E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Courtesy of Stephanie Carson
Stephanie Carson, 38, was diagnosed with breast cancer at 29. She's part of a growing trend of very young women who are diagnosed with breast cancer that has spread.
More young women are being diagnosed with advanced breast cancer, doctors reported on Tuesday. It is a very small increase in a group of people who only rarely develop cancer, but it’s significant enough to have experts asking why.
The biggest increase was seen in women aged 25 to 34. It’s bad news because when women are diagnosed this young, usually the cancer is more aggressive, there’s no good way to screen for it and because there is no cure, even if the women can control it they face decades of life as breast cancer patients.
Stephanie Carson is one of them. Diagnosed at age 29, she’s now 38 and on disability from her job as a software engineer. Breast cancer robbed her and her husband of all hope of having a family.
“At the time it was definitely a shock. The cancer tumor was literally growing before my eyes,” Carson told NBC News. “Every day it was getting bigger, so it was very aggressive.” She had a double mastectomy, but the cancer had already spread to both her lungs.
This is what doctors believe is typical of breast cancer in younger women: It grows faster, spreads more quickly, and is harder to treat. While the five-year survival rate for breast cancer that has not spread is 93 percent, for women 39 and under whose cancer has spread, it’s only 31 percent.
Dr. Rebecca Johnson of Seattle Children's Hospital and University of Washington in Seattle was working with a cancer nonprofit, Critical Mass: The Young Adult Cancer Alliance and wanted to see if there were any differences in rates of cancer for young adults.
Johnson, a pediatric oncologist and breast cancer survivor herself, looked at National Cancer Institute data from 1973 to 2009. She and colleagues broke it down by age, ethinic group, diagnosis and other factors.
They found a steady increase starting in 1976 of breast cancer that had spread out of the breast among 25- to 39-year-old women. The rate went from 1.53 per 100,000 women in 1976 to 2.9 per 100,000 women in 2009, Johnson and colleagues wrote in their report in the Journal of the American Medical Association. That represents an average increase of just 2.07 percent per year, a relatively small rise, but it shows no signs of abating, the authors noted.
“This change translates into a tripling of the incidence of metastatic breast cancer over the 34-year period,” Johnson told NBC News. “In 1975, our projections show there were about 250 cases per year of metastatic breast cancer in young adult women. In 2009, it was about 800.”
The study looks only at data, and Johnson isn’t sure of why the cases might be increasing. It’s not more or better screening --women this young are not routinely screened for breast cancer. She also doesn’t believe doctors are finding more cases because they are trying harder to see if the cancer has spread in these young women.
The number of young women ages 25 to 39 who were diagnosed with aggressive metastatic breast cancer rose over the past three decades according to a new study published Tuesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The increase is small, researchers say, but raises important questions. NBC's Dr. Nancy Snyderman reports.
“If that was the case, then it would be like a pie, with a larger piece of the pie being distal disease,” Johnson said. “But there’s been no decrease in any other stage of breast cancer.’
Obesity is a risk factor for breast cancer in middle-aged women and that’s worth more study, Johnson says. But she notes that obesity actually lowers the risk of breast cancer among the youngest women. Some studies have suggested a combination of obesity, a lack of exercise and overeating may raise the risk and that’s worth looking at, she says.
It is possible chemicals could somehow be a cause. There are also theories that viruses may be involved -- a virus causes cervical cancer and head and neck cancer, for instance.
Dr. Sandra Swain, a breast cancer specialist at Washington Hospital Center in Washington D.C. and president of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, says women are putting off pregnancy longer and that could have an effect. “Having kids younger decreases the risk of breast cancer by half,” she says.
Swain also believes higher rates of obesity may be a factor. She stresses that the results should be confirmed in larger studies, and says even if they are confirmed, the findings are not a cause for panic.
“There’s actually a decrease in mortality, especially in younger women, probably because our treatments are better,” Swain says.
Carson’s a living example of this. She’s had surgery, radiotherapy, several types of chemotherapy and treatment with new “smart bomb” drugs. She’s about to start a new round of treatment with a drug the Food and Drug Administration approved just last week – Kadcyla -- which combines a strong chemotherapy drug with Herceptin, a genetically engineered immune system protein that homes in on tumor cells.
