Board index » medical » Is Breast Cancer a "Social Construct" ??

2004-06-15 06:10:00 PM
Political correctness invades medical research --
DAFN DNA is Different:
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001956358_cancer15m.html
******************** exZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZerpt ********************
June 15, 2004 - Racial differences seen in breast-cancer study
Black women with breast cancer are more likely than whites to have
aggressive tumors, a new study says, but researchers aren't sure why.
The findings, however, may help explain why fewer blacks survive even
when their breast cancer is detected at the same stage as whites.
The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
found that cancer tumors in black women tended to *DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY*
from those of their white counterparts. The blacks were more likely to
have tumors that grew aggressively, had more dead cells and contained
abnormal amounts of proteins that regulate cell division.
But the study's lead author...
[told white lie in desperate spin maneuver to protect their funding]
cautioned that the results should not be taken as
evidence of genetic differences between the races.
[...ROTFLMWAO...snip...]
*********************************************************************
Race is genetic...
-

The difference is testosterone. Black women produce more testosterone.
"testosterone might be more strongly associated with [breast cancer] risk than
estradiol" (Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2002; 94: 606-616). If
interested, see: "How 'Hormone Replacement Therapy' (HRT) May Cause Breast
Cancer" at www.anthropogeny.com/research.html
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 10:10:00 GMT, makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:

makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
opinion, but you think it proves your case. Shows how close-minded
you are.
The key words "tended" and "more likely" show that the differences
were NOT definitive. There were whites that had black cancers and
blacks that had white cancers. Thus one cannot tell from the kind of
cancer what race one is.
What a subhuman racist scum.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: www.lojban.org
-

med
Medicine and its related products and regulations

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
You can't have biological differences that are not genetic. So you have
to consider which statement is true or false, and *WHY*. Contemporary
social trendz don't leave much doubt about *THAT*.
-

"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org>wrote in message
couple of words (small ones; ones that are not too hard to read) in the
headline of an article, entirely ignores the content, and attempts to cite
the entire article to support his infantile attempts to rise above his
inferiority complex by degrading others.
--
"There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
those who understand binary numbers and those who don't."
-----------------------------
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-

makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Do identical twins get identical cancers at identical ages, and die of
identical causes at identical ages?
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: www.lojban.org
-

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
The article said, "The study led by Seattle's Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center found that cancer tumors in black women tended to
*DIFFER BIOLOGICALLY* from those of their white counterparts."
That means the DAFN DNA is different from the white DNA and there is
zero element of "social construct" (contrary to your often-spouted
theoriy of race...).
-

In article <74ltc0phb1c5q72tps7e01gg8sg0864bga@4ax.com>,
Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>wrote:
frequently. I've dealt with their ilk far too often on Usenet.
Fortunately, they are relatively rare on sci.med.
Like many racists, "makemyday" tries to imply false analogy (although he
hasn't explicitly said it yet). By citing the findings of a study to
suggest that differences in disease susceptibility between races are
biological, he is hoping to use that to add a sheen of respectability to
racist views that blacks are inherently inferior in various ways.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
-

In article <40CF6784.57E41258@worldnet.att.net>,
makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
cancers, which are sporadic, not familial.
very difficult to control for adequately. Unless the investigators
adequately controlled for environmental, dietary, and lifestyle factors,
you can't even begin conclude that. In fact, even if they did, one must
keep in mind that the vast majority of cancer is due to an interaction
between genes and environment, and that the relative contribution of
each factor can be quite variable and quite difficult to figure out.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
-

Morons who cannot grasp the big picture always take solace in the minutia of
the obvious.
Race IS genetic.
Different races have different propensities to various conditions.
Horses can jump. Cows don't very well.
Bears eat fish. Giraffes do not.
So what?
-

makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote in message news:<40CF6784.57E41258@worldnet.att.net>...
for the sake of argument.
Now,if the above was true then it is certainly NOT the fault of
Blacks or other groups whose circumstances are not the result of their
own free will.
So then why do you white racists HATE the people so much who are
different from you?if it is genetic,you are blaming them for things
that are outside their control.
Pretty damn silly if you ask me!
Riverman
-

In article <_8Ozc.113655$vn.279449@sea-read.news.verio.net>,
"tech27" <tech27@mail.anonymizer.com>wrote:
Now try defining "race" in strictly genetic terms.
I'll wait.
[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
-

makemyday@worldnet.att.net wrote:
could justify a "tended to" statement if it were statistically
significant. That would mean that 95% of blacks are just as likely to
have the same cancer tumors as whites.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: www.lojban.org
-

