Media coverage is hugely important. The power of the media can be phenomenal and can and does influence government policy. Besides which not everyone is going to start researching the facts behind what is reported.
It may be right to push some personal responsibility with lifestyle but I think the greatest risk is that people actually switch off. It’s a bit like the health warning on a packet of cigarettes - that didn’t do much at all.
We have a culture where drinking, even to excess is normalised. There are loads of people who don’t know how to cook a meal. There are kids out there who’ve never even tried salad in their lives. I’d rather see things like being explored in a meaningful way.
I had many risk factors: I did drink too much - quite often, I don’t have children, I am tall (another risk factor), I took the pill for years as recommended by the gynaecologists I saw to keep endometriosis at bay. I was very overweight and had those 40G breasts although I was premenopausal so that actually wasn’t a risk factor.
I don’t feel guilty about it. I have and still want to improve my overall lifestyle. I also want other women to do whatever they can to reduce the risk. I think as Finty pointed out that what is considered normal today isn’t the same as healthy and that’s a huge problem. I’d like to see that being the starting point.
A meta-analysis of 98 studies across many countries that concluded that each individual drink increased risk by on average 10%, and the effects were linear - ie the risk carried on increasing at that rate for each additional drink per day. So that is the calculations I did - increasing by 10% per drink per day. I don’t think my maths is wrong - and I stand by the conclusion that six drinks per day raises risk from 1 in 8 to just over 1 in 5, or almost 10 additional cases per 100.
Spot on msmolly ,this Blame Culture rubbish is all they ever seem to come up with these days,like you i believe with all the billions still being poured into cancer research today we are still nowhere near finding a cure or cause of this vile desease than we were not only 30yrs ago but a hundred yrs ago.
The first ever signs of cancer were found on mummies in ancient Egypt and Peru,as far back as 3000 BC,(so not come very far then) the Edwin Smith Papyrus is the oldest written discription of Breast Tumors to exsist, the original document was written in 3000 BC.
Lifestyle back then was very different to our world of today ,i very much doubt if they were obese,drinking alcohol,on the pill or HRT lol,had no excercise ect, ect or had any of the other percieved risk factors (apart from genes) we are told about today.
Lets just face it they still havent got a clue!
Linda
Whilst some breast cancer is down to chance and genes as you say msmolly, can it really be most breast cancers? If bc has increased in the UK by 65% in 30 years there has to be another explanation - genetic changes happen over very long time frames so cannot possibly explain the increase, so has bad luck increased by 65%? Or are we drinking more, smoking more, fatter, taking less exercise…
I don’t believe it was ‘just bad’ luck that I got breast cancer. I too was one of those ladies that fell into the low risk group.
I think my cancer started because of high levels of stress in my life and an immune system that was not in good shape.
we are exposed to high levels of petrochemicals-xenohormones that are thought to suppress the immune system, in particular lowering the proportions and numbers of natural killer cells.
We are continually being exposed to pesticides, herbicides and fungicides through food and our environment and this all helps to weaken our immune systems.
I could agree with stress maybe being a factor more so than anything else, there is so much of it regardless of fat, thin, drink, smoke, exercise. We are all prone to stress in one way or another light or heavy duty stress.
Oh the press do love simplistic headlines don’t they… the director of Cancer Research UK was on the ITV news this lunchtime and was much more balanced about some cases of BC being genetic (I think as much as 15% was mentioned) and that other reasons are very complex but that with age factored out (evidently they did look at this carefully) the factors identified are important. Would like to think that moderation for everyone will help them and I do worry about the excesses of some young women drinkers (I have worked with Uni students) and our attitude to our reproductive systems and what these might be doing - I had not choice about having a child until I was 39 when I’d met my lovely husband and have no regrets but I do have worries that I should not have taken HRT even though at the time it solved many problems and about the stress I allowed to dominate my working life until I got BC. So I blame no one including myself as life is really complex and demanding and won’t help me now … hindsight is not much use now but I do hope that rigorous research about preventative measures can help our children, neices etc along with the active research on treatments that those of us with BC need too. Hoping the BC publicity spurs on the need to for money and NHS resources these treatments.
Stress? Yup - those who are under a lot of stress would perhaps eat more, drink more, etc…
We’ve largely taken away society’s support mechanisms for people (community, extended family etc - we insist on people moving miles away from everyone they know ‘for a better life’, and having to work huge hours to pay huge mortgages etc). The recent research shows that good social support is vital in doubling the chances of people for surviving cancer (Vanderbilt Institute research last couple of weeks). Perhaps by putting many women under immense stress and such social loneliness, society has caused a part of the problem in some way for some women?
Many of the studies relating to the alcohol/breast cancer link I have read about refer to cancers that test hormone positive. I know a recently retired oncology professor who told me the medical profession have known about this link for many, many years now; he said a lot of the research is to do with alcohol making you gain weight which then has the effect of making your body produce more oestrogen.
However, what about ladies like me who were hormone negative, but Her2 positive? They have not pinpointed what causes the over expression of growth hormone leading up to the development of cancer (I have also noted that stomach cancer patients can have a Her2 positive diagnosis and a woman in my street is currently having Herceptin for this). I did a bit of research when I was diagnosed in 2006 and found out this growth hormone switches off in most people at the age of 28, but in some people it keeps going and in some of those it causes cancer. At the time there was not really much more information.
