<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: This &#8216;N That Chitchat</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?feed=rss2&#038;p=12226" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226</link>
	<description>Creative Discussions, Inspiring Thoughts, Fun Adventures, Love &#38; Laughter, Peaceful Travel, Hip Fashions, Cool People, Gastronomic Pleasures,  Exotic Indulgences, Groovy Music, and more!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2016 11:26:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=3.6.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Doug The Main Dude</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226#comment-20050</link>
		<dc:creator>Doug The Main Dude</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 14:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=12226#comment-20050</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[George,
That is the most idiotic point to use as a basis for argument that I have ever heard.  If women ran more of this world, instead of rich, greedy, predominantly white, men, with penis envy, there would be more politics involved and negotiations to get things accomplished without war, rather than your assumption that war is a necessity to make the world run on a daily basis.  Science has proven that the brain functions of a woman, and how their compassion and emotional aspects of cognitive thinking, help assist them into making decisions that alleviate the need for violence much more readily than the male specie. The only thing war is a necessity of doing is lining the pockets of politicians, and corporations that line the pockets of politicians.  In other words, making the oligarchy that we call a government, run smoothly for the rich.

If you are not familiar with the word oligarchy, you might look it up, but, I&#039;m guessing you don&#039;t own a dictionary and may not know the internet address to find one online, so to be more expedient, simply, it is the small elite group of people who run the world, of which you are not a part of, nor will you ever be.  So, any basis of argument you posses to imply indifferent to this, is simply your own ignorance you are trying to implore onto others based on your ignorance that the oligarchical factions continue to make sure you and yours believe are to be true.

Even 99 percent of the politicians in office are not part of the richest elite that run the world.  They are simply greedy pawns standing in line waiting for their allowance...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George,<br />
That is the most idiotic point to use as a basis for argument that I have ever heard.  If women ran more of this world, instead of rich, greedy, predominantly white, men, with penis envy, there would be more politics involved and negotiations to get things accomplished without war, rather than your assumption that war is a necessity to make the world run on a daily basis.  Science has proven that the brain functions of a woman, and how their compassion and emotional aspects of cognitive thinking, help assist them into making decisions that alleviate the need for violence much more readily than the male specie. The only thing war is a necessity of doing is lining the pockets of politicians, and corporations that line the pockets of politicians.  In other words, making the oligarchy that we call a government, run smoothly for the rich.</p>
<p>If you are not familiar with the word oligarchy, you might look it up, but, I&#8217;m guessing you don&#8217;t own a dictionary and may not know the internet address to find one online, so to be more expedient, simply, it is the small elite group of people who run the world, of which you are not a part of, nor will you ever be.  So, any basis of argument you posses to imply indifferent to this, is simply your own ignorance you are trying to implore onto others based on your ignorance that the oligarchical factions continue to make sure you and yours believe are to be true.</p>
<p>Even 99 percent of the politicians in office are not part of the richest elite that run the world.  They are simply greedy pawns standing in line waiting for their allowance&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mindy</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226#comment-20049</link>
		<dc:creator>Mindy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 13:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=12226#comment-20049</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michelle, if I get in I will comment. For now all I get is &quot;ERROR IN DATA BASE CONNECTION.&quot;]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michelle, if I get in I will comment. For now all I get is &#8220;ERROR IN DATA BASE CONNECTION.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Health Info</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226#comment-20048</link>
		<dc:creator>Health Info</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 13:32:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=12226#comment-20048</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CHANGE IN BREAST DENSITY CAN PREDICT CANCER

Nowadays women are far less eager to undergo hormone therapy for severe menopause symptoms than they used to be... and with good reason.

 We now know that it brings a variety of consequences, including an increased risk for breast cancer. New research has pinned down the reason for that increased risk and also provides a way for women to monitor whether they’re nearing the danger zone.

It all has to do with breast density. Whereas it’s normal for menopause to bring about a decline in breast density, the opposite occurs when a woman is taking synthetic hormones such as Premarin and progestin, which can propel things in the other direction -- density increases, which it appears is what raises a woman’s risk for breast cancer.

WHY DENSER BREASTS ARE DANGEROUS

The link between breast density and breast cancer has already been documented. 

But I was told by the study’s lead author, Celia Byrne, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of oncology at the Lombardi Cancer Center of Georgetown University, that this study has now found an association between hormone therapy and breast density.

Dr. Byrne and her colleagues compared breast density in postmenopausal women taking estrogen and progestin therapy with those not taking the hormones. The study, which was presented at the April 2010 meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, evaluated the women’s baseline and one-year follow-up mammograms.