"Orac" <orac@wabcmail.com>wrote in message
<SNIP>
themselves, and that given identical conditions, each person will show an
expression based on their genetic makeup.
-

"Orac" <orac@wabcmail.com>wrote in message
misuse in a socio-political application resulted in the word becoming
"taboo".
The perceived negative connotations of the word has ruined its original
meaning.
So when you say "now try defining race in strictly genetic terms" you have
set up an impossible scenario since any such attempt will be struck down not
because of scientific reasons, but because of political correctness.
-

"Orac" <orac@wabcmail.com>wrote in message
being called "racist" that they ignore obvious physical and genetic
differences. Ignoring these differences will have consequences in science
and medicine.
The issue of race and genetics is so inflammatory that many people fail to
apply critical thinking skills when analyzing the situation.
one has to win, or be better than another, that lead to the word being
viewed disfavorably.
However, let me ask you: What is wrong with the idea that certain genetic
traits are superior to others? After all, evolution favors genetic traits
that lead to better procreation and survival of the species.
For instance, I wish I had the genetics so that I would not burn in the sun
after 5 minutes of exposure. My genes do not allow me to produce much
melanin in the skin, thus I am more susceptible to sunburn and certain skin
cancers. I would consider the ability to tan a superior trait when it comes
to sun exposure.
Somewhere in the past, my ancestors developed the ability to easily store
fat for protection from famine. At the time that was a superior genetic
trait.
The thing is that some people want to restrict the rights of people with
certain genetic traits, which like it or not can be identified visually, but
that does not mean that the idea of genetic race is not scientifically
valid, just that there are assholes that use it as an excuse to enslave, or
harass, or kill.
-

Orac wrote:
in their families, to have mastectomies *In_Advance* of any
cancer diagnosis. There must be some substantial genetic effect...
between races, unless the the observed resultz showed significance
beyond the uncertainties you cite above. The investigators whose
names will appear on the journal paper(s) *do* care for their
professional reputations...
-

Riverman wrote:
squandered trying to "correct" something that is genetically
pre-determined. e.g., everytime the standardized test results are
released, with the predictable DAFN miserable showing, there is this
big cry for New_Programz to "fix" it. Ditto affirmative action,
racial quotas, relaxed college entrance standards, minority
set-asides. All of which are destructive to society and the economy.
The USA would be much better off if we reverted to a nationwide
policy of Jim Crow....
-

Orac wrote:
They can tell from one's DNA what percentage of one's ancestry
is from specific village areas in Africa. Americans who check
the "black" box on the census form, typically have 80% or more
DAFN ancestry on the HowardU scale...
blood
-

"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>wrote in message
What is objectionable and just plain stupid is the infantile attempt of
those
who try to establish superiority based on those differences. It is THAT
infestation, that mental illness, that we could do without.
--
Byron "Barn" Canfield
-----------------------------
"Politics is a strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles."
-- Ambrose Bierce
-

"Michael Varney" <varney@colorado_no_spam.edu>wrote:
Argument: if trait A were universally superior to trait B then groups
with trait B would have failed to thrive, and in fact would only exist
as a recessive or spontaneous mutation.
procreate less or survive more poorly under identical conditions.
opinion, since your opinion has nothing to do with the survival and
reproduction of those with that trait. Superiority based on
subjective personal opinion is precisely why "race" categorization is
considered a social phenomenon. If one were merely looking at genetic
traits with no valuation, then all those of equally dark skin would be
considered a "race" for purposes of that one trait. Melanesians,
Tamils, and Africans all with the same skin color/melanin level would
be classed together, but those with a lighter or darker shade would
not.
In the meantime, if that were really a superior trait, then why would
the species have evolved lighter melanin levels? The answer appears
to be that there is a tradeoff between melanin level, which may
protect from the sun, but which also interferes with Vitamin D
metabolism. Whether more sun tolerance is "superior" then depends on
your access to alternative sources of Vitamin D, which is not a
genetic trait.
would gladly trade sun tolerance for famine protection.
becoming increasingly irrelevant as the various lineages mongrelize
due to the increase communications and transport between peoples. The
concept that individual traits or even groups of traits define a race
(or that a race correlates absolutely to a set of defining traits that
are unique to that race) is not.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: www.lojban.org
-