Did ya'll see her? What did you all think? I think she could bust out a little in the colors of her pant suits. I see bright colors on her but I guess she's tryin' not to be too wild. ;-) Anyhow, I think she is very clever, and sincere. 
Hillary did a grayt job with Dave last night. She was funnE, especially about her pantsuits and the top ten list she made up. Did ya'll hear? If she wins we all get a cupcake on HER birthday. Did ya'll see her? What did you all think? I think she could bust out a little in the colors of her pant suits. I see bright colors on her but I guess she's tryin' not to be too wild. ;-) Anyhow, I think she is very clever, and sincere.
Did ya'll see her? What did you all think? I think she could bust out a little in the colors of her pant suits. I see bright colors on her but I guess she's tryin' not to be too wild. ;-) Anyhow, I think she is very clever, and sincere. Replies
116
Skunky
No, I am not saying forget about it by any means. It would be nice if there was a screening test like there is for cervical cancer, but at this point, the research dollars are better spent on larger public health threats. It is a tough decision to make-are finite research dollars better spent researching pediatric cancer or on a pretty rare cancer found in (generally) older women? There is no right answer, but decisons need to be made, nonetheless
Beach FanaticAuthor
It would be nice to see more women involved in these decisions, especially if she was the president. ;-)
Beach Fanatic
I think that the people who make the decisions regarding resources are allocating the money to the places it will do the greatest good for the most people. A market economy tends to shake out that way, where as a social medicine program is often going to be influenced by agendas and political arguments.
While I agree that it is tragic when young women like Gilda Radner succumb to ovarian cancer, I recognize that majority of women who develop ovarian cancer in middle age or before are BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 positive, meaning they carry the gene that causes breast and ovarian cancer. And, fortunately, there is a test for the gene mutations that cause these types of cancer. The terrible thing about this disease, though, and the reason many women choose not to have the genetic testing, is that the treatment is so terrible -- removal of the ovaries without hormone replacement therapy resulting in premature menopause, infertility, pain during intercourse, etc. It's a lot to ask of a 30 year old woman to face such things.
Personally, I think the money allocated to ovarian cancer would be better spent finding treatments for BRCA+ women that would make it possible for them to live a normal life, rather than a screening test. I know many pathology labs are lobbying hard for those dollars, but it's just not the way to go. I'd rather see us support real laws that would protect people from having genetic testing results used to discriminate against them in the arenas of employment and insurance. I'd rather see the money spent developing residency and fellowship programs to train surgeons to do skin-sparing mastectomies and innovative reconstruction techniques such as DIEP and GAP, to study hormone replacement drugs that will preserve a woman's femininity without feeding the cancers, and on post-oophrectomy egg freezing that would preserve fertility.
When ovarian cancer strikes young women, it is usually related to BRCA. 40% of women with a mutation will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. 80% of them will develop breast cancer. The American Society of Breast Surgeons states that BRCA mutations are rare in the general population, occurring in 1 in 400-800 individuals, but high risk populations exist and include persons with:
1. early onset breast cancer (diagnosed before age 50)
2. two primary breast cancers, either bilateral or ipsilateral
3. a family history of early onset breast cancer
4. male breast cancer
5. a personal or family history of ovarian cancer (particularly non-mucinous types)
6. Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish heritage
7. a previously identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the family
If Gilda Radner had looked at this list, she would have realized that she was at high risk of ovarian cancer. Would she have chosen to have a bilateral mastectomy and oophrectomy? I doubt it...she was young and in love with her husband and wanted children. Would she have chosen a course of treatment that could lead to immediate infertility and her bowel perforating through her vaginal wall 6 months later? (Yes, that happens.) I don't think so.
While I agree that it is tragic when young women like Gilda Radner succumb to ovarian cancer, I recognize that majority of women who develop ovarian cancer in middle age or before are BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 positive, meaning they carry the gene that causes breast and ovarian cancer. And, fortunately, there is a test for the gene mutations that cause these types of cancer. The terrible thing about this disease, though, and the reason many women choose not to have the genetic testing, is that the treatment is so terrible -- removal of the ovaries without hormone replacement therapy resulting in premature menopause, infertility, pain during intercourse, etc. It's a lot to ask of a 30 year old woman to face such things.
