Jump to content

Jade Goody


Quillan
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One of the sad things about losing a parent at so young an age is that it knocks a child's self esteem forever.  I have witnessed this in my family and it is heart-breaking.

I did read an interview with James Dyson, who lost his father when he was young.  He said that it spurred him on to be successful. 

He said that 75% of British Prime Ministers have lost a father before they were 10 years old.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading this thread I am so glad it is not just me who is fed up with hearing about this young woman. Yes it is very sad, nobody should have to suffer like she has but the last poster mentioned Jane Tomlinson, hardly a word was spoken about her when she died but today we have had wall to wall JG on the national news, it wouldnt surprise me if Gordon ordered a state funeral.  For heavens sake BBC let it rest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't judge unless you've been there.  Jane Tomlinson was a heroine, true, but for many of us who have secondary breast cancer and can't live up to her ferocious bravery, it is difficult.  Jade Goody was a heroine of a different stamp.  She was no saint but she did what she could in her last months to raise awareness of cervical cancer.  As a result, many women who would not otherwise have bothered are getting smears done.

What I am saying here is that we all approach our impending mortality the best way we can.  I hope that when my time comes I will be able to make a good death, as both of the women mentioned did, in their own way.

 

LB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/cervicalcancer/CC_causes

Although I have no strong feelings either way on Jade Goody, and have never watched BB  I checked out the causes of cervical cancer to confirm what I already knew. Difficult not to have heard of Jade Goody, and her lifestyle.   

The following is from the above website - obviously there are exceptions,  But -

A woman has a higher-than-average risk of developing cervical cancer if she:

Has had multiple sexual partners

  • Began having sexual relations before the age of 18

  • Has a partner who has had sexual contact with a woman with cervical cancer
  • OTHER FACTORS - tobacco use,  bad diet, contact with the Human papillomavirus -  a greater risk  of contact with this virus is via multiple sexual partners.

So it is possible to reduce the risks.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, for God's sake!!!

Those of us who have breast cancer are constantly being told that it's our lifestyle .... erm .... no it's not - BIG REVEVELATION!!! - it's our genes, and the Government will fund pre-emptory testing.

The current "truth" is, as my oncologist says, is that nobody really actually "knows" what causes cancer.

Give us a break, please.

LB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lesbatees"]

The current "truth" is, as my oncologist says, is that nobody really actually "knows" what causes cancer.

Give us a break, please.

LB

[/quote]

Right-on Lesbatees - According to all the consultants I spoke too, NHS and Private, there are over 200 types of cancer, 'WE' don't know what causes any of them and there is 'no cure' only a 'shotgun approach' treatment which 'may give remission of indeterminate length' IF diagnosed early enough, unfortunately the NHS are not that good at this by comparison; Worse the symptoms are so very slight that people themselves don't recognise them and ignore them for too long, so regular check-ups are essential, especially if there is anything untoward; this is what JG promoted recognised by the NHS as the 'Jade effect'

We're just not as smart as we'd like to think we are.

  news.bbc.Jade wider impact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Lesbatees"]

Oh, for God's sake!!!

Those of us who have breast cancer are constantly being told that it's our lifestyle .... erm .... no it's not - BIG REVEVELATION!!! - it's our genes, and the Government will fund pre-emptory testing.

The current "truth" is, as my oncologist says, is that nobody really actually "knows" what causes cancer.

Give us a break, please.

LB

[/quote]

Well, that's two contradictory statements.

Now, is it Genes: or no one knows?

Sadly, most diagnostic modalities fail to detect many serious diseases at an early enough stage to provide a defined cure: this is very true with cancer. Treatment inr eality can only be considered paliative, as the cancer goes into a remission phase.

There is much evidence to support Thermography as against Mamography as a much more powerful diagnostic aid for early detection of breast cancer probability.

Unfortunately, the vested interest lobby (in X Ray equipment) tends to dominate: as was said to me recently (From an oncologist), the best way to ensure any tumour mestacizes is to squash it! Which is precisely part of accepted proceedure in mamography.

Additionally, constant exposure to X Rays creates further cell change concerns: whereas thermography does not, since it is non-invasive of tissue.

http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=1274

I have a personal concern here as my wife is on the risk list of predisposition, since her late Mother suffered this dreadful disease however in her case, thank God, it went into full remission after treatment and never ever returned during the remaining 25 years of her life. Last Autumn we had a very unplesant time for a couple of weeks as a regular mamogram indicated abnormality: which after exhaustive further tests such as Ultrasound (including aspiration of tissue) it was a cyst.

Medical analysis of incidence is actually quite simple: it merely shows how behavioural characteristics (Lifestyle if you like) develop a trend of higher incidence.

