'Out Of Gas'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
Gorgeous stop-motion animation movie based on a Russian folk tale, and that I'm going to see it opening night? And that I'm never, ever going to have any spending money again, thanks to collecting toys from that AND the never-ending line of Nightmare Before Christmas merchandise?
I find that rather neat, that it's based on a Russian fairy tale. I shall have to add it to my list.
I wouldn't take health advice from Gladwell, though.
I wouldn't take health advice from Gladwell, though.
Well, he's a journalist, not a doctor, so yeah. But his isn't the first article I've read examining the idea that 20 some years of regular ovulation may increase the risk of ovarian cancer. I didn't read either article carefully, I must admit.
[eta I just skimmed them both & didn't see Gladwell making the argument that the other guy thought he was making, but agree with other guy's initial assumption that less mucking about with the hormones, the better.]
I've heard that claim too, but I also thought I'd heard that the evidence was scant. Which is why I went looking for the rebuttal.
Are we discussing Lost here, tonight or in Boxed Set?
ETA: d'oh! Yean, the Lost thread, stupid!
Are we discussing Lost here, tonight or in Boxed Set?
Probably in the Lost thread.
t trying not to be nervous about the pill now that my NP and I just agreed today I should go back on it for a few months in hopes of convincing my body to stop having stupidly short cycles
Susan, the BCPs of today are so low-dose, compared with the early days of BCPs, that you have to be in a high-risk category for there to be a statistical chance of an adverse event. You don't smoke, you're under 35, and your BP is good. Trust me, you and your heart are going to be fine.
(You know how in the F2F thread you said you dig statistics, even of catastrophes? Think of this in that light. Statistically, you're golden.)
Oh, bon, I revised a bit after you replied.
I've heard that claim too, but I also thought I'd heard that the evidence was scant.
Interesting. I know that one treatment for breast cancer is to suppress all the estrogen production. That would be pretty drastic, especially if they don't have strong evidence linking estrogen with breast cancer. However I think it's a WILD leap to go from suppressing estrogen in women with breast cancer to suppressing it in healthy women.
You don't smoke, you're under 35, and your BP is good. Trust me, you and your heart are going to be fine.
Even if I'm 34 3/4 and my BP runs in the 130/70 range?