Rate of large breast tumors rising

[dArKeR]

A new analysis shows a small but surprising upswing during the 1990s in the proportion of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer who have unusually large tumors, which are more likely to prove fatal.

EXPERTS ARE UNCERTAIN why this happened, but they speculate that both obesity and hormone replacement therapy may have fueled the growth of larger cancers, even during a time when the discovery of small tumors rose dramatically as a result of widespread mammography.
The analysis, prepared by the American Cancer Society, found that the incidence of large tumors increased by just over 2 percent a year between 1992 and 2000, but only in white women.

http://msnbc.com/news/994747.asp?0cv=CB10

[BiggJawn]

1. How about the "Got Milk?" campaign and Bovine Hormones?

Any connection there? did I doom my daughter to losing her boobs (and possibly her life) by insisting that she drink her milk "for strong bones"?

How much does the Dairy Council donate to the RNC and BFEE?

"Public Health be DAMNED! We got SHAREHOLDERS to keep happy!"

[Midwest_Doc]

2. You are correct

Read MILK-THE DEADLY POISON by Robert Cohen. The negative medical impact of milk consumption is well-documented.

[twilight]

3. just got into a big argument over this

With a right-wing awhole. I was trying to present the case for drinking organic milk although it is more expensive (but wow it tastes so much better than that other crap!).

I just got out of the hospital - had a huge tumor removed and I can barely move. I think I almost died. I wonder if drinking all of that chemical laden milk was the culprit?

:dem:

[amazona]

4. mammogram issues...

First off, I would dismiss the milk issue. I would need to see evidence that white women are drinking more milk; I am satisfied that they are drinking less, if any. The fad of the day is to consume an overpriced animal feed insteadm (soy milk) and to claim that one suffers from lactose intolerance after age 40 or 50.

I would point to one very obvious problem -- mammograms themselves. First off, there is NO level of radiation that can be safely directed at your breasts. It had to be expected that more mammograms means more cancers; this is what I truly believe to one of the factors in the huge growth rate of breast cancers in affluent white women -- who, by the by, are less ( not more ) obese on average than black women, who didn't see the rise in large tumors.

Another issue they do mention in the article -- women put off their mammograms until they're sure something is wrong, hence, larger tumors are going to be found. Now why is that? To me this is obvious if you've ever had a mammogram. A large crushing device weighing perhaps hundreds of pounds smashes your breasts flat to take the mammogram. Now, I am famous among my friends for my high pain tolerance, but I almost passed out from the pain and the crushing confinement of getting this test. I'm sorry. There needs to be a better way. As a person of good sense, I am not going to yearly have my breasts painfully smashed for the privilege of exposing them even to low dose radiation.

If they are serious about preventing breast cancers, they'll invent something else. Truth is, the breast cancer industry is an industry, and mammogram clinics are an industry in and of themselves, so it won't happen. Money matters more than women, as always.

I was recently astounded to learn that the men closest to me were not even aware that mammograms are excruciatingly painful....now why is that? The media doesn't care, because they take ads from businesses selling this procedure, I suppose.


Try to imagine a heavy metal device being slowly and cruelly lowered onto a very sensitive area....it's amazing that as many women get the procedure done as it is....and it's astounding that any woman ever goes back to get it done twice!


it saddens me to see the self-blame among cancer victims, you had to eat and drink, you made the best choice available to you based on the information you were given at the time

[shrike]

5. Sorry, I don't find mammograms that painful

I heard all the stories and was quite apprehensive. But the procedure was short, and the pain was certainly something I could stand.

[RobinA]

7. Gotta Say,

I don't find them that painful either. Certainly not as painful as the radical mastectomy and subsequent chemo I am trying to avoid if at all possible.

Amazona - Any cites of data reflecting that no amount of radiation is safe to expose the breast to? If this is the case, we should all be wearing lead aprons from a very early age.

[Whoa_Nelly]

6. Mammograms!

The Atomic Boob Smasher!
:nuke: :wow: :nuke:

:-Ouch! :cry:

[JPace]

8. "mammograms are excruciatingly painful"

I think it varies with individual women but I for
one find it painful. Women are great....they overcome
great pain and keep doing what is necessary, if you
don't think so just remember what its like to give
birth and yet turn around and do it again. One has
to have a good sense of humor, my friend (who has a
painful time with mammograms too sent me this joke.
-------------------------------------------------
Many women are afraid of their first mammogram, but there's no need to worry. By taking a few minutes each day for a week preceding the exam, and doing the following practice exercises, you will be totally prepared. And you can do this right in your own home!

