Like Ida Washington, study participant Laurie Havas, also 52, had no idea as a child that she was part of a multigenerational research project that her mother had joined before her birth. Laurie’s mother died of pancreatic cancer when Laurie was 21. Laurie does not know why her mother joined the study, but when she got a letter in the mail some years later, asking her to participate in a follow-up, she knew it was something she had to do.
“I am doing it for myself and my mother. I am continuing her legacy. It makes me feel closer to her,” she said.
Havas, who lives in Pleasant Hill, Calif., has two children, a 17-year-old son and a 20-year-old daughter. Her daughter has so far declined to participate as an adult in the study, but Havas hopes that some day she will change her mind.
Both Havas and Ida Washington feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves: They are partners in a quest to find answers for the causes of breast cancer and other diseases. Cohn is trying to ensure the project's funding, reliant on federal grants, continues long into the future, although nothing is guaranteed.
Like most people, Ida Washington hopes one day for a cure for breast cancer. And while she realizes she may never know why her mother developed the disease nearly 40 years ago, she understands that the cure and the cause are inextricably linked. “How can we begin to find a cure if we don’t first know the cause?” she asked.
Nobody knows exactly how many years, months and days it will take to answer those questions, or if those answers will ever be available to help any of the women now in the study who may develop breast cancer in their lifetime.
But the legacy of these women will live on, with their blood and tissue samples providing clues that will endure long after they die.
Havas, for one, has her sights trained on the future. “The things going into my body when I was pregnant with my daughter, the things going into my daughter’s body, the more we can grasp, the more we can affect the future.”
“The future,” she said, “is now.”
Read Part 1
This article originally ran at Environmental Health News, a news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentFinally, some interest in breast cancer causes. Cedric Garland, of UCSD, has been proposing for some time a theory that seems so logical that it's startling that it has had so little consideration. Go to grassrootshealthdotorg to read his scholarly discussion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew cells are being created in all of us all the time. As new cells are generated, some with genetic imperfections, there is a perpetual tension that an imperfect cell, while not suited for the tissue function it is in, will be able to reproduce in an uncontrolled manner. A cell can either survive because it is a "good liver cell" or "because it can reproduce faster than the surrounding cells." Fast cell division is of no value to the liver, but is great for the imperfect cell. Fast, uncontrolled cell growth -- sounds like the start of cancer.
Apoptosis, programmed cell death, is the body's way to rid itself of those imperfect cells, and apoptosis requires intracellular communication to be effective. Vitamin D has been well demonstrated to be essential for that communication and guess what, we are almost all of us Vit D deficient. The "naturally occurring" serum level for Vit D is 80-100 ng/ml, yet the IOM thinks 20 is "enough". I've yet to see a scholarly study of Vit D that considers the "natural" level found in individuals exposed to adequate sunlight as desirable.
We have just started to realize how pervasive the chemicals, nuclear fallout, air pollution, water pollution damaging marine life are that affect mankind. Overpopulation will only
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thismake conditions worsen over time as resource dwindles and less favorable outcomes prevail.
I am surprised that the article does not mention one of the clearest factors influencing breast cancer risk - later first pregnancy and lower number of pregnancies. These are both features of modern developed societies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is feasible that use of synthetic pregnancy hormones, as used in the contraceptive pill, might be used to simulate the effects of pregnancy and thus protect against breast cancer. The benefit would have to be balanced against potential harmful effects of taking hormones.
very helpfull article, thanks a lot
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this<a href="http://www.ejaketkulit.com/">jaket kulit </a> I<a href="http://www.ejaketkulit.com/">jaket kulit garut</a> I<a href="http://www.ejaketkulit.com/">jaket kulit murah</a>
The government in their ignorance has been convinced to add the metal iron to all our foods. This is proving to be a big mistake.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Red meat, MeIQx, and dietary iron elevated the risk of invasive breast cancer, but there was no linear trend in the association except for dietary iron."
Has anyone looked into the effects of Genetically Modified Foods? Monsanto is such a major and powerful organization that people are afraid to investigate what is put into our foods (growth hormones)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisResearching epigenetic causes of breast cancer- or any similarly hormone-influenced cancers ( prostate cancer rates are pretty parallel to breast cancer rates!) has been long overdue. Epidemiological studies, e,g, Professor Colin Campbell's ground-breaking, 30 years' 'China Study' have shown that diet plays a very significant role:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe highest breast & prostate cancer rates have been in countries with the highest meat& dairy consumption!
This makes sense now: Cows are accumulating DDT from the grasses they have eaten over their lifetime, and are constantly doped with bovine growth hormones for maximum fertility rates and milk yield, 10 times more than would be natural.
We are getting this toxic cocktail with every steak and cheese we have eaten. Bon appetit!
Youthevity.com
Post a serious article and every armchair scientist spouts their pet theory based on partial understanding of something they once read somewhere. The idea behind research is that you do the work and *then* decide what the results indicate. You don't decide the results and then do the work in a way to guarantee your pet theory is supported.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI used to believe a lot of the garbage I read until I figured out that none of it was real science and most results were explained by the placebo effect.