Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.

I have cancer; I was diagnosed in my 40's. Many people have asked me why...and my answer is the wrong parents. The reason why this whole thread insults me is the undercurrent: if I lived my life correctly, I would not have cancer.....The only way I would not have had cancer is if I did what my sister did: had her ovaries and breasts removed because she is BRCA1+ (as am I). In my case, the cancer was in a kidney. Even if I knew I would get kidney cancer, I did not know which one.....and I need a kidney.

Considering the title of this thread, why the "insult"? Not every cancer discussion must address your personal situation. They just can't. Many, many of our sicknesses are in fact affected by our environment, including diet. There's no more denying that.

Are you also insulted when doctors advise people to eat more healthy foods and to get more exercise? Why?

You can ask that question only because you haven't had cancer and you have no idea what its like when people try to figure out what you did wrong to cancer yourself. I've had people ask me point blank. (You used to be obese? Nope. You smoked, right? Nope.) There's no denying the effect of diet if you are referring to that 15% of .5%. You are right, there's no denying that. But since the vast majority of us don't fit into that sliver of the population its pretty much irrelevant. Thats the part you don;t seem to understand.

Doctors never advise me to eat more healthy foods and to get more exercise because I already do. Now if they told me that doing these things would have prevented my cancer then, yes, I would be insulted.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.

I have cancer; I was diagnosed in my 40's. Many people have asked me why...and my answer is the wrong parents. The reason why this whole thread insults me is the undercurrent: if I lived my life correctly, I would not have cancer.....The only way I would not have had cancer is if I did what my sister did: had her ovaries and breasts removed because she is BRCA1+ (as am I). In my case, the cancer was in a kidney. Even if I knew I would get kidney cancer, I did not know which one.....and I need a kidney.

Considering the title of this thread, why the "insult"? Not every cancer discussion must address your personal situation. They just can't. Many, many of our sicknesses are in fact affected by our environment, including diet. There's no more denying that.

Are you also insulted when doctors advise people to eat more healthy foods and to get more exercise? Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.

I have cancer; I was diagnosed in my 40's. Many people have asked me why...and my answer is the wrong parents. The reason why this whole thread insults me is the undercurrent: if I lived my life correctly, I would not have cancer.....The only way I would not have had cancer is if I did what my sister did: had her ovaries and breasts removed because she is BRCA1+ (as am I). In my case, the cancer was in a kidney. Even if I knew I would get kidney cancer, I did not know which one.....and I need a kidney.

Considering the title of this thread, why the "insult"? Not every cancer discussion must address your personal situation. They just can't. Many, many of our sicknesses are in fact affected by our environment, including diet. There's no more denying that.

Are you also insulted when doctors advise people to eat more healthy foods and to get more exercise? Why?

I am not the person you are responding to, but you are being deliberately obtuse. Nobody is denying the importance of a healthy diet in preventing disease. Nobody. But when you are talking about CANCER, there is only so much that diet, exercise and avoiding alcohol can do. The title of the thread does not address all "sicknesses."

The truth is, all of us are going to die of something, and spending your time hand wringing about how other people are raising the odds that they will get cancer from 1:100 to 2:100 by having a cocktail and a bag of Funyons is silly. Run your own race. Stress is a major cause of disease, too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.

I have cancer; I was diagnosed in my 40's. Many people have asked me why...and my answer is the wrong parents. The reason why this whole thread insults me is the undercurrent: if I lived my life correctly, I would not have cancer.....The only way I would not have had cancer is if I did what my sister did: had her ovaries and breasts removed because she is BRCA1+ (as am I). In my case, the cancer was in a kidney. Even if I knew I would get kidney cancer, I did not know which one.....and I need a kidney.

Considering the title of this thread, why the "insult"? Not every cancer discussion must address your personal situation. They just can't. Many, many of our sicknesses are in fact affected by our environment, including diet. There's no more denying that.

Are you also insulted when doctors advise people to eat more healthy foods and to get more exercise? Why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.

I have cancer; I was diagnosed in my 40's. Many people have asked me why...and my answer is the wrong parents. The reason why this whole thread insults me is the undercurrent: if I lived my life correctly, I would not have cancer.....The only way I would not have had cancer is if I did what my sister did: had her ovaries and breasts removed because she is BRCA1+ (as am I). In my case, the cancer was in a kidney. Even if I knew I would get kidney cancer, I did not know which one.....and I need a kidney.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think you understand statistics. If you are a 40 year-old woman your risk of getting breast cancer is lower than .5%. So if a certain diet increases your risk by 15% you are talking of an increase of 15% of .5%. Yes, it would be accurate to say that diet has an effect on your breast cancer risk. But it would also be accurate to say that the effect is extremely minimal.

This is true for pretty much everything except tobacco and sun exposure. The increase in risk that has been tied to diet is minimal.

I am not "resistant" to lifestyle factors. I am still a vegetarian and an athlete even though neither practice prevented my breast cancer. But I have no delusion that it will prevent cancer. I was not some freaky exception that got cancer anyway. The freaky exceptions -- that will never be specifically identified -- are the women who would have gotten breast cancer but for their diet. Those are your 15% of .5%.

I get so sick of the food nazis who judge other people's diets so they can prove to themselves that they are safe, unlike those suckers who got cancer. I say this as someone who would pass your test anyway. You are not safe because you do whatever it is you are doing. Your risk is only marginally lower, you are not even close to safe.

Cancer is a disease of again. If you life long enough, you will get cancer.