You don't have to have a lump to have breast cancer

Several weeks ago, “WhyMommy” from Toddler Planet was diagnosed with inflammatory breast cancer, a rare type of cancer (without a lump) that is often misdiagnosed as mastitis. WhyMommy is now using her blog to spread the word about this disease and is asking for our help in posting her story and information about inflammatory breast cancer. She was a nursing mama (she had to wean because of the cancer treatment) who noticed something “funny” about her breast, so she had it checked out. She never expected it to be cancerous.

The follow is a repost from WhyMommy’s blog. If you are a woman, or you know and love a woman, please read this information and pass it on. I feel that this information is ESPECIALLY important for all of the breastfeeding mamas out there, since this could have happened to any of us. It could save your life or the life of someone you care about. Thank you.

We hear a lot about breast cancer these days. One in eight women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetimes, and there are millions living with it in the U.S. today alone. But did you know that there is more than one type of breast cancer?

I didn’t. I thought that breast cancer was all the same. I figured that if I did my monthly breast self-exams, and found no lump, I’d be fine.

Oops. It turns out that you don’t have to have a lump to have breast cancer. Six weeks ago, I went to my OB/GYN because my breast felt funny. It was red, hot, inflamed, and the skin looked…funny. But there was no lump, so I wasn’t worried. I should have been. After a round of antibiotics didn’t clear up the inflammation, my doctor sent me to a breast specialist and did a skin punch biopsy. That test showed that I have inflammatory breast cancer, a very aggressive cancer that can be deadly.

Inflammatory breast cancer is often misdiagnosed as mastitis because many doctors have never seen it before and consider it rare. “Rare” or not, there are over 100,000 women in the U.S. with this cancer right now; only half will survive five years. Please call your OB/GYN if you experience several of the following symptoms in your breast, or any unusual changes: redness, rapid increase in size of one breast, persistent itching of breast or nipple, thickening of breast tissue, stabbing pain, soreness, swelling under the arm, dimpling or ridging (for example, when you take your bra off, the bra marks stay – for a while), flattening or retracting of the nipple, or a texture that looks or feels like an orange (called peau d’orange). Ask if your GYN is familiar with inflammatory breast cancer, and tell her that you’re concerned and want to come in to rule it out.

There is more than one kind of breast cancer. Inflammatory breast cancer is the most aggressive form of breast cancer out there, and early detection is critical. It’s not usually detected by mammogram. It does not usually present with a lump. It may be overlooked with all of the changes that our breasts undergo during the years when we’re pregnant and/or nursing our little ones. It’s important not to miss this one.

Inflammatory breast cancer is detected by women and their doctors who notice a change in one of their breasts. If you notice a change, call your doctor today. Tell her about it. Tell her that you have a friend with this disease, and it’s trying to kill her. Now you know what I wish I had known before six weeks ago.

You don’t have to have a lump to have breast cancer.

P.S. Feel free to steal this post too. I’d be happy for anyone in the blogosphere to take it and put it on their site, no questions asked. Dress it up, dress it down, let it run around the place barefoot. I don’t care. But I want the word to get out. I don’t want another young mom — or old man — or anyone in between — to have to stare at this thing on their chest and wonder, is it mastitis? Is it a rash? Am I overreacting? This cancer moves FAST, and early detection and treatment is critical for survival.

Thank you.

1-888-2-DONATE...

...but not if you're a gay or bisexual male k thx.

I support Canadian Blood Services. I am a regular blood donor (well, whenever I'm not deferred due to low iron - often works out to about two donations a year), for a couple of reasons: my grand-dad died in 1998 due to aplastic anemia, and blood transfusions extended his life, not to mention his quality of life, by about three years beyond what he would otherwise have had. Another reason: I was raised in a religion of people (Jehovah's Witnesses) who allow their children to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, and then put their faces on magazine covers as martyrs for their faith. I left the religion when I was 18 due to fundamental differences* in belief; donating blood is another way to take an active stance against their practices.

However, here's where I have to diverge from Canadian Blood Services. From their website:

Why do you not allow gay men the right to donate blood?

Canadian Blood Services’ policy indefinitely defers any man who has sex with another man, even once, since 1977. The policy in question does not apply specifically to gay men. This is one of numerous screening procedures which allow us to identify a variety of behaviours and activities known to increase risk to the safety of the blood supply.

