Posts by Angela Wright

The federal laws governing IVF and reproductive technology lay everything out pretty clearly.

Sophia Ross53 said:My mom had some heavy bleeding from her throat last night. They’re saying a blood vessel burst. It's stopped now, and the doctor claims this is totally standard, though he warned things could get ugly if a major artery goes. If that happens, she could bleed out. Yesterday's scan actually showed the tumor mass has completely vanished, but we have to push through the rest of the treatment so that piece of garbage doesn't come back. We won't know the real results until a month after the radiation ends. To top it all off, one "lovely" nurse told my aunt that it would actually be better if that vessel just burst so she could bleed out. Seriously, lady, shove your "kind wishes" where the sun don't shine. If that's how you feel, keep your mouth shut. The worst part is she can't come home this weekend like we were all looking forward to.
But honestly, it's better she's there. If something like that happened while she was at home and the hospital was far away, they wouldn't be able to do a damn thing.

Just let the old woman talk nonsense. What a total jerk.😠

Susan Diaz91 said:Where did she live?
She lived in Santa Barbara, right next door to the Thalassotherapy center (ironic, considering it’s a facility meant for respiratory issues)
The connections... spent her entire life as a school professor—not a single clue in those chemical bonds...

Honestly, I don't believe in much anymore, except for the theory that we all carry cancer within us and it just needs a trigger.

A good friend of mine... hasn't even hit 30, never been sick a day in her life... ends up with stomach cancer...

My mother lived the exact same way—healthy lifestyle, ate clean, never touched a drop of alcohol, never smoked, let alone used drugs—and then she gets a brain tumor. It turns out when she was just a 6-month-old baby, she caught encephalitis. I only just found out from her aunt that it was actually viral, not bacterial like they thought back then, because she spent a whole year in the hospital being pumped full of antibiotics 😳. It likely left some kind of "scar" (the tumor formed right on the surface of the brain near the meninges). Her whole life, she suffered from debilitating headaches during her PMS; she couldn't stand bright lights or strong scents. She actually had to drop her chemistry major because whenever they started the lab work, she’d practically pass out during certain organic compound experiments. So, she switched to economics and ended up working in accounting at a tire factory where the offices were located right above the production floor. Then she hit menopause, lost her natural hormonal shield, and everything went south. Not to mention how much she stressed over everything, being such a perfectionist.
When you sit down and really look at the pieces, things start to align. It's been five years since this all began, and I'm still digging through it, piecing together these theories.

slyowl10 said:My dad has a pancreatic tumor and he’s doing really poorly. He’s starting to get disoriented and doesn't seem to know where he is.
He keeps asking to go home, but he’s already there. He hasn't eaten anything for days; he just lies there. Is it possible that the metastases have spread to his brain? He isn't having headaches, just pain in his stomach area, and he's incredibly depressed.
How can I make this easier for him? It’s terrifying even to write about this, let alone imagine what he’s actually going through.

It’s possible there are brain metastases, but it's not a certainty. When the liver and kidneys start failing—which they likely are if they've been hit by the cancer too—toxins build up in the system. That buildup poisons the cells, which manifests as that loss of mental clarity.
The main thing is making sure your dad gets IV fluids if he can't keep anything down.
Regrettably, your father is in the terminal stage of his illness. You should look into requesting placement in a hospice facility where they can provide the level of specialized care you simply can't manage at home. I know how heartbreaking that sounds, but honestly, he isn't even fully aware of his surroundings right now, and hospice will ensure he isn't in pain, thirsty, or hungry, which are the most critical things for someone in his position. Plus, they can provide sedatives to help with the depression.
Personally, if this were my family and there was a hospice available here in the US, I would do it in a heartbeat.

wanderingangler13 said:Hi,

I’ve suddenly broken out in these tiny red dots all over my palms and between my fingers. They’re small, but there are a lot of them, and they itch like crazy... especially when my hands get sweaty. I have a few spots on my feet too. I deal with allergies quite a bit, but I’ve never had anything show up on my skin before. I thought maybe it was a nickel allergy, but then why would it be on my feet? Should I just head straight to a dermatologist or what?😕

If you’re dealing with dyshidrotic eczema, just go see a dermatologist. They’ll hook you up with a steroid cream and that should sort it out.