Personally, I think the money allocated to ovarian cancer would be better spent finding treatments for BRCA+ women that would make it possible for them to live a normal life, rather than a screening test. I know many pathology labs are lobbying hard for those dollars, but it's just not the way to go. I'd rather see us support real laws that would protect people from having genetic testing results used to discriminate against them in the arenas of employment and insurance. I'd rather see the money spent developing residency and fellowship programs to train surgeons to do skin-sparing mastectomies and innovative reconstruction techniques such as DIEP and GAP, to study hormone replacement drugs that will preserve a woman's femininity without feeding the cancers, and on post-oophrectomy egg freezing that would preserve fertility.
When ovarian cancer strikes young women, it is usually related to BRCA. 40% of women with a mutation will develop ovarian cancer in their lifetime. 80% of them will develop breast cancer. The American Society of Breast Surgeons states that BRCA mutations are rare in the general population, occurring in 1 in 400-800 individuals, but high risk populations exist and include persons with:
1. early onset breast cancer (diagnosed before age 50)
2. two primary breast cancers, either bilateral or ipsilateral
3. a family history of early onset breast cancer
4. male breast cancer
5. a personal or family history of ovarian cancer (particularly non-mucinous types)
6. Ashkenazi (Eastern European) Jewish heritage
7. a previously identified BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation in the family
If Gilda Radner had looked at this list, she would have realized that she was at high risk of ovarian cancer. Would she have chosen to have a bilateral mastectomy and oophrectomy? I doubt it...she was young and in love with her husband and wanted children. Would she have chosen a course of treatment that could lead to immediate infertility and her bowel perforating through her vaginal wall 6 months later? (Yes, that happens.) I don't think so.
Edited
hmmmm......can't remember
I appreciate your research and statistics skunkape. I'm not scared of it but would rather see medicine focused in a procative rather than a reactive mode especially when hearing how so many women who died could've lived if it had not been for so many being diagnosed too late for successful treatment.Are you suggesting just forget about it or don't speak of it or just don't worry, or ...?
Hey, I think I have just successfuly hijacked my own thread.
Are you saying it should be mandantory?
Punzy, you seem like you're ridiculously smart... I don't know if I should love you or fear you! (I hope to meet you, either way!)
Edited
SoWal Expert
Another great Punzy post- informative, clear, easy to read and understand, and intelligent. Thank you my dear.;-)
Beach FanaticAuthor
All I can say is wow, did I open yet another can of worms? Sorry. You obviously both, Punz and skunk, know way more than I do about ovarian cancer research. Granted. I never claimed to be an expert in the field. It never hurts to bring some attention to an important subject now does it? It was on the Today show this mornin' as a topic on Cancer week. IMHO< it was relevant, screening for ovarian cancer. How could that possibly offend anyone? No, NoHall, I didn't say anything about anything being mandatory. Whatever, ya'll. I already knew ya'll were geenyuses. You clearly and intelligently keep proving it over and over. ;-) Maybe Gilda and lots of other women never saw this list. 
So for them and their loved ones. I still think screening would be good, worthwhile research and you haven't changed my mind. Early treatment is the best cure. 
yet again.
No, NoHall, I didn't say anything about anything being mandatory. Whatever, ya'll. I already knew ya'll were geenyuses. You clearly and intelligently keep proving it over and over. ;-) Maybe Gilda and lots of other women never saw this list. So for them and their loved ones. I still think screening would be good, worthwhile research and you haven't changed my mind. Early treatment is the best cure. yet again. Edited
SoWal Insider
Do we have a market economy for healthcare? Do we have a market economy in the defense industry? Do we have a free market in the oil industry? How about the airline industry? How do you have free markets with a small group of producers or providers that collude in pricing. The consumer has no power here to determine outcome.
SoWal Expert
All I can say is wow, did I open yet another can of worms? Sorry. You obviously both, Punz and skunk, know way more than I do about ovarian cancer research. Granted. I never claimed to be an expert in the field. It never hurts to bring some attention to an important subject now does it? It was on the Today show this mornin' as a topic on Cancer week. IMHO< it was relevant, screening for ovarian cancer. How could that possibly offend anyone?
Where do you get that there is a train wreck? I'm a little confused. I thought some good info had been posted.
Beach Fanatic
So sorry if I came across as a know it all. I always think the best thing about this forum is that we can share our own viewpoints and sometimes someone has a deeper understanding of a particular issue and we can all learn something. I never post on the mortgage or environmental threads, but I read them both and have learned a lot from Shelly, Mango, and Christian. I've learned things I wouldn't have picked up on by just reading the paper and watching the news, and I think I have better, more nuanced positions on those issues for reading SoWal.