And excess in certain areas, exacerbates risk. As an example, those who eat lots of nasty processed and fast food dripping with transfattyacids become clinically obese: and will suffer a wide range of future health problems varying from arthritis in critical weight bearing joints, through Type Two Diabetes, to early death.

The evidence on  human papillomavirus (HPV) however is quite clear: which is why vacination at a young age is now recommended for females.

http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-young-women.htm

It is a fact that the young are increasingly sexually active at younger and younger ages: it is also an undeniable fact that the young today tend to be promiscuous.

It is also a fact of demographics and human health that those coming from deprived and unstable backgrounds are much more likely to be sexually active and promiscuous at young ages: the epidemic growth in serious and less serious STDs demonstrate this unequivocably.

It is so sadly, a symptom and an effect of increasingly unstable and dysfunctional society.

I am so sorry, Lesbatees, that you have suffered this dreadful disease and do hope your recovery goes well: however to fly in the face of established medical research does society no good: nor the cause of beating this modern health scourge.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Ron Avery"]

'WE' don't know what causes any of them.

 

I think "We"  do know very well what causes cancer, what we don't know is why it happens to some people and not others.

[/quote]

I quote what consultants specifically said; to elaborate, understanding the mechanical origin of cancer, (that of mutating cell reproduction) is not the cause and whilst there more theories than you can shake a stick at, from smoking to sushi, these are NOT proven CAUSES.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"]

 http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-vaccine-young-women.htm

[/quote]

Good to see you back Gluey;
as your above ref admits most but not all and whilst many things may aggravate the onset of Cancer (Sexual maturity, Smoking and Sushi etc) as one consultant said these are not the unknown that causes the switch to flip from normal cell to mutation, this is the cause that we do not know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree John that science sadly is an imperfect study: that said, it is often the exception which proves the rule.

As an example, we all know or know of someone who at 88 still smokes 40 a day and seems hail and hearty.

Peasant stock in Northern Spain, for example, drink regularly at a level which would cause the average British Liver Specialist to have conniptions: and were rarely seen without a cigar or Ducados in their mouth. And lived well into their late 80s on average.

I well remember walking to the top of Frigiliano (A hilltop village in Southern Spain) a few years back with friends: it is a long and very tiring climb! We were wearing shorts and Tee shirts and sweating and in bits when we reached the top: yet the elderly locals were galloping up and down the steeply inclined main street and wearing pullovers underneath their tweed jackets! Genes?

However, we also know that for example, some substances are highly carcinegous: Dioxins (Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins (PCDDs), e.g.

We also know that certain behavioural models worsen predisposition to specific diseases.

Now, I do believe that personality types come into play, here. For example, whilst medical statistical analysis on incidence would suggest that people who smoke and drink more than average will tend to suffer higher levels of disease type A: and then their smoking and drinking excess is cited as a cause, it could well be possible that that group are predisposed to the disease anyway due to their personality type: and it is because of their personality type that they smoke and drink. Addictive Compulsive Personality, e.g.

Thus one must be careful in muddling Cause and Effect and resist the temptation to mould apparent "Facts" to fit the resultant desired!

I have discussed these things in some depth with two friends who are both very knowledgable indeed in Alternative and Complimentary medicine analysis.

Personally, I believe and have done for some little time, that the level of chemicals to which we are all inescapably exposed on a daily basis has had a serious effect on Western health: the growth of the chemical industry since WWII tends to correlate to the now epidemic level of many illnesses and diseases. Just today it was announced that >5 million people in UK now suffer with some form of Excema, as just one example.

Additionally, the massive and worrying growth of kids suffering from various respiratory disease such as Asthma tends to chime with pollution and air quality: as well as the massive growth of chemicals commonly used now in homes: kitchen, bathroom, garden shed, garage, food etc.

There was a very worrying analysis published in national Geographic a few years back, which tabulated a massive list of everyday chemicals humanity is exposed to on a regular and increasing basis.

Much food for thought here.................................

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite so, I wonder what cancer incidence there is in the young sexual mature asian populace; and how many young mothers will stop using baby bottles because of the  .bbc.Bisphenol A, or BPA, scare and then join their young mums group at the gym all with a trendy bottle of water in their bum bag; if its not in a glass bottle I don't want it, not that I want water anyway[8-|]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Gluestick"][quote user="Lesbatees"]

Oh, for God's sake!!!

Those of us who have breast cancer are constantly being told that it's our lifestyle .... erm .... no it's not - BIG REVEVELATION!!! - it's our genes, and the Government will fund pre-emptory testing.

The current "truth" is, as my oncologist says, is that nobody really actually "knows" what causes cancer.