Grace Campbell88 said:Look, I’m just curious here (and if someone wants to kick me off to some philosophy forum, fine, who cares☕):

Let's take a guy who dies from lung cancer caused strictly by smoking or, say, working in a coal mine—doesn't matter. Okay, we have a clear cause for the disease.
Let's assume that because there was a specific cause, if that man had never smoked (not even secondhand) or had never been anywhere near a mine, he would never have developed lung cancer.

Does that mean his grandson, for instance, who has never smoked or worked near a mine in his life, carries genetic predispositions in those percentages mentioned by JPK or ruggedscout91, or at least has doubled chances of getting lung cancer?

We all have genetic predispositions for cancer simply by being human. What actually makes the difference is how you handle your lifestyle, your diet, and avoiding risky behaviors that are proven triggers.
Listen, when you're talking about cancer, or honestly anything in life, there are no guarantees. Even if someone has a confirmed gene mutation—like women whose mothers had a known mutation that causes breast cancer—there's just a statistical probability that they might get it. It doesn't mean it's a done deal.
The whole point is to cut out everything you know is bad and acts as a trigger. Basically, act preventatively.
To make this easier to swallow, here is a quote from my friend Vanda, a molecular biologist, who gave a great explanation of all this on another forum:

How does cancer actually start? Every single day, we're exposed to countless substances that damage our DNA and proteins. UV rays, ionizing radiation, chemicals... living is inherently risky! In most cases, a cell will either repair the damage or undergo apoptosis. But occasionally, damage occurs in such a way or in such a spot that the cell fails to recognize it as a threat. For example, a mutation (a change in the DNA) might occur right in a proto-oncogene. If that happens, it can become an oncogene, which has the potential to turn a perfectly healthy cell into a malignant one. An oncogene can do this in several ways. Due to dysregulation, it might overproduce certain signals, causing all the surrounding cells to divide like crazy. The faster and more frequently cells divide, the higher the chance of a mistake occurring. You could also have damage to a tumor suppressor gene—meaning there's nothing left to balance out the proto-oncogene, so the "stop dividing" signal is gone, and cells just go into a frenzy. Some substances can even cause chromosomal breaks. A broken piece of a chromosome might accidentally fuse to another, messing up gene functions and triggering the production of faulty proteins (synovial sarcoma, for instance, is a result of chromosomal breakage). Even viral infections—even something like the flu—can be a factor. A flu virus integrates itself into our genome; if it lands in an unlucky spot, like a proto-oncogene, it can activate it. The Epstein-Barr virus (one of the culprits behind mono) is linked to about 50% of Hodgkin lymphoma cases (I'm EBV positive myself). It settles into your B lymphocytes and, while it's hanging out there like an unwanted guest, it accidentally messes things up and—boom—you've got lymphoma.

Cell damage like this happens all the time—honestly, probably daily—but we don't just wake up with cancer. We’re lucky because our immune system is basically a high-tech security detail specifically trained to spot these mutated cells and take them out. If it weren't for that, none of us would even make it to adulthood. Patients who lack what we call "killer cells" (NK cells, a specific subset of lymphocytes) that act as the front-line defense against viruses and tumors, face a much higher risk of developing malignancies. But here’s the catch: sometimes these transformed cells are so damn good at camouflage that our immune system's soldiers don't even realize they're looking at an enemy. Some tumors actually go out of their way to gaslight the immune system. Take my own lymphoma as an example—Hodgkin's lymphoma is a disease where B lymphocytes (one of our immune system's primary soldiers) essentially go rogue. They lose all the characteristics of an adult B cell, yet they don't look threatening—I mean, who looks at a child and thinks "danger"? Along with going rogue, they lose the ability to function independently, so they resort to lying and simulating inflammation by pumping out cytokine signaling proteins just to lure other immune cells toward them. Then, they hijack those misled cells, using them to ensure their own survival. The real tragedy is that the "good" immune cells end up completely exhausted and preoccupied with these liars, leaving them unable to do their actual job of protecting the body. And let's not even get started on how these deceptive, transformed B cells have zero chill; they consume far more resources than a normal cell ever would, effectively starving the host.

