🔥 Popular | Latest

Doctor, How Many Times, and Life: 1. Redness 2. Breast swelling 3. Pain or itchiness the breast or enlargement of the breast Breast cancer ymph nodes 4. Thickening of the skin 5. Swelling of the lymph on the breast and ridged or dimpled skin texture (peau d'orange) nodes in your armpit or above/below the collarbone Share This might save someone's life. trinsghost: boy-aesthetics: yomeiko: lgbtqkidsrock: ayamccabre: dayzies-s: tan-fit-healthy: letsdeadlyfart: bluedreamsx: slaveoftheflesh: xsorrowxlightx: trumpetnista: rarely-pure-never-simple: thecornercoffeeshoppe: hickshannary: small-and-misunderstood: Saw this somewhere else and felt the need to post it cause no one else ever really tells you this stuff My mom never really noticed. She noticed when she was breast feeding my little brother and blood started coming out instead of milk.  My mom said she felt and saw a little lump in the shower. She was lucky enough she found it at stage 2 My mom had a mammogram. The radiologist thought the spots were just regular calcium deposits.  Turns out it was triple negative breast cancer that had spread to her lymph nods. Mastectomy, radiation and chemo saved her life. This could SAVE a life. dont be embarrassed to reblog, this post could be life saving Signal BOOST and pass it on. I had a breast cancer scare before (luckily it was just scar tissue…) and information like this kept me calm and collected at the doc’s. As a cancer patient myself, who found my own cancer through a supposed LARPing injury last year, i know how scary it is and how important it is to catch it early. Please spread this around! listen to ur boobs its all in the boobs hoW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO REBLOG THIS ! SORRY FOLLOWERS , #sorrynotsorry Always reblog!  REBLOG,THIS COULD SAVE SOMEBODY!!! DONT BE EMBARRASSED!!! B Reminder that anyone who grew their own breast tissue can get breast cancer. That includes trans women, intersex peeps, and cis men who may not have been aware there could be some breast tissue in there. The only way to be sure you don’t have any at all is if you’ve had it all removed. If you’ve had tissue removed for reasons other than cancer, they likely didn’t remove all of it. If you find something weird, regardless of who you are or how you identify, get it checked out. All of you should reblog this. Breast cancer affects everyone and there’s not enough information about it. My breasts itch all the time…should I start being concerned?? Maybe look up some big about it online, or ask your doctor some questions if you get the chance. If your something with your boobs suddenly changes, and it’s not what you’d consider a good change, get it checked out.  And whether it hurts or it doesn’t, still, get it checked out.  If it turns out to not be cancer, at least you checked and can have peace of mind that you did.   (Been there, done that, had surgery and thank goodness it was not cancer but was a tumor that made me feel like I was being punched in the boob for months.)
Save
How Many Times, Life, and Saw: 1. Redness 2. Breast swelling 3. Pain or itchiness the breast or enlargement of the breast Breast cancer ymph nodes 4. Thickening of the skin 5. Swelling of the lymph on the breast and ridged or dimpled skin texture (peau d'orange) nodes in your armpit or above/below the collarbone Share This might save someone's life. lgbtqkidsrock: ayamccabre: dayzies-s: tan-fit-healthy: letsdeadlyfart: bluedreamsx: slaveoftheflesh: xsorrowxlightx: trumpetnista: rarely-pure-never-simple: thecornercoffeeshoppe: hickshannary: small-and-misunderstood: Saw this somewhere else and felt the need to post it cause no one else ever really tells you this stuff My mom never really noticed. She noticed when she was breast feeding my little brother and blood started coming out instead of milk.  My mom said she felt and saw a little lump in the shower. She was lucky enough she found it at stage 2 My mom had a mammogram. The radiologist thought the spots were just regular calcium deposits.  Turns out it was triple negative breast cancer that had spread to her lymph nods. Mastectomy, radiation and chemo saved her life. This could SAVE a life. dont be embarrassed to reblog, this post could be life saving Signal BOOST and pass it on. I had a breast cancer scare before (luckily it was just scar tissue…) and information like this kept me calm and collected at the doc’s. As a cancer patient myself, who found my own cancer through a supposed LARPing injury last year, i know how scary it is and how important it is to catch it early. Please spread this around! listen to ur boobs its all in the boobs hoW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO REBLOG THIS ! SORRY FOLLOWERS , #sorrynotsorry Always reblog!  REBLOG,THIS COULD SAVE SOMEBODY!!! DONT BE EMBARRASSED!!! B Reminder that anyone who grew their own breast tissue can get breast cancer. That includes trans women, intersex peeps, and cis men who may not have been aware there could be some breast tissue in there. The only way to be sure you don’t have any at all is if you’ve had it all removed. If you’ve had tissue removed for reasons other than cancer, they likely didn’t remove all of it. If you find something weird, regardless of who you are or how you identify, get it checked out. All of you should reblog this. Breast cancer affects everyone and there’s not enough information about it.
