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:
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:
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.
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:
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.
My premise was that your odds are better spending your attention and
energy on preventing a disease rather than cure it.
Very clearly I've proven my point and I could do it for almost any condition or disease.
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.
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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.