To put it bluntly, tumor cells are cells that have lost their internal compass. They no longer understand that the individual cell's well-being is secondary to the organism's survival. They become pure narcissists, hoarding resources and essentially starving the rest of the body—which is actually the exact principle behind a PET/CT scan, which tracks where the body is burning through the most sugar. It’s a lot like how Washington D.C. operates. But the massive hurdle is that they look similar enough to healthy cells that our own immune system fails to recognize them as infiltrators. That’s the core challenge in oncology: most chemicals that kill cancer cells also wreck healthy ones. The goal is to find those microscopic differences between a normal cell and a transformed one, then develop a substance that exploits those specific flaws to target only the cancer. That is incredibly difficult. One of those "smart" drugs is Gleevec, which selectively targets a specific oncogene caused by a chromosomal break and fusion (in chronic myeloid leukemia). Unfortunately, in some patients, certain tumor cells eventually figure out how to build resistance.

Furthermore, the damage we rack up throughout our lives has a cumulative effect—which is why cancer is much more common in older people. On top of that, they generally have a diminished capacity for regeneration and a weakened immune system.

Source:

Joseph Watson3 said:Here’s the link, take a look. Risk stands at 17.2% for men and 11.6% for women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7895211

I didn't mention whether I smoke because frankly, it's irrelevant. But, since you seem so keen—I've never touched a cigarette in my life. In fact, smokers irritate me enough that I’d personally vote to ban smoking from all indoor public spaces and transit hubs. That being said, just because I hate the habit doesn't mean I'm going to spout nonsense. It looks like you're wrong on two different counts here. 😉

Look, I wouldn't throw percentages around as casually as you are based on some random websites. Whether it's 17.2% or 20% isn't the point; the reality is that those numbers are climbing. And that percentage isn't "positive" because smoking is somehow less harmful; it's high because smokers often succumb to other ailments before they even have the chance to develop cancer.
I don't think I'm off base here, because what I'm discussing is literally my profession. As part of my job, I'm required to know more than the average person on the street. If you're actually interested in learning more, feel free to click on my profile. 😉

p.s. There's really no need to approach this debate with that level of arrogance or condescension. It's pointless and, honestly, quite rude, especially since I haven't said anything intended to offend you. At the end of the day, I actually agree with the core of what you wrote. 🤷

ruggedscout91 said:The spike in brain tumors is directly proportional to how many years we've spent glued to our cell phones.
We're seeing entire generations getting sick now—people who started using mobile phones over a decade ago. There’s a clear trend: a younger demographic of heavy phone users is increasingly being diagnosed with various cancers and benign brain tumors at much higher rates than before.
Enough time has passed for this to be obvious, and studies are already being conducted on these disease patterns. But let’s be real—the mediocre hacks who manufacture public opinion both here and across the US aren't exactly rushing to publish findings that might cause a panic.

There's definitely some truth to the mobile phone connection, but there's a massive catch: we're seeing an increasing number of older people getting sick who don't even use them. After the Nordic countries, the US is showing some of the highest rates in the Western world, or at least that's what they're claiming on Rib, which strikes me as incredibly suspicious.
I'm personally convinced that one day, we'll see the exact same health warnings on smartphone packaging that we currently see on cigarette boxes.
That said, the surge in sarcomas is a total mystery, and the most alarming part is that it's primarily hitting very young people and children.

Joseph Watson3 said:You haven't understood a single thing; you're just talking nonsense and twisting my words to make it sound like I'm defending the habit.

In what universe is pointing out a 50% chance of dying a slow, agonizing death due to smoking considered an excuse for smoking? The fact that you can't grasp basic probability—and therefore mistake my "whether they smoke or not" distinction for an endorsement—is purely a matter of your own cognitive limitations, but it remains a fact.

Let me lay it out simply for you: people with a family history of cancer have doubled their risk, regardless of whether they smoke or not. For those who actually smoke, that risk doesn't just double; it multiplies by nine or ten times. If that sounds like an excuse to you, then there's no hope for you, because you lack the ability to connect separate sentences into a coherent thought.

🙄
And you aren't even addressing my point 😳 I clarified my thesis further (my bad for not making that explicit immediately to avoid confusion, mea culpa) which pertains to the specific quote from my first post that I am responding to, and the issue is your prejudice against me and taking things personally regarding parts I didn't even mention.
So, let’s clear the air and summarize:
1. I agree with you regarding the multiplication of risk.
2. I was quoting the part about "whether they smoke or not," commented on it, and expanded upon my thesis.