Lately, I've started to worry that marketing combined with entertainment news will be the downfall of our democracy. Let's say I'm the CEO of Acme Pathology Labs, and I want to get some research dollars. What's the best way to do that? Have my top doctors write well-reasoned applications for research grants? Or hire a medical PR firm and a lobbyist? The medical PR firm and lobbyist will give a much higher rate of return. The PR firm will come up with some alarming statistics and create ready made story for the media, and then the media presents it as it was spoon-fed to them. Next, they link it to "women's issues" and have all the candidates pledge to support it. The candidates all do, because they all assume Americans are to stupid to understand a nuanced position. Karl Rove and his ilk have taught them that the way to win elections is the same as the way to sell a box of cereal. Sadly, it seems they are right.
We'll just agree to disagree on the screening test vs. BRCA testing and improved treatments. I guess, like Shelby, I'd rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special. I'll stay off this thread.
And now back to Hillary....She's GREEEEAAAT!!!!
Lately, I've started to worry that marketing combined with entertainment news will be the downfall of our democracy. Let's say I'm the CEO of Acme Pathology Labs, and I want to get some research dollars. What's the best way to do that? Have my top doctors write well-reasoned applications for research grants? Or hire a medical PR firm and a lobbyist? The medical PR firm and lobbyist will give a much higher rate of return. The PR firm will come up with some alarming statistics and create ready made story for the media, and then the media presents it as it was spoon-fed to them. Next, they link it to "women's issues" and have all the candidates pledge to support it. The candidates all do, because they all assume Americans are to stupid to understand a nuanced position. Karl Rove and his ilk have taught them that the way to win elections is the same as the way to sell a box of cereal. Sadly, it seems they are right.
We'll just agree to disagree on the screening test vs. BRCA testing and improved treatments. I guess, like Shelby, I'd rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special. I'll stay off this thread.
And now back to Hillary....She's GREEEEAAAT!!!!
SoWal Expert
Where do you get that there is a train wreck? I'm a little confused. I thought some good info had been posted.ditto. Candidates love to feed us garbage based on popular things in the news, or on the Today Show and Good Morning America (neither of which are great "news" sources). Having focus on minor problems rather than the larger problems affecting many more people, is a distraction and nothing more than getting a foot in the door for more money and more votes. Lung cancer from smoking, as do traffic accidents from talking on cell phones, causes many more horrible deaths than ovarian cancer, yet if the candidates distract us with "feel good" stuff, maybe we won't think about it, as long as we can get our 18pack of beer or 1.5L of wine, watch a sappy movie or watch a football game on the weekends. If Punzy's valuable and much appreciated replies on this thread don't have anything to do with poliTRICKS, I'm a cat lover. Wake up and smell the beans.
SoWal Expert
So sorry if I came across as a know it all. I always think the best thing about this forum is that we can share our own viewpoints and sometimes someone has a deeper understanding of a particular issue and we can all learn something. I never post on the mortgage or environmental threads, but I read them both and have learned a lot from Shelly, Mango, and Christian. I've learned things I wouldn't have picked up on by just reading the paper and watching the news, and I think I have better, more nuanced positions on those issues for reading SoWal.
Lately, I've started to worry that marketing combined with entertainment news will be the downfall of our democracy. Let's say I'm the CEO of Acme Pathology Labs, and I want to get some research dollars. What's the best way to do that? Have my top doctors write well-reasoned applications for research grants? Or hire a medical PR firm and a lobbyist? The medical PR firm and lobbyist will give a much higher rate of return. The PR firm will come up with some alarming statistics and create ready made story for the media, and then the media presents it as it was spoon-fed to them. Next, they link it to "women's issues" and have all the candidates pledge to support it. The candidates all do, because they all assume Americans are to stupid to understand a nuanced position. Karl Rove and his ilk have taught them that the way to win elections is the same as the way to sell a box of cereal. Sadly, it seems they are right.
We'll just agree to disagree on the screening test vs. BRCA testing and improved treatments. I guess, like Shelby, I'd rather have 30 minutes of wonderful than a lifetime of nothing special. I'll stay off this thread.
And now back to Hillary....She's GREEEEAAAT!!!!
Please don't.
And I can just hear you saying your last line out loud.
SoWal Expert
Feeding off Punzy's thoughts, are you aware that the politicians, both Republican and Democrat, have shoved 32,000 requests for pork into the spending bills this year? 6,000 have already been approved for more than $5,000,000,000 (billion), and this Fall, they will get a chance to add military construction projects. This is money for pet projects which will add more votes from their home base, guaranteeing re-election. This is how politicians work and stay in office.
