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.

(SFGate)   Angelina Jolie's aunt dies of breast cancer, proving once again that the disease was just a lop, skip and jump away   (sfgate.com) divider line 56
    More: Sad, Angelina Jolie, Martin Dies, aunts, aunt dies, diseases, skips  
•       •       •

1337 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 27 May 2013 at 8:49 AM (46 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-05-27 08:50:40 AM
Well....whoa.....
 
2013-05-27 08:51:48 AM
Ugh...Seriously, hope she removes her ovaries next. She runs the risk of cancer there too...

/fark cancer
 
2013-05-27 08:54:44 AM
I wish Ms Jolie and her family health and happiness.
 
2013-05-27 08:56:42 AM
As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses
 
2013-05-27 09:11:14 AM

AverageAmericanGuy: I wish Ms Jolie and her family health and happiness.


You are a little late...you should have made that wish last week you prick.
 
2013-05-27 09:12:12 AM

Wolf892: AverageAmericanGuy: I wish Ms Jolie and her family health and happiness.

You are a little late...you should have made that wish last week you prick.


I like to make low-risk wishes.
 
2013-05-27 09:17:40 AM

thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses


Wow. Really? Your mom must be so proud.
 
2013-05-27 09:21:56 AM

Hebalo: thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses

Wow. Really? Your mom must be so proud.


Well, yeah, but it's directed at the other kids who aren't complete backbirths.
 
2013-05-27 09:29:37 AM
whoa. I read the headline too quickly and thought it said Angelina had died. then I reread it, and was quite reliev that it was only her aunt.

Whew!
 
2013-05-27 09:37:55 AM

Mixolydian Master: whoa. I read the headline too quickly and thought it said Angelina had died. then I reread it, and was quite reliev that it was only her aunt.

Whew!


Wow....

Just... EABOD
 
2013-05-27 09:38:58 AM

Hebalo: Your mom must be so proud.


This isn't the appropriate thread for a Yo Mamma joke.
 
2013-05-27 10:14:12 AM
No subby. No.
You lose.
 
2013-05-27 11:20:29 AM
The butthurt in here is fantastic
 
2013-05-27 11:24:55 AM
As someone who lost a sister to breast cancer (before the age of 30), my deepest sympathies to the family.

I fail to see why this is national news, though. Are we as a society so depraved that we have to mourn vicariously through a celebrity? Don't we all have enough cancer stories in our own lives?

///ugh
 
2013-05-27 12:15:04 PM

raptusregaliter: As someone who lost a sister to breast cancer (before the age of 30), my deepest sympathies to the family.

I fail to see why this is national news, though. Are we as a society so depraved that we have to mourn vicariously through a celebrity? Don't we all have enough cancer stories in our own lives?

///ugh


Agree in principle, but in this case its a relevant follow up.  Plus their were a lot of tards in the wake of her op-ed saying she mutilated herself for no reason, etc etc.  I think its safe to say she had a good reason.

/My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.
 
2013-05-27 12:17:44 PM
"Proving once again" trifecta in play
 
2013-05-27 01:09:03 PM
Ron Martin said after getting breast cancer, Debbie Martin had her ovaries removed preventively because she was also at very high genetic risk for ovarian cancer, which has killed several women in her family.


God may not play favorites, but it sure looks like certain families are on his s-list.
 
2013-05-27 01:22:34 PM

fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.


Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.
 
2013-05-27 01:30:07 PM

thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses


I'm watching for the old ones on ebay.
 
2013-05-27 01:44:19 PM
Maybe her aunt can be reconstructed.
 
2013-05-27 01:52:20 PM
Who is this nobody?  Don't you know that the world only cares about famous people?

10,000 brown people dead from starvation = Madonna saggier underarms.
 
2013-05-27 02:17:16 PM

AcneVulgaris: thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses

I'm watching for the old ones on ebay.


Too late.  I took the "buy them now" option.
 
2013-05-27 02:18:33 PM

Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.

Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.


"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs

This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.
 
2013-05-27 02:32:50 PM

AverageAmericanGuy: Wolf892: AverageAmericanGuy: I wish Ms Jolie and her family health and happiness.

You are a little late...you should have made that wish last week you prick.

I like to make low-risk wishes.