The basic premise for our policy pertaining to men who have had sex with men is that the prevalence and incidence of HIV is much higher in males who have had sex with other males than it is in individuals having exclusively heterosexual sex. Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent; and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.

While we do test all units of blood and testing is sophisticated, there still exists a brief period after the onset of a viral infection during which early signs of a virus cannot be detected. This period of time is known as the "window period". However, the system is as safe as current testing and technology allows, combined with Canadian Blood Services' stringent screening processes (e.g., donor questionnaire, deferral policies).

We continually review our policies and procedures in the face of changing science and technology and as such we are conducting a risk assessment of this issue. Any change in donor criteria would have to be considered safe from a scientific perspective and be approved by our regulator, Health Canada.

I call bullshit.

Now, hey: I'm not going to argue with Health Canada's stats. Dammit, Jim, I'm an insurance broker, not a statistician! I'll assume that the percentages accurately reflect the landscape of HIV/AIDS in the years quoted. But since we know that studies and statistics can be manipulated to say anything the author wants them to say, I have to take issue with how CBS seems to represent the progression in these figures:

Statistics released by the Public Health Agency of Canada in 2005 indicate that men who have sex with men represented 58 per cent of the HIV/AIDS cases in Canada. This number is up from 2002, when they represented 40 per cent;

Ooooh, scary; unfortunately, it doesn't mean a damn thing! This doesn't say new cases. I would suggest that gay and bisexual men at least as likely as heterosexuals (if not more so) to get tested on a regular basis and be more proactive of their status; and therefore, if they receive a positive diagnosis, would seek treatment sooner and have a better overall prognosis (and the ones who aren't responsible about their own health probably aren't thinking about saving the lives of others by donating blood). Could we not theorize, then, that that more of the heterosexual individuals and lesbians who had HIV/AIDS in 2002, had passed away before 2005, decreasing the overall number of cases and thereby artificially inflating the percentage of gay and bisexual male carriers?

Also, the statement which immediately follows the above point:

and in 1996, when they represented 30 per cent of new cases of HIV/AIDS in Canada.

Ah, now we see the word "new", which was lacking in the previous statement. So the progression of percentages - 30% in 1996, 40% in 2002, and 58% in 2005 - means absolutely dick (pun intended), since comparing percentages is only effective when the percentages refer to the same damn thing. If we divided sexually active adults into only three categories - individuals who only have hetero sex with others who only have hetero sex, lesbian women, and men whose sexual partners include men - the 30% is actually below an even third of those. So who's taking more than their "share" of the percentage here? And could we perhaps see some figures on new cases, that aren't eleven years old?

Of course, this entire discourse operates on the conjecture that all gay and bi men are promiscuous; and that all heterosexuals are, by contrast, chaste and virtuous. I could list any number of hypothetical situations involving monogamous and responsibly non-monogamous gay and bi male partners; and just as many examples of reckless promiscuity by people in, well, every other group. By accepting heterosexual and lesbian donors, but deferring gay and bi men, Canadian Blood Services continues to perpetuate these stereotypes.

How much longer will we ignore this sanctioned discrimination against gay/bi men? What steps are we willing to take to protest it? What would be an effective form of protest?

I welcome your comments and suggestions.

* A subject for another post

PRIDE

How the mighty temperatures have fallen - brrr! Three days ago, it was 27 degrees and humid; today it's 11 degrees out! I'm all for a high-pressure system, but this is a bit ridiculous. Oh well - it won't last long and it makes for good sleep at night, I guess.

What's going on in my life now - I am a parade marshall for the Kingston Pride parade this coming Saturday! Whoop! I'm really excited - it's my first Pride event ever. Well, I've volunteered at the women's dances put on by SACK, but they aren't strictly Pride events, despite the fact that 99% of attendees are lesbian women.

As a straight supporter of LGBT rights, I recognize that I hold heterosexual privilege. As the saying goes, with privilege comes resonsibility. I feel a responsibility to contribute to providing a safe space for the lesbian, gay, bisexual ans transgendered individuals in the Kingston community to express their pride, their sexuality, their love, their joy, their defiance to the dominant paradigm; and I want to show my support publicly.

I feel it's worth posting a couple of links to relevant local resources; one is Out in Kingston, which has a long list of queer-positive spaces and organizations/meetings/meetups for the LGBT community. Another is Kingston Pride, which has information on this year's Pride celebration in our city.

I am proud to be able to make this small contribution to the Pride events this year. If you're in the area, please come out and support the parade; or the Pride parade in your area.