[rhondalea]

IMO, this week's study is next week's debunked theory. I know that isn't always true, but it happens often enough that I want to beat my head against the wall. (Just look at the CYPD26 study for tamoxifen patients as an example. My onc tried to pacify me with one out of about 16--the one that "proved" her point that I shouldn't worry about my intermediate metabolizer status--but very recently, she has been debunked. Thoroughly. At least until the next study.)

I think stress hormones have the ability to do the same bad things that external toxins do. So it's probably not stress so much as how an individual responds to stress. But what's nice about studies like this is that they can help put an end to idiotic suggestions--you know, the ones that blame the victim.

To me, cancer is a genetic issue, so what starts it for one of us will not start it for the rest of us. I've been pretty sure all along that mine was triggered by my thyroid, and recently, I've needed far less thyroid replacement hormone than I did when my cancer was growing. But that's probably just one piece of it, even if it's where I put the blame.

I keep hoping for faster advances in genetic and epigentic medicine, and it seems as if the scientific community is trying to oblige, but there's just so much data to sift through--there are millions of snps on our genes, and figuring out which ones do what is a tedious process.

But for anyone who has an irritating onc (or friend) who suggests "reducing stress," this makes a nice study to shut him/her/it up with.