According to Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, "Upon taking control of the House in January, Democratic leaders agreed with Pres. Bush that earmarks should be cut in half from the 13,492 totaling $18.9 billion in 2005."
Appropriations Chairman, David Obey (Dem) is excited about passing the
$5 Billion in pet projects. He says, "A lot of folks are unhappy about it, but over the summer, we passed every appropriations bill, and I'm proud to say we met that goal." (I guess I should also mention that David Obey received $95 Million for pet projects, which is about half as much as John Murtha (Dem), who received $186 Million for his "re-election" projects.
Are you guys waking up yet? Smell the "green$$$" beans cooking, yet?
According to Andrew Taylor of the Associated Press, "Upon taking control of the House in January, Democratic leaders agreed with Pres. Bush that earmarks should be cut in half from the 13,492 totaling $18.9 billion in 2005."
Appropriations Chairman, David Obey (Dem) is excited about passing the
$5 Billion in pet projects. He says, "A lot of folks are unhappy about it, but over the summer, we passed every appropriations bill, and I'm proud to say we met that goal." (I guess I should also mention that David Obey received $95 Million for pet projects, which is about half as much as John Murtha (Dem), who received $186 Million for his "re-election" projects.
Are you guys waking up yet? Smell the "green$$$" beans cooking, yet?
Edited
Beach Fanatic
Hey, and now Fred Thompson has "entered" the race even though everyone knew he was running. His platform is "not another Clinton in the White House." This will be funn to watch. :roll:
SoWal Expert
Hey, and now Fred Thompson has "entered" the race even though everyone knew he was running. His platform is "not another Clinton in the White House." This will be funn to watch. :roll:From what I hear, they cannot air the shows in which he appears, once he officially announces, which means neither he, nor his co-actors would be getting those nice royalty checks. I'm sure he waited until the last moment in his mind so that he could squeek out a bit more money. No surprise there. Newt is probably waiting until everyone else cuts their own, or each other's, throats. You know how well you remember the items in a list? The first two items stand out, along with the last item on the list. Maybe Newt will be that last item, and it will allow him to save money that these others are spending.
SoWal Expert
I wonder how many registered voters of the GOP will shift to Dem, just to elect Hillary in the primaries.
hmmmm......can't remember
I wonder how many registered voters of the GOP will shift to Dem, just to elect Hillary in the primaries.
heh, heh...
Beach Fanatic
Please don't.
And I can just hear you saying your last line out loud.
SoWal Insider
Please don't.OMG, spewed h20 on that one...
And I can just hear you saying your last line out loud.
I wonder how many registered voters of the GOP will shift to Dem, just to elect Hillary in the primaries.not me....
Beach Comber
wow,...i cant believe i've even read any of this,.....this is a joke right?
Beach FanaticAuthor
Ya'll, just a couple more things here on this thread before I let it go alfriggin' ready
A) I respect all ya'lls' viewpoints even though we may not agree on everything. Skunky and punz you do know a lot of good stuff and I do appreciate your being so kind to share both of your brilliances. I'm speaking from
.
B) Just cuz I'm no an expert in the field of medical research that doesn't make my measly opinion any less valuable on sowal. It's not like I was hurtin' anybody. I often try to participate in topics I don't know much about in order to learn. Pardon my ignorance sometimes puhleez. I'm only a human bean. 
I read over the BRCA post a lotta times trying to fully understand .:scratch: When I did, one thing stood out, well two, choices and compassion, no, 4, also dignity and respect for individuality. I thought about how these choices not only affect patient care, esp. of dying pts, but also life as a whole, even posting on this board. Making assumptions as to what Gilda would've done just made me , but the point is they belonged to her and her alone, and we should respect that. Also, I learn easier thru like everyone else, I think.
C) Last but not least. This is the main reason I did come back on this thread. I never saw Hillary speak about this topic. She didn't link herself to it in any way that I am aware of! So please let's not accuse her of doing that. She wasn't even on Today. I didn't say they were a reliable news source either. I have no idea. Who is, btw? It was f627in' Cancer Awareness week. I did it myself on this dang thread that was spozed to be about Hillary bein' funny on Dave. That's what kinda made it a biga$$ !!! That's all. It went and got unfunny when I brought up ovarian cancer research. Guilty, I tagged it on myself. Yes, there was a lot of very good info posted. Shoooey, my brain is achin', as well as my fingers now. I must go do manual labor to take a break now. Just remember, I you all like brothas and sistas, whether you like it or not. 