Exercise 1:

Open your refrigerator door and insert one breast between the door and the main box. Have one of your strongest friends slam the door shut and lean on the door for good measure. Hold that position for five seconds (while you hold your breath ). Repeat again, in case the first time wasn't effective enough.

Exercise 2:

Visit your garage at 3 am when the temperature of the cement floor is just perfect. Take off your clothes and lie comfortably on the floor with one breast wedged under the rear tire of the car. Ask a friend to slowly back the car up until your breast is sufficiently flattened and chilled. Turn over and repeat for the other breast.

Exercise 3:
Freeze two metal bookends overnight. Strip to the waist. Invite a stranger into the room. Press the bookends against one of your breasts. Smash the bookends together as hard as you can. Set an appointment with the stranger to meet next week and do it again!!

CONGRATULATIONS!
Now you have nothing at all to worry about when you go for your Mammogram!

And just a thought for all you women out there:

MENtal illness, MENstrual cramps, MENtal breakdown, MENopause. Ever notice how all of women's problems start with men? And when we have real problems, it's HISterectomy!

Send this to all the women you know, and brighten their day!...

P.S. Don't forget the "GUY"necologist!

[bloom]

9. It's possible Ultrasound works better

For my mother - the mammogram did not find the tumors so much as the ultrasound did.

[Skittles]

10. I find them extremely painful

f*** that

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Imagine if doctors used the same procedure...

...to check for testicular cancer! :evilgrin:

[Snow]

16. Wait'll you hit 50 and are eligible for "dre'...

the digital rectal exam for prostate enlargement. Not painful for me, but in the wrong hands (sorry, couldn't resist) definitely can be. And the further tests upon a positive finding get progressively more invasive, costly, and debilitating. Loss of a breast versus loss of the prostate gland? Dunno, that's a hard call. I think all-in-all the women are certainly at greater risk of death from the breast cancer than we guys are from prostate, although it happens. But we generally croak from something else, first. The main challenge for my more-or-less annual dre is maintaining the dignity of both the examiner and examinee - and, oddly, I've found, the gender of the examiner doesn't matter much if any in that respect. By the way, side issue, ever notice the proportion of gynecologists who are men versus the proportion of urologists who are women?

[govegan]

11. Would not discount dairy link.

Without disputing the researchers' work, I think that one would be unwise to discount the rapid increase in dairy consumption, particularly cheese products.


In 1970, the dairy industry produced 2.2 billion pounds of cheese. The population of the United States was 203 million, which translates to 10.8 pounds of cheese per person. By 1990, America's population had grown to 248 million, but Americans were eating more cheese, 6 billion pounds worth! That's an average of 24 pounds per person. In 1994, according to the USDA, the average American consumed 27.7 pounds of cheese. America's rate of cheese consumption is skyrocketing. As we approach the new millennium, America's per-capita cheese consumption will break the 30-pound per person level.

(from The Dairy Education Board)

Every sip of milk has 59 different powerful hormones. Which ones do you want your little girls to take? Estrogen, progesterone or prolactin?

Since the government was strong-armed by Monsanto to approve BGH and to discourage labeling, consumers generally have no idea how widespread the use of BGH is and where it can be found. (FDA approved Monsanto's genetically engineered bovine growth hormone
(rbGH) for cows on February 4th, 1994. Remarkably, milk from
rbGH-treated test herds was allowed into America's milk
supply seven years before actual approval.)


The following ten references provide converging lines of evidence that focus upon one central point.

There are hundreds of millions of different proteins in nature, and only one hormone that is identical between any two species. That powerful growth hormone is insulin-like growth factor, or IGF-I. IGF-I survives digestion and has been identified as the KEY FACTOR in breast cancer's growth.

IGF-I is identical in human and cow.

If you believe that breast feeding "works" to protect lactoferrins and immunoglobulins from digestion (and benefit the nursing infant), you must also recognize that milk is a hormonal delivery system. By drinking cow's milk, one delivers IGF-I in a bioactive form to the body's cells. When IGF-I from cow's milk alights upon an existing cancer...

"Human Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-I) and bovine IGF-I are identical. Both contain 70 amino acids in the identical sequence."

Judith C. Juskevich and C. Greg Guyer. SCIENCE, vol. 249. August 24, 1990.

"IGF-I is critically involved in the aberrant growth of human breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman. J. Natl. Inst. Health Res., 1991, 3.

