• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Angelina Jolie has double mastectomy to prevent cancer

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
TheFamilyMan said:
Yeah, she's so fucking health conscious that she goes and gets a double mastectomy to help prevent breast cancer but she will inject just about anything into her previous set of tits, lips, forehead, and cheeks just to look young.

I'm still going with 80% attention whore / 15% narcissism / 5% helping others...and I'm probably generous on the 5% number...
Click to expand...

yes she does. so that gives even more credit to her for doing this so she does not get cancer.
 
waggy said:
yes she does. so that gives even more credit to her for doing this so she does not get cancer.
Click to expand...

Wait...what? Give her credit for injecting this/that/the other and fucking with her body's natural order of things and then, when shit starts to get real, she starts lopping off things to avoid the cancer?
 
TheFamilyMan said:
Wait...what? Give her credit for injecting this/that/the other and fucking with her body's natural order of things and then, when shit starts to get real, she starts lopping off things to avoid the cancer?
Click to expand...

those haven't been proven to cause cancer now have they? She was at a major risk for getting breast cancer.

now that risk is far far lower.


so yes i do beleive her and good for her for doing what she thinks is right.
 
waggy said:
those haven't been proven to cause cancer now have they? She was at a major risk for getting breast cancer.

now that risk is far far lower.


so yes i do beleive her and good for her for doing what she thinks is right.
Click to expand...

They may not be linked directly to cancer, but when you're as predisposed to something like that as she was, why take the chance? Vanity.

Just like the photo-op adoptions she did...wasn't about the kids, it was about her.
 
sixone said:
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.

That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...
This is common and medically accepted use of statistics.

It has now become clear you don't understand the issues at hand at all. Or, perhaps it may be that you are looking for excuses to justify your bias. If so, I would recommend stepping back and re-evaluating the information available. If you're spouting the same misguided bias that you've spouted in this thread, to your loved ones that carry a BRCA1 mutation, you may be doing them a great disservice.
 
TheFamilyMan said:
They may not be linked directly to cancer, but when you're as predisposed to something like that as she was, why take the chance? Vanity.

Just like the photo-op adoptions she did...wasn't about the kids, it was about her.
Click to expand...

and the fact she had her tits lopped off shows this is something more then vanity. being alive and not fighting cancer is rather nice.
 
sixone said:
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.

That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...

wow./facepalm
 
If she's that scared of getting cancer and dying, then I can't say I blame her. I can't imagine doing it myself, since I love my nipples, but good for her I guess?

KT
 
sixone said:
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.

That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...

If this were the case how can doctors prescribe any medication? Even the chemo drugs they administer have a % of success attributed to them. Since those statistics are CUMULATIVE to all the test patients that they administered to in FDA trails should the doctor be sued for malpractice?
 
Eug said:
This is common and medically accepted use of statistics.

It has now become clear you don't understand the issues at hand at all. Or, perhaps it may be that you are looking for excuses to justify your bias. If so, I would recommend stepping back and re-evaluating the information available. If you're spouting the same misguided bias that you've spouted in this thread, to your loved ones that carry a BRCA1 mutation, you may be doing them a great disservice.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm well aware that those in a position to make money off the problems of others are not always ethical or scrupulous about how they do so.

I do have a bias against such behavior. Too bad you don't. 🙁
 
cliftonite said:
If this were the case how can doctors prescribe any medication? Even the chemo drugs they administer have a % of success attributed to them. Since those statistics are CUMULATIVE to all the test patients that they administered to in FDA trails should the doctor be sued for malpractice?
Click to expand...

Because chemo is only given to patients that have actually been diagnosed with cancer, yes? Once the patient actually HAS the disease, the odds of getting it are pretty much useless.
 
sixone said:
So in other words, he DID pull that number out of his ass. Those odds are CUMULATIVE for all women with the gene, and in no way reflect the likelihood of any ONE woman to develop the disease.

That is a blatant and irresponsible use of statistics. Any doctor that uses those statistics ought to be sued for malpractice.
Click to expand...

Uh no, that's not what it said. Cumulative before age 70 means that any one woman has an 87% chance of getting cancer before the age of 70.

When you say "you have a 10% chance of getting cancer", the obvious required qualifier is "over what period of time?" Is it 10% in the next year? 10% over my life? 10% by the end of the day?

This is 87% chance by age 70 per person.

Note that they found 26 breast cancers in 33 families over a 3 year period.

You have now made 3 claims in this thread that are all outright wrong.
 
sixone said:
Yes, I'm well aware that those in a position to make money off the problems of others are not always ethical or scrupulous about how they do so.

I do have a bias against such behavior. Too bad you don't. 🙁
Click to expand...

You think she needs the money? Shes probably makes $20 mill per movie...
 
silverpig said:
Uh no, that's not what it said. Cumulative before age 70 means that any one woman has an 87% chance of getting cancer before the age of 70.

When you say "you have a 10% chance of getting cancer", the obvious required qualifier is "over what period of time?" Is it 10% in the next year? 10% over my life? 10% by the end of the day?

This is 87% chance by age 70 per person.

Note that they found 26 breast cancers in 33 families over a 3 year period.

You have now made 3 claims in this thread that are all outright wrong.
Click to expand...

Then please do explain the 7 families who faced the same statistics, but not the same incidents of cancer. The difference was their individual risk, which is not addressed in the study.
 
sixone said:
Then please do explain the 7 families who faced the same statistics, but not the same incidents of cancer. The difference was their individual risk, which is not addressed in the study.
Click to expand...

Because the risk wasn't 100%... ?

If you flip a coin twice and get heads twice in a row, and I flip a coin twice and get heads and then tails, I can say that the chance of getting tails on any flip is 50% and be correct.

You then come in and say I pulled that number out of my ass because I got a tails and you didn't, and that your chance of getting tails on a flip of a coin is 0.

You then pick up a coin and flip it again. Are you guaranteed to get heads?

You do realize that an 87% chance of something happening comes with a 13% chance of it not happening right?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top