Thank you Jesus for lettin' me enjoy this day...yet again. 
here on this thread before I let it go alfriggin' ready A) I respect all ya'lls' viewpoints even though we may not agree on everything. Skunky and punz you do know a lot of good stuff and I do appreciate your being so kind to share both of your brilliances. I'm speaking from
. B) Just cuz I'm no an expert in the field of medical research that doesn't make my measly opinion any less valuable on sowal. It's not like I was hurtin' anybody. I often try to participate in topics I don't know much about in order to learn. Pardon my ignorance sometimes puhleez.
I'm only a human bean. I read over the BRCA post a lotta times trying to fully understand .:scratch: When I did, one thing stood out, well two, choices and compassion, no, 4, also dignity and respect for individuality. I thought about how these choices not only affect patient care, esp. of dying pts, but also life as a whole, even posting on this board. Making assumptions as to what Gilda would've done just made me , but the point is they belonged to her and her alone, and we should respect that. Also, I learn easier thru like everyone else, I think. C) Last but not least. This is the main reason I did come back on this thread. I never saw Hillary speak about this topic. She didn't link herself to it in any way that I am aware of! So please let's not accuse her of doing that. She wasn't even on Today. I didn't say they were a reliable news source either. I have no idea. Who is, btw? It was f627in' Cancer Awareness week. I did it myself on this dang thread that was spozed to be about Hillary bein' funny
on Dave. That's what kinda made it a biga$$ !!! That's all. It went and got unfunny when I brought up ovarian cancer research. Guilty, I tagged it on myself. Yes, there was a lot of very good info posted. Shoooey, my brain is achin', as well as my fingers now. I must go do manual labor to take a break now. Just remember, I you all like brothas and sistas, whether you like it or not. Thank you Jesus for lettin' me enjoy this day...yet again. Edited
hmmmm......can't remember
Ya'll, just a couple more things
Talk all you want, Gull! I may not like Hillary and you may not like Condi, but I like you better than both of 'em AND I always like hearing what you have to say!Edited
Beach FanaticAuthor
Right back at ya sista! The funny thing is we probably all know each other better too, even though we've never met. Ain't sowal grande? I like hearin' what you have to say too, NoHall, thanks lady.
Ain't sowal grande? I like hearin' what you have to say too, NoHall, thanks lady. Beach Fanatic
Did anyone else here that she just hired Sandy Berger to come work on her campaign. The same Sandy Berger that was convicted of stealing secret information regarding an investigation of Bill Clinton's handling of national security (read terrorism) issues by stuffing them into his pants at the National Archives, walking out with them and leaving them at a construction site. Then coming back to get them later and shredding them. These were items that had no copies so they are lost forever. The result was a 50K fine, 2 years probation, and the loss of his security clearance for 3 years. Not bad considering he used to be the National Security Administration DIRECTOR and that's all he got.
In case anyone is wondering, his probation is up, he's paid his fine, and is security clearance will be back up September 2008 just in time to join Clinton 2's new cabinet if she's elected. As SJ would say, this is REAL politricks in action- always take care of your friends, especially if they steal National Security documents to protect you.
I purposely didn't use smileys because the facts are bad enough.
In case anyone is wondering, his probation is up, he's paid his fine, and is security clearance will be back up September 2008 just in time to join Clinton 2's new cabinet if she's elected. As SJ would say, this is REAL politricks in action- always take care of your friends, especially if they steal National Security documents to protect you.
I purposely didn't use smileys because the facts are bad enough.
SoWal Insider
Did anyone else here that she just hired Sandy Berger to come work on her campaign. The same Sandy Berger that was convicted of stealing secret information regarding an investigation of Bill Clinton's handling of national security (read terrorism) issues by stuffing them into his pants at the National Archives, walking out with them and leaving them at a construction site. Then coming back to get them later and shredding them. These were items that had no copies so they are lost forever. The result was a 50K fine, 2 years probation, and the loss of his security clearance for 3 years. Not bad considering he used to be the National Security Administration DIRECTOR and that's all he got.Sandy Berger is human waste at the Federal level.
In case anyone is wondering, his probation is up, he's paid his fine, and is security clearance will be back up September 2008 just in time to join Clinton 2's new cabinet if she's elected. As SJ would say, this is REAL politricks in action- always take care of your friends, especially if they steal National Security documents to protect you.
I purposely didn't use smileys because the facts are bad enough.
Skunky
Sandy Berger is human waste at the Federal level.
Recycled
Checking your forum account
Please wait while we verify your forum account.