Comments on: Learning from breast cancer A slice of lime in the soda Sun, 26 Oct 2014 19:05:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: traducator daneza romana Mon, 29 Sep 2014 14:01:55 +0000 I simply could not depart your website prior to suggesting that I really enjoyed the usual information an individual provide for your guests? Is gonna be back regularly in order to check up on new posts

By: caiencer89 Mon, 06 May 2013 09:26:47 +0000 Thanks for the important information, I am seeking this tropic for one many days. Treatment For cancer Guide is the Best Selling eBook on Cancer, breast cancer and chemotherapy. It documents all types of cancer and finds a cure for cancer

By: Blonde.Ambition Mon, 06 May 2013 07:24:54 +0000 I can only hope that the discussion that Peggy Orenstein’s article ignited lasts throughout the spring and summer and into Pinktober. BRAVO. I cannot begin to address all the intelligent comments here, but I will acknowledge that it’s hardly surprising that Komen has made a statement.

One tactic that hasn’t been published anywhere is the fact that people affiliated with Komen (including board members and even Eric Brinker) have attempted to silence people who publicly speak out against them. This has happened to a number of people I know on Facebook (as few people have pseudonyms). Not sure what you’d call it when you find a bunch of Komen people looking at your LinkedIn profile, but I’d call it harassment. Or bullying. (And lack of social media experience for not changing their privacy settings before snooping, but it’s still completely wrong).

And as long as Ms. Rader has chimed in about how “helpful” Komen is to women going through the hell that is BC, there are COUNTLESS stories (blogs, articles, etc.) of women who reached out to Komen for help and WERE TURNED AWAY. No one expects an organization to help everyone, but for goodness sake, stop bragging about everyone you help when others are left drowning in medical bills or without insurance. And if you think THAT is appalling …

People would also like to understand how Nancy Brinker could receive a 64% salary increase after she was pressured to step down as CEO after the damage caused by the Planned Parenthood debacle. IN WHAT PINK WORLD DOES THIS HAPPEN?!? Not to mention, Komen is a NON-PROFIT. If research (and specifically, metastatic research) was properly funded, I don’t think anyone would care how much Brinker made, even with her missteps. But according to Komen’s very own financials that were recently released, research funding dropped from 29% of revenues in 2008-09 to 15% in 2011-12.

GAME ON, KOMEN! You want “awareness”? Just wait until someone comes up with a campaign and ads to inform all of your supporters about how their money is REALLY being spent. Shame on you!

By: vintagewine Fri, 03 May 2013 12:37:00 +0000 The co-opting of the women’s health initiatives to understand breast cancer was pointed out more than ten years ago by Barbara Ehrenreich in a book about her own experience. We moved from critical examination of health care, environmental issues, etc., to the meaningless wearing of pink ribbons. On Long Island, the One in Nine group successfully lobbied for funds to investigate what appeared to be a breast cancer cluster, but inconculsive results seem to have diverted this effort as well.

By: drverite Wed, 01 May 2013 23:56:29 +0000 Fact: 15-20% of breast cancers are a category that are hormone receptor negative and
Her2 negative. Fact: These are very aggressive and appear in younger women and women of color at a slightly higher frequency. Fact: There is Not a targeted treatment
for this group of breast cancers. Fact: Triple Negative Breast Cancer is not given the media attention —- deserved. Physcians who counsel patients to “wait and see” and
re-mammogram changes that are seen on mammograms (6 months) can and do contribute to the extent of a patient’s cancer when diagnosed. Fact: Many primary care providers do NoT know that this “20% of breast cancer diagnosis” exists.
Are 15-20% of TNBC patients really disposable; because “providers” don’t recognize that the characteristics of TNBC and hormone positive breast cancers present differently on mammograms and ultrasounds? Who is advocating for the 20% ??????
I am a female physician diagnosed with invasive TNBC.

By: QCIC Wed, 01 May 2013 14:58:58 +0000 rb6-

Exactly. If in 1980 the average woman lived 2 years after getting breast cancer but it was typically discovered when she was 50, but today she lives 12 years but it is discovered when she was 40 there has not been actual progress.

Now the numbers are not that bad, but it is an extremely important effect to take into account. And that is not even getting into the over-treatment it leads to in people whose cancers were not going to lead to their death.

There are dozens of “cancers” in each and every person’s body and if we lived to 200 everyone would be riddled with them. But typically something else gets us first. If you just started screening and fighting all of them there would be a huge amount of resources spent and little improvement in outcomes.

By: fresnodanhome Wed, 01 May 2013 11:33:01 +0000 “Firstly, Americans are bad at statistics… They’re bad at pathology: they’re easily convinced that something called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is a form of cancer, for instance, partly because the cancer industry insists on referring to it as “Stage Zero” cancer. They’re bad at biology: they think that it’s physics, basically, and that cancers are discrete, localized growths which start small and get bigger, and that the earlier you find and treat them, in large part by physically cutting them out of the body, the more likely you are to be cured.”

Perhaps the American people think those things because of the unrelenting Public service ads for early detection?
I just retired from the FDA, and the hallway in our office had public service ads posted from the 50’s through the 70’s about the need for early cancer detection.

Now, I don’t believe it was a conspricy by the cancer “industry” to have useless tests done. It was something much more pernacious – well meaning people indoctrinated with simple well meaning ideas. Combine that with a strain of American anti intellectualism and a “can do” spirit, and you get a lot of counter productive policy.

