If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(D Program)   Was Angelina Jolie duped into a high profit procedure? Click here... to continue wondering   (dprogram.net) divider line 72
    More: Interesting, Angelina Jolie, procedures, alternative medicines, resveratrol  
•       •       •

2460 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2013 at 9:16 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



72 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-16 08:11:10 AM
Stay classy, you farking vultures.
 
2013-05-16 08:42:53 AM
Of all the things that stars with a lot of money get tricked into doing this isn't the worst.

/Scientology is.
 
2013-05-16 09:22:42 AM
Wow. What a scientific article.
 
2013-05-16 09:27:58 AM
Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.
 
2013-05-16 09:34:12 AM
If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.
 
2013-05-16 09:34:24 AM
How about I don't click and continue to not give a shiat.
 
2013-05-16 09:35:32 AM

Crewmannumber6: Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.


She had something like a 90% risk of a couple different types of cancer, odds which a double mastectomy reduced to single digits, I believe. It's also not an uncommon occurance. We're only hearing about hers because, not to be too obvious, but she's a celebrity.
 
2013-05-16 09:39:26 AM

Crewmannumber6: Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.


I don't know.  She'd found lumps previously.  She was in a high risk group.  And, her mother died very young from breast cancer.

I think you get to a point where you can easily see it as inevitable, and without knowing how fast a cancer can and will spread once it does show up, and having previous experience watching what her mother went through, I can't blame her for wanting to be as proactive about it as she could.
 
2013-05-16 09:44:28 AM
Someone should make a Youtube tribute video that slowly Ken Burns' over photos of Angelina's boobs while the song, "I will remember you (will you remember me)" plays.
 
2013-05-16 09:48:14 AM
That article is misleading as well.  You don't manage cancer.  Your body does its thing.  A healthy diet reduces the risk but until you can control your environment it is one piece of the puzzle.  I don't understand this "suppress" the BRCA1 gene.  The gene doesn't make a cell cancerous, it is a malformed tumor suppressor.  That means, very general here, that if a carcinogen starts causing mutation in the DNA of a cell, it swoops in and either fixes the DNA that was mutated or it programs that cell for death and prevents the possibility of run away replication, which is the start of cancer.  I don't like double mastectomies or that article.
 
2013-05-16 09:56:42 AM
"In the world of health, nutrition and cancer, there are thousands of ways to prevent cancer and suppress the expression of BRCA1 genes. But Jolie and the cancer industry seem to imply no options exist other than chemotherapy, radiotherapy or surgery. Three options only. Nothing else exists in their world, not nutritional prevention, not vitamin D therapy, not vitamin C potentiated micro-chemotherapy, not ozone therapy, sauna treatments, acupuncture, Chinese herbal medicine, stress reduction or anything else. You are supposed to believe that none of these things exist!"

... I wouldn't say they don't exist, just I would like to see any conclusive evidence that any of those things help. Just saying that there is generally a lot of money in his field, so I would think if it worked someone would certainly try and patent it.  Perhaps these cures do work - so conduct a reasonable set of studies and prove it.

Not saying I understand the motivation for her actions, or any of the original story really. Sometimes I feel people have a general problem with perceiving statistics (and over what time period is it 87%?). But basically I would be hard pressed to believe this articles recommendations unless they support their claims with any substantiation.
 
2013-05-16 10:01:27 AM

hovsm: That article is misleading as well.  You don't manage cancer.  Your body does its thing.  A healthy diet reduces the risk but until you can control your environment it is one piece of the puzzle.  I don't understand this "suppress" the BRCA1 gene.  The gene doesn't make a cell cancerous, it is a malformed tumor suppressor.  That means, very general here, that if a carcinogen starts causing mutation in the DNA of a cell, it swoops in and either fixes the DNA that was mutated or it programs that cell for death and prevents the possibility of run away replication, which is the start of cancer.  I don't like double mastectomies or that article.