Are we settled now?

By the way, that 17% figure for smokers developing cancer is perfectly accurate, and I don't see how it could be misinterpreted, since it's absolutely devastating for smokers as it stands. I don't think any other human activity (aside from maybe organized crime) carries a 17% chance of ending in a painful death. Again, if someone manages to misinterpret that, they're a complete idiot.

It's actually reverse psychology at work here—the kind smokers typically use to comfort themselves and justify their habits. It isn't about stupidity; it's about addiction (though stupidity certainly leads to it). Besides, your statistic is slightly off; I believe it's closer to 20%, and if I check, you won't believe it, but the reason is simply that cardiovascular diseases take precedence, hitting people with heart attacks or strokes before they even develop cancer. Given current trends, one in three Americans currently living will suffer from cancer—pretty encouraging, right?🙂 So, that percentage will likely keep climbing until cardiovascular disease and cancer are neck-and-neck.
What personally worries me is the rising incidence of rare tumors like sarcomas and brain tumors, where we know almost nothing about why they occur.

p.s. You still haven't said whether you're a smoker or not. 😉

Susan Diaz91 said:My mother never touched a cigarette in her life, yet she passed away from lung cancer. 😢
There was absolutely no history of cancer in our family, so my mom just ended up getting it.
A pulmonologist back in Jordan told me I should get checked for tumor markers every year (there are four types we test for here) and get a chest X-ray every two or three years.

I am firmly convinced that cancer is an autoimmune condition—something we all carry within us—but we don't all share the same trigger. Just because someone dies from lung cancer doesn't mean their child or a close relative won't develop something else entirely, like stomach cancer.

It’s worth considering where your mother lived and what kind of environmental toxins she might have been exposed to. For instance, people living in towns with a heavy asbestos industry see much higher rates of lung cancer.
But let's look at the reality: most lung cancer cases are driven by smokers.
I agree with the idea of "triggers," and that’s exactly why we need to eliminate the ones we know exist. Smoking, a terrible diet, and a sedentary lifestyle are definitely in the top three.

Joseph Watson3 said:That’s not what I meant at all; you're just fundamentally misreading what was written. I told the guy he has about a 50% chance of getting cancer if he smokes, compared to roughly 3.5% if he doesn't—and you're twisting that to suggest I'm justifying smoking? For God's sake. 🤦

I think I understood perfectly fine, and there's really no need for us to get personal here. I work with people who are actively fighting their own bad habits, and I brought this up as a textbook example of how people manipulate data just to justify their own behavior. For instance, a friend of mine who works as a graphic editor for a major publishing house once told me that while editing a book, she came across a statistic claiming nicotine addiction is the second strongest addiction after heroin—and used that as her excuse for why she couldn't quit, despite never even touching the stuff. She isn't denying the harm or the statistics; she's just twisting them to give herself an out.

Our relationship isn't the deciding factor here either—smokers have about a 17% chance of developing cancer. Cancer is a complex beast with countless contributing factors, each playing its part in the probability of it occurring. But I suppose that's a bit too complicated for most people to wrap their heads around.

😁 I understood you just fine, especially that last percentage you mentioned, which, unfortunately for all smokers out there, is being completely misinterpreted.
The reality is that when it comes to lung cancer rates, we are the second highest in Europe. The only group doing "better" than us are the Turks. About 80% of all lung cancer cases involve smokers. Furthermore, 25% of all malignant diseases are directly caused by smoking. In the US, roughly 23,000 people are diagnosed with cancer annually, and 13,000 die from it, so do the math 😢. Sadly, those are the statistical and clinical realities; everything else is just addict self-delusion 👎

Joseph Watson3 said:Lung cancer isn't just about whether you light up a cigarette or two; it’s a complex equation where genetics plays a massive role. If you have a family history of lung cancer, you're essentially looking at doubling your own risks. It's not just about your habits—it's written in your DNA. Whether they smoked or not doesn't change the bottom line.