By: ButDocIHatePink Wed, 01 May 2013 07:26:01 +0000 I’m not shocked that a Komen representative- once again- misrepresented the facts. The truth of the matter is the breast cancer death rate has barely dropped in the past 30 years since the inception of Komen and anybody who wants t check that can do so on SEER. What drop there has been is attributable to new advances in treatment, such as herceptin.

What has increased is the diagnosis of forms of “cancer” (DCIS) that could never kill a woman, so naturally, that will skew the stats towards Komen’s early detection ideology. They include this non-cancer in their own statistics.

As the woman with metastatic cancer whom Peggy interviewed and quoted for her article, I am eager to let people know that Komen lies about these stats for their own purposes. Not only that, but they do a piss-poor job at anything but throwing a pink party. I’ve personally received help from the American Cancer Society and other charities but I don’t fit into Komen’s demo as a “survivor” and they completely ignore me, as well as other women with mets. To Komen, we don’t exist, as we belie the idea that early detection is the way to a cure.

You are right, Mr. Salman, when you say Americans don’t understand statistics and Komen uses that to their advantage. 1 in 8 women will not be diagnosed with breast cancer – that is a lifetime statistic. If eight 90 year olds are sitting around a nursing home, seven of them will have never had breast cancer. If 258 40 year olds are sitting in a conference room, one of them will have had breast cancer. It is neither as prevalent as Komen makes it seem nor is it the pretty pink reason for parties, fun runs, and products with pink labels.

The only valid reason for giving to a cancer charity would be research to cure the disease. Komen does an incredibly bad job at doing that, giving just a few percentage of their many millions in research where other charities give 100%. And, they give very little to patient support, despite what the Komen representative, speaking the party line, says. Their focus is on early detection and awareness and as Peggy pointed out, their focus may well be the wrong one for our times. Awareness? We are aware. Now we need a cure.

Speaking as a woman who is going to die of breast cancer, I would never give a penny to Komen. As I said in the article, they don’t represent me, and they don’t represent any of the ONLY people who are going to die of breast cancer, and that is those of us with metastatic disease.

Truly, they are disgrace, and Susan G. Komen, also with mets, would be sickened by what the organization created in her name has become. Nancy Brinker, overly plastic-surgerized and flying around on corporate jets, is not the face of any kind of breast cancer charity, nor are her successors.

I suggest, Ms. Rader, you stop drinking the kool-aide, do some research and then maybe actually join an organization that does good in the world of cancer. Komen is not it.

By: AnneMarieC Wed, 01 May 2013 03:48:08 +0000 Peggy’s article quoted all the relevant statistics. In my opinion, she presented a fair and balanced representation of the big business of breast cancer. It is no longer a disease. Today, it is the “Poster Child of all Cause Marketing and the Bully of All Cancers” and it’s truly a disgrace.

I am a breast cancer patient, I am six years post treatment. I can hear “Yay, you passed the five year mark” and I want to scream. Why? My mom is a 2 x breast cancer patient. She was diagnosed with her first primary in 1987. After my diagnosis of an invasive cancer, my mom was diagnosed with a second primary in 2007.

Today, she is metastatic. Terminal. It is likely from the cancer in 1987. In other words, her cancer spread to a bone despite full mastectomy, chemotherapy and hormonal treatment. TWENTY FIVE YEARS …..

First.. I think we are aware. Second…. I think that ribbon has created what I like to call the illusion of progress. Third….. I know there has been very little MEANINGFUL progress in research. We have perfected surgical techniques, we have found kinder, gentler ways of administering chemotherapy but we are still amputating body parts and infusing toxins into our bodies in the name of a CURE. My treatment in 2006 was nearly identical to my mom’s treatment in 1987. Same surgery, better plastic surgery options. SAME chemo drugs (which have affected my brain), I had the benefit of an IV drip while my mom’s were “pushed” ….. Where in any of that do you see meaningful progress? My mom was on tamoxifen for over 7 years after the first cancer and she was still on its post menopausal equivalent when her cancer spread.

There is no cure and there is no prevention and the same number of women WILL die this year as did when my mom was first diagnosed. Why is that? The patients who are living with Stage IV disease are an inconvenience. They taint the message of hope that is being pushed by so many. Their lives are being sacrificed. They are largely written off and I challenge anyone to show me how this is not true.

I volunteer with a number of organizations and I hope that Peggy’s article sparks a conversation wherein ALL of the money being donated to all breast cancer organizations is scrutinized. The underserved should be helped. The survivors are not unscathed and where possible, they should be helped, too. Mostly, we should be looking to save lives. Awareness? I can’t think of a more wasteful use of donor dollars. We ARE AWARE. WE all know about mammography.

Frankly, to invest such a disproportionate amount of funds trying to convince women to come in for mammography….. women who are too scared or whatever nonsense is being bantered around….. to be completely crass…. I apply the seat belt analogy. They are CHOOSING to not buckle up. Yes, there should be outreach. But, there are other women who are scared, too. And they did everything according to the plan. Screening, check ups, follow ups and they are dying. How about we listen to the women begging for their lives and send a little more funding in their direction?

By: rb6 Tue, 30 Apr 2013 20:28:35 +0000 P.S. — if there is a reduction in the death rates associated with stage 2-3 breast cancer it is far more likely to be attributable to newer drugs (Tamoxifen and others) rather than to annual mammograms.