Yeah, I stopped reading once I realized "superfoods" wasn't being used sarcastically.
 
2013-05-16 10:11:45 AM

Crewmannumber6: Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.


Lets stop saying "mutilating yourself" it is needless hyperbole laces with implicit judgement about decisions someone makes, in partnership with medical professionals and sound science, on how best to manage their health.

Vodka Zombie: I don't know.  She'd found lumps previously.  She was in a high risk group.  And, her mother died very young from breast cancer.

I think you get to a point where you can easily see it as inevitable, and without knowing how fast a cancer can and will spread once it does show up, and having previous experience watching what her mother went through, I can't blame her for wanting to be as proactive about it as she could.


My family (on my mom's side) also carries a BRCA1 mutation that gives about the same risk. We discovered this after a cousin was diagnosed with Breast Cancer in her 30's after having her second child. She was still breast feeding at the time and they caught it fairly early but it was extremely aggressive. She was immediately placed on experimental therapies. I think she lasted about a year. Cancer is a constantly evolving disease as well, so people's progressions can be totally different as the cancer differentiates and acquires new mutations. It is actually a whole ecology of competing cancer cells within a tumor and they aren't identical to one another.

hovsm: That article is misleading as well.  You don't manage cancer.  Your body does its thing.  A healthy diet reduces the risk but until you can control your environment it is one piece of the puzzle.  I don't understand this "suppress" the BRCA1 gene.  The gene doesn't make a cell cancerous, it is a malformed tumor suppressor.  That means, very general here, that if a carcinogen starts causing mutation in the DNA of a cell, it swoops in and either fixes the DNA that was mutated or it programs that cell for death and prevents the possibility of run away replication, which is the start of cancer.  I don't like double mastectomies or that article.


What happens is that you are born with two copies of BRCA1. If, like my family or Angelina Jolie, one of those is broken by mutation, there is a possibility that over time one (or more) of your cells will lose the good copy that is functioning normally. So now you don't have functioning BRCA1 so it can;t do it's DNA damage repair which can lead to cancer formation. It isn't certain but we are pretty good at calculating your lifetime risk. Certain mutations can mean a lifetime risk of up to 90%. While constant monitoring can be effective it doesn't guarantee you will catch the cancer early (mammograms aren't terribly effective at this) and even if you do catch it early there is the risk you will develop a very aggressive cancer so catching it early doesn't do much good. I know my mom would have loved for there to be a better option of reducing her risk but there wasn't. A double masectomy and full hysterectomy reduced her risk from close to 90% to lower than that in the general population.

The Z Spot: ... I wouldn't say they don't exist, just I would like to see any conclusive evidence that any of those things help. Just saying that there is generally a lot of money in his field, so I would think if it worked someone would certainly try and patent it.  Perhaps these cures do work - so conduct a reasonable set of studies and prove it.

Not saying I understand the motivation for her actions, or any of the original story really. Sometimes I feel people have a general problem with perceiving statistics (and over what time period is it 87%?). But basically I would be hard pressed to believe this articles recommendations unless they support their claims with any substantiation.


I work on genetic diseases, including some inherited cancer syndromes, partially because my family has gone through this. I interact with a lot of cancer researchers. Those people will try anything to see how effective it might be at treatments for various cancers. These people are full of shiat. You don't want to suppress BRCA1 expression, that's the whole point. When you lose its function you are risk for malignancy. There are lots of other things that can help, and diet can influence your risk. But most of these ideas of taking herbal remedies for treating cancer that has already forms is bullshiat that just ends up killing people.
 
2013-05-16 10:23:49 AM
<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.naturalnews.com/040349_Angelina_Jolie_ breast_cancer_surgery .html">Natural News
Sorry these the same bunch of morons who say you should not vaccinate your kids and the result is that thousands of kids catch illnesses that normal people don't.    Fortunately all these new age nutjobs and their kids will be evolved out of the gene pool so we only have to wait.
 
2013-05-16 10:28:18 AM

BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.