Results: Among the women with the greatest increase in breast density in the group taking hormones, breast cancer risk more than tripled... while in women with the smallest increase in breast density, risk rose by 20%.

DENSITY SHOULD BE MONITORED

According to Dr. Byrne, the most important point we can use right now is that women taking hormone therapy should be sure that their breast density is closely monitored. 

While this therapy is most often given to women with severe menopausal symptoms, Dr. Byrne said in most cases women need it for only a short period of time. 

Noting that risk increases even in such a short period as two years, Dr. Byrne suggests having a discussion with your doctor as to what might be appropriate for you and your health. 

Within three to four months after stopping hormone therapy, breast density typically decreases -- bringing down the risk for breast cancer as well.

Source(s): 

Celia Byrne, PhD, assistant professor in department of oncology, associate director of the Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Shared Resource at the Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>CHANGE IN BREAST DENSITY CAN PREDICT CANCER</p>
<p>Nowadays women are far less eager to undergo hormone therapy for severe menopause symptoms than they used to be&#8230; and with good reason.</p>
<p> We now know that it brings a variety of consequences, including an increased risk for breast cancer. New research has pinned down the reason for that increased risk and also provides a way for women to monitor whether they’re nearing the danger zone.</p>
<p>It all has to do with breast density. Whereas it’s normal for menopause to bring about a decline in breast density, the opposite occurs when a woman is taking synthetic hormones such as Premarin and progestin, which can propel things in the other direction &#8212; density increases, which it appears is what raises a woman’s risk for breast cancer.</p>
<p>WHY DENSER BREASTS ARE DANGEROUS</p>
<p>The link between breast density and breast cancer has already been documented. </p>
<p>But I was told by the study’s lead author, Celia Byrne, PhD, an assistant professor in the department of oncology at the Lombardi Cancer Center of Georgetown University, that this study has now found an association between hormone therapy and breast density.</p>
<p>Dr. Byrne and her colleagues compared breast density in postmenopausal women taking estrogen and progestin therapy with those not taking the hormones. The study, which was presented at the April 2010 meeting of the American Association of Cancer Research, evaluated the women’s baseline and one-year follow-up mammograms.</p>
<p>Results: Among the women with the greatest increase in breast density in the group taking hormones, breast cancer risk more than tripled&#8230; while in women with the smallest increase in breast density, risk rose by 20%.</p>
<p>DENSITY SHOULD BE MONITORED</p>
<p>According to Dr. Byrne, the most important point we can use right now is that women taking hormone therapy should be sure that their breast density is closely monitored. </p>
<p>While this therapy is most often given to women with severe menopausal symptoms, Dr. Byrne said in most cases women need it for only a short period of time. </p>
<p>Noting that risk increases even in such a short period as two years, Dr. Byrne suggests having a discussion with your doctor as to what might be appropriate for you and your health. </p>
<p>Within three to four months after stopping hormone therapy, breast density typically decreases &#8212; bringing down the risk for breast cancer as well.</p>
<p>Source(s): </p>
<p>Celia Byrne, PhD, assistant professor in department of oncology, associate director of the Clinical and Molecular Epidemiology Shared Resource at the Lombardi Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George, WN</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226#comment-20047</link>
		<dc:creator>George, WN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 13:24:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=12226#comment-20047</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Michelle, are you forgetting that women need men. Who would fight their wars for them, if we were to suddenly all die off?

George, WN]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michelle, are you forgetting that women need men. Who would fight their wars for them, if we were to suddenly all die off?</p>
<p>George, WN</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://blog.michellemoquin.net/?p=12226#comment-20046</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 May 2011 13:20:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.michellemoquin.com/?p=12226#comment-20046</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Comment by Senator McCain - Republican Sen. John McCain says the fighting in Libya might be over by now if the U.S. had used greater force against Moammar Gadhafi.

McCain is an idiot and as much as Homey the Clown is an embarassement to America, he would have been worse. 

This dumb sh/it doesn&#039;t even know who he&#039;s helping against Ghadhafi or if they are worse than him. The only good thing about this war is prolonging it so these muslim terrorist scum have an ample opportunity to kill as many of each other as possible without risking any more on our behalf than necessary.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Comment by Senator McCain &#8211; Republican Sen. John McCain says the fighting in Libya might be over by now if the U.S. had used greater force against Moammar Gadhafi.</p>
<p>McCain is an idiot and as much as Homey the Clown is an embarassement to America, he would have been worse. </p>
<p>This dumb sh/it doesn&#8217;t even know who he&#8217;s helping against Ghadhafi or if they are worse than him. The only good thing about this war is prolonging it so these muslim terrorist scum have an ample opportunity to kill as many of each other as possible without risking any more on our behalf than necessary.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
