Posts by Jamie Rivera78

melloworca6 said:You're exaggerating and being dramatic now. 🙂

Nobody ever said a healthy lifestyle doesn't have a positive impact on your health, but it isn't some magic cure-all. If I'm genetically predisposed to diabetes, slamming candy all day certainly won't help me avoid it—but that doesn't mean if I watch what I eat, I'm somehow guaranteed to stay clear. That's the point. You can't exactly rewrite your genetics. You might be able to shave off a certain percentage of risk, but genes are genes.

Please, I am not exaggerating one bit.
It's not an all-access pass to health; nobody gets a guarantee they won't get sick. Generally speaking, people who live healthy lives face much lower cancer rates, regardless of their genetic hand. Prevention is always better than trying to fix a disaster after it hits.

Ronald Morales51 said:Here is yet another example of poor-quality writing.

You only need to look at this sentence:

Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals.

I haven’t seen a more nonsensical argument. I mentioned earlier that we all carry the BRCA1 gene; it’s actually a perfectly normal gene that produces a functional protein in our bodies. Anyone drawing such sweeping conclusions with this level of "knowledge" clearly doesn't understand what they are talking about.
It is an established and widely accepted fact—one you'll find in almost any medical textbook—that in cases of hereditary breast cancer, lifestyle has a minimal impact. We aren't saying lifestyle doesn't matter at all, but we have to view it in its proper context.
I believe even Wikipedia covers this.
To quote:
Given the high risks and low benefit of lifestyle choices in BRCA mutation carriers, no lifestyle choices provide sufficient protection.

What is actually vital for women to know is that hereditary breast cancer accounts for only about 5% of new diagnoses, whereas other known risk factors contribute up to 30%.

That percentage likely comes from a much more detailed genetic analysis, as I mentioned before. However, since I don't know the specific case being discussed, it’s hard to give an exact answer. Just think of a very simple analogy: one gene, one effect. For instance, if you have the genes for brown eyes, in 100% of cases, you will have brown eyes. In this situation, we are dealing with something somewhat analogous, even if my example is incredibly basic.
Furthermore, that 87% figure refers to the probability of expressing that trait by a certain age, which wasn't specified here. There are also other genes that create an individual's unique genetic landscape, as well as family history, which can help calculate risk more accurately.
If you dig into the professional medical literature, you can find this specific table, which outlines exactly how much the breast cancer risk is adjusted if you're a carrier of a mutation in the BRCA genes. As I mentioned before, the type of mutation essentially defines the variant; if someone carries a non-functional BRCA gene, the picture is quite stark—it’s almost like my simplified example where one gene equals one specific trait. However, we are specifically talking about hereditary breast cancer here, which is the primary driver behind such high risk levels, just as the table illustrates.

I'm not entirely sure what part is tripping you up, but you mentioned being used to seeing smaller risks? Well, first off, risks are often expressed as a hazard ratio or a relative risk, and those numbers aren't directly comparable. What I was getting at is that a certain number of pathologies have a less defined genetic component, meaning the risk of developing them will be low based solely on genetic analysis. But risks aren't exclusively genetic; non-genetic factors can produce effects that are less intense but equally significant. Even though the correlation between a BRCA mutation and cancer is incredibly strong, this actually only accounts for about 5% of all breast cancer cases because that genetic trait is relatively rare. So, while 5% is a massive number, it's only one piece of the entire biological puzzle of this disease.

Furthermore, when we discuss risks calculated through genetic analysis, you often bring up weaker genetic correlations. In those cases, the risk percentage is based on analyzing loci—essentially markers tied to potential genes and known associations between those genes and diseases—which is a fairly descriptive approach. Here, however, we are discussing a gene that is fully defined and thoroughly analyzed. Recent genome analysis projects have clearly demonstrated that many vital elements exist outside of our genes, and frankly, there is still so much we don't know.
I truly believe that in the near future, this will become standard practice—that everything will be calculated for you at birth, because it's all written in the genes, including how sensitive you are to environmental factors and other risk variables. We already have companies offering this online today; you buy a kit, send in your DNA, and receive a highly specific breakdown of your risks for the most common pathologies. Over in the UK, there has already been an active project for several years to create a genomic data bank that would certainly complete this picture. Essentially, the future is already arriving.

