Visit our Popular Forums

Rakuflames · 06-07-2012, 18:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by perchance

Rakuflames: Since you are an Amazon you must be damned good with a Bow. This is me being a smartass.

Exactly! (I'm pretty good with a stern, too -- yuck yuck yuck!)

Rakuflames · 06-07-2012, 18:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by genomic

Knowledge of the genetic influence on diseases has evolved at an extraordinary rate over the last few years and continues to do so. I don't think anyone who isn't completely up to date with the latest research can confidently assess the current level of understanding (Dunning-Kruger notwithstanding). Yes, almost all traits are influenced by genes and by environment (including epigenetic factors). Yes, most traits are polygenic - influenced by more than one gene. This is all well known. But as Virginia Boy correctly pointed out with his BRCA1/BRCA2 examples, many mutations or gene variants can dramatically increase the liklihood of developing specific diseases. Personally I find that valuable knowledge - eg if you have a dramatically increased liklihood of developing prostate cancer you may increase the frequency of checkups or begin testing at, say, age 40 rather than 50.

No-one's suggesting genetic testing is a 100% correct or a panacea (and call me if you discover any kind of knowledge or treatment that is) - but it's just additional information that may potentially be life saving.

My daughters both make the point that 1) they don't need genetic counseling to know they're at risk and 2) they know that research on the genetics of breast cancer is still evolving. I follow it carefully and once a month, or more, there's some new discovery.

The BRC breakthrough was HUGE, because it identified a very specific at-risk population. But by the same token, it is unlikely that the BRC genes are responsible for the breast cancer in my family. It's one or more of the other 40 or more genes they've found, probably a combination.

My sister isn't free and clear just because she's 69. My mother had it at 38; my grandmother had it at 85. We don't even know if my mother or other relatives had the same type I had.

So my point is that I would spend all that money (and it would be my money), and I would still get incomplete information. So would my daughters.

Rakuflames · 06-07-2012, 18:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by virginia boy

What if the DNA test showed that your arthritis had a genetic component that could be positively affected by some new treatment? You'd never know because you thought it a waste of time and money and chose to remain ignorant and in pain.

I can't think of a single circumstance in which a person would be better off remaining ignorant of their health status.

Is it that, after a certain age, people feel there's nothing can be done? Or that the rewards (years) are not worth the time and effort it takes to learn?

But that's a "what if." When they know genetics should determine treatment, they test for it. For instance, they are developing genetic tests for breast cancers (there's more than one type). Even within one type, some people respond to certain treatments more than others, and they are working on genetic tests to better custom-tailor treatment. For me they had to use a "shotgun" approach. We threw everything we could at it. Perhaps if my daughters get it, by then they will only have one chemo, not three. Now they've discovered that Herceptin, which I received, is more effective *in some women* when combined with another drug.

It's all evolving -- exploding, really, but my oncologist stays on top of it.

Rakuflames · 06-07-2012, 18:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celestialsailor

...ok...He worrys too much!!!

I've had 2 MCI's, 2 major motorcycle wrecks, 2 minor (only cracked ribs). What the doctors removed in smashed flesh was replace by other doctors with pins, plates and stints. I've been in a coup d' etat, and raised 4 freakin teens!
I've been told to take it easy and give up my lifestyle. That sailing would be too strenuous. I proved them all wrong...so far. I do check my numbers as far as total LDL and a few others every 6 months. So far they don't seem to understand why the numbers are better and against their advise continue to taper myself off the heart meds. I won't bankrupt my soul for my health

Be careful about skipping those heart meds. I know someone else who did that.

He now has heart failure and he may really be done sailing because of it. It's not the end of the world to have to take a pill or two.

Celestialsailor · 06-07-2012, 21:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakuflames

Be careful about skipping those heart meds. I know someone else who did that.

He now has heart failure and he may really be done sailing because of it. It's not the end of the world to have to take a pill or two.