I'd take my chances.

 Seriously.
 
2013-05-16 10:35:42 AM
We can't be sure until her tits show up on ebay.
 
2013-05-16 10:44:30 AM
Reposted from the other thread, because it's awesome:
img.fark.net
img.fark.net
 
2013-05-16 10:46:58 AM

entropic_existence: Crewmannumber6: Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.

Lets stop saying "mutilating yourself" it is needless hyperbole laces with implicit judgement about decisions someone makes, in partnership with medical professionals and sound science, on how best to manage their health.


That. From here:
Mastectomy is not "maiming" or "mutilation." It's the removal of body tissue for medical reasons. Her body is not now useless, ugly, or disfigured; it just has different parts than the ones that grew there originally. She is no less a person and no less a woman for having had her breasts removed.
 
2013-05-16 10:51:08 AM

doczoidberg: BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.


I'd take my chances.

 Seriously.


Agreed.  Especially if that 87% was the result of asking a magic 8 ball.
 
2013-05-16 10:51:31 AM

BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.


My question is this: Does she have an 87% chance of getting cancer, or an 87% greater chance of getting cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society the chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is about 1 in 8 (12.5%). (The chance of dying from breast cancer is about 1 in 36 (2.8%)).

Of those 12.5% only 10% is due to the BRCA mutation or 1.25% of women in a population (right?).

So does Angie actually have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer (~12% of the population has this mutation, so if 87% of those 12% get cancer, then that would be a much bigger risk which would be over 10 out of 12 women with the mutation) or is the risk 87% being one of the 1.25% of women who get cancer due to a BRCA mutation (which is about a 1.08% chance of getting this cancer).

Now she is talking about having her ovaries removed because she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer!
This does seem sort of crazy if she really only has a 50% greater chance of getting ovarian cancer.  A woman's risk of getting invasive ovarian cancer in her lifetime is about 1 in 72.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?
 
2013-05-16 11:02:27 AM

entropic_existence: But most of these ideas of taking herbal remedies for treating cancer that has already forms is bullshiat that just ends up killing people.


I'm currently spending a lot of time speaking with Breast Cancer surgeons for a work project.

When talking about patients that want to handle their cancer homeopathically, the surgeon talks with them along the lines of "yes, that's fine, but how about we do the surgery and radio/chemo along with the homeopathy."
 
2013-05-16 11:04:44 AM

Theaetetus: That. From here:
Mastectomy is not "maiming" or "mutilation." It's the removal of body tissue for medical reasons. Her body is not now useless, ugly, or disfigured; it just has different parts than the ones that grew there originally. She is no less a person and no less a woman for having had her breasts removed.


It bugs me particularly because my mom had this procedure (as well as the complete hysterectomy) for the exact same reasons. Yes, I can see how the idea of surgically removing part of your body prior to an actual condition arising is jarring for people but there is very good medical reasons for doing so in many cases.
 
2013-05-16 11:10:12 AM

Crewmannumber6: Maybe it was the right thing, maybe it wasn't. But mutilating yourself for a cancer you don't yet have seems a little dubious to me.




Hey we mutilate males for looks and A.I.D.S..
 
2013-05-16 11:10:28 AM
imgsrv.965thebuzz.com
LEST WE FORGET!

I think at the 2014 Oscars during the segment showing those in the industry that left us in the last 12 months they should show a shot of Ang's boobs. It would be a touching tribute.

\mmmm....touching
 
2013-05-16 11:23:49 AM
That is one of the problems with preventive medicine. If it works, you don't know it...
 
2013-05-16 11:37:23 AM
Rich people problems.

/was she at risk for face cancer too?
 
2013-05-16 11:37:50 AM

monoski: That is one of the problems with preventive medicine. If it works, you don't know it...




Sucks understanding math and stuff.
 