Startiiiiiing NOW
 
2013-05-27 02:35:06 PM

God--: Ugh...Seriously, hope she removes her ovaries next. She runs the risk of cancer there too...

/fark cancer


I agree. I know a woman, same gene, same problem with women in her family dying of either breast or ovarian cancer, who opted to do what Ms. Jolie did, and also included a hysterectomy. I'm wondering why she didn't, unless she decided to get a hysterectomy at a little later date.
 
2013-05-27 04:16:01 PM

unfarkingbelievable: God--: Ugh...Seriously, hope she removes her ovaries next. She runs the risk of cancer there too...

/fark cancer

I agree. I know a woman, same gene, same problem with women in her family dying of either breast or ovarian cancer, who opted to do what Ms. Jolie did, and also included a hysterectomy. I'm wondering why she didn't, unless she decided to get a hysterectomy at a little later date.


I think she mentioned she decided to go with the mastectomy first and is doing the hysterectomy at a later date. I imagine two highly invasive surgeries need to be done at separate times, too overwhelming to the body.
 
2013-05-27 04:22:38 PM

thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses


This might be the stupidest, most immature comment I've ever read on Fark, and that's really saying something.
 
2013-05-27 04:44:45 PM

MadAzza: thisiszombocom: As a public service, ill help you test out your new brestesses

This might be the stupidest, most immature comment I've ever read on Fark, and that's really saying something.


Welcome to Fark.
 
2013-05-27 04:52:10 PM
Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.
 
2013-05-27 05:08:40 PM

Rubber Biscuit: Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.


This.

When I first heard about her decision I recall thinking she was being really rather paranoid. Frequent mammograms would be significantly less invasive.

Now i've softened my opinion somewhat.


/also, fark cancer.
 
2013-05-27 05:41:48 PM

ravenlore: Rubber Biscuit: Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.

This.

When I first heard about her decision I recall thinking she was being really rather paranoid. Frequent mammograms would be significantly less invasive.

Now i've softened my opinion somewhat.


/also, fark cancer.


Less invasive from a man's point of view.  Ask a woman if she'd rather have a mammogram every three to six months and you might get a different answer.

Her odds of getting it are very high.  She finds it early, then what?  Same surgery, but now there's drugs, possible chemo, and the mental anguish of waiting for it to come back or spread.  She's fortunate to have access to the best oncologists and plastic surgeons on the planet.  She made the right choice, for her.
 
2013-05-27 05:43:11 PM

foo monkey: ravenlore: Rubber Biscuit: Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.

This.

When I first heard about her decision I recall thinking she was being really rather paranoid. Frequent mammograms would be significantly less invasive.

Now i've softened my opinion somewhat.


/also, fark cancer.

Less invasive from a man's point of view.  Ask a woman if she'd rather have a mammogram every three to six months and you might get a different answer.

Her odds of getting it are very high.  She finds it early, then what?  Same surgery, but now there's drugs, possible chemo, and the mental anguish of waiting for it to come back or spread.  She's fortunate to have access to the best oncologists and plastic surgeons on the planet.  She made the right choice, for her.


Nevermind the invasive comment.  I see you're a woman.  My wife complains for days after she gets a mammogram.  Me, I pay extra for that.
 
2013-05-27 06:00:34 PM

foo monkey: foo monkey: ravenlore: Rubber Biscuit: Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.

This.

When I first heard about her decision I recall thinking she was being really rather paranoid. Frequent mammograms would be significantly less invasive.

Now i've softened my opinion somewhat.


/also, fark cancer.

Less invasive from a man's point of view.  Ask a woman if she'd rather have a mammogram every three to six months and you might get a different answer.

Her odds of getting it are very high.  She finds it early, then what?  Same surgery, but now there's drugs, possible chemo, and the mental anguish of waiting for it to come back or spread.  She's fortunate to have access to the best oncologists and plastic surgeons on the planet.  She made the right choice, for her.

Nevermind the invasive comment.  I see you're a woman.  My wife complains for days after she gets a mammogram.  Me, I pay extra for that.


You make a good point. (i haven't quite hit mammogram age yet, so i keep forgetting it's apparently a very unpleasant experience) And the argument for ounce of prevention is a good one as well. I suppose if I were told by an expert that my odds of developing cancer were significant enough to justify preventative mastectomy i would follow medical advice.