This whole "to smoke or not to smoke" debate feels like it’s coming from someone who’s already lighting up and is just desperately hunting for an excuse to keep going. It's that classic logic: "If I've got bad genes, I'm going to get cancer anyway, so why bother quitting?" It's a total cop-out. 😉
We all have cancer cells living inside us at any given moment. It’s just part of being human. What keeps those cells from turning into a problem is our immune system. But when we get reckless with our habits and live like we have nothing to lose, we wreck that delicate biological balance. We essentially take away the brakes, allowing those cells to run wild and grow into tumors without any resistance.
In his book *Anti-Cancer*, David Servan-Schreiber dives into some fascinating research involving a massive DNA database maintained by the Danes. Because they have such comprehensive genetic records for their entire population, they’ve been able to quietly track children who were placed for adoption to see if they would eventually develop the same types of cancer as their biological parents. As it turns out, these kids almost always ended up developing the same illnesses as their adoptive families. It turns out that once they joined a new household, they picked up the specific habits and lifestyle patterns of their new parents—and those daily choices proved to be the deciding factor in whether or not they fell ill. Look, genetics aren't the final word here. It all comes down to how we actually live our lives in relation to the DNA we were handed.

Smoking is responsible for about 80% of all lung cancers out there. Given that both you and your grandfather battled cancer, it’s pretty obvious there's a genetic component at play here.

Kenneth Hayes3 said:We’re looking for someone willing to take on the responsibility of caring for an immobile adult,
starting with just a few hours a day.
What I really need to figure out is how to actually find this person,
what specific qualities to look for during the interview process, if anyone knows the going rate,
per day or per hour—basically, what's a fair wage for this kind of work?

My advice is to hunt for a medical professional, specifically a retired RN. You can find plenty of them through local job boards or community ads.
Rates fluctuate, but for someone managing the care of a totally bedridden patient during standard business hours—say, about an 8-hour shift—you're looking at roughly $2000.
Beyond that, I strongly suggest you ask the primary care physician about setting up home health services. Most patients are entitled to this coverage, which can include visits up to 7 days a week for about 45 minutes at a time. These visiting nurses can handle the heavy lifting, like bathing, changing, and administering medication. If they handle the bulk of the clinical work, your private caregiver should only be stepping in for things like diaper changes or feeding, which means you should definitely negotiate a lower hourly rate.

Susan Hayes25 said:Angela, please, if you happen to have that email address for the contact in Houston, could you send it my way? I tried hunting for it on their official site, but I couldn't find a single email address or any info regarding what a second opinion costs (I assume it's via credit card, but they don't say). I was thinking about emailing them to see what they think, especially since our oncologist isn't feeling very optimistic. She actually said it right to my mother's face once she remembered mentioning Temozolomide (at the end of radiation). When she realized we were actually prepared to pay for it, she would have brought it up sooner—but she didn't, probably because she jumped to conclusions. Then, right in front of my mom, she basically implied we wouldn't even make it to the end of the radiation sessions. Honestly, I can't rely on her judgment; she seems to be making decisions based on whatever God Knows, and clearly, she thinks no one would go to such lengths for their own mother, so she assumes nobody else will either...

Unfortunately, I don't have that specific contact😢
But you should reach out to the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute instead. Just fill out this form, and make sure you explicitly mention that you are outside the USA and are seeking a second opinion and diagnostic verification. They claim they'll call you within 24 hours, and based on our experience so far, they actually follow through on that. You'll need to get all the medical records translated into English and request the tissue samples; once you send those over along with the translated files and the CT/MRI/PET-CT scans on a CD, they'll handle it. They'll ship the samples back once they've finished their analysis.

neonbadger50 said:Hi everyone,
I can't give you a definitive answer, Angela Wright, because all I have is the diagnosis they sent over (brain tumor, left frontal region; left-sided hemiparesis). They discharged her from the hospital a few days ago and sent her home because after the doctors met, they decided surgery was just too risky. Now, chemotherapy is her only shot. That’s the path we're on, and we'll take it as it comes. Thanks to all of you for the support and advice—it honestly makes things easier when you can talk to people who have walked a similar path. Best to everyone...

That "brain tumor, left frontal region; left-sided hemiparesis" bit isn't a complete diagnosis. All they've done is state there's a tumor in the frontal lobe and some neurological deficit causing weakness on one side of the body. It's nowhere near enough information to actually provide quality medical care.
Did they perform a biopsy to get tissue samples for pathology so they can actually type the tumor?
It is completely unprofessional and frankly irresponsible to discharge patients like this based solely on an imaging scan without providing a specific diagnosis. From what I can gather based on those notes, you can't even tell if we're dealing with something benign or malignant.