Thanx for that...I was on a beta blocker to limit heart rate. I was dizzy along with 15 other side-effects. That's when I became a vegetarian. After 6 months, I weened myself off them and low and behold the BP which the beta blockers were suppose to help and didn't, started dropping. Now it's in the safe zone. Of course I take Lipitor to control the cholesterol. But instead of 80mg., I'm doing 40 and those numbers are still dropping and to well within the safe zone.
Although I'm not too forthright with information to my Dr's. I ask them how things look. They say..."Don't change a thing...they look great"...little do they know. When I ask about a veggie diet, they do not seem to have any information on the effects. I have a friend that is a Homeopathic specialist and he helps me out quite a bit. I have learned that talking about diet on the forum is a lot like the anchor thread...

FSMike · 07-07-2012, 10:27

If you want to make the gods laugh, tell them your plans.

denverd0n · 10-07-2012, 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by virginia boy

I'm pretty certain that if I had a 6 out of 10 chance of developing breast cancer I would have a double mastectomy to reduce the chance to zero.

No offense, but that just seems crazy extreme to me. Not that I'm against DNA testing. I think it's not a bad idea at all. Good to know these things. And then take precautions.

For example, get checked regularly if you're in the group with a 60% probability of developing some condition. That way you can catch it early if you do develop it. But whacking off parts of your body just because you might, possibly, maybe, someday, but not for sure (40% probability that you won't) develop the condition? No way. Not me!

See, to me, that's the kind of over-reaction that is the danger to this sort of testing. If you're the type that would start whacking off body parts just because there is a possibility that you will maybe develop some condition someday, then I think you are one of those who is better off NOT knowing.

But that's just my opinion. You are, of course, free to do as you please and I am not trying tell you that you shouldn't have gotten these tests done.

zeehag · 10-07-2012, 06:51

there is a male person in my family who had dna testing done for family gene longevity--the side was that he and his wife found out what is in our lineage. i knew my old ones to great grandparents---they were cool folks. i also knew many cousins. this is good for family illnesses history. i KNOW what is in my lines. and cousin john found the reynauds gene linked tag that gave me my underlying condition--is good to know from where it came, but unnecessary to future health possibilities.
having genetic testing done does not guarantee that you will know what is gonna get ye--is only a percentage. and is very expensive.

i am thankful to my cousin--but knowing my scottish genes are over 9000 yrs of age doesnt really bother me. i believe my irish ones are also as old. big deal.
old age without knowledge of without the genetic tags are is still good--

ye takes what ye gets and keeps on going.....

btw--medicine is not an exact science...is constantly in a process of change as the human body is not a block of concrete and morphs as we continue to survive what is around us. we are each very unique in our sameness.

sailinman · 10-07-2012, 07:21

i will not perform that test until such time as laws/legislation is passed to prevent insurers from discriminating in anyway with regards to the results of those tests....

denverd0n · 10-07-2012, 07:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailinman

i will not perform that test until such time as laws/legislation is passed to prevent insurers from discriminating in anyway with regards to the results of those tests....

I have to say that this issue concerns me, also.

zeehag · 10-07-2012, 08:16

dna is great, but it doesnt tell ye what yer GONNA have--only what is in gene pool you have.
go out and LIVE dont be a prisoner of what if....lol

DWT · 10-07-2012, 09:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by sailinman

i will not perform that test until such time as laws/legislation is passed to prevent insurers from discriminating in anyway with regards to the results of those tests....

Just because you take the DNA test, does not mean you have to show it to anyone

.

hellosailor · 10-07-2012, 10:22

"And still you could get run over by a bus "
Here I thought that if I stayed offshore I could beat that problem.

Among the things your doctor probably won't tell you...eunichs never suffer from BPH or prostate cancer. So "orchidectomy", aka castration, can indeed have some medical value although "chemical castration" is an alternative to that too. Among men who keep their balls, the risks for prostate cancer approach 100% if you live that long. (The percent roughly matches your age, after age 50.) The more "manly" the man, the higher the risks, it is a hormone thing.

DNA testing? Dunno, there's still a lot of dice rolling going on in what is called "medicine".