Consider areas of high concentration of breast cancer, such as Long Island within a radius around the Grumman plant from which toxic chemicals were improperly disposed in the 40s-60s or later. Studying those outliers separately from the country at large, the NIH risk calculation surely gets even more ridiculously lopsided. Ashkenazi Jews in the area carry a compounded risk of this cancer. So, presenting the breast cancer risk as a wildly unpredictable gambit is disingenuous, some risk stratification can and should be done, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach NIH is so fond of.
I have been wondering about the Ashkenazi population. If they are in this toxic area is the risk compounded or is the BRCA mutation in fact a result of the toxic environmen and not the cause of cancer? Genetic testing has only been going on since about 1996, so how far back into their ancestry is the mutation being investigated. Could it have begun in the 40's?
Just more lies from our "trusted" government...and oh yes....if a celebrity does well then I must, also.
Consider areas of high concentration of breast cancer, such as Long Island within a radius around the Grumman plant from which toxic chemicals were improperly disposed in the 40s-60s or later. Studying those outliers separately from the country at large, the NIH risk calculation surely gets even more ridiculously lopsided. Ashkenazi Jews in the area carry a compounded risk of this cancer. So, presenting the breast cancer risk as a wildly unpredictable gambit is disingenuous, some risk stratification can and should be done, rather than the one-size-fits-all approach NIH is so fond of.
Very interesting.
I have been wondering about the Ashkenazi population. If they are in this toxic area is the risk compounded or is the BRCA mutation in fact a result of the toxic environmen and not the cause of cancer? Genetic testing has only been going on since about 1996, so how far back into their ancestry is the mutation being investigated. Could it have begun in the 40's?
Jo
"Supposing that the mutations are in fact a symptom"
really?
a genetic mutation a symptom of a disease?
that would mean that all those with the mutation have the disease?
for isn't that what "symptom" means?
"part of the healing rather than the cause of the cancer"
so from the moment you are born you not only carry a disease but also carry part of the cure?
this is what happens when people that have completely lost their way, if they ever had it that is, start supposing....
Thank you
🙏🏽