Questioning current bc dogma

Thanks, Lauren. I think I end up pondering these questions because chemo and rads are such a hit-and-miss game, and because we all accepted the scientific theory that estrogen replacement therapy was good for us for so many years. If it took that long to figure out the problems from ERT, it seems quite possible to me that science may not have given a fair shake to understanding whether there is some answer to breast cancer in the hormonal balance between estrogen, progesterone and testosterone (to name just the common hormones). If we don't question, then we end up accepting things like HRT in spite of any harmful effects.

i agree in theory, but not in this case. what you are questioning is the WHY of why we get breast cancer, not the HOW of how we treat it when we do. i am simply saying it does not seem worth your time to go on questioning why we get breast cancer, since you are not a scientist and you are not going to be able to get to any conclusions about how to treat breast cancer by questioning how we get it....

just my thoughts...

Lauren - I think it's perfectly healthy to question why....as long as we're not obsessed with it. By understanding the WHY (whether scientist or lay person) we better understand the HOW of how to treat it. Her2 and herceptin is a perfect point. By understanding how her2 genes signal growth, we, as patients, can make educated decisions about taking herceptin and weighing the potential benefits vs. the risks.

Alaskangel - that being said, I don't know the WHY here. I was pregnant, yet ER-. Go figure - seems REALLY conterintuitive to me. Anyway, when you are young (let's say 30s) you only have about a 30% chance of being hormone positive. This increases until you're older (say in 70s) when it's more like 80%. Inverse relationship with age. I think it's interesting to wonder why as well. I have a great rad onc who loves to talk about all my questions - I'll ask the next time I see him.