Save
How Many Times, Life, and Saw: 1. Redness 2. Breast swelling 3. Pain or itchiness the breast or enlargement of the breast Breast cancer ymph nodes 4. Thickening of the skin 5. Swelling of the lymph on the breast and ridged or dimpled skin texture (peau d'orange) nodes in your armpit or above/below the collarbone Share This might save someone's life. lgbtqkidsrock: ayamccabre: dayzies-s: tan-fit-healthy: letsdeadlyfart: bluedreamsx: slaveoftheflesh: xsorrowxlightx: trumpetnista: rarely-pure-never-simple: thecornercoffeeshoppe: hickshannary: small-and-misunderstood: Saw this somewhere else and felt the need to post it cause no one else ever really tells you this stuff My mom never really noticed. She noticed when she was breast feeding my little brother and blood started coming out instead of milk.  My mom said she felt and saw a little lump in the shower. She was lucky enough she found it at stage 2 My mom had a mammogram. The radiologist thought the spots were just regular calcium deposits.  Turns out it was triple negative breast cancer that had spread to her lymph nods. Mastectomy, radiation and chemo saved her life. This could SAVE a life. dont be embarrassed to reblog, this post could be life saving Signal BOOST and pass it on. I had a breast cancer scare before (luckily it was just scar tissue…) and information like this kept me calm and collected at the doc’s. As a cancer patient myself, who found my own cancer through a supposed LARPing injury last year, i know how scary it is and how important it is to catch it early. Please spread this around! listen to ur boobs its all in the boobs hoW MANY TIMES AM I GOING TO REBLOG THIS ! SORRY FOLLOWERS , #sorrynotsorry Always reblog!  REBLOG,THIS COULD SAVE SOMEBODY!!! DONT BE EMBARRASSED!!! B Reminder that anyone who grew their own breast tissue can get breast cancer. That includes trans women, intersex peeps, and cis men who may not have been aware there could be some breast tissue in there. The only way to be sure you don’t have any at all is if you’ve had it all removed. If you’ve had tissue removed for reasons other than cancer, they likely didn’t remove all of it. If you find something weird, regardless of who you are or how you identify, get it checked out. All of you should reblog this. Breast cancer affects everyone and there’s not enough information about it.
