Homestead mailing list

[EarthNSky <erthnsky AT bellsouth.net>]

Clansgian AT wmconnect.com wrote:
> > You are making the statement, you prove it.
> Bev, it's easily proved.  But first we'd have to address the thick 
> fog surrounding this discussion such as:

There a fog alright.....

> A case in point would be your story of the ovarian cysts.  You opine
>  that genetics puts you at greater risk for ovarian cancer.  And yet,
>  whatever risk there is, lifestyle choices multiply that risk and 
> become the dominant factor:

I can agree with the idea that lifestyle choices affect risk.  No
argument there.  My problem was in the "absoluteness" that you and Gene
seem to expound upon.


> > From a 10 year study in Sweden:
>
> One single lifestyle choice DOUBLEs the risk.  How much more is this
>  true if the person is already genetically predisposed to ovarian 
> cancer.

Wait, you were the one who said genetics doesn't matter that personal
choices determine disease, now you are saying that one *can* be
predisposed??  Because if you are saying that personal choice can
override genetics, to me, that's the equivalent of believing in the use
of faith healing/curing....it works for a small minority, but overall,
it only works slightly better than chance.  I do believe it is worth
trying, just like I believe that we should all be responsible in our
personal choices, but to believe that one can overcome the odds by
making the "right" lifestyle choices just doesn't make sense to me.


> Double the chance for smoking, double the chance for obesity (and 
> their term for obesity was quite inclusive!) and you have two 
> lifestyle choices that quadruples your risk for ovarian cancer.
>
> On the flip side there are lifestyle choices that reduce the risk of
>  ovarian cancer: This from an American Cancer Society study:

My birthmother smoked, and by today's standards, she was also obese.
Her sister never smoked, nor was she overweight or obese.  My
grandmother never smoked, nor was she obese, yet both of her sisters
were non-smokers, and overweight (from the photos I have seen of my
great aunts), but not obese.  My paternal grandmother was also thin and
a non-smoker.  All of these people lived a country lifestyle,
homesteaders all, all had gardens and ate responsibly.  My Finn
grandmother also ate a LOT of fish with all those omega 3's.  All of the
above people died from ovarian cancer, and my mother was the oldest at
the age of 54.  One died at 27, and most died in their late 30's.
I have two living female relatives, my aunt Polly who is in her 90's, a
skinny spinster(I mention this because women who have never born
children are allegedly at higher risk also) who is a non-smoker and my
sister Paula, who is overweight like me and who stopped smoking a few
years ago..she smoked for almost 40 years.  Both Aunt Polly and Paula
have polycystic ovarian disease, but no cancer.  Well, Aunt Polly had
breast cancer, but kicked it 20 years back.
I am overweight, but not obese, and as you well know, I smoke.
My family history makes for a strong genetic case, but not so strong a
case for the 'lifestyle choices' argument.  Nevertheless, despite my own
anecdotal history here, I DO buy into the idea that lifestyle choice can
help when it comes to genetic predisposition to any disease, but I don't
think you can erase a genetic predisposition just on lifestyle choice
alone.


In your post yesterday (the 3:02pm post), you said

> As has been pointed out, just looking at the same condition showing 
> up in three generations of the same family doesn't do it.  Families 
> also pass down attitude and lifestyles.

Like I said before, in MY case, where I had no contact with my
birthfamily until after I had a hysterectomy, no attitude and lifestyle
choices were passed down.  There is a gray area with the smoking, since
my birthmother smoked while pregnant with me, my adoptive parents smoked
while I lived at home, and I started smoking (withdrawal??) a few months
after leaving home.  Was there a predisposition to addiction?  Probably,
but that is another matter.



> My premise was that your odds are better spending your attention and
>  energy on preventing a disease rather than cure it.

Well, of course.  Any other course would be intentional recklessness or
in some cases, ignorance.  I developed these cysts over five years prior
to starting to smoke. I was also physically fit/too thin, really because
I was a cross country runner,  and lived a very healthy lifestyle.   My
smoking did not cause *that* disease.  Perhaps my mother's smoking did,
or perhaps I was just *unlucky* (hehe), (I don't believe that), but what
I do know is that the knowledge of my genetic predisposition, the family
history I gained when I found my birthfamily, saved my life, and
possibly the life of my daughter.  I am convinced of that.



> Very clearly I've proven my point and I could do it for almost any 
> condition or disease.

I think you have come closer to proving my point since you admitted that
genetic predisposition exists, which was my ONLY point.


I asked you to prove it after you wrote this:

If you spent your life's energy providing yourself
> a physically vigorous lifestyle, good diet, peaceable envirnonment, 
> and avoided bitheringly stupid life choices like smoking .... you 
> would have better odds of avoiding disease than having access to 
> modern medicine has odds of curing those diseases.  If anyone has 
> evidence to dispute that, I'd be interested.

Nowhere in your note did you prove that "lifestyle choice" provides
better odds than "modern medicine".  In fact, on one hand you are
talking about prevention and on the other hand you are talking about
cures.  There really is no way to prove this one way or the other AS WE
ARE ALL DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON OUR GENETIC MAKEUP.  Sure, maybe you
could cite some twin studies, but a sample of two is not good science.

_I_ was talking about genetic predisposition, not prevention or cures.
IMO, you equated genetics with astrology, the former being a
"hard/objective biological science" that is really not all that
interpretive(you either have a gene or you don't) and the other being a
"soft/ambiguous pseudo-science"that is very subjective and highly
varied based on interpretation(well, you might have the opportunity for
romance)<bev rolls eyes again>


> But what I find unfathomable is the hot and quick defense of the role
>  of genetics in something like ovarian cancer and yet an activity 
> that increases the odds of contracting and dying from the disease by 
> 50% is dismissed lightly rather than an abstenance from it being 
> championed.

Tell it to my dead non-smoking grandmothers and great aunts.

Bev, off to go light up.






--
BevanRon of EarthNSky Farm   NW Georgia USDA Zone 7
34.498N 85.076W    Bev is Earth, Ron is Sky