“Hopefully it will knock things out again,” Carson says cheerfully. She’s covered by her husband’s health insurance -- he’s a software engineer, too.
All the therapy has taken a toll.
“The side-effect that hurt me the most recently -- I was in a clinical trial in Seattle three years ago, an immune therapy trial, and it gave me headaches,” Carson says. “I have had a headache every day since since then. I have had a headache for three years. That is one reason I had to stop working.”
Carson uses some alternative approaches to cope, like qigong, a meditative version of a Chinese martial art. And she works with other young women with breast cancer through the Young Survival Coalition.
“I can help them deal with some of the feelings of isolation,” Carson says. “It is strange to be this age and on disability. You feel kind of retired, but your peers are all raising families and working full time,” she adds. “I can relate to the feeling of not being able to have children.”
Young cancer patients also have higher rates of other cancers, such as leukemia, that are caused by the chemotherapy and radiation. They also risk heart disease, for the same reasons.
Breast cancer is the biggest cancer killer of U.S. women, after lung cancer. It will be diagnosed in about 235,000 U.S. men and women this year and will kill 40,000, according to the American Cancer Society.
The risk goes up with age. About one in eight cases of invasive breast cancer are found in women under 45. Less than 1 percent -- 0.43 percent -- of women aged 30 will develop breast cancer within the next 10 years, and only 4 percent will get it by age 70. About 35 out of every 1,000 women now aged 60 will develop breast cancer over the next 10 years, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Johnson, the researcher, is now 44. She was one of the luckier young survivors of breast cancer. She was diagnosed at 27 and her tumor had not spread beyond the breast. She found a lump by chance and waited several months before she had it checked. “I was super-busy,” she said. So her advice to young women? "If there’s a general take-home message it would just be for awareness. If you find a breast lump, you need to know that breast cancer can happen,” she said.
Related:
Leave a Comment:
I wonder how many of these women have been on birth control pills for a number of years or have had an abortion, most of the research indicates that these are factors in breast cancer because of the high hormone count that is caused by these things.
IUDs, for example, seem to make more sense than extended birth control pill use.
D-marie--while I agree that Birth control pills might play a part, the ONLY part abortions play is that women who have babies younger tend to have a lower risk.
Actual abortions have never been shown to be a risk factor for birth control, just for ostracism from those who want to punish young women for having had sex.
ab--while the stats are getting better, IUD's are NOT usually prescribed for young women who have never had a baby, since they CAN result in sterilization.
It is not a mystery when you consider that the average person consumes too much Technically Engineered foods which are filled with pesticies not meant for human consumption! And young women have been consuming these highly dangerous foods since they were kids or through development.
Sorry Marie but an abortion will not cause breast cancer and I have not heard to date (over 55 years) that an abortion causes Cancer or ovarian Cancer.
Get over it!
Maybe I am wrong, but I wasn't told to start having breast cancer screenings until I turned 40. Are women being told to get mammograms at a younger age now?
In the NCI Fact Sheet: "They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage does not increase a woman’s subsequent risk of developing breast cancer. A summary of their findings can be found in the Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop."
They included the term "miscarriage" so it is true.
Normal Breast Physiology
The Reasons Hormonal Contraceptives
and Induced Abortion Increase
Breast-Cancer Risk
The Reasons Hormonal Contraceptives
and Induced Abortion Increase
Breast-Cancer Risk
Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S.
Abstract
A woman gains protection from breast cancer by completing a full-term
pregnancy.
percent of the mother’s breast tissue into cancer-resistant breast tissue.
If the pregnancy ends through an induced abortion or a premature birth
before thirty-two weeks, the mother’s breasts will have only partially
matured, retaining even more cancer-susceptible breast tissue than
when the pregnancy began. This increased amount of immature breast
tissue will leave the mother with more sites for cancer initiation, thereby
increasing her risk of breast cancer. Hormonal contraceptives increase
breast-cancer risk by their proliferative effect on breast tissue and their
direct carcinogenic effects on DNA. Hormonal contraceptives include
estrogen-progestin combination drugs prescribed in any manner of delivery:
orally, transdermally, vaginally, or intrauterine. This article provides
the detailed physiology and data that elucidate the mechanisms
through which induced abortion and hormonal contraceptives increase
breast-cancer risk.