Save
America, Arguing, and Crime: ITS EASY TO FORGET THAT FOR DECADES THE U.S. HAD A HEALTHCARE SYSTEM THAT WAS THE ENVY OF THE WORLD. WE HAD THE FINEST DOCTORS AND HOSPITALS, PATIENTS RECEIVED HIGH QUALITY, AFFORDABLE MEDICAL CARE, AND THOUSANDS OF PRIVATELY FUNDED CHARITIES PROVIDED HEALTH SERVICES FOR THE PO0 RON PAUL TURNING POINT USA <p><a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/165630900777/bushmeat-said-when-they-tell-you-how-ghastly" class="tumblr_blog">redbloodedamerica</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a href="http://bushmeat.tumblr.com/" title="bushmeat">bushmeat</a> said:</p><blockquote><p>When they tell you how ghastly socialised healthcare is, remember what they are saying is absolute bullshit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253">http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-40608253</a></p></blockquote><p>If I had a nickel every time some leftist moron linked to a World Healthcare Organization or Commonwealth Fund study, well, I would have a shitload of nickels.</p><p>Since my previous source’s website is currently down–<a href="http://redbloodedamerica.tumblr.com/post/142352613032/that-red-guy-montypla-weaselwonderworld">which I’ve used in the past</a> to slap this idiotic notion that other countries’ healthcare systems are somehow superior the US’s private system–I’ll instead point to this <a href="https://object.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa654.pdf">other great explanation</a> by the folks over at CATO on why this pathetic claim is always made by these left-wing think-tanks:</p><blockquote><p><i> The debate over how to reform America’s health care sector often involves comparisons between the United States and other countries, and with good reason. Looking at other countries can help us learn which policies, if any, to emulate, and which to avoid. </i></p><p><i>There have been many attempts at international health care system comparisons.Among the most influential are the World Health Report 2000 published by the World Health Organization, several studies published by the Commonwealth Fund, and individual measures such as infant mortality and “mortality amenable to health care.” Generally in these studies, the United States performs poorly in comparison to Europe, Australia, and Japan. Therefore, scholars often use the studies to argue for adding even more government regulations to our already highly regulated health care system. </i></p><p><i>However, these studies suffer from several problems. First, they often rely on unadjusted aggregate data—such as life expectancy, or mortality from heart disease—that can be affected by many non–health care factors, including nutrition, exercise, and even crime rates. Second,they often use process measures, such as how many patients have received a pap smear or mammogram in the past three years. Process measures tell us what doctors do, but provide only an indirect measure of doctors’ productivity. Third, some of these studies inappropriately incorporate their own biases about financing in their statistics, which makes market-driven health systems appear worse even if their outcomes are similar or better. </i></p><p><i>An additional limitation of these studies is the omission of any measure of innovation. None of the best-known studies factor in the contribution of various countries to the advances that have come to characterize the current practice of health care in the developed world. </i></p><p><i>Every single health care test or treatment must be invented at some point. We would be living in a different world today were it not for the remarkable genius and hard work of health care inventors in the past, as well as investments from government health agencies and pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The health care issues commonly considered most important today—controlling costs and covering the uninsured— arguably should be regarded as secondary to innovation, inasmuch as a treatment must first be invented before its costs can be reduced and its use extended to everyone. </i><br/></p></blockquote><p>Furthermore, from another Glen Whitman <a href="https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp101.pdf">article</a>:</p><blockquote><p><i> Those who cite the WHO rankings typically present them as an objective measure of the relative performance of national health care systems. They are not. The WHO rankings depend crucially on a number of underlying assumptions- some of them logically incoherent, some characterized by substantial uncertainty, and some rooted in ideological beliefs and values that not everyone shares. