It is my understand that testicular cancer is one of the more curable and manageable cancers there are, is this true ?
I had my entire colon removed when I was 20 yrs old to save my life, when you face shit like that, there is no decision to be made. [/quote]
I’m not an MD, but that’s my understanding as well. My dad had testicular cancer so I have more than a passing interest in it.
When I was 20, I was trying to decide what kind of beer I was going to get for the weekend. I know you’ve shared some of what you went through in the past, props for your great attitude in the face of adversity.
If someone told you that you had an 85% chance of dying if you didn’t have a body part removed by the best doctor in the world and you were going to get it replaced, by the best doctor in the world, with a prosthetic where there would virtually be no difference and it wouldn’t diminish you physical capacity whatsoever wouldn’t you get it in a heartbeat?
Anyone who wouldn’t is not very smart.
This is basically a no brainer.
Dont see what the big deal is. Her boobs weren’t all that special, not like we are talking about Amy Reid here. And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that…
[quote]Waittz wrote:
And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that… [/quote]
That’s unfortunate.[/quote]
Personal taste. I actually once dated a girl for the better part of a year who had circus tits. Looked like one of them puffy eyed gold fish. I guess I either wasnt breast fed or was over breast fed as a child. Not really a question I am going to ask my mother anytime soon.
[quote]Nards wrote:
It sounds like something she’d do because she thought she was only seen for her looks. She reminds me of one of those girls in college who shaves her head because she thinks she’s bucking society’s beauty norms…that takes a lot of self-deception; who said your face was a paragon of beauty?
She should get her mouth fixed so she doesn’t look like a fish.[/quote]
Or… yknow because she has a high risk of breast cancer as she goes to great lengths to explain in the article…
Seriously its kind of disturbing that the first conclusion you would jump to is the “stupid girl doing attention seeking stuff” trend.
“I wanted to write this to tell other women that the decision to have a mastectomy was not easy. But it is one I am very happy that I made. My chances of developing breast cancer have dropped from 87 percent to under 5 percent. I can tell my children that they donâ??t need to fear they will lose me to breast cancer.”
[quote]Nards wrote:
It sounds like something she’d do because she thought she was only seen for her looks. She reminds me of one of those girls in college who shaves her head because she thinks she’s bucking society’s beauty norms…that takes a lot of self-deception; who said your face was a paragon of beauty?
She should get her mouth fixed so she doesn’t look like a fish.[/quote]
What crawled up your ass today bro? Why the hostility and cynicism?[/quote]
I am actually sorry about this…I wasn’t trying to sound like I did but it was about an hour later that I thought about how I sounded here.
I was sort of taking the news and then using to just go off on Jolie, an actress I’ve never liked…but it sounds definitely like I’m making fun of her for having to do something about potential breast cancer. I made a mistake. Sorry.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Dont see what the big deal is. Her boobs weren’t all that special, not like we are talking about Amy Reid here. And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that… [/quote]
I prefer natural much more. The feel and the look naked. Fake can look great in clothes then they come off and it’s like what just happened?.. Sad dong.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Dont see what the big deal is. Her boobs weren’t all that special, not like we are talking about Amy Reid here. And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that… [/quote]
I prefer natural much more. The feel and the look naked. Fake can look great in clothes then they come off and it’s like what just happened?.. Sad dong.[/quote]
So true man.
But you can train yourself to discriminate the bad ones from the good ones. It’s obviously much easier when they have less clothing on but even for full sweatshirt you can get hints by studying the angles and the way they move when she moves and flexes her body (turning around, stretching up, looking down, etc).
In addition, natural ones suffer from the same problem. Innovations in bra design are to blame. You’ll get awesome cleavage then when the bra comes off gravity just takes over.
Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer.[/quote]
Alternatives:
–Myriad Genetics provides the estimates of risk associated with the various BRCA1 deleterious mutations; 87% lifetime risk is probably a statistical quirk and has not been revised recently.
–Oophorectomy reduces lifetime risks by about 1/3; she is 38, and taking the ovaries soon makes sense anyway. She did not do this, I guess, because she wants to remain estrogenized, and hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy would increase her risks of breast cancer.
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
Dont see what the big deal is. Her boobs weren’t all that special, not like we are talking about Amy Reid here. And 99% of the time I prefer them fake, so there’s that… [/quote]
I prefer natural much more. The feel and the look naked. Fake can look great in clothes then they come off and it’s like what just happened?.. Sad dong.[/quote]
What? I have dated two girls who were past DD and into the E range. One was in college and natural and about 19 so gravity hasnt had much time here. In clothes she looked like a horny japaneese anime artist’s wet dream. Soom as she took off the bra they looked like pancakes with nipples. Only way not to be grossed out was on her back.
The circus freak with Bolt Ons on the other hand still had something that resembled a circle regardless of anything else. To be honest, she was dumb as a rock and it was the only reason I dated her as shallow as it was. They were magical but her nips had been stretched out like crazy.
I have dated just as many natural as I have with fake, granted there are amazing natural boobs and bad fake ones, but the chacnes of either cases are both rarer than they are common.
Angelina Jolie had a double mastectomy to prevent breast cancer.[/quote]
Alternatives:
–Myriad Genetics provides the estimates of risk associated with the various BRCA1 deleterious mutations; 87% lifetime risk is probably a statistical quirk and has not been revised recently.
–Oophorectomy reduces lifetime risks by about 1/3; she is 38, and taking the ovaries soon makes sense anyway. She did not do this, I guess, because she wants to remain estrogenized, and hormone replacement therapy after oophorectomy would increase her risks of breast cancer.
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
So, she got bad medical advice, Doc?[/quote]
No way to know
–What a doctor may say and what a patient may hear are two different things entirely
–I find that a self-important person imagines herself to be expert–educated by the internet or by other self-important people–and discount what doctors say…unless the doctor also happens to be a celebrity, or takes care of other celebrities, as was the case here with Ms Jolie.
–I only met Angelina Voight once when she was about 4 years old, and my advice to her then was “play outside.” She didn’t listen then either.
–In her article she does not mention at all the possibility of surveillance. With MRI mammography, the cumulative 5 year risk for a woman her age with a BRCA1 mutation is more like 12% (not the previously surmised 20% risk). No excess mortalities are seen with such surveillance and appropriate treatment.
[/quote]
This is what I’ve been wondering about.
Instead of taking such drastic measures, wouldn’t it be more prudent to simply monitor what’s happening with frequent checkups?