2013-05-16 11:39:07 AM

Theaetetus: Reposted from the other thread, because it's awesome:
[img.fark.net image 500x750]
[img.fark.net image 500x750]


I'd chance the bomb up to about 30%. If they told me I'have trouble with it in 20 years I'd still peacefully coexist with said explosive ordnance.

/biatches love bombs
 
2013-05-16 11:46:07 AM

RedT: BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.

My question is this: Does she have an 87% chance of getting cancer, or an 87% greater chance of getting cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society the chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is about 1 in 8 (12.5%). (The chance of dying from breast cancer is about 1 in 36 (2.8%)).

Of those 12.5% only 10% is due to the BRCA mutation or 1.25% of women in a population (right?).

So does Angie actually have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer (~12% of the population has this mutation, so if 87% of those 12% get cancer, then that would be a much bigger risk which would be over 10 out of 12 women with the mutation) or is the risk 87% being one of the 1.25% of women who get cancer due to a BRCA mutation (which is about a 1.08% chance of getting this cancer).

Now she is talking about having her ovaries removed because she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer!
This does seem sort of crazy if she really only has a 50% greater chance of getting ovarian cancer.  A woman's risk of getting invasive ovarian cancer in her lifetime is about 1 in 72.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?


She's apparently a carrier.  So she has a greatly increased chance of getting the cancer.  Whether it's actually 87% or up to 87% is debatable, but it's well over 50% of developing breast cancer in her lifetime.  Same with the ovaries.  Which isn't really a personal risk, it's a population risk, so of the total population of  women exactly like her, somewhere between 60 and 90% would be expected to develop those cancers if left untreated.
 
2013-05-16 11:48:36 AM
What I thought was interesting was the reconstruction procedure she described is that the common procedure or what she is privy to seemed rather complex
 
2013-05-16 11:56:04 AM

RedT: BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.

My question is this: Does she have an 87% chance of getting cancer, or an 87% greater chance of getting cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society the chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is about 1 in 8 (12.5%). (The chance of dying from breast cancer is about 1 in 36 (2.8%)).

Of those 12.5% only 10% is due to the BRCA mutation or 1.25% of women in a population (right?).

So does Angie actually have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer (~12% of the population has this mutation, so if 87% of those 12% get cancer, then that would be a much bigger risk which would be over 10 out of 12 women with the mutation) or is the risk 87% being one of the 1.25% of women who get cancer due to a BRCA mutation (which is about a 1.08% chance of getting this cancer).

Now she is talking about having her ovaries removed because she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer!
This does seem sort of crazy if she really only has a 50% greater chance of getting ovarian cancer.  A woman's risk of getting invasive ovarian cancer in her lifetime is about 1 in 72.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?



This might help.
activerain.com
 
2013-05-16 11:56:45 AM

Yes please: RedT:
Now she is talking about having her ovaries removed because she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer!
This does seem sort of crazy if she really only has a 50% greater chance of getting ovarian cancer.  A woman's risk of getting invasive ovarian cancer in her lifetime is about 1 in 72.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?

She's apparently a carrier.  So she has a greatly increased chance of getting the cancer.  Whether it's actually 87% or up to 87% is debatable, but it's well over 50% of developing breast cancer in her lifetime.  Same with the ovaries.  Which isn't really a personal risk, it's a population risk, so of the total population of  women exactly like her, somewhere between 60 and 90% would be expected to develop those cancers if left untreated.


This.  And to be clear, she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer, NOT a 50% greater chance.  Big difference. Same thing with the boobies cancer.
 
2013-05-16 11:57:20 AM
Preventative maintenance.  How does it work?

Boobs are no good if they kill the owner.  At least she has a negligible chance at cancer now.  Whether those doctor's made a ton of money off her or not, it was her choice to make and they very well could have saved a life.  If I had that kind of money, I'd do the same.  Money well spent, in my books.
 
2013-05-16 11:58:08 AM

WillofJ2: What I thought was interesting was the reconstruction procedure she described is that the common procedure or what she is privy to seemed rather complex


Female bikers.
 