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO health care rankings result from an index of health-related statistics. As with any index, it is important to consider how it was constructed, as the construction affects the results. </i><br/></p><p><i> There is good reason to account for the quality of care received by a country’s worst-off or poorest citizens. Yet the Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution factors do not do that.Instead, they measure relative differences in quality, without regard to the absolute level of quality. To account for the quality of care received by the worst-off, the index could include a factor that measures health among the poor, or a health care system’s responsiveness to the poor. This would, in essence, give greater weight to the well-being of the worst off.  Alternatively, a separate health performance index could be constructed for poor households or members of disadvantaged minorities. These approaches would surely have problems of their own, but they would at least be focused on the absolute level of health care quality, which should be the paramount concern. <br/></i></p><p><i> The WHO rankings, by purporting to measure the efficacy of health care systems, implicitly take all differences in health outcomes not explained by spending or literacy and attribute them entirely to health care system performance. Nothing else, from tobacco use to nutrition to sheer luck, is taken into account. </i></p><p><i>To some extent, the exclusion of other variables is simply the result of inadequacies in the data. It is difficult to get information on all relevant factors, and even more difficult to account for their expected effects on health. But some factors are deliberately excluded by the WHO analysis on the basis of paternalistic assumptions about the proper role of health systems. An earlier paper laying out the WHO methodological framework asserts, “Problems such as tobacco consumption, diet, and unsafe sexual activity must be included in an assessment of health system performance.” </i></p><p><i>In other words, the WHO approach holds health systems responsible not just for treating lung cancer, but for preventing smoking in the first place; not just for treating heart disease, but for getting people to exercise and lay off the fatty foods. <br/></i></p><p><i> Second, the WHO approach fails to consider people’s willingness to trade off health against other values. Some people are happy to give up a few potential months or even years of life in exchange for the pleasures of smoking, eating, having sex, playing sports, and so on. The WHO approach, rather than taking the public’s preferences as given, deems some preferences better than others (and then praises or blames the health system for them). </i></p><p><i>A superior (though still imperfect) approach would take people’s health-related behavior as given, and then ask which health systems do the best job of dealing with whatever health conditions arise.<br/></i></p></blockquote><p>In other words, its a bunch of meaningless cherry-picked measurements framed in a way to make the private system appear terrible in order to push for more socialized medicine.  </p><p>Despite all of it’s flaws, which are usually thanks to government market intervention, the United States still has the best health care system on the entire goddamn planet per capita.  It’s most likely that the life-saving equipment and procedures that are used in other hellholes using slave healthcare to save lives are thanks to us.  </p><p>You’re welcome.</p><figure class="tmblr-full" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"><img src="https://78.media.tumblr.com/b97a460c917c68f3900de0bc46e50c59/tumblr_inline_owpcxquafE1r1jtxd_540.gif" data-orig-height="250" data-orig-width="450"/></figure></blockquote>
Save
Facebook, Ironic, and Love: shared Natural Cures's photo 37 mins Cool. Do you have sources for these claims? Like Reply 1-12 mins Well seeing as Ijust reposted it because I founded ironic and THEY TOLD US BUT ACTUALLY interesting and didn't quite care for the validity of a Facebook post I must regretfully inform you that I failed to do any research on a Like Reply 10 mins THE SUN WILL GIVE YOU CANCER THE SUN PROTECTS YOU FROM CANCER It's probably not true Like Reply 9 mins Like Reply-21 mins Like Reply 20 mins Like Reply-20 mins SUNSCREEN PROTECTS YOU FROM CANCER SUNSCREEN CONTAINS CHEMICALS THAT GIVE YOU CANCER Sorry, didn't realize you were posting ironically. mean I would love to know if any of twas true DIET PRODUCTS ARE MORE HEALTHY DIET PRODUCTS CONTAIN ASPARTAME WHICH CAUSES BRAIN CANCER It honestly didn't even cross my mind r maybe it is don't know. I don't use sunscreen or diet products MAMMOGRAMS EXPOSE YOU TO IONIZING RADIATION WHICH GIVES YOU CANCER ANNUAL MAMMOGRAM SCANS WILL PREVENT BREAST CANCER as is, hopefully don't have to have a monogram, but I do brush my terth Like Reply 8 mins gasp* You haven't had a monogram? How do you know which handkerchief is yours? Like Reply 6 mins FLUORIDE WILL PROTECT YOUR TEETH FLOURIDE IS A CHEMICAL WHICH PROMOTES CANCER AND FLUOROSIS Yea idk I'm just a messSe Unlike Reply 1- 5 mins Hey sometimes I forget to brush my teeth Like Reply 5 mins memehumor: A friend offers some insight as to why they post.

memehumor: A friend offers some insight as to why they post.

Save