Susan Hayes25 said:Angela Wright, please help me. My mom just finished her first round of Temozolomide, and I don't even know how to describe it... the MRI right before the Temozolomide (30 days after radiation) sounded terrible. I’m no doctor, but anything described as a massive, expansive process involving a wide area sounds bad enough that I didn't feel the need to press the doctor for details—which I'm honestly terrified of anyway, since she's incredibly negative. So, I didn't ask anything. She started the Temozolomide, and she got through those first five days; she only vomited on day one, and the other four were relatively okay. But I want to know, what does a "good response" to Temozolomide actually look like? We were giving her 4 mg of dex daily, but this afternoon we added another 4 mg ampule. She can barely walk, her left leg is failing her completely, and I feel like she isn't even aware of her surroundings. Have you noticed any specific reactions to Temozolomide? Is there reason to hope for improvement? Her blood work isn't until Thursday, and then I have the appointment with the doctor on Friday with the results—but the doctor told me Mom doesn't need to come with me. I don't know how I'm going to go alone. I've been trying to hold it all together, but I feel like I'm sinking deeper and deeper.

A "good response" means the disease hasn't progressed; it means things are either receding or at least holding steady.
It's obvious the edema is running wild with your mom, so it's a good thing you bumped up the dex. You can actually scale that dose up to 24 mg in extreme cases. You really need to monitor her closely and adjust the dosage in 2 mg increments—that’s the only way to do it, or at least that's what the hospital staff advised me. Also, try splitting the dex dose into three parts throughout the day. That worked wonders for my mom because it kept her condition stable; if you dump the whole dose at once, she'll seem fine initially, but then she starts crashing toward the end of the day. If you can't manage the three-part split, give her one injection a day and handle the rest of the dose via 0.5 mg tablets.
As for what to expect, it's hard to say. My advice to you is to stop obsessing over the future. Just focus entirely on today, and maybe a little bit on tomorrow. You know as well as I do that this is a brutal, cruel disease, and you have to keep that reality in mind, but you still have to hope for the best and do everything in your power to make her life easier and ensure she gets the best possible care. It seems like she is receiving that right now.
Whatever you do, ask someone to sit with your mom while you head to the doctor. Never leave her unsupervised. I used to handle that by calling in volunteers from the Hospice Foundation of America, who would come stay with her for a few hours while I went out to take care of business.

Sitting around for hours on end, hunched over a computer or just lounging aimlessly all day, is a massive risk factor for developing cancer. It’s a slow-motion disaster. People who lead sedentary lifestyles and struggle with obesity are facing a much higher level of danger than anything you could possibly get from monitor radiation or similar nonsense.

Jose Flores24 said:Old thread, I know, but whatever. I'll give it a shot.
Does anyone actually find that tea tree oil works for preventing ingrown hairs? I read somewhere that it helps, and plenty of you claim it heals skin irritations and keeps things soft.
I'm dealing with ingrowns in my bikini area, so I’m thinking about trying it.
Anyone got any advice?

My grandmother used to swear by calendula for just about everything, so it would probably help with whatever you're dealing with.
Go ahead and try it—you aren't losing anything by testing it out—though if you ask me, ingrown hairs are usually more of a mechanical issue than a skin texture one.

slyowl10 said:My dad has severe liver swelling. He just had an ultrasound, and it shows fluid starting to build up on the right side of his liver. The doctors are playing it down, saying it’s nothing to worry about because he already has metastases in the liver and needs to start chemo.
Won't the chemo actually do anything about the swelling?
I'm honestly terrified that this buildup—this fluid—is going to rupture or something and suffocate him..

Saying it isn't "serious" isn't exactly accurate, though given the liver metastases, it's a predictable development. How much that fluid recedes will depend entirely on how he responds to the treatment. You have to keep that fluid accumulation under tight control; if too much builds up at once, it becomes life-threatening, and that's when they have to perform a paracentesis to drain it. Doctors usually prescribe diuretics like Fursemid, but obviously, everything has to be managed strictly by his physician.