• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Wowed by a woo-woo

Suezoled

Illuminator
S
Joined
Sep 20, 2003
Messages
4,477
Girl at the gym (very loud girl, very big, very in-your-face) declaring at age 27 she had premature menopause. I mentioned "so you have premature ovarian failure." No, it was menopause she said. She also said "they" (her doctor?) found a cyst in her...boob. Girl says "I only take natural products like soy supplements. If I had been taking all those chemicals (read: hormone replacement therapy), that cyst would have been worse!" I mention a cyst is not cancer. Somehow, she doesn't hear that. She just said, "yeah, like I said. It was benign this time, but if I had taken those drugs it would have been malignant cancer this time." She goes on to say that hormone replacement therapy is a waste and it's dangerous.

Okay, well, she was very secure in her knowledge, anyway. :p
 
A high-soy diet can cause hormonal issues, apparently. I'll see if I can dig up a linky.

did
 
I may have heard different statistics later, so I'm not sure, but the first lot I heard last week said in effect that if you didn't take HRT between ages 50 and 70 you had a 95.5% chance of not getting breast cancer. If you did take HRT, you only had a 95% chance of not getting breast cancer.

Not that this has anything at all to do with a 27 year old, or that there's any evidence that HRT will cause benign cysts to undergo neoplastic transformation, but why let that spoil a good story?

Rolfe.
 
Somewhere I read that the best cure for premature menopause -- defined as that experienced by those in the 27 years of age range -- is a lobotomy. Tell her it can be applied naturally and holistically (without chemicals) by using a 2x4 and applying it daily with several sharp raps to the forehead.

I suggest you share that info at the gym.
 
Suezoled said:
Rolfe: marry me. :D
Click to expand...
Would that be entirely legal in your state? :D

Edited to add: I meant New York, but you can take it any way you like....

Rolfe.
 
Suezoled said:
Girl at the gym (very loud girl, very big, very in-your-face) declaring at age 27 she had premature menopause. I mentioned "so you have premature ovarian failure." No, it was menopause she said. She also said "they" (her doctor?) found a cyst in her...boob. Girl says "I only take natural products like soy supplements. If I had been taking all those chemicals (read: hormone replacement therapy), that cyst would have been worse!" I mention a cyst is not cancer. Somehow, she doesn't hear that. She just said, "yeah, like I said. It was benign this time, but if I had taken those drugs it would have been malignant cancer this time." She goes on to say that hormone replacement therapy is a waste and it's dangerous.

Okay, well, she was very secure in her knowledge, anyway. :p
Click to expand...
Reminds me of a woo woo I once saw on Oprah. Why was I watching Oprah? I can't recall, but I imagine someone was holding a gun to my head. Anyway... some woo woo lady was gushing about how the UberWooWoo guest that Oprah had on that day, Carolyn Myss, had "cured" her of breast cancer. Carolyn Myss is "psychic healer" who gives diagnoses like, "I sense a problem in your liver. We filter negative emotions through our livers.", and such crap. The lady was recounting the story of how she had gone to a (real) doctor, and had undergone a lumpectomy to remove a tumor in her breast, and then she went to Carolyn Myss for follow-up care, and Carolyn had, "Performed a miracle", and, "Saved my life". She never bothered to mention the name of the doctor who had performed the surgery, and she glossed over that whole part in about five seconds, but she could not say enough about Carolyn Myss. She went on and on singing her praises for a good five minutes.

Barf!

http://www.myss.com/

:nope:
 
Oh my gawd! She was practically yelling at me, her belief was so strong. Her cyst WAS cancer. Her menopause couldn't POSSIBLY be Premature Ovarian Failure. SOY products were GREAT. Her DOCTOR didn't BELIEVE in HORMONES because they gave you CANCER. (and then I'm left to wonder what kind of "doctor" she has...?)
 
headscratcher4 said:
Somewhere I read that the best cure for premature menopause -- defined as that experienced by those in the 27 years of age range -- is a lobotomy. Tell her it can be applied naturally and holistically (without chemicals) by using a 2x4 and applying it daily with several sharp raps to the forehead.

I suggest you share that info at the gym.
Click to expand...
:dl: :D

(I remember now why you're always getting these Language award nominations...)
 
Q for medical people: Why would a healthy 27 year old woman possibly be given HRT anyway? And surely not for a cyst or cancer, more likely following removal of the ovaries for some reason, or something like that?
 
headscratcher4 said:
Tell her it can be applied naturally and holistically (without chemicals) by using a 2x4 and applying it daily with several sharp raps to the forehead.
Click to expand...
I dunno about that. Much commercial lumber is treated with chemicals. An organically-grown tree branch may be your best bet for fully chemical-free holisticness(or would that be holisticity?).
 
