|
I repeat my questions;
1. Why has the incidence of breast cancer spiralled in the last seventy years and continues to do so?
2. As I understand it inherited genes are relatively stable. If inherited genes are realativley stable, and breast cancer was much lower 70 or eighty years ago how can genes account for the huge growth?
There has to be a simpler reason - a factor that has changed in the last 70 years and continues to change.
Yes there is a percentage who have mutations that predispose to a very much higer risk of BC. Some people I suspect no matter what they do will fall prey which must be a dreadful feeling. Some with genetic mutations live to a good age and others fall prey to cancer - they dont know why. Somewhere in the region of 10% seems to ba an accepted figure for BC from inherited genetic predisposition.
Yes science is advancing. Yes vaccines will reduce cancers that are tirggered by a particular pathogen, but very unlikely all.
Which if inherited genes have not changed for a large chunk of the breast cancer population still leaves us with the questions what are the key factors that have changed in the last seventy years that are sufficiently influential in the body's metabolism, on a more and more global basis as time passes to be causing this explosion in breast cancer rates.
For me a strong likely candidate is the BALANCE of omega three and six, followed by other contributory changes diet environment etc.
RB
|