I also admit that my perception of celebrities in general may color my opinion of Ms. Jolie's decision. It seems i more frequently see examples of celebrities using healthcare that is frivolous or VERY outside accepted science.
 
2013-05-27 06:31:13 PM
<p><b><a target="_blank" href="http://www.fark.com/comments/7767881/84458235#c84458235">feart hebunnyman</a>:</b> <i>Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.<br /><br />Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.<br /><br />"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "<br /><br />http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs<br /><br />This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.</i><br /><br /> </p><p>You're incorrect, and I wouldn't take the ACLU as the best or most unbiased authority. Note that "essentially" language: clear weasel word.</p><p>What was patented is an isolated form of the gene, only useful in testing for whether someone has the gene. That gives them an effective monopoly on testing for it, but, for example, Angelina Jolie doesn't infringe the patent despite having the gene.</p>
 
2013-05-27 07:04:57 PM

fearthebunnyman: Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.

Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.

"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs

This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.


It essentially does. Due to the nature of sequencing DNA, you need a copy of natural DNA. In fact, many many copies of natural DNA. By patenting the copy, they have patented all methods for you to know what the composition of the BRCA1 region.
 
2013-05-27 07:14:39 PM
I would have gone with "a hop, skip and a lump," subby.
 
2013-05-27 07:16:36 PM

Kinek: fearthebunnyman: Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.

Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.

"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs

This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.

It essentially does. Due to the nature of sequencing DNA, you need a copy of natural DNA. In fact, many many copies of natural DNA. By patenting the copy, they have patented all methods for you to know what the composition of the BRCA1 region.


Think of it this way. You had a thing in your home that is yours. Indisputably yours. What Myriad did was go into your home, put your thing into a Myriad BRAND Box, and tell you that the thing /is/ still yours. But you may not touch the Myriad BRAND Box without paying them 4000 dollars. The thing is still yours though, there's just now a barrier between you and your thing.
 
2013-05-27 07:57:55 PM

raptusregaliter: As someone who lost a sister to breast cancer (before the age of 30), my deepest sympathies to the family.

I fail to see why this is national news, though. Are we as a society so depraved that we have to mourn vicariously through a celebrity? Don't we all have enough cancer stories in our own lives?

///ugh


I don't understand why the recommend mammogram age is 40. I see many cases of people younger than 40 with invasive breast cancer.
 
2013-05-27 08:13:18 PM

Kinek: Kinek: fearthebunnyman: Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.

Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.

"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs

This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.

It essentially does. Due to the nature of sequencing DNA, you need a copy of natural DNA. In fact, many many copies of natural DNA. By patenting the copy, they have patented all methods for you to know what the composition of the BRCA1 region.

Think of it this way. You had a thing in your home that is yours. Indisputably yours. What Myriad did was go into your home, put your thing into a Myriad BRAND Box, and tell you that the thing /is/ still yours. But you may not touch the Myriad BRAND Box without paying them 4000 dollars. The thing is still yours though, there's just now a barrier between you and your thing.


More like you had a book containing valuable information, but it was in a language nobody understands. With an enormous investment in money and effort, and with no guarantee of success, Myriad translated part of that book so that some of the valuable information it contains is available to you. They think they're entitled to a return on that high-risk investment. If they aren't, no other Myriads are going to step up and devote money and effort toward bringing forth any more of that information, and your book will remain forever opaque. How could that possibly benefit you?
 
2013-05-27 09:36:09 PM

4seasons85!: raptusregaliter: As someone who lost a sister to breast cancer (before the age of 30), my deepest sympathies to the family.

I fail to see why this is national news, though. Are we as a society so depraved that we have to mourn vicariously through a celebrity? Don't we all have enough cancer stories in our own lives?

///ugh

I don't understand why the recommend mammogram age is 40. I see many cases of people younger than 40 with invasive breast cancer.


40 is for women with no significant family history.

I got my first at 25, and another at 30. I'm not yet 40, but I am going for yearly mammograms. The radiologist/boob doctors have even done ultrasounds when things are unclear on mammogram. I have nasty family history and they have offered the genetic test, but I have declined.

Mom had a double mastectomy last year and had her ovaries out in the 90s. So far, everything is clear.
 
2013-05-27 10:08:30 PM

raptusregaliter: As someone who lost a sister to breast cancer (before the age of 30), my deepest sympathies to the family.

