[norkdo]

Here is my problem with statistics related to things that may or may not cause breast cancer:

Estrogen: Some things do have a causative effect (i.e. only in hormone positive b.c., would the elevated hormones left "suspended" after abortion or miscarriage possibly cause breast cancer...we all know by now that estrogen has a brutal effect on breast tissue after menopause when one's progesterone is no longer available to mitigate its effects....but do we know if the hormones left suspended after abortion/miscarriage are ONLY estrogen??) For a good number of women on this HER2 site, however, our cancer had nothing to do with hormones cos we are hormone negative. Still, that taint "omg abortions/miscarriages must have caused the breast cancer" is left largely unexamined and hormone negative BC people are going to mistakenly blame those things for their cancer.

Coincidence: When reading a study about a suggested cause of Breast Cancer, we keep forgetting that the designer of the research project NEVER HAD TO BOTHER ANALYZING CAUSE AND EFFECT. Rather, it suffices as good, scientific research if two things coexist in statistical significance. For example: if you are alive in North America you have eaten french fries. Often. unless your figure is highly important to you you are a fairly regular consumer of french fries. Do french fries cause breast cancer? No. But those with breast cancer have eaten french fries, so the study would have us blaming french fries for our cancer. Now there is a coincidence possible that, say a thousand people divided into two groups might have a statistically significant different group rate for french fry consumption. Via coincidence. If the BC group had the higher french fry rate we would be blaming BC on french fries. Ridiculous.

Statistical Minorities: I don't know about you, but I am floored, reading the Signature lines of people on this site who went from Stage 0 or Stage I to Stage IV in almost no time flat. They are alive and NED, tons of them, after metastasis. They totally defy the mortality predictors and science. (My onc says he would not allow me a resection should I metastasize, as statistically or whatever, BC is not a good cancer for that. It will just pop up on another organ, or whatever. Thank God I don't believe him. Thank God all the signature lines I have read today have defied him.) When you consider the amount of energy and money put into the idea of catching BC in stages 0 or I, I have to question the benefit. Tons and tons of women go from Stage 0 or I to Stage IV in no time flat.

I am a smoker, I drink, I never have been pregnant at all, I got my period young (11 yrs old). I have cancer.
When my mom was the age I am now she had breast cancer. She never smoked, never drank, and was pregnant a total of seven times, and got her period late. I have no idea if her cancer was HER2 cos it was the 1970's.
How I wish it was fifty years from now and we actually knew what causes breast cancer, specifically each kind of BC. What is shameful is that sixty five years of breast cancer research and BC mortality has remained constant, per capita, as has the incidence of it. Other cancers have had like, 65% drop in those areas. (Please correct my stats if they are incorrect.) Frustrated by learning today Komen only donates 6% of their donations to research. Here we are, clutching at straws to prevent other women from getting it, when in fact we are drowning in a lack of knowing why it occurs.