"Since 1957, a large number of epidemiological studies have suggested
a link between induced abortion and breast cancer..."
1
In utero, her offspring produce hormones that mature 85
This is merely a symptom. In search of the cause, I believe they should be looking at the FDA pushing for hormones and chemicals in the foods we eat. Especially milk. When young girls are getting their periods and developing earlier and earlier in life, why is there not a question as to why? Also, why has cancer become more predominant in the last half century? We as Americans have become the test rats? Because the test rats don't live generations to prove results.
John-737278, you said "Also, why has cancer become more predominant in the last half century?"
Abortion had been legal and prevalent since 1973. Birth control has been for the same period. You then say "We as Americans have become the test rats?" Yes we have, that you, Margaret Sanger.
maybe those damn chest xrays and CT scans in childhood cause, created the new aggressive man made biological disease if at all, since breast tissue is radiosensitive and you know, they need to just keep pounding away their radiation agenda as being safe and imaging wisely and gently and more BS right raddocs? Stop the propaganda, what are you studying this week? did you get more NIH, DoD money and corporate money to study something else again? Why don't you leave real people alone and go study your gop buddies and techno humans and take your junk with you into outer space and DON'T COME BACK!
Take your GD nanotechnology, biotech drugs, foods and super conductors/chips and more and get the hell off the planet.
You're immoral, unethical dehumanizing bastards is what you are. Along with your imaging machines, nanoparticles like Gadolinium metal and your stupid iphones and all your artificial junk. GET LOST, stop irradiating people down to their molecules. SOBs!
John W. Valentine
While I don't argue that the hypothesis that birth control may take a part, or might be responsible, birth control is a natural hormone that already exists in the female body. While the ones that we ingest are not. Just as most doping that happens in sports are natural hormones of other species, it is not natural hormones that we are ingesting.
I do agree that investigating birth control is appropriate, but can't help but wonder whether your motivation is actually for truth or control.
the Chinese did it. I witnessed it.
If you look up the International Association for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is a branch of WHO, and if you look at the Cancer Monographs by class that they post annually, you will see that birth control is a class one carcinogen right up there with asbestos and cigarettes. When researchers study these young women developing breast cancer, they need to determine if these women were birth control users and also how young they were when they started using. I have heard that if young women under age 18 take BC, their risk for very serious breast cancer triples. When I learned about this, and started researching, I found a letter on the FDA.gov website in response to the initial 2005 classification of birth control as a class one carcinogen. Bascially what the response said was that well, women want it, so we will just try to increase screenings in the hopes that we can catch the cancer in time. This statement, on an ethos scale of one to ten bottoms out a zero.
Too many injected hormones in milk, meat, poultry, not enough Vitamin D; too much estrogen. Long ago, women died early from Breast Cancer---many are living now--Early detection. All women from the age of 30 on should have mammograms, even though the US Health Dept/ Government says it is not necessary--there's where the increase of breast cancer can thrive if not caught--Am from a high risk BC family---It can even be a "virus". No more 5 year survivors and it will never come back. It is 15-20 years or more---15 years apart for a family member.
Lumps--never dismiss a lump in the breast--many young women do--there is an Agressive Breast Cancer--know many young women who have had breast cancer, removing both breasts to protect themselves, and live a longer life for their children, and families. Long lineage of close family with this disease and dying young.
This article is correct. More and more younger women are getting breast cancer, but it could be due to a lot of Education now re: BC---more awareness. Many years ago, women died young--Treatments for BC today are miraculous--Medical Science---
Now it has been proven large amounts of consumed alcohol over a long period of time also leads to Breast Cancer.
Check it out.
There are some preventable factors I know of for cancers in general: (1) chronic inflammation (2) lowered insulin sensitivity from excess or artificial carbs (3) excess body acidity (4) environmental carcinogens. Unless you take proactive steps to study and reduce your risks, you're asking for it.
