Re: Off-Topic: Kennedy has a malignant tumor!


"Wickeddoll®" <wickeddollnofeckingspam1958@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:g0vde3.5kg.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Cathy F." ...

"Wickeddoll®"

"badgolferman" wrote:
I thought you guys would be interested in this, since there's a
big
thread going on regarding his health, here.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24728667/

That's quite serious.

Natalie

Yes, my aunt just died of that two weeks ago. I had to go to
Canada
for the funeral.

Anybody know what causes brain tumors? Head injury maybe, I don't
know
but would like to.

As far as I know, it's like any other cancer; having a family
history of
cancer is a big factor with any of them. I think Ted's son had bone
cancer,
and had a leg removed.

Natalie

What about head injury? Could that have been a factor for Kennedy?
I'm
thinking of his car crash or airplane accident. I realize that cells
divide and sometimes they get going too fast and deform into cancer,
but
something has to trigger it and of course a family history is a
factor
for some cancer, but not all.

I haven't heard of any readily-explainable cancers, except cervical
and lung.

Breast cancer, due to H(R)T is one. Also endometrial/uterine, but I
don't think estrogen-only therapy is prescribed any longer if a uterus
is present.

Cathy

HRT-related cancer is not nearly as relevant now, as in the past. The
dosage is so light it's ineffectual.

HRT is still recommended, but because of media hype over *old* HRT,
women are afraid to use it. What do I mean by that?

Study: 5,000 women are placed on HRT; 5,000 are placed on a placebo.

One in 3 of the women get cancer on HRT. One in 3.5 get it with the
placebo.

The media reports the 1:3, but not that the placebo is nearly exactly
the same.

Is this from the WHI study? I read the reports back when the results
were released - both after the combo estrogen/progest. study was halted &
then when the estrogen-only arm of the study was halted - when it became
apparent that the neg. effects were outweighing the positive ones. There
was a small, but definite, increase of risk assoc. with HRT for both
breast cancer & various heart probs.

Cathy


As with any medication, you have to weigh the risks against the benefits.
The studies I'm citing are from the last few years.

There are *so* many other things providers have to consider when
prescribing any drug; HRT has just gotten a bad rap because of the
blunders of early hormone use in the old days. They thought you needed a
***-load of hormones, but now know you only need a tiny amount for most
women.

What about the aspect of the "It's good for you" baloney? So many doctors,
pre-WHI study reports, actively promoted it - for rest of life use, no less!
Arghhh. Even short-term use (2-5 years) was proven to have risk factors
(over placebo) - for heart problems. IMO, unless quality of life is greatly
affected, better to not take it - why knowlingly increase one's risk if the
HT is not truly needed? If quality of life is so awful that the risk is
worth it to any particular woman, that's another ball game.

Cathy





Natalie



.