That whole "minimal impact" thing is total garbage. What does "sufficient protection" even mean anyway? All these percentages basically act like a healthy lifestyle doesn't matter at all, operating on the assumption that there's zero effect. Because of propaganda like this, people are just going to live even unhealthier lives.
The only thing that actually matters here, from what I can tell, is that removing breasts DOESN'T extend your life, and as of right now, we don't even know if it increases the risk for other types of cancer or if it makes someone more or less likely to get sick later on.
Can you tell me why the popularity of preventative hysterectomies has plummeted over the last few years?
The idea that you can pinpoint a genetic defect right at birth sounds terrifying to me. What's the fallout? Preemptive surgery on newborns? Living a life paralyzed by panic, constant checkups, and endless radiation exposure? What kind of life is that person even supposed to have?

Angela Wright said:Look, I think it's a bit premature to jump to conclusions about Angelin's brave choice when we don't have the full picture of her medical history. My guess? She might have already been dealing with things like fibroadenomas that could turn malignant. Regardless, given the genotype for breast and ovarian cancer, she did exactly what any smart, informed woman would do—especially one who has already lost someone to this disease. You need some serious guts to pull that off. It's similar to what Christina Appelgate (Kelly Bundy) did; she dealt with breast cancer and opted to have the healthy tissue removed just to mitigate the chance of a recurrence, especially after watching her own mother suffer through it. Women can't afford to play dumb, and like Angie so aptly put it—if we have a way to lower the risk, we take it. So, she didn't necessarily "extend" her life, she mitigated the risk, which, if nothing else hits her, can certainly impact both longevity and quality of life. Talking about guarantees in life is pointless because they don't exist. We all know that when a glass jar falls out a window, it usually shatters—unless, by some stroke of luck, it lands on a soft cushion that just happened to be sitting right there... too many "ifs" if you actually value your life. 😉

http://www.naturalnews.com/040334_An...revention.html
This explains everything perfectly. Seriously, though, should we really be cutting out organs just because they *might* get cancer someday? I feel like that list of organs would get way too long. And all this gambling with percentages is totally pointless. With Angelin, the numbers being thrown around range from 15% to over 90%.

melloworca6 said:Look, it’s just not the same thing. We're talking about genetics in one scenario—like breast cancer—which is basically a roll of the dice you can't control. In the other, we're talking about lifestyle choices, which you actually have a say in. Comparing the two is like comparing breast cancer to liver cirrhosis caused by heavy drinking. It's apples and oranges. You can't draw that comparison.

The genes you're born with are what they are; you can't go in and rewrite them. Sure, maybe a decent diet or exercise can nudge some risks down to a minimum, but at the end of the day, DNA is DNA. Lifestyle habits? Those are entirely within your control.

That’s exactly my point. The cause is different, sure, but the end goal is identical: don't get cancer in your organs.
Sure, you can't mess with your genetic code, but living healthy is the best defense for pretty much everything.
I'll say it again: there isn't a shred of evidence that this "brave move" by Angelin actually extended her life one bit.

velvetmoose9 said:If it’s actually true that what the media reported—this 87% probability of a highly aggressive type of breast cancer—is accurate, then what specifically would you suggest to bring that risk down to 5%?
The rest of the US, and honestly the whole world, is eagerly waiting for your answer, provided it's backed by actual scientific evidence. 🙂

Giving an answer along the lines of "I'd just let Mother Nature take her course and leave it to fate" wouldn't strike me as being honest; it would just seem incredibly harsh, inhumane, and selfish, especially since we aren't talking about you, but someone else.

We aren't responsible for our genetics (which is exactly what we're talking about here), but we are *extremely* responsible for certain behaviors (specifically smoking cigarettes)—or more accurately, it's incredibly irresponsible not to be.
So, that little analogy of yours about smokers and lung removal is completely misplaced; there isn't a shred of logical connection between that and the actual situation we're discussing.

Feel free to drop a link to a peer-reviewed study from a reputable medical journal that supports your idea—you know, based on evidence-based medicine—showing how a decent diet and a healthy lifestyle can have a clinically significant impact when dealing with the specific reality of BRCA 1 and 2 and breast cancer. And besides, how would you even know if she's eating healthy or not?

Current consensus within the scientific community is that this approach isn't some fringe idea; they actually consider it to make sense.
Maybe it'll become outdated in a few years once gene therapy proves to be effective, but hey, only time will tell.

By the way, has anyone else noticed how Angelina Jolie has looked extremely underweight in recent photos, almost cachectic?
Was that intentional, or could something else be going on?

Look, if breasts exist, you can't usually drop that cancer risk down to 5%. If they aren't there, then sure, you can. If you take out the stomach, the risk of stomach cancer hits zero. Hope that clears things up.
Are you seriously trying to tell us that diet and lifestyle don't play a major role in breast cancer for women with BRCA 1 and 2? So what, the only option is surgery? Otherwise, 9 out of 10 will get sick? You're saying you can't influence an unlucky genetic inheritance at all?
Do you have any actual proof that preventative mastectomy actually extends life? That’s the only thing that matters here.

melloworca6 said:Have you seen what Greta is posting?

