those who know better. An outright tool she is.
Only an uneducated idiot couldn't see through this broad. What a complete total load she is. I bet Brad Pitt is the sorest, sorriest loser who ranks in the millions financially. He must feel so taken right now. I don't feel bad for him.
I like how you think, R74.
Keepin it real
R67, I guess you are the only one who can read.
So we either have out and out liars here or we have people who obviously have jobs that do not require due diligence - well, I guess they require NO diligence.
For those with poor comprehension skills or, to be kind, poor eyesight, here is what it says at the link:
STAGE 1. Gathering Data and Information
BRCA stands for BReast CAncer. BRCA genes help you fight cancer when it happens in your body. But some families carry mutated or broken BRCA genes that can be passed down from one generation to the next. Approximately 5-10% of all breast cancers and 14% of ovarian cancers occur from a BRCA1 or BRCA2 genetic mutation that is inherited from either parent.
Women carrying BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutations have up to an 87% lifetime chance of breast cancer and 54% chance of ovarian cancer vs. a general population risk of 12% for breast cancer and less than 1% for ovarian cancer. Prevention does not yet exist. More details about the risks of breast and ovarian cancer, including how risk changes with each decade of life, can be found in our BRCA Gene Mutations blog post.
Given the high likelihood of getting breast or ovarian cancer with BRCA mutations, family history usually triggers testing for the gene.
Angelina’s mother had breast cancer, and sadly passed away from ovarian cancer.
Her maternal grandmother was also diagnosed with ovarian cancer.
This family history would certainly meet any insurance carrier’s criteria to cover genetic testing. To find out if there is enough risk for you to consider a BRCA mutation genetic test, we encourage you to take our Genetics Quiz that reviews a variety of information, including your family history.
You do know what a link is right? You put your cursor under it and you click it.
When the site comes up - it is PINK - then YOU READ WHAT IT SAYS.
Can we please stop this stupidity now?
in all these posts you haven't contributed one intelligent thing to this discussion. All you've done here and at the other related thread is rant and rave about how much you think Angelina Jolie is lying about her having a preventive double mastectomy. That you know she has gone through all these medical procedures not because she has a BCRA1 mutated gene and at least 2 close family members who died young from a BCRA related cancer as well as breast cancer - but rather just so she can appear naked in some future film. Oh, yea, and she's a skank, whore, uneducated, disgusting, mentally ill PR meister, fucking jerkstain, slacker. Right? That's your argument?
In your imaginings - based on I don't know what - you have decided Angelina Jolie is lying that this was a medical choice for her and you know better than anyone else and those who disagree with you are stupid, uneducated, lying about heir own personal cancer experience, and in the other thread you say that nobody would support Jolie if she hadn't adopted a "black child and stuck to Asians (her true love)" because then we would "consider her a scallywag or "whatever in your vernacular." Also you ask if "this is a black thing."
I think you've said enough without really saying anything.
R78, ROTFLMAO! Are you new here?
That IS my argument and I'm sticking to it.
In your imaginings - based on I don't know what - you have decided Angelina Jolie is lying that this was a medical choice for her and you know better than anyone else and those who disagree with you are stupid, uneducated, lying about heir own personal cancer experience, and in the other thread you say that nobody would support Jolie if she hadn't adopted a "black child and stuck to Asians (her true love)" because then we would "consider her a scallywag or "whatever in your vernacular." Also you ask if "this is a black
I don't agree with the second part here. You need to pop your glasses on, Gladys.
no r79 / r80 but you are. Gosh you are the lone brangeloonie on this thread.
You need a pair of glasses, you agreed with me? That dumb link you have posted in this thread - I will state it again.
The link is by a physician not affiliated with AJ, she says there is BC in AJ's family but AJ has not said that, EVER.
AJ's family has OC, not BC. You have banged on and on about her having BC in the family. It has not been established that there is BC. OC, yes. BC, no. Dr. Funk (?) on that page you linked does not provide proof either.
As far as her having her breasts removed, IDC, her choice, whatever, but she is a famewhore and would do anything INCLUDING THIS to get back into the press following her around 24/7. She is the ORIGINAL KARDASHIAN, in fact Kim/Paris, et al, all learned from HER.
As more knowlegeable people have stated, her breast tissue is gone anyways due to implants. IMHO she should have done the ovaries first, but I'm not a doctor. With her family history that's what would have been a priority for me, but for her, not.
The article linked here by r62 and others, stating that AJ's mother had breast cancer, was written by one of the doctors involved on performing AJ's mastectomy and reconstructive surgery. Do you really think this doctor doesn't know for sure whether AJ's mother had breast cancer?
R84, she's not listening and she's not interested in the truth. It's obvious she only cares about trashing Jolie for whatever reason. Her little racist rants at the other thread are quite telling and may give a clue to her Jolie aversion.
Of course, you are absolutely correct that the doctors at the Pink Lotus Breast Center took Jolie's complete history and they have included a part of it in the link provided. Where did this freak get the idea this was some article by a doctor unrelated to Jolie's treatment. The freak's inability to understand this simple thing explains her stupidity and obvious reliance on tabloid garbage for her education.
Other than the freaky trolls I appreciate the informative posts here and especially those who have shared their own experiences. After my sister was first diagnosed and treated for her breast cancer she became a volunteer counselor to other women for which I respected her greatly.
You people have been buying HLN and other news media stories hook, line & sinker. I feel sorry for you.
The Skeptics Society
I study the BRCA genes as part of my degree. Normally these genes work to fix DNA damage, but the mutated genes don't code for the proteins that do that and it's DNA damage that causes cancer by 'breaking' the mechanisms that keep cell division under control.
These BRCA genes also predispose you to ovarian cancer. It's something like a 1% lifetime incidence in the regular population for ovarian, but for carriers it's about 10-60 depending on what study you're looking at, which demographic.
Breast cancer isn't any different from bowel cancer or prostate cancer in the way it happens. You acquire mutations that don't get fixed and these cause the cell to start dividing uncontrollably. The thing with breast cancer is that it's often an estrogen dependent tumor that's formed - same for ovarian cancer, which is why it's a lot more common in menopausal women going for HRT. We don't know why BRCA increases these estrogen dependent ones but that's in the pipeline I guess.
I can see why she's had her boobs lopped off and not had her ovaries removed. Having your tits cut off impacts you a lot less, it's boob implants vs long term hormone replacement when you remove the ovaries. You also have a higher risk of heart disease and lung cancer when you take those out and we don't actually know if there's enough long term survival benefit to risk it.
Wow, r83 is seriously twisted.
It's not firmly established whether or not the tests are accurate. I KNOW the Lime disease test wasn't (many false negatives). The Dr who pointed it out was blacklisted even though he turned out to be right. Some people here who are claiming in depth medical knowledge say yeah the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tests are accurate, others say they aren't. Probably best to do your own research which may involve talking to several DRs that have serious research backgrounds and no financial dog in the race. Even then it's tricky because a lot of MDs don't have enough knowledge themselves to evaluate how accurate or honest the published results are medical journals which are all sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.
[quote]I KNOW the Lime disease test wasn't (many false negatives). The Dr who pointed it out was blacklisted even though he turned out to be right. Some people here who are claiming in depth medical knowledge say yeah the BRCA1 and BRCA2 tests are accurate, others say they aren't
Lyme disease is tested by looking for antibodies (an ELISA test, the same kind of test used for HIV exposure). I don't know the protocol for Lyme, but with HIV, you need at least two ELISA tests and a more complicated Western Blot test. I don't know if that's been modified in recent years, but that's the way I was taught.
Genetic testing actually involves sequencing the DNA and looking for the mutation.