I fail to see why this is national news, though. Are we as a society so depraved that we have to mourn vicariously through a celebrity? Don't we all have enough cancer stories in our own lives?

///ugh


Normally, I'd agree with you,but this could raise raise public awareness of an important health issues.  Jolie made a public announcement regarding genetic testing, family risk and preventative surgery.   This news item adds to background information to her choice.   It's celebrity watching with a demonstrable purpose.
 
2013-05-27 10:09:53 PM

ravenlore: Rubber Biscuit: Aw, sht.  This explains the panic that drove her decision.  Fark cancer.

This.

When I first heard about her decision I recall thinking she was being really rather paranoid. Frequent mammograms would be significantly less invasive.

Now i've softened my opinion somewhat.


/also, fark cancer.


You might want to research the term *IN*vasive.
 
2013-05-27 11:26:13 PM

Theaetetus: Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.


How about this as a response? Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, responded when asked why didn't he patent his medicine. "Would you patent the sun?" He saw it as a gift to humanity and that there was no reason to make money off of misery and better to stamp out a disease, which is more than 99% wiped out these days now.

So imagine if any woman can stroll into a mobile/free clinic and get the same test that Angelina Jolie took for a reasonable price or next to nothing or even free despite not having health insurance.
 
2013-05-27 11:54:14 PM
On New Year's Eve of this year, one of my brothers died of lung cancer. He used to smoke, so, while it was very sad, it didn't seem to come out of the blue. Then last week, I got a call from my little sister. They found a mass on her lung, and she is having surgery this Thursday. She never smoked anything in her life, not even pot. Now I just want to hit something really hard, but I don't know what. All I know is that I hate cancer.

/not a cool story, but it's on my mind
 
2013-05-28 12:44:29 AM

jjorsett: Kinek: Kinek: fearthebunnyman: Theaetetus: fearthebunnyman: /My takeaway from all of this is apparently genes can be patented.  wtf.

Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.

"Because the PTO grants patents on the genes themselves, it essentially gives patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. "

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/brca-faqs

This one of those times I would be happy to be incorrect, however.

It essentially does. Due to the nature of sequencing DNA, you need a copy of natural DNA. In fact, many many copies of natural DNA. By patenting the copy, they have patented all methods for you to know what the composition of the BRCA1 region.

Think of it this way. You had a thing in your home that is yours. Indisputably yours. What Myriad did was go into your home, put your thing into a Myriad BRAND Box, and tell you that the thing /is/ still yours. But you may not touch the Myriad BRAND Box without paying them 4000 dollars. The thing is still yours though, there's just now a barrier between you and your thing.

More like you had a book containing valuable information, but it was in a language nobody understands. With an enormous investment in money and effort, and with no guarantee of success, Myriad translated part of that book so that some of the valuable information it contains is available to you. They think they're entitled to a return on that high-risk investment. If they aren't, no other Myriads are going to step up and devote money and effort toward bringing forth any more of that information, and your book will remain forever opaque. How could that possibly benefit you?


A) You're forgetting the groundwork set by the Human Genome Project. A publically funded project. The book was translated already by you and me.

B) That's a nice story, but here's how it actually happened.

Breast cancer is a super important disease. Like, you wouldn't believe the money that gets poured into Breast cancer. So a group was set up to take a bunch of Women who had breast cancer  and who didn't and do an association mapping study in order to find genetic loci. This was all set up using government funds and some private research funds as well. Shortly before they wrapped up the study, some professors pulled out abruptly, patented the BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene (effectually), and then spun out Myriad from the University of Utah.

So the thing is, this would've gone into the Public domain, were it not for the people who pulled out and started up the company. It was inevitable. It would have happened, and it sure as hell would've been more publically useful without Myriad mucking in the market.

And don't give me any sweat of the brow crap. I don't care how much money Myriad blew through.
 
2013-05-28 12:45:31 AM
Read a headline earlier this week espousing how Angelina was remarkably brave for opting for the surgery.  I realize that entertainment journalists' careers depend on their ability to convince readers that celebrities' shiat doesn't stink but wtf?

Angelina has my sympathy but look...She and Brad could afford to have the test performed and then to have the mastectomies and reconstruction performed by the best doctors in the world.  The only bravery here involved the risk that a botched boobjob might pose to her career.