That’s exactly why some women with a positive family history and high-risk genes opt for preventative mastectomies and immediate reconstruction.
It doesn't mean there's zero chance anymore—since about 5% of glandular tissue can be missed during a mastectomy—but because the vast majority of hormone-sensitive breast tissue is gone, that risk drops to almost nothing.
Breast cancer can't just pop up in another organ. Sure, metastases happen, but if there’s no primary tumor because the breast tissue is gone, there's nothing to spread.

How on earth does comparing smoking or lung removal to this make any sense? 😕

I get why she did it. Her mom died from cancer, her own risk profile is huge, and she has six kids to think about. She wasn't going to gamble with them. Honestly, if I were in her shoes, I’d do the exact same thing. 🤷

edit: velvetmoose9 🙂 😘 People are going to start thinking we coordinated our replies. 😁

It's simple math: no organ, no cancer in that organ. Is that really such a hard concept to grasp?
You can definitely make the comparison. Both scenarios have the same end goal: preventing cancer from hitting a specific organ. Sure, the root cause isn't identical, but the objective is the same.

So, scientists over at Stanford University just dropped some news that might chill you out a bit: if there’s a BRCA gene mutation running through your family tree, it doesn't mean you're automatically doomed to inherit it or face a higher risk than anyone else. They dug through data from about 3,200 women who had close relatives battling breast cancer, and the results were eye-opening.

Basically, just because someone carries those BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 mutations doesn't mean they're destined to get sick. These genes can bump up your risk by anywhere from 5 to 40 percent, but that's far from a guarantee you'll actually develop cancer—plus, the mutation isn't even passed down to every single person in the family line.

"While older studies basically shouted from the rooftops that breast cancer is way more likely in families with a history of it, we're stepping up to say that's just not the whole story," said one of the lead researchers, Dr. Allison Kurian, in a piece for the journal Clinical Oncology.

Look, there are plenty of ways to stay healthy, but hacking away perfectly good organs? That’s probably the absolute worst way to go about it.
If we followed that kind of twisted logic, smokers could just cut out half their lungs and assume they’re safe because cancer won't hit the side they tossed in the trash. There was a time when preventative hysterectomies were all the rage, but nowadays, most doctors will tell you straight up that it's just nonsense.
There isn't even solid proof that ripping out healthy breasts actually adds years to your life. Honestly, you might just be opening the door for cancer to pop up somewhere else entirely.
The real secret to prevention is sticking to a decent diet and living a healthy lifestyle—that’s where you actually slash your risks. I don't see any "bravery" in cutting out healthy organs, no matter what they are. It doesn't make you healthier; it just makes you more broken.

jadedrifter2 said:Since when? Are they taking a percentage of the transaction or is it just a flat fee? If this becomes their standard move, it’s totally not worth the hassle.

Where is this coming from all of a sudden? They used to charge me about 1 Euro per transaction.

Andrew Howard14 said:yo,

what’s the best online sportsbook right now? Or at least give me a top 3. I used to use BetMGM, but honestly, feels like they’ve seen better days—the odds are pretty trash lately.

I mostly care about soccer, specifically lower leagues, so if they have a solid selection, that’s what I’m looking for...

thanks

Look, a massive selection doesn't mean squat if the odds suck. You'll just be burning money. If you want actual value, Pinnacle is hands down the way to go.

When it comes to those kinds of questions, Pinnacle is the absolute gold standard. Their limits are massive, they don't just kick you out of nowhere, and getting your payouts is smooth sailing. It’s basically the textbook definition of a fair deal. Plus, their odds are usually the best you're gonna find.

steelraven312 said:So, how do you actually get cash onto Moneybookers?

Man, people have been chewing on this topic forever. I haven't moved any funds in a minute, but if I recall, the folks over at Erste Bank were super chill about it and handled all the paperwork for me. I just used my foreign currency account. Usually takes about 2 or 3 days to clear.

steelraven312 said:What's the easiest way to get cash into online sportsbooks? I've got a JPMorgan Chase account, a Visa Electron, and a Moneybookers account... up until now, I've just had buddies transfer funds to my MB, but they always hit me with a fee.

thanks 😉

Honestly, I just stick to Moneybookers for everything—deposits and withdrawals. It’s been smooth sailing for me, zero headaches.