"Estrogen regulation of IGF-I in breast cancer cells would support the hypothesis that IGF-I has a regulatory function in breast cancer."

A.V. Lee, Mol-Cell- Endocrinol., March, 99(2).

"IGF-I is a potent growth factor for cellular proliferation in the human breast carcinoma cell line."

J.C. Chen, J-Cell-Physiol., January, 1994, 158(1)

"Insulin-like growth factors are key factors for breast cancer growth."

J.A. Figueroa, J-Cell-Physiol., Nov., 1993, 157(2)

"IGF-I produces a 10-fold increase in RNA levels of cancer cells. IGF-I appears to be a critical component in cellular proliferation."

X.S. Li, Exp-Cell-Res., March, 1994, 211(1)

"IGF-I plays a major role in human breast cancer cell growth."

E.A. Musgrove, Eur-J-Cancer, 29A (16), 1993

"IGF-I has been identified as a key factor in breast cancer."

Hankinson. The Lancet, vol. 351. May 9, 1998

"Serum IGF-I levels increased significantly in milk drinkers, an increase of about 10% above baseline but was unchanged in the control group."

Robert P. Heaney, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 99, no. 10. October 1999

"IGF-1 accelerates the growth of breast cancer cells."

M. Lippman Science, Vol. 259, January 29, 1993


(also courtesy of the Dairy Education Board)

[lostnfound]

17. For Media Censorship aspect of Monsanto, 'Into the Buzzsaw' has a chapter.

about the case in Florida where the TV reporters basically lost their jobs over trying to pursue the hormone issue and the lack of appropriate testing.

[SeattleDem]

13. screening and insurance status

They need to look at rates of screening as well as how changes in insurance status occurred over time.

It is well known in breast cancer research that screening rates are higher in wealthier (insured) women. Poor women have larger tumors at diagnosis and greater death rates because they don't have access to mammography (which remains the best detection method at this time, although other methods are being studied).

If more people became uninsured over time, then more women likely did not undergo routine screening mammography but rather, waited until they had a palpable (large) lump and hence had larger tumors at diagnosis.

[reprobate]

14. Got Milk? Just another case of corporate murder.

IGF-1. Wonder how many other carcinogens can be found in the food supply, thanks to corporate profits being more important than the health of the masses.

A sane society would provide summary execution for the CEOs that authorize proven carcinogens, or any other dangerous substances, be shipped in their products. But we all know that this is no longer a sane society.

These CEOs may face a far more dangerous foe if some of the far out environmental fighters decide on "executive sanctions". It may be the only way that they can be controlled. Our gov't sure isn't going to do anything to endanger corporate profits.

[Beaker]

15. What kind of God would give more tumors to large-breasted women?

not one in whose image I was created, that's for sure.

[Snow]

18. By the way, breast cancer research is in a serious rut....

for decades, we've been workng on this basic assumption of "it's a female organ, therefore it must be caused somehow by female organs". Almost all the current research starts from that assumption - that (usually) estrogen raises your risk. It's not working. We are not any closer to understanding the disease than we were ages ago. I don't know what the answer is - I think hormones play some role - but they're a long way from the whole show, and until we can get off being stuck on that spot we're not going anywhere. The other spot we get stuck on with many chronic diseases, especially cancers, is the evil chemicals spot. Anything manmade that we don't understand very well we tend to blame for a large portion of our ills. Sometimes it's true, and sometimes it's a distraction. Parkinson's Disease, one of my research areas, is a good example. Right now the PD research community is convinced, with good reason, that farm pesticides "cause" PD. Well, likely that is part of the story - but only part. Several excellent studies (google karen semchuk) have showed organophosphates may be part of the problem, but not all. SO now what are we doing? Well, there must be a genetic susceptibility to the pesticides. Probably so, but that doesn't get us into looking at different exposures altogether. For example several good researchers (Tanner, Paffenbarger, and your truly) have found that being around chickens and hogs is protective for PD! What the hell does that mean? It needs to be explored, but mostly it gets brushed off as anomalies or bias.

Anyway, we were talking about breast cancer, eh? Some people are looking at different paradigms, thank goodness - one is something I'm suspicious of for PD - viruses. There's a group in Australia who have shown a nice animal model for viral role in breast cancer, and demonstrated presence of the virus in women with breast cancer. WHo knows how it'll play out, but at least they're thinking outside the hormone box. The bottom line is, we know damn little about this disease, and anyone who says otherwise is whistling in the dark - even if it's the guys from Channing Labs with their huge nurses study.