Contrast this with a woman who knows she's at similar risk but whose insurance company won't pay for the test (or, worse, pays for the test but refuses to pay for the mastectomies and reconstruction) and thus the woman goes about her daily life.  Which woman is braver?
 
2013-05-28 12:49:02 AM

KatjaMouse: Theaetetus: Genes can't be patented. Tests for genes can be patented. And if Myriad hadn't discovered the BRCA1 gene, then this test might not exist.

How about this as a response? Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, responded when asked why didn't he patent his medicine. "Would you patent the sun?" He saw it as a gift to humanity and that there was no reason to make money off of misery and better to stamp out a disease, which is more than 99% wiped out these days now.

So imagine if any woman can stroll into a mobile/free clinic and get the same test that Angelina Jolie took for a reasonable price or next to nothing or even free despite not having health insurance.


That and Myriad didn't discover Shiat. They hoisted it off another project and peddled it as their own. And if they hadn't locked it down with patents, it would have been disclosed in less than a year, allowing people to get the test at cost plus service. Maybe $150-300.
 
2013-05-28 12:58:27 AM

DeaH: On New Year's Eve of this year, one of my brothers died of lung cancer. He used to smoke, so, while it was very sad, it didn't seem to come out of the blue. Then last week, I got a call from my little sister. They found a mass on her lung, and she is having surgery this Thursday. She never smoked anything in her life, not even pot. Now I just want to hit something really hard, but I don't know what. All I know is that I hate cancer.

/not a cool story, but it's on my mind


I'm sorry DeaH. My mom died of lung cancer. Doctor said that her smoking didn't help but it wasn't the only factor. It's just a gene that gets turned on, and with no rhyme or reason. I feel your pain.

Frak Cancer.
 
2013-05-28 02:13:57 AM

arcas: Read a headline earlier this week espousing how Angelina was remarkably brave for opting for the surgery.  I realize that entertainment journalists' careers depend on their ability to convince readers that celebrities' shiat doesn't stink but wtf?

Angelina has my sympathy but look...She and Brad could afford to have the test performed and then to have the mastectomies and reconstruction performed by the best doctors in the world.  The only bravery here involved the risk that a botched boobjob might pose to her career.

Contrast this with a woman who knows she's at similar risk but whose insurance company won't pay for the test (or, worse, pays for the test but refuses to pay for the mastectomies and reconstruction) and thus the woman goes about her daily life.  Which woman is braver?



Actually, that's a strawman. I know a woman who decided to have the pre-emptive surgery done and suprise surprise, they found cancer anyway. Insurance covered everything.

The thing that she finds more amazing than all that is the sheer volume of unwanted opinions people are giving her about her health care decision and the fact that she sees snark and death threats directed at Jolie on the internet.
 
2013-05-28 03:17:38 AM

Contents Under Pressure: The thing that she finds more amazing than all that is the sheer volume of unwanted opinions people are giving ... on the internet.


That people find such things amazing, still, in today's age of technology and general douchebaggery, is amazing.
/or not
//sheltered people tend to be ignorant
///and crazy or aloof

As happened up a ways in this thread, people will make light and troll any topic.  People surprised by that, like hebalo and blasko above, need a Welcome to Fark!(and the internet in general)

Which is  more disturbing, someone who can make a (possibly poor)joke(to include subby who gets off free on this one...wtf?), or some sanctimonious dickwad who's got to attempt to force a behavioral standard on complete strangers as if he's some second coming of jesus?

The preachy / offended types are always the more disturbing than the guy trying to get a laugh on the internet.  Trying to get a laugh at a funeral, yeah, the opposite is true.

Along that line, here is another newsflash for those types.  This is fark.  Not an actual open letter delivered to that person.  We are talking about them, not to them.  The distinction matters, because it is the difference between attempting to be humorous or light hearted vs purposefully hurtful.  It would make you look slightly less retarded if you didn't act as if other posters were being directly and purposefully insulting to the subject's face.

Seriously, farkers would first have to leave their basements, and if they ever did get within vocal range of some celeb, they'd be quaking at the knees. (if not rational respectful adults, if a bit star-struck).

The one exception, are the trainwrecks and terrible people that make headlines.  Honey BooBoo's Mother to fark's current darling, Ms. Bynes. Some people deserve anything people would/could say to them in public.
 
Displayed 50 of 56 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report