Give us a break, please.

LB

[/quote]

Well, that's two contradictory statements.

Now, is it Genes: or no one knows?

I am so sorry, Lesbatees, that you have suffered this dreadful disease and do hope your recovery goes well: however to fly in the face of established medical research does society no good: nor the cause of beating this modern health scourge.

[/quote]

Gluestick, that is precisely my point.  The UK government is busy encouraging women with a judged "genetic predisposition" to breast cancer to undergo genetic testing with a view to measures like double mastectomy to avoid the risk.  On the other hand, women are also constantly bombarded with NHS propaganda that tells them that a high stress high risk lifestyle puts them at increased risk of breast cancer.  The statistics used to back up this both views are just that - statistics.  They indicate possibilities.  They don't prove anything.  

As my husband, a former biochemist, would say, there is, as yet, no fully PROVEN cause for breast cancer.  This is why I put the word "truth" in quotes in my original post. 

As for recovery?  No.  There is no way back from breast cancer once you have secondary spread.  All my onc can do for me is delay the inevitable.  Now there's a cold, hard fact for you.

LB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Might as well face facts.   Life kills us all in the end.

Seriously though, my husband's gran is approaching her 104th birthday this June.   She is fitter than many other people in their 60s, has lived a decadent lifestyle where she never had to worry about a single solitary thing and still doesn't, plus she has smoked heavily and drank like a fish since she was a teenager.   However she gave up smoking ten years ago after she decided it was "bad for her health" but the gin still gets a regular batterring.

I guess we are predisposed to certain types of disease and illness whereby it is triggerred or may not be as in the case of my gran-in-law who has never had a moment's stress in her entire life, but exactly how I wonder does anyone avoid stress in this day and age?    Here in France I find it a good indicator looking at the obituaries in the local paper - most of the people are in their late 80s up to 103 years old - exceptions being the car crash victims (regularly) or cancer.     Very different to the local paper where I came from thats for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am so very sad to learn what you face, LB.

I am currently doing my best to support one of my dearest friends (he and his wife are in France) as he battles with his secondaries (Bowel cancer mestacized into firstly his lungs: and now his bones) and just yesterday he was re-admitted to hospital, after being in and out since last February.

And he is not the first, in recent years.

I would agree that despite certain claims, the NHS regimes for a number of illnesses and diseases are driven by lack of knowledge, hopes to reduce costs (and even more cynically, by Big Pharma): I would also agree that with many cancers claims of co-relationships with "Suspected Causal Factors" fall short of the mark insofar as fact be concerned.

All that said, however and my highly cynical side switch "On", it does seem that HPV is a significant and viable contributary factor in Cervical Cancer.

Very much as Blue Asbestos is now acknowledged as a primary causer of Mesothelioma, in those exposed.

Now whilst the precautionary regimen you describe is horrendously extreme and not as yet proven as necessary, thus far, there have been no reported incidence of severe side effects from the HPV vaccination: and on that basis, isn't this a reasonable route to prevention?

As may well be a less promiscuous lifestyle in the young.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

   What is the cause of so many men losing their hair so young today.?...Look at a picture taken in the 60's of a group of men.age  20's to 40's and you will see they all have a good head of hair.....Same picture today and the hair line will be greatly receeded if they have hair at all ...........Whats used more since the 60's...plastic packaging... cling film etc ... A test on a 13 year old child revealed she had more chemical traces in her blood than her grandmother......why ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have been thinking that too.

I have sons and nephews in their early thirties.

They are almost all either grey or going bald or both.

The notable exception for some strange reason is our eldest son who (at 36) still looks about 16!

And he's the very one who gave us most of our grey hairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Frederick"]
   What is the cause of so many men losing their hair so young today.?...Look at a picture taken in the 60's of a group of men.age  20's to 40's and you will see they all have a good head of hair.....Same picture today and the hair line will be greatly receeded if they have hair at all

[/quote]

A more promiscuous lifestyle ?

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also  sorry to hear of your diagnosis  LB.

I only wrote about cervical cancer where even the gov'ment now accepts that a promiscuous lifestyle often leads to this awful disease.  The programme to vaccinate young girls  against  Human papillomavirus (HPV)  is controversial to some people, but it might reduce the incidence of cervical cancer.

But, lifestyle changes are also needed, as promiscuity causes other STDs too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are obvious factors that are said to make the risk higher, smoking etc, but then, why do some women ; like a dear friend of mine, die of cancer when they ve had a healthy lifestyle, didn't smoke, etc...

I think we don't know what causes cancer in the vast majority of cases.

Why did my grand father have breast cancer at 25??

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...