AB - How dare you say you are asking for it.... I hope to goodness you never have to go through this, because I don't wish this on anyone, but for you to say "you're asking for it"?? You misguided, condescending ignorant jerk. First of all, there are different kinds of breast cancer, beyond all the different types of cancer. Some are hormone driven, some have no discernible cause. I would like you to tell me to my face that "I asked for this"... I was disagnosed last year, at 37, while pregnant with my second child. I do pretty much all of the things you are supposed to do to stay healthy, yet I got cancer. At 37. While pregnant. And mine is triple-negative, meaning not hormone driven. I hope you can stand there and tell families of people that have lost loved ones "Oh, sorry, they asked for it." You need to take a very long walk off of a very short pier.
I'm sorry this happened to you, and perhaps I should reconsider what I said, but even then, I seriously really doubt that you did what it takes to avoid cancer. One has to ask - why is breast cancer more prevalent in the US - with a western diet and pesticides?
Perhaps you should consult a dictionary before you comment. The phrase "you're asking for it" is nothing but an established figure of speech. See http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/matter-personality/201201/youre-asking-it . It is not meant to be taken very literally.
Didn't I just read where women don't need mammograms, and especially younger women? Didn't I just see the so-called "studies" that said they weren't important? Weren't all the people who supported getting checked and checked regularly poo-pooed as being overly worried about nothing at all? Did I miss something about it costing so much to be screened, and how expensive and useless all the preventive care was? Here we go again, English is the only language where to positives can make a negative: YEAH RIGHT.
Listen up, all you folks out there--men and women alike--get yourself checked and checked regularly. If you have any questions, get a mammogram. If someone tells you no, then find someone else. Do all the steps necessary to take care of your health, BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE IS GOING TO DO IT. You/we/I deserve better. These ivory tower studies are just money-grubbing political b.s., you know it, I know it and they know it. Don't bite on 'they know better.' Take care of yourself.
Cancer is no walk in the park. My mother's breast cancer metastasized and she is now on her way out of this life. Had she followed up in time on finding a lump, she may have bought herself many more years. It's too late now. Foolishly, she listened to the ivory tower know-it-alls saying that mammograms weren't necessary. Now, she's next to dead. Congratulations ivory tower folks, chalk one up for your side. She's elderly and easily led. You young folks out there are somewhat more skeptical; stay that way. It's good for you.
zapper45701, cancer is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Many cancers can exist without ever killing the person. The rate at which it spreads is important. This rate is also affected by inflammation and ph. Mammograms also present a radiation hazard to sensitive tissue if they're repeated yearly. From what I know, I do still agree with you about using them, but it is not strictly a prevention measure - it is only a diagnostic aid.
AB-1981: If one is not checked because someone "in the know" says it's not necessary, and cancer is the actual diagnosis, especially aggressive breast cancer, then chances are one's days are numbered. Today's mammograms have a minimal radiation hazard--very minimal. Years ago, they were quite a bit more hazardous, but today's aren't. Several other options, other than the traditional mammogram, are also available. Pick one and go with it. What I'm saying is that people should not skip the testing (whichever is chosen). They should not ignore their bodies because someone else doesn't think preventive testing is all that necessary--no matter what their age or gender is.
Right now, a number of male marines are suffering from breast cancer, and they believe it was from exposure to tainted water at their training camp. Yes, men get breast cancer, too. Their cancer is killing them.
No matter what, if you, or anyone you know, suspect something is wrong, DO NOT LET YOUR PHYSICIAN OR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER IGNORE YOUR WORRIES OR SYMPTOMS. If they won't follow up, then find someone else who will. I've fired 5 doctors over the last 20 years, for a number of reasons, and one was for just his reason. My problem was resolved with a hysterectomy, and fortunately all the tumors, cysts and lumps were benign. (There was no way to know that until each was examined, and there were a bunch.) I am so grateful that I found a caring doc who listened to me and tried a number of treatments before making the final decision of surgery. And in retrospect, it was the absolutely correct decision to make.