2013-05-16 12:15:06 PM

RedT: BizarreMan: If you told me that there was an 87% chance of testicular cancer you can bet I would have the boys removed before they turned on me.

My question is this: Does she have an 87% chance of getting cancer, or an 87% greater chance of getting cancer?

According to the American Cancer Society the chance of a woman having invasive breast cancer some time during her life is about 1 in 8 (12.5%). (The chance of dying from breast cancer is about 1 in 36 (2.8%)).

Of those 12.5% only 10% is due to the BRCA mutation or 1.25% of women in a population (right?).

So does Angie actually have an 87% chance of getting breast cancer (~12% of the population has this mutation, so if 87% of those 12% get cancer, then that would be a much bigger risk which would be over 10 out of 12 women with the mutation) or is the risk 87% being one of the 1.25% of women who get cancer due to a BRCA mutation (which is about a 1.08% chance of getting this cancer).

Now she is talking about having her ovaries removed because she has a 50% chance of getting ovarian cancer!
This does seem sort of crazy if she really only has a 50% greater chance of getting ovarian cancer.  A woman's risk of getting invasive ovarian cancer in her lifetime is about 1 in 72.

Does anyone know the answer to this question?


You have to differentiate between sporadic cancers, hereditary cancers, and the total cancer population when assessing risk. In her case, inherited BRCA1 variants carry an 87% lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Those people make up a small proportion of total breast cancers because most are rare, and some proportion of sporadic cancers are also due to mutations in BRCA1.

The stats you were looking at were for total cancer cases in the general population, meaning a mix of sporadic and inherited cancers with sporadic cases making up the majority.
 
2013-05-16 12:17:16 PM
Her chances of developing breast cancer and dying the horrible death she watched her mother die went from 85% to 5%.

You can all suck it.
 
2013-05-16 12:25:07 PM

monoski: That is one of the problems with preventive medicine. If it works, you don't know it...


I don't see that as a problem though.
 
2013-05-16 12:27:36 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Her chances of developing breast cancer and dying the horrible death she watched her mother die went from 85% to 5%.

You can all suck it.


This. 

Any web article that advertises 9/11 truth movement books on the sidebars means that the article is about as scientifically valid as the Bible.
 
2013-05-16 12:28:09 PM
Wait, people are calling her stoopad for proactively reducing her possibility of breast cancer by removing her breasts?  They are her breasts.  If she wants them removed, so be it.  I don't see the outrage.  Now if the opposite was true that she needed implants to reduce her chances of breast cancer, and she got them, would people be having the same outrage?

/just throwing that out there
 
2013-05-16 12:35:17 PM

hovsm: I don't understand this "suppress" the BRCA1 gene.  The gene doesn't make a cell cancerous, it is a malformed tumor suppressor.


Came here to say this. Anyone with such a monumental misunderstanding of the subject would be better off spending their time with their head in an oven than writing an article about it.
 
2013-05-16 12:40:13 PM
I wouldn't call her stupid and I wouldn't call her a hero.

It's HER body. end of story in my book.

I don't get the "hero" thing though. Many/most insurance companies (can anyone name just ONE ??) would NEVER cover this procedure. I know a few women who've been through the breast cancer ordeal and believe me, they would have jumped at this had there been even the slightest chance they could AFFORD it.

AJ has enough $$$ to grant her access to options most of us will never have. So, why is she a hero again?
 
2013-05-16 12:43:18 PM

Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?


For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.
 
2013-05-16 12:52:40 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?

For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.


interesting....

those I know who've been through it feel as though she is flaunting a privledge they would never have. None of the women I know who have been through this seem to have any problem speaking out despite the fact that they have alot fewer resources then AJ.

Would she be speaking out if she had not been able to afford the replacements ????? Would she even have had the procedure done???  a "hero" ? really? I think "Hero" is more than a little bit of overhype in this case.

She dealth with it bravely but she's not a hero.
 