When I was diagnosed (and prior to me knowing I was hormone negative and Her2 positive), my surgeon said there was absolutely no point in wondering why I got BC as they would probably never be able to tell me. He advised me it would not do me any favours to dwell on this aspect of the illness. I have met people who have taken on the mindset that it’s just about waiting for it to come back and I decided a long time ago I did not want to put myself in that group. I’m realistic enough to understand that it could come back, but at the moment I choose to live in each day.
its very complex this BC lark, I have beaten myself blame factors being had babies relativley late, did not breast feed, smoked, fat, no exercise until I was 25ish, underwent tons of stress working in the NHS, always striving for I dont know what/ when I was diagnosed, my surgeon told me to put all this in a drawer in the back of my mind, coz the biggest factor according to her is…being a woman, cant win can we !!!
Finty - You have seen the data at Cancer Research and you think they are wrong? You think their claim that 6 glasses a day results in a risk increase of 4.5% is wrong? Do you think they are actively misinforming people?
It is not me claiming that most cancers are down to chance and genes, it is the consultant geneticist specialising in breast cancer that spoke on R4 this morning.
I like his use of the word “chance” - it is honest and basically means “We haven’t a bloody clue.”
What accounts for increases in BC rates?
We are collating data better. That will account for a lot it. (Or are we? The Prof on R4 thought that this rise was partly due to individuals cancers being counted individually rather than cancer dx per person.)
Having spent a lot of time in developing countries it always amuses me when people depend on their statistics as being reliable for comparison.
We now diagnose better - people who were thought to have died of liver cancer we now know died from metastasised breast cancer.
Another fact that gets overlooked is that we do not carry out as many hysterectomies as we used to. Both my grandmother and mother had hysterectomies in their late 30s. This may inadvertently have prevented them from developing BC in later life. Who knows?
Cherub - your point about the calorific intake of alcohol was reiterated on Woman’s Hour. The thing is regarding obesity - BMI, body fat and calorific intake are not the same things. What the Prof pointed out was that we in the West consume a very large amount of calories.
Cancer Research say that alcohol accounts for an increase of 1.3% for every 2 glasses. Cancer Research also say that obesity before menopause can reduce BC risk after menopause. Cancer Research also say that HRT carries a risk increase of 66%. And that taking the pill DOES increase BC risk while you are taking it.
So why were the only environmental factors mentioned repeatedly today obesity and booze?
Just a thought.
Just got in from work,knew that I would read some sense on here - some fantastic information and views from everyone. I too was slim, fitter than I’d ever been when I ws dx in 2004, I did drink (but not loads), my diet was excellent. But I was on the pill at 17 and took it on and off for nearly 15 years - and I am sure that it was that, + the fact that there is cancer in my family (not breast, but ovarian and others). I agree that the news articles did apportion blame to us and that is just so much cr*p - I have been angry about it all day! I feel better now I’ve read all 7 pages of posts here!
Hi all
I have just posted this on another thread but think it fits here really well. …I never took pill, never on HRT either, I have had one child when I was 18 years old. I did and still do enjoy the occasional RED/WHITE WINE. I did and still do enjoy a drink of lager/beer at weekends and on holidays. Never been one to drink every day! I did (until 12 years ago) smoke. I have always been very active and been very conscious of my diet (7.7 stone) until meds for cancer (now 10.5 stone). I have stopped listening to the news because they seem to always want to’blame’ something.
XXXX Cory
I’m not sure by Cancer Research what you mean - if you mean the charity Cancer Research UK, this is what their website says and is where I got my figures from, (although I went to the actual research papers which have more precise figures rather than this summary):
"Even small amounts of alcohol can increase your risk of breast cancer. Several studies have found that every alcohol unit drunk a day increases the risk of breast cancer risk by about 7-11%. (9,10,11,12)
There is unlikely to be a safe level of alcohol which doesn’t increase the risk of breast cancer. Some studies have found that drinking just one unit a day can increase a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer."
The Million Women Study that you quoted earlier was only of women over 50, so I would imagine a meta-analysis of 98 studies including women of all ages would produce more complete results, as alcohol consumption is skewed towards younger women. Again, this study concluded the increased risk was between 8% and 12% per drink per day, so I averaged it out to 10% for a simple calculation (plus I’ve lost my calculator so had to do it in my head). I’ve seen this figure on many cancer websites so I think it is well accepted by the research community.
I wonder why nobody is mentioning other causal factors that could have a cohort effect just like the lifestyle factors that we are all supposed to have adopted - like the huge increase in toxins & heavy metals in the environment (air, water, soil) and all sorts of other effects from cleaning products, cosmetics, etc etc that may be more potent in causing cell damage in certain genotypes rather than others. ITs so complicated I just hate these headlines today.
Maggy
Being 8/8er+, weight is something I shall deal with firmly post-chemo. I was never overweight as a teen, young adult, put weight on with first two children, and didn’t lose it for a couple of years… got back to normal weight, had two more children and piled on the pounds, and have struggled in last few years to shed final couple of stone. Was getting there, finally, then got dx… and am watching it pile on again with chemo.
I know that post-menopause, the body can take oestregen from fat… so it makes sense to lose the weight. However, pre-menopause… stats don’t add up. Still… any incentive to get back into my size 12s is good enough for me.
However - do I really think my fluctuating weight is why I have breast cancer? NO. Not losing it may increase the risk of it coming back - but looking at my overall weight levels/activity levels/diet and alcohol consumption throughout my life… no. And I utterly resent the sweeping statements I have just watched on the BBC news, that all us women are paying for our lifestyle ‘choices’.
For me, I still think that it’s partly genetics, partly environmental and partly the fact that we’re living so much longer than we were expected to even fifty years ago. Better diagnosis, too, must play a part. I am all for a healthy lifestyle - of course it must be good for you - but I am adamantly opposed to what I cynically perceive as yet another opportunity to misdirect our concerns by blaming ‘lifestyle’… when all the pollution/pesticides/hormone treatments we are routinely exposed to barely merit a mention. After all… what financial clout do WE have? So much easier to wag a finger at us silly women…naughty girls, what did we expect?