Charles Richardson69 said:I didn't play there myself, but I wouldn't recommend it. I know they slap massive commissions on winning bettors on the exchange side. Plus, they had this huge scandal where they tried to snatch $3 million from a player, and when they messed up their own poker promo, they covered it by refusing to pay people out for months.

edit: btw I have a Visa Electron and it works on everything regular credit cards work on, plus you get it with a foreign currency account.

I think the whole high commission thing only applies if you're hitting massive, life-changing wins. Otherwise, they just charge a 5% margin on winnings after your personal deduction.
I've been playing through them for years and honestly, I've never had a single issue getting paid. They won't come after you and limit your account just because you're actually good at winning, unlike some other places. Withdrawing via Moneybookers usually takes about a day. In my book, it's easily the best sportsbook out there—the odds are unbeatable.
The whole exchange-style betting setup lets you take those already killer odds and make them even better.

Eric Fox7 said:Take this game, for instance:

And then you serve up some lukewarm garbage coffee 🤦

Seriously, stop acting like tough guys and preaching about how betting on these pathetic, tiny odds long-term actually pays off. It’s absolute nonsense.
I've seen it happen more than a few times now; this is just one case in point.
One single game like this—or anything even remotely close to it—and your whole little theory goes right down the drain.

You should definitely check out these threads:

What matters is whether a game like that pops up more often than once in a hundred tries. And man, which sportsbook you pick makes all the difference.
Not every bookie is going to screw you over that badly. You won't know until you actually test it out.

Ugh, finally someone who gets it.
Look, at the end of the day, ANY profit is a win in my book, I don't care how small the odds are.

mistysurfer55 said:🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Hold up, you're seriously dropping $1.5k on 1.01 odds? 🤣🙏

If you catch just one bad beat—and yeah, that happens more than you think—you’d need to hit 100 winners just to break even on that single loss. You really think that's worth it? Sorry, but I haven't heard anything stupider in my life.

Look, I never said I was slamming 1500 bucks on 1.01 odds. And I definitely didn't say I play 1.01 every single day. I've said this a dozen times already.
All you critics attacking low odds need to tell me: are high odds actually better? What's the "sweet spot" for betting? For me, it’s always been about finding value. Period. Like, take the Ireland-USA game—the line was 1.01 for under 6.5 goals. Based on my math, it should have been under 5.5. That makes it a smart play. I know guys who constantly bet on 3-3 draws and stuff like that. Not one of them has ever seen a profit.
So why don't you tell us: are you actually up or down in the long run? You can call my methods stupid all you want, but at the end of the day, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. That's how you see who's actually investing and who's just throwing money away.

jadedrifter2 said:it’s not doubling down. You just need a tie to hit once every four games to break even, and ties in the NHL aren't exactly rare—just look at the season stats.

If you've got a massive bankroll, it works. I bet on hockey all the time, it's my bread and butter, and most of the time when I take a hit, it's because of an NHL tie. This league is freaking parity personified; anyone can beat anyone on any given night.

Making money off ties is nothing more than a lucky streak. Don't kid yourself—those odds are baked specifically to account for years of historical data. Sure, you might catch a hot streak for a bit, but in the long run? You're almost certainly going down the drain.

jadedrifter2 said:Look, I'm not gonna lecture you—everyone else already said what I was thinking... but here’s a real-world example of how some guy actually made bank at the sportsbook (you gotta have a massive bankroll for this, though!). He picked one specific team in the NHL and just hammered the draw/tie every single time. By the end of the season, he was up big. If you’ve got the stomach and the cash to ride out the swings, that's the play.

I'm assuming you aren't talking about doubling down after a loss. Besides, betting on a tie is basically just pure luck anyway.
A similar move would be betting against the favorites in MLB, especially during the second half of the season.
If you're thinking about using a Martingale, it's a one-way ticket to bankruptcy sooner or later.

Thomas Mendoza45 said:Neither one, or maybe both...

Everyone’s got their own little system. Personally, I think you’ve got a better shot hitting a single 1.40 odd than trying to grind out seventeen 1.02 bets in a row just to end up at the same 1.40. Right?

So, what's the move in your book? Chasing a 1.40 once, or hitting 1.02 seventeen times? Which one actually has the better odds of working out?

I used to live for those 1.30 or 1.40 lines. Honestly? It didn't go well.
There's no way to say which one is "easier." You can't rush the money; if you try to sprint toward a payout, you're just gonna trip. There’s no such thing as fast cash in gambling. Man, wouldn't it be sweet if you could just double your bankroll every couple of days? But let's be real—that's a pipe dream.