2013-05-16 01:01:28 PM

Strik3r: The My Little Pony Killer: Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?

For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.

interesting....

those I know who've been through it feel as though she is flaunting a privledge they would never have. None of the women I know who have been through this seem to have any problem speaking out despite the fact that they have alot fewer resources then AJ.

Would she be speaking out if she had not been able to afford the replacements ????? Would she even have had the procedure done???  a "hero" ? really? I think "Hero" is more than a little bit of overhype in this case.

She dealth with it bravely but she's not a hero.


Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.  All providers, including Medicare and Medicaid will cover prophylactic mastectectomy and oophorectomy for BRCA mutation carriers, as well as reconstructive surgery afterwards.   Fear of passing this gene onto her children may also explain why she's gone the Benetton adoption route.
 
2013-05-16 01:02:33 PM
Sorry, insurers, not providers.
 
2013-05-16 01:10:50 PM

Yes please: Strik3r: The My Little Pony Killer: Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?

For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.

interesting....

those I know who've been through it feel as though she is flaunting a privledge they would never have. None of the women I know who have been through this seem to have any problem speaking out despite the fact that they have alot fewer resources then AJ.

Would she be speaking out if she had not been able to afford the replacements ????? Would she even have had the procedure done???  a "hero" ? really? I think "Hero" is more than a little bit of overhype in this case.

She dealth with it bravely but she's not a hero.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about.  All providers, including Medicare and Medicaid will cover prophylactic mastectectomy and oophorectomy for BRCA mutation carriers, as well as reconstructive surgery afterwards.   Fear of passing this gene onto her children may also explain why she's gone the Benetton adoption route.


...and you are an authority on insurance coverage ?  got any citations ?
 
2013-05-16 01:13:57 PM
imgs.xkcd.com

// Never tell me the odds
 
2013-05-16 01:20:38 PM

Strik3r: The My Little Pony Killer: Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?

For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.

interesting....

those I know who've been through it feel as though she is flaunting a privledge they would never have. None of the women I know who have been through this seem to have any problem speaking out despite the fact that they have alot fewer resources then AJ.

Would she be speaking out if she had not been able to afford the replacements ????? Would she even have had the procedure done???  a "hero" ? really? I think "Hero" is more than a little bit of overhype in this case.

She dealth with it bravely but she's not a hero.


I'm so skeptical about Angelina Jolie.  I've read articles where she's a master manipulator of publicity, i.e., alledgedly when she was nailing the married Brad Pitt, she'd send out the signal to papparazzi to 'catch' her and Maddox in a park, so they'd write up some motherhood story about her instead of a homewrecker story.  She tries to project this whole motherhood thing, but she's got six nannies.  She just always seems 'on' to me.

I'm just getting this vibe of "how can I get new boobs and a bonus Time cover?"
 
2013-05-16 01:22:15 PM

Theaetetus: Reposted from the other thread, because it's awesome:
[img.fark.net image 500x750]
[img.fark.net image 500x750]


That is awesome. I haven't laughed that hard in ages.
 
2013-05-16 01:48:02 PM

The My Little Pony Killer: Strik3r: So, why is she a hero again?

For speaking about it in a candid way and reaching out to women who may actually be facing a cancer crisis or who have had family members in the same boat. To have such a high-profile celebrity, especially one known for her looks and breasts, come out about something like that is empowering to people who otherwise would have been too scared to deal with it or unable to get the ball rolling for whatever other reason.

She also very clearly acknowledges that not every woman would be able to afford the procedures or even get the same level of care as she.

Sometimes people facing a crisis just want to hear somebody else say "I understand, I've been there" instead of treating them with pity.


Even here in Canada (where by the way both the surgical removal AND the reconstructive surgery are covered) this has generated a lot of good news coverage not just of the issue of inherited breast cancer risks but of genetic disease in general. I work in that area and our genetic counselors have been getting lots of press requests. Which is a good thing.
 
Displayed 50 of 72 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report