I worked with Sara at ktvu for several years. She is an incredible woman. I also worked out with her at gods gym in Oakland. When I say that she was truly missed when she left channel two I mean it. We also anchored together a few times and it was so much fun. Sarais the REAL deal. She told me this morning thats she’s going to kick cancers butt. And I believe her. I’ve also read that the survival rate is 86%. I love Sara. And I always will. And yes this is frank somerville.
We're all pulling for Sara and God willing she will beat this cancer. And Frank, it's not been the same at KTVU since you left. You left a hole they have not been able to fill. Hope to see you continue to recover and make a comeback.
Thanks Rich for letting Frank post a message here wishing Sara to get well soon and "kick cancers ass". I think he meant the current 5 year survival rate is 80.6%. Hang in there Frank. Sincerely, please don't fall off the wagon.
The Giants aren't being talked about because the 49ers are heavy Super Bowl faves and the Warriors continue to be provocative for a lot of wrong reasons. Wait until after the Super Bowl.
Extremely sad about the Sidner news. We just watched her on the CNN New Year’s bash she was wearing a silly hat having a blast. I do hope she recuperates soon.
From the National Breast Cancer Foundation's website: "The current 5-year relative survival rate of women first diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer is 80.6%".
five year survival numbers fail to mention that those years are spent getting radiated, poisoned, sliced and diced and exposed to bc cancer drugs that cause other cancers (liver, blood cancers..tamoxifen)
mammograms require the use of ionizing radiation which also causes breast cancer. The body's exposure to radiation is cumulative. If you have lots of x-rays, cat scans, mammograms, you are more likely to develop cancer from those exposures( see risk /benefit analysis re mammograms).Mammograms are notoriously faulty, often producing false positives and false negatives.
7:22 It's not that simple. A routine mammogram for someone with a cumulative history of lots of xrays, and cat scans and no indicator of breast cancer is a different question than a mammogram for someone with no such history, or a mammogram for someone with a known , sudden breast lump. In other words, use your brain. Each individual is different. There are many medical article extracts to read about the well known risks/benefits of mammography. Ask your google, "Can mammograms cause breast cancer?".
Response to 4:41 -- This is an irresponsible statement: the incremental chance of cancer from the very small amount of radiation used in mammography FAR outweighs the benefits of detection/treatment
dear 10:05 ..nonsense..though the amount of ionizing radiation in one mammogram is minimal..exposure to ionizing radiation is CUMULATIVE. That means, in simple terms, that your body doesn't just expel the effects of one individual exposure, but rather compounds with each exposure. Ionizing radiation comes from natural sources, X-rays, CAT(computer assisted tomography) scans, and mammograms. A forty year old woman who has never had numerous xrays or cat scans will have less risk of cellular changes from the ionizing radiation of a mammogram than a fifty year old woman who has a personal history of many x-rays, cat scans, and mammograms. See addition. See basic mammogram risk/benefit analysis. And yes, mammograms can cause breast cancer.
I worked with Sara at ktvu for several years. She is an incredible woman. I also worked out with her at gods gym in Oakland. When I say that she was truly missed when she left channel two I mean it. We also anchored together a few times and it was so much fun. Sarais the REAL deal. She told me this morning thats she’s going to kick cancers butt. And I believe her. I’ve also read that the survival rate is 86%. I love Sara. And I always will. And yes this is frank somerville.
ReplyDeleteYep, she's missed at KTVU, and so are you, Frank.
DeleteAwww god bless you. Thanks so much for saying that. I really appreciate it.
DeleteWe're all pulling for Sara and God willing she will beat this cancer. And Frank, it's not been the same at KTVU since you left. You left a hole they have not been able to fill. Hope to see you continue to recover and make a comeback.
DeleteThanks Rich for letting Frank post a message here wishing Sara to get well soon and "kick cancers ass". I think he meant the current 5 year survival rate is 80.6%. Hang in there Frank. Sincerely, please don't fall off the wagon.
DeleteThe Giants aren't being talked about because the 49ers are heavy Super Bowl faves and the Warriors continue to be provocative for a lot of wrong reasons. Wait until after the Super Bowl.
ReplyDeleteExtremely sad about the Sidner news. We just watched her on the CNN New Year’s bash she was wearing a silly hat having a blast. I do hope she recuperates soon.
ReplyDeletesurvival rate for stage three breast cancer is not 86%
ReplyDeleteThat’s what I read. What is your info telling you. God I sure hope my info is correct. I checked several sources.
DeleteFrom the National Breast Cancer Foundation's website: "The current 5-year relative survival rate of women first diagnosed with Stage 3 breast cancer is 80.6%".
DeleteThen what is it doc?
Deletefive year survival numbers fail to mention that those years are spent getting radiated, poisoned, sliced and diced and exposed to bc cancer drugs that cause other cancers (liver, blood cancers..tamoxifen)
DeleteShe failed to get regular mammograms is what she told Abby Phillip. Why is a total mystery
ReplyDeletemammograms require the use of ionizing radiation which also causes breast cancer. The body's exposure to radiation is cumulative. If you have lots of x-rays, cat scans, mammograms, you are more likely to develop cancer from those exposures( see risk /benefit analysis re mammograms).Mammograms are notoriously faulty, often producing false positives and false negatives.
DeleteNo
DeleteOk, Doc. So you recommend no mammograms? Not what experts say. You probably think the covid vaccine will kill you also?
DeleteBullshit MAGA conspiracy nonsense. What are you--a scientist? Doubt it.
Delete9:03 xrays of your male genitalia also can cause richard cancer..MAGA women have plastic boobs, right?
Delete7:22 It's not that simple. A routine mammogram for someone with a cumulative history of lots of xrays, and cat scans and no indicator of breast cancer is a different question than a mammogram for someone with no such history, or a mammogram for someone with a known , sudden breast lump. In other words, use your brain. Each individual is different. There are many medical article extracts to read about the well known risks/benefits of mammography. Ask your google, "Can mammograms cause breast cancer?".
DeleteResponse to 4:41 -- This is an irresponsible statement: the incremental chance of cancer from the very small amount of radiation used in mammography FAR outweighs the benefits of detection/treatment
ReplyDeletedear 10:05 ..nonsense..though the amount of ionizing radiation in one mammogram is minimal..exposure to ionizing radiation is CUMULATIVE. That means, in simple terms, that your body doesn't just expel the effects of one individual exposure, but rather compounds with each exposure. Ionizing radiation comes from natural sources, X-rays, CAT(computer assisted tomography) scans, and mammograms. A forty year old woman who has never had numerous xrays or cat scans will have less risk of cellular changes from the ionizing radiation of a mammogram than a fifty year old woman who has a personal history of many x-rays, cat scans, and mammograms. See addition. See basic mammogram risk/benefit analysis. And yes, mammograms can cause breast cancer.
DeleteI really liked Sara on KTVU and of course I love her on CNN. I truly hope she beats cancer.
ReplyDelete