It doesn't matter what the ailment is, ignoring it is a very dangerous proposition. At any age, take care of yourself. If you don't, you can die, and that's the truth of the matter.
zapper45701, I think I agree with you, although I wouldn't be so quick to change a doctor. I'd first try having a discussion, if only an unfriendly one, with the doctor and try to come to a mutual understanding. If this doesn't work, I'd then threaten to find a different doctor, and then act on it as needed. It's the doctor who does not listen to everything I have to say that is the one I never want.
Chemicals involved ? Of course its chemicals and pollutants that the FDA ever increases the the acceptable risk limit . Is there anything else substantial to really by in to. We are slowly being poisoned and all they consider is other negligeable risk factors.
"Young cancer patients also have higher rates of other cancers, such as leukemia, that are caused by the chemotherapy and radiation. They also risk heart disease, for the same reasons." In all my years of study (as a breast cancer "survivor"), this is the FIRST time I have read in print from conventional media that chemotherapy and radiation cause heart disease and other cancer issues. I fought and fought with my surgeon (and won) not to have radiation therapy, exactly because I knew from outside-of-conventional-medicine reading that radiation damages the pericardium and destroys the thymus (immune system) gland. Women are not told this by their doctors. ALL information about treatment should be discussed with the patient!!!
I agree. My doctor didn't tell me that "Often" the breast cancer comes back at the surgical site. Nor did they tell me what horrible pain I would have after radiation ruined my tissue. That side is hard as a rock and hurts all the time. Now I have to see about having surgery again to "loosen" the tissue and hopefully relieve my pain.
Radiation therapy only damages organs it hits; in general, the risk may be on the order of 1 in 500 of 1 in 1000. For invasive breast cancer, the omission of radiation therapy has been associated with a significant loss of survival opportunity (Oxford overview, a meta-analysis). For every 4 locoregional recurrences, there will be about 1 additional death. With respect to the heart, we use an innovative goggle-based respiratory gating system that allows patients with left-sided breast cancer to have no risk to their heart associated with RT. Radiation can damage the pericardium... wait, wait ... if you HIT THE PERICARDIUM! Technique matters. Be careful before you diminish the probability of survival among those with invasive breast cancer who should have adjuvant breast radiation therapy. Cosmesis can certainly be affected by radiation therapy (again, dose and technique play important roles in reducing risk), but the vast majority of patients score their outcome as very good or excellent (physicians score a little more harshly than do patients!). Going forward, we will be better able to select who most benefits from a given management approach (see OncoType DX or Mammoprint for examples). I wish you all the best, but let's look at the data and not depend solely on lower forms of evidence such as anecdote. This is not to diminish, Ortrillian, how you have suffered. I am sorry that you are amongst the vast minority who suffer harm from radiation therapy. I wish you all the best.
first sentence should read: The risk of cancer induction is on the order of 1 in 500 or 1000...
I have a feeling a lot of it has to do with sitting in front of the computer screens so much, which exposes your chest to whatever is emanating off the monitor.
I guess..but as I kid I use to stand in front of a microwave (this was the 1980's) and stare inside!
There has to be other things at play here... cosmetics? deodorants? changes in diet? vitamin deficiency? maybe its genetics from this generations parents being exposed to all that nuclear fallout from the 50's and 60's? Don't know, but it isn't good...
Beth-537938 If so, then men - who can get breast cancer too - might also show an uptick in disease, but this article mentions only women. I wonder if male population studies are finding cancers too....
it's time to leave this "won't shut up Liberalist" society taking over stupid polictic laws and craps, squezzing the people hand in the vice grip tighter every day til it'll bite back at em.
/no, it was the north Koreans.
About 50% of breast cancers are due to H.P.V. virus.
It is because of this that it is imperative to vaccinate adolescents ( boys and grls) and for adutls condoms are key.
This will also reduce unwanted pregncies and the exponential population growth that are undermining our society.
www.ligewatchgroup.org
abandon Welfare check system, control population that way, dweebs.
I wonder how many of these cases are inflammatory breast cancer. It's an extremely aggressive cancer that tends to present in younger women, but since it also tends to be asymptomatic (no lumps or anything that can be detected by a mammogram) until it's in an advanced state, it's far more lethal.