100% pure wood chop-stick strait into the skull via the tear-duct.

Wiggle once, wiggle twice, three times is nice.

Apply drool cup and comfy chair.
 
Rolfe said:
I may have heard different statistics later, so I'm not sure, but the first lot I heard last week said in effect that if you didn't take HRT between ages 50 and 70 you had a 95.5% chance of not getting breast cancer. If you did take HRT, you only had a 95% chance of not getting breast cancer.

Not that this has anything at all to do with a 27 year old, or that there's any evidence that HRT will cause benign cysts to undergo neoplastic transformation, but why let that spoil a good story?

Rolfe.
Click to expand...

This is a common misinterpretation of the data, and causes most of the fear.

In truth, HRT can't cause cancer. There is no evidence that it interferes with genetic repair functions, and additional hormones can't damage DNA in itself. There have been no metabolic byproducts formed by changes in hormone levels that do the job either. So increasing oestrogen levels play no role in increasing the risk of breast cancer.

What it can do is increase the rate of growth of a cancer, as it influences the development of breast tissue, which is what the statistics really show.

BTW, I love the general attitude of these idiots. I could apply this same mentality -

If I hadn't been eating dirt for the past five years, I might have developed a brain tumour. Good thing I've been eating dirt...

Athon
 
Zep said:
Q for medical people: Why would a healthy 27 year old woman possibly be given HRT anyway? And surely not for a cyst or cancer, more likely following removal of the ovaries for some reason, or something like that?
Click to expand...
She said she had had a premature menopause, which in spite of her denials is synonymous with premature ovarian failure. It's normal for the human female to cycle until around the age of 50. Stopping a lot earlier can have health effects such as increasing the risk of osteoporosis. Such women would usually be offered HRT for this reason.

As I understand it, the thing that matters is more how long you go on cycling for, not whether the cycling is natural ovulation or artificial due to HRT. Longer cycling is associated with slightly increased incidence of breast cancer (possibly among other things), but can also have benefits including less risk of osteoporosis. I suspect they'll eventually come to a view about the optimum time to stop menstruating in relation to when the natural cycles stop, rather than simply talking about how many years on HRT regardless of age.

Women are weird. Animals don't do this menopause thing.

Rolfe.
 
athon said:
This is a common misinterpretation of the data, and causes most of the fear.

In truth, HRT can't cause cancer.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it could. Re-read what I wrote. A large study showed that women aged between 50 and 70 taking HRT had a 0.5% increase in the risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer. I think it puts it into perspective to point out that this is a change from a 95.5% chance of not getting breast cancer to a 95% chance of not getting breast cancer.

What causes the fear is saying that the risk increases from 4.5% to 5%, then expressing this as an 11% increase in the risk (rather than an increase of 0.5%).

I'm not sure that these figures are correct, because another report with less detail was heard to say that the risk "doubled". But an increase of risk from 0.5% to 1% would be a doubling of the risk, and yet still represent only a tiny danger. In fact, the smaller the risk to start with, the bigger the increase sounds, when expressed as a percentage of the original risk. Lies, damned lies, and statistics.

The fact is that the overwhelming majority of the women in this very large study remained healthy throughout. And they were all over 50, so whatever was found could have little or no relevance to a woman of 27, for whom menstrual cycles would undoubtedly be "normal".

Rolfe.
 
HRT = Hormone treatment ??????????? (Really i don't know)

A large Danish study of hormones to minimize the risk of getting brittleness of the bones (osteopsathyrosis) has just been stopped for two reasons.

1. The group that recieved the hormones had a significantly higher number of breast cancer outbreaks.

2. It didn't help that much, there was not any difference between the two groups.

I have a link to a the story from the Danish Public TV : here Unfortunately it is in Danish. ;)
 
Matabiri said:
HRT = Hormone Replacement Therapy = taking extra doses of hormones.
Click to expand...
Actually, treating diabetes with insulin is also "hormone replacement therapy" (as is treating Addison's with fludrocortisone, hypothyroidism with thyroxine, and so on). However, the term "HRT" usually refers to re-creating a menstrual cycle in post-menopausal women by administering oestrogen and progesterone to mimic the natural hormone patterns. Simple supplementation with oestrogen +/- progesterone (which doesn't have the effect of inducing menstrual cycles) would also come in under that heading.

Rolfe.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom