Elizabeth Edwards Has Cancer

I FEEL the love on this board!!!!!!!!

Helen, the statistics were not stunning. Your tone was.

I am glad that we will never meet. The thought of saying to someone on hearing of their illness that they were, in effect, asking for it, well, it's not something that is acceptable among my friends.

I will not be responding to any of your further posts here, or at other forums.

I thought of pm'ing this, but realized that I wanted other people who might read this thread some day, to realize that some people simply wanted to express support toward Ms. Edwards and other people with the same diagnosis.

Phoenix's thread about mammography would surely have been a better place to post information about risk factors.

I think that's a bit unfair ehbeth. I'm certain that Ms. Edward's doctors informed her of the risks beforehand. She knew going in what the statistics showed, and what people might think if she became one.

You can also be sure that insurance companies look at data like this.

I wish this disease upon no one. See my earlier posts.

It is my turned to be stunned by the content of eBeth's post - nobody said Mrs Edwards "was asking for it", the only reference was to statistical odds.

The odds originally quoted for Mrs. Edwards - carefully preceded by "about" - are to be found in all relevant studies of risk factors for breast cancer. On diagnostic exams (sometimes required by insurers) it's sometimes hard to find medics who agree on the increased risk of exams like mammograms, CT scans, any invasive procedure.

".... chairman of the American College of Radiology's Board of Chancellors, said that, although some may question comparisons to victims of Hiroshima, the study "qualitatively illustrates the fact that we are concerned about the doses of radiation delivered when there is no documentation of benefit to the population at large.." "
http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/jnci;96/22/1650

For the record: I smoke, and know that this increases the odds of getting lung cancer at some point. I also know that only about 14% of smokers will ever get lung cancer, and that I don't have a genetic predisposition, so my odds of getting it are less than 10%. If I had never smoked those odds would be closer to 0%.

I wish someone would explain why statistical evaluation is acceptable concerning cancers of the lung but not of the breast - if that's the argument here.

I don't think that is the argument here. I think that statistics are good for showing the correlation between risk factors and cancer but not causation. It is easy to look at Mrs. Edwards history and health and develop a risk profile and then determine that she was at risk of developing breast cancer. But that doesn't make her 'negligent', especially when a woman's lifetime risk of getting breast cancer is 1 in 9 (according to your webMD article). And whether or not insurance companies would charge her more because she has a high risk profile doesn't really seem pertinent -- at least not to me.

It's possible that your original post was simply so blunt, especially in contrast to the previous ones, that it obscured the fact that you were actually trying to start a discussion about the risk factors of breast cancer and not taking an opportunity to ridicule Mrs. Edwards for doing nothing to prevent it.

I took it as a taunt. I am not obese and am a breast cancer socalled survivor. But I heard the knell from you re the obese getting what they asked for. While you may not be in line personally for lung cancer, fella, you may be in the crowd to get emphysema or its acronym, copd. People don't always act perfectly at every phase of their lives...perhaps even you don't.

Or perhaps you're just in line for the lack of compassion award, known as LOCA.

Ossobuco - having previously known nothing of your health, and after waiting 2 weeks for the crass hypocrite to recover from her hysterical fit and express some sympathy for you, who are here, as opposed to meaningless babble for someone who's never going to read this, may I wish you a speedy and complete recovery.

Since I didn't know you at all before your latest post here, obviously I also knew nothing of your illness, or your weight, or anything else about you. It's regrettable that you misread a general statistical observation as "a personal taunt", so I trust that part has been corrected.

As I don't expect to be online much between now and January may I also wish you all the best for Christmas and the New Year.

You really should have let it lie.

Health care systems might likewise be overwhelmed by smokers, though I don't see any posts from you blaming yourself for your own bad behavior.

For the record, your opinions on this subject are about as far from normal as I am from Baghdad.

Arithmetic isn't an "opinion" whatever PDiddie expostulates. Neither are more advanced mathematics - including the discounted-cash-flow actuarial calculations - showing the health costs of obesity.

Baghdad?? If you were from there (or I, for that matter) we wouldn't have the luxury of posting on the internet right now. Btw, PDiddie, are you involved with the FAT RIGHTS group in San Francisco - your post sounds like a statement of the tubs of lard who recently demonstrated outside a bariatric surgery clinic claiming that weighing 500 lbs is good for you - will see if I can find a link, BRB....

For what it's worth here's PDiddie's soul sister - I hope s/she pays for the woman's health care costs also>>>


>>> because the taxpayer revolt led by Newt Gingrich and his Republicans in 1994 is NOTHING compared to what's coming in the next several years as the fatties move on to extremely sick. How 'bout they keel over before they bankrupt the rest of the nation???

Just a lovely sentiment.

I'm so glad we have people like you to fight and die for us.

P.S. this crass copy of a blue whale is a Stanford grad - her condition isn't due to illiteracy, just insanity, as per picture link:
http://www.stanfordalumni.org/news/magazine/2003/julaug/features/wann.html

So glad to know you're not overweight, HofT. It makes your chances of dying from smoking much less.

However, I really don't think everyone is meant to be a size 10 or smaller. People come in all sizes. Sometimes obesity is genetic, sometimes it's caused by other health problems. It's not always fixable. Try not to be so judgmental, okay?

C'mon, Montana...let's go get a drink. This is no way to be spending your birthday weekend!

Cjhsa - with the increasingly delusional postings on this thread, particularly the ones purporting to quote statements that were never made by anybody, as in:

"....your saying that cancer victims are asking for it! It just blows my mind... "

not to mention the "size 10" obsessive (who mentioned any sizes here or anywhere else?!) who furthermore states that I (personally, mind you) am not fat - and how does SHE know that?! - it's becoming increasingly obvious that dementia has set in along with the fat cells and that the parachuting posters have no "brain" left to get "blown".

There being no arguing with the insane, I'm out of this thread - but I do ask that you please not follow their despicable habit of dragging animals into this mess! Thank you.

Wow.

Nobody should ever complain about me again!

Montana-- You are a hoot.

Thanks for a good laugh.

CJ gets a demerit for that upsetting image.

:wink:

damn, I thought this thread was about Blue Whales. I like whales, I intend to collect the entire set.