I also wonder how many of these cases are inflammatory breast cancer (IBC). I return calls that come in to the Inflammatory Breast Cancer Foundation and I hear stories all the time about how the doctors just laugh at the symptoms the patient tells them about, tells them they're too young for IBC, that they only have one or two symptoms of IBC and MUST have all the symptoms in order to have IBC, insist on treating them for mastitis even though they aren't running a temperature and don't have an infection, etc. I could go on and on, believe me.
The other thing that bothers me is so many of the doctors won't even look at any info the patient takes to them; i.e., off our website or other websites. One of my IBC sisters said that she tried to give a brochure to her neurologist and he refused to take it "because it had nothing to do with his specialty". Well, what if he, his wife, daughter or other family member got IBC. Wouldn't he want to know about it in advance? This one didn't.
actually it was the Iranians.
Women are exposed to carcinogens on a daily basis: in our food, our air, our drugs and cosmetics, our lotions, soaps, cleaners, "air fresheners," laundry products, fragrances...the list goes on! Start googling the ingredients in everyday household items, and you'll see what I mean.
I'm waiting for the day that people finally get angry about the toxins our government sanctions in manufactured products that cause cancer and other illnesses. The cancer in this country is getting out of control, and it's time to stop accepting it like sheep and demand an end to this very preventable disease.
Breast cancer awareness INCREASES the incidences of breast cancer because it causes so much FEAR! Everything is energy. There are only two kinds - positive and negative. We can live in Love which has the Highest vibration or we can live in fear which has the lowest vibration. There is no room in a happy body for disease. Breast cancer is caused by unresolved grief and loss. Someday, medicine will realize how important stuck negative emotions are and help people to release them so they can heal.
Younger women tend to have denser breasts , so even if they did get routine mammograms , a malignancy might not show up. Aggressive cancers tend to spread fast. You can have a clean scan and 6 mos. later be diagnosed with cancer that has already spread to lymph nodes..This is alarming news.. But not surprising. I belong to an online cancer network, and it does seem that there are quite few young women on the breast cancer board. More alarming, they don't know what is causing it.. plenty of guesses but no real proof. I suspect all the hormones, antibiotics etc in food is part of it. Also, birth control pills and shots. I wonder if there could be a link between antidepressants and breast cancer. I know so many young women on them. Diet sweeteners?
I wish the "researchers" would do a study on the type of work a person does in relation to getting breast cancer. I think it was the Netherlands, but not sure, that has shown a link between increased breast cancer and working the night shift.
In my case I am triple negative which means hormones, birth control pills have absolutely no connection to why I got it, for a lot of people it is genetics. I inherited a gene that just happened to activate before I even hit 30, @ 29 I was dx with Stage IV Triple Negative Breast Cancer, which is the most aggressive with not many options to fight expect for chemo.
What we know is that abortion has been extensive, the pill has been used by many women, the morning-after pill is coming into wider usage. We know that there is a correlation between abortion and breast cancer. What is needed now is a study of how many of these women have used these birth control methods.
Breast cancer is big business, I don't think *they* are interested in preventing cancer, which is where the money should go. Once you have cancer, any cancer, the cost of the medication and treatment is where the cash cow lays (Big Pharma). Also, all those imaging machines are known to cause cancers, easily researched if you doubt that, and why its recommended now that routine breast cancer screening start at 50.
Pills: Anti anxiety anti depressant, anti pregnancy, anti headache, anti weight, et al, and the accompanying "unintended side affects" = health risks.
report of increased rates of breast cancer in young women. Not one mention in the story about the correlation between eating animal products and breast & prostate cancer. [backPid]=76&cHash=ef9b6885b7a7dc6901a6d24b8063be05
maybe it could have been taco bell.
Didn't we hear, just last month, how breast cancer rates were going down?
I hope she gets better.
been around since caveman time, just a natural thing of mother's nature.
