Why The New Mammogram Recommendation Doesn't Put Most Women At Increased Risk
By Susie Madrak Wednesday Nov 18, 2009 2:00pmThis New York Times article gives the same scary media narrative repeated everywhere else in the past few days:
Despite new recommendations that most women start breast screening at 50 rather than 40, many doctors said Tuesday that they were simply not ready to make such a drastic change.
“It’s kind of hard to suggest that we should stop examining our patients and screening them,” said Dr. Annekathryn Goodman, director of the fellowship program in gynecological oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital. “I would be cautious about changing a practice that seems to work.”
The recommendations, issued Monday by a federal advisory panel, reversed widely promoted guidelines and were intended to reduce overtreatment. The panel said the benefits of screening women in their 40s — saving one life for every 1,904 women screened for 10 years — were outweighed by the potential for unnecessary tests and treatment, and the accompanying anxiety. Women considered at high risk should continue to have early screening, the panel said.
So I'm reading all these stories and saying, "Where's the data about the risk from radiation?"
I finally found this important (and missing) piece of the puzzle in the San Francisco Chronicle:
Radiation causes 1 death for every 2,000 women screened annually starting at age 40, according to a study published in 2005 in the British Journal of Cancer. Another study shows that each mammogram increases the risk of breast cancer by 2 percent. Mammography also saves women's lives, so that's why it's a trade-off.
Here's some more info from Respectful Insolence, a medical research blog.
Got that? Statistically, some women have approximately as much chance of getting breast cancer from a mammogram as they have of it saving their lives. That's why it's considered a policy wash.
Yes, you might be one of those rare women saved by early detection. But you might also be someone who develops breast cancer from the yearly radiation exposure.
By the way, the policy change recommendation doesn't apply to women with symptoms. It's for screening mammograms only, not the diagnostic kind.
UPDATE: Sebelius tells women to "ignore" the recommendation. How about we give women all the information - and let them decide?
Login or Register to post comments.
The insurance companies must really be getting scared.
They're really ramping up the disinformation campaign now.
Is this the first in a wave of cost cutting ideas in advance of "socialized" health care? Was this panel the first of the "death panels"?
no. Is it really that hard to follow a simple scientific argument?
It's about saving women from unnecessary procedures and heightened risk of cancer. What's so hard to understand about that?
breast panels!
Next we'll have testicle panels, then ovary panels, brain panels, thyroid panels, kidney panels, lung ,,,,,,,.............. #;}
I wish we had a clip of Dr. Nancy on Morning Joe this morning explaining all of this. She did an excellent job of explaining the science of it. She weighed the pros and cons with such clarity.
And another thoughtful review:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1926
Additionally, I find an interesting juxtaposition when I read and hear about the flu vaccine and screening for breast cancer.
It seems that the low risks of getting a flu vaccine are magnified to hysteria and the low, but present, risks of radiation exposure, anxiety, minimally invasive breast biopsies and full surgical tissue resections are minimized in an equal but opposite way.
How do we reconcile these two tacks on these issues?
taken by pregnant women and their resultant miscarriages:
http://noworldsystem.com/2009/11/15/pregnant-...
Thanks for the ignorant pile of crap link. Anecdotal evidence from anonymous sources on the internet is worth absolutely nothing.
On the other hand the CDC has noted that pregnant women are at risk for serious complications (including death) if infected with H1N1. This scientific evidence compiled by literally thousands of doctors and other professionals is why the CDC has identified pregnant women as an "at risk" group.
the link, but then went to the MMWR website - the CDC's morbidity and Mortality Weekly review - and there's nothing there yet.
I also went to the ACOG - American College of OBGYN - and there's nothing there yet either.
So, I'll wait for more data.
but some women who are pregnant and who get vaccinated will miscarry. This does does not in any way imply cause and effect. Some pregnant women will also die in car accidents. Does that prove a causal link to pregnancy? The by-line of your link pretty well says it all: Organic Health Adviser. It should have read ignorant self-serving putz.
More fear