LONGECITY

While the press is busy congratulating famous actresses for doing this, is anyone stopping to ask if it really helps? Or will cancer simply show up somewhere else? Animal model studies or any other conclusive evidence it works?

I would guess it probably works. What kind of surprises me is that given all the resveratrol hype, that people aren't recognizing this connection between resveratrol & BRCA1.

http://www.futurepun...ves/005671.html
Edited by prophets, 15 May 2013 - 05:13 PM.

I would guess it probably works. What kind of surprises me is that given all the resveratrol hype, that people aren't recognizing this connection between resveratrol & BRCA1.

http://www.futurepun...ves/005671.html

That's a pretty big leap in logic.

I edited out the comment about Jolie only eating grapes as an answer to BRCA1, because I don't want to give people the wrong idea.

But this paper is pretty well done and worth a read.

Given all the resveratrol love on the Internet, I'm surprised people (ie. Bill Sardi) haven't latched onto Angelina Jolie's story as a marketing opportunity to push Resveratrol.

Given all the resveratrol love on the Internet, I'm surprised people (ie. Bill Sardi) haven't latched onto Angelina Jolie's story as a marketing opportunity to push Resveratrol.

Maybe because it would be unethical, not to mention illegal. There has been no study showing it prevents breast cancer.
Edited by nowayout, 15 May 2013 - 05:57 PM.

Given all the resveratrol love on the Internet, I'm surprised people (ie. Bill Sardi) haven't latched onto Angelina Jolie's story as a marketing opportunity to push Resveratrol.

Maybe because it would be unethical, not to mention illegal. There has been no study showing it prevents breast cancer.

Have there been studies showing removal of healthy tissue by surgery prevents breast cancer? Or does it create a lifetime of inflammation there leading to the same conclusion.

Maybe because it would be unethical, not to mention illegal. There has been no study showing it prevents breast cancer.

Obviously it's a study in mice only. But you can clearly say it inhibits the development of BRCA1 related cancers in mice.

No drug company goes around telling people it a drug will categorically prevent any condition. It's not how drugs are marketed in the US. They use slippery marketing language like "has been shown to be effective". What you determine to be "effective" is entirely subjective.

Have there been studies showing removal of healthy tissue by surgery prevents breast cancer? Or does it create a lifetime of inflammation there leading to the same conclusion.

IDK the details on the different procedure choices and I've not read this study or related studies. But there appears to be some benefit:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/19996031

So 7% benefit in the highest risk group or am I misreading? That doesnt sound too good.

So 7% benefit in the highest risk group or am I misreading? That doesnt sound too good.

I don't think that's quite right. This is a simulation looking at lifetime risks, but people are really only interested in their risk measured from the time they decide to have the operation. I think that winds up being a more impressive number. Survival isn't the only metric you'd care about- this isn't taking into account the cases of cancer that aren't lethal by the stated ages. If the mutation is in BRCA1, risks are quite a bit larger, so the rewards from the various operations are higher. Ms Jolie's recent case is all in the news regarding the PM, but she might have also had an oophorectomy that she isn't talking about. That gets you a pretty big return, and seems like a no-brainer if you're done having kids. In the Jolie case, I heard a statement in the news that her odds of getting breast cancer had dropped from 87% to 5%, although whether that's correct or not is anyone's guess.