Absolutely it's about all of the chemicals we are consuming. There are pesticides, preservatives, dyes and all sorts of chemicals in our food. And our government is allowing our food to become even more toxic!! Right now, the big issue is GMO's which have been in our food for almost 20 yrs. Young people have been consuming these for most of their lives. They are toxic and prolonged consumption is known to cause cancer. Yet, we are one of the few developed nations that doesn't even have mandatory labeling laws so it is very difficult to avoid these foods. Almost all of our processed foods made by the large food manufacturers contain GMO's. THe majority of the public is not even aware of these toxins. Obama appointed Michael Taylor - a former executive at Monsanto - to head the FDA. It's like letting a fox guard the hen house. The FDA says these GMO's are safe but don't believe this. Michelle Obama herself said she wouldn't want to feed these to her family. The FDA is letting Monsanto incorporate more GMO's into our food supply and they aren't even labeling anything. Already 80 - 90% of our corn contains GMO's (toxins!!!) We need to consume whole organic foods that are free of chemical toxins to maintain our health. We all need to speak up and fight this! Do not buy any processed food from any of the big companies and everyone needs to sign petitions and write to their congressmen that they do not want GMO's and they want all food labeled if they contain GMO's. This is very very serious. Once this stuff gets into the food supply, it'll be contaminated. They're about to pass a bill allowing salmon to be genetically modified. Keeping our food supply as pure as possible is critical. It's also important to cut back on lotions and other cosmetics with harsh chemicals, they are absorbed into our system. Please I urge everyone to do some research on GMO's, you will be outraged. Please speak up and tell our government to stop this or at the very least label foods with GMO's. And then, avoid them!! We think cancer rates are high now, it'll really be high a few years down the road.
Before saying it is chemicals or the phase of the moon, let's wait and see the scientific data. If you jump and say it is chemicals, you could find out later that chemicals have nothing to do with it. There could be many factors, weight, birth control pills or maybe the type of birth control pills, what about geography or water or air pollution, maybe just the chemical make up of the water, what professions involved and much more. Ex. we know now that Black people suffer higher rates of cancer in northern part of the U.S. than white people. The factor seems to be the absorption or the lack of absorption of Vitamin D. White skins can absorb more Vitamin D in cloudy locations than dark skin. Still it is conjecture and not totall proof.
The World Health Org. (W.H.O.) reports that 63% of deaths in developed countries are due to wrong diets causing enormous medical expenses
Drs. Campbell and Esselstyn in over 30 years of research discovered diets are key in causing cancers.
Changing our diets will help and prevent cardiovascular disease and most cancers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ijukNzlUg
only USA http://www.hulu.com/watch/279734?src=sem-plus-google&cmp=507&gclid=CNu8v5ify7QCFeGDQgodYn0A5w
www.lifewatchgroup.org
I need a beer
Look at birth control intake:dosages and number of years taken. This seems to be a taboo topic for men and women and the media. Do study the possible link, carefully.
Odd, we got rid of the cigarettes and tanning and look what happened. Just sayin.....
Could it also possibly be related to the fact that people are having children later? Most women used to have children by ages 26 or so, but at least where I live in suburban NY, I had my first at 30 and am always the youngest mom. Hasn't it been shown that women who never had children are at a higher risk for breast cancer?
chicken fried rice.
Cat, your hypothesis has merit when the cancer is hormone driven. Having no children, only one child and that one at a later date and starting ones menstrual cycle early keeps a lot of estrogen circulating around. Hormone driven cancers are the easiest, if I can use that word, to be put into remission since the chemo drugs out there work best on that type of cancer.
I was diagnosed at 49 with ER+++/PR+++ breast cancer. Started my period just before reaching 11, one child born when I was 29. Had mastectomy, chemo and radiation (2 positive nodes). That was 15 years ago. My doctors consider me "cured." Just two weeks ago, the effects of radiation finally reared its head. Rushed to the ER coughing up blood. I was afraid it was cancer. Turns out it was some bronchial infection which had sort of settled in the scar tissue from the radiation. Antibiotics took care of it.
So, bottom line, while the chemo and the radiation took a toll, I feel great and, mostly importantly, I'm alive. Donate to the ACS to help researchers come up with treatments for these young women who do not have hormone driven cancers.