Question of the Day: Genetic Testing Kits. Would you take the test?

No.
I need a false positive, like I need another stoma.

(and who would want a false negative?)

Great question
Great question. At my age it’s all over but the shouting anyway so I would not spend the money. You have to play with the hand you get dealt.

I think I would before having kids. A dear friend has a gene that is like one in 100,000. Her husband also had the gene. Their child is all messed up because of it.

Well Phil I will be honest.
Well Phil I will be honest. I wouldn't send for one of these genetic testing kits. On the other hand the genetic disorders that they do have tests for like some forms of breast cancer and other cancers I would do it.I would because if my kids could be tested early for something that they could prevent or get treated at an ealy stage and save there life it would be worth it. I really have thought alot about this because of me having MS. They do know that sometimes it runs in families. No one in my family has ever had it that I have knowledge of. I have a step son ( John's son and I feel he is mine also ) we have told him that he needs to be sceened for colon cancer earlier than 50. His doctor agreed because John was young to have it so bad. Our other son we adopted at birth. We don't know anything about his history as far as genetic's go. I sometimes wish we did have more information.
But to send away for a kit, no. Paula

Nope.....
I am already taking steps for my daughter....

My grandfather (mom's side) died from colon cancer, my mom had endometrial cancer (a possible offshoot of HNPCC), I had rectal cancer, my sister had anal cancer...

I've already done the numbers...lol! FOBT now, at 30, even tho her insurance denied...we paid the $75...and will, every year....

Awareness is the name of the game...even if there is no family history...any colon test, whether be it FOBT or colonoscopy, is better than no test!

Hugs, Kathi

PhillieG said:

NO
I would NOT. It could cause you to make decisions that you might not make otherwise over something that may or may not happen to you. I have already heard of women who have the gene for one form of breast cancer have "preventive mastectomies" to remove both breasts even when no disease is present.
As it is now the boys know they will have to be tested in their late 30's/early 40's and to also make sure that they "know their $hit" so to speak.

I can also see this become like drug testing for job applicants.
It's not a good thing to mess with Mother Nature, she ALWAYS wins.

My mom used to say "To each
My mom used to say "To each his own". I'm sure she didn't make it up but none the less I have thought about that saying many, many times in my life. I guess this would apply. Thanks for putting this out here, Phil. You always make me laugh and think....Paula

I have thought of it
When I was recovering from my colon resection surgery they came to me asking if I wanted the tests. I had lost my mom, her mom, and one of my mom's cousins to colon cancer. I told them no I do not need the tests, I do not have kids and neither does my sister. I have talked with my Onc about the tests, he says I do no need them. I already know it runs in my family, I do not need tests to tell me this. The one good thing about not having kids, I do not worry about them getting this horrid disease from me.

menright said:

Maybe
My GI doc who did my original colonoscopy, which started this chapter in my life, has asked about this and is pursuing some genetic marker, the name I forget.

For me if I can identify a genetic disposition to colon cancer for my children, I would welcome the information and then assure they take proper steps to avoid my experience.

I hope to keep the results private.

Mike

me, too
I agree with you, Mike. If I could find out whether or not my children might be in for trouble, I would do anything I could.

*hugs*
Gail

PhillieG said:

We ALL Know
or SHOULD know that all of our kids have a high risk of developing colon cancer and that they should be tested at least 10 years prior to our age when we were diagnosed. It's the "supposed possibility" of other forms of cancer that concerns me. If you or someone else felt that they KNEW some form of cancer was inevitable then they could possibly not bother to go to college and do something with their lives or an older person might just blow all of their life savings because the test said they'd get (whatever) cancer. Then they do NOT get the cancer. Now you have a bunch of people who blew everything or never bother to live their lives to their fullest potential based on a possibility of cancer?

If I've said this once, I've said it a hundred times. We all have the same chance of dying of something other than cancer. Just driving to the doctors appointments poses great risks. Should they develop a test to see what the genetic chances of that is then deny those people a drivers licence?
Hmmm, OK, maybe it's not such a bad idea after all....
-p

The lousy thing with cancer, is there's no known way to actually prevent it.

Knowing in advance that you are a higher than normal risk to get cancer,
isn't going to do much to prevent it from happening. Sure, you can get tests,
but it's already been proven that taking out a polyp or three isn't going to
give you better long-range chances; Cancer happens.

It should be kept in mind, that a cancer cell is nothing more than a normal
cell that's no longer responding to the body's instructions; it begins surviving
by the fermentation process, without -any- control.

Each good cell splits/divides in it's normal growing process, but if and
when the half that should have died and gotten carried off, instead continues
to live on it's own by it's own means....we call it cancer.

Trying to prevent cancer is futile, since nearly anything and everything can
be classified as a "contributing cause". Providing your body with what's
necessary to build a powerful immune system can help, but if your immune
system is having a problem understanding what cell doesn't belong, it's
not going to attack it.

Theoretically, just killing off cancer cells using chemicals and methods that
weaken the immune system is counterproductive. There's a lot of new
studies that seem to indicate that the chemicals given off during cancer cell
death can help the immune system learn what to attack. A weakened immune
system is often too weak to do the job, leaving the patient at the perils of
continued chemical therapy (or radiation) to do what the body can no longer
do........ and the end result of relying on other than our own body to
do the fighting is well understood.

So, knowing that there's a genetic glitch that could make you more susceptible
to a cancerous condition isn't going to be of much help. Giving your body a diet
that keeps your immune system at a high, healthy level, can help...

But eating and living well to keep our body in good shape should be done
anyway, genetics or not.

If you tried to avoid cancer by never getting out of bed, some study will
eventually show that cotton sheets are carcinogenic.

Live and eat; worry about cancer if and when it happens, but always try
to do what will help your immune system, regardless.

PhillieG said:

"Theoretically, just killing off cancer cells using chemicals and methods that
weaken the immune system is counterproductive."
In actuality, many of us are living proof that chemo can help people beat cancer or live a long productive life with it.

I know you're not a fan of chemo at all John but often I feel like you totally discount chemo as having ANY benefit at all for people with cancer. I STRONGLY disagree with you on that. I do agree with you that there are other methods for fighting cancer like TCM or dietary changes that may work better or work as well but I doubt I will ever see you state that chemo HAS helped people beat cancer. I certainly do not want you to say something you do not truly believe just to satisfy me. Maybe it didn't help you but it has helped me and I think it's helped others.

I wish more studies were done on those alternatives. I think we know that there is not much money to be made in that for companies and therefore it's not researched nearly as strongly as it should be. It's comparable to trying to get the world off of fossil fuels and into things like wind, solar, or hydroelectric power. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

I think we all can agree that a good diet, exercise, and early detection are key to preventing cancer. But like you said John, those things should be done regardless of one's genetics. I do feel that knowing your family's medical history would be a more reliable that that test. Just wait until all of the lawsuits start rolling in down the road.

The only way to prevent cancer (or anything else for that matter) is to never be born and we don't get a say in that!
;-)
-p

I guess I didn't type it right (again?)...


Chemo, herbs, or -any- method used to kill a cancer tumor, is perfectly fine.
Please don't misunderstand my position?

But...... if what's being done destroys the immune system to the point
that your body can no longer fight the cancer, or fight any associated
ills that comes with the fight against cancer, then it is counterproductive.

I had a friend that had just enough chemo treatments to kill the
tumor he had in his lung. His onco stopped, and gave his body
time to recuperate. His own body began killing the balance of the
tumor without help from "modern medicine". He's gone now, but
due to old age and a bad heart... His cancer never returned in the
8 or so years prior to his death.

When the doctors insist on continuous chemo, or radiation, and
your body is being damaged to the point you can barely remain alive,
the treatments are working against you. You end up fighting the
damaging treatments instead of the damaging cancer.

I have had too, too many friends die of the side effects and damage of
western medicine's cancer therapies. Second cancers from both Chemo
and radiation, illnesses from a weakened immune system that no medicine
could cure... Personally, I hate the thought of it all.

Using chemicals to kill a cancerous tumor can work wonders,
and radiation to kill a tumor also can work.. but so can freezing
the tumor, and so can oxygen injection into the tumor, and countless
of other ways that are at western medicine's disposal.

But regardless of the means of killing cancer masses, the body should
be able to recover quickly from the event. If that isn't happening, patients
should know enough to call it quits.

A cancer cell is very vulnerable to things that our normal cells can endure.
When we start killing more good cells than bad.... we have a problem.

It's not the drugs; the chemicals, it's their flippant application that I abhor.
Some doctors just don't know when to stop, and their patients are too scared
to realize when they can do without the bombardment of toxic chemicals.

(I can remember when rats were used to test to determine if cigarette smoke
could cause them to have cancer..... we speculated that perhaps cancer
in rats was hereditary and smoke had nothing to do with it) (gee, full circle)



(I probably typed that wrong again, huh?)


PS:
By the way Phil... that new picture you have.... well...
Does it appear to be a purple butt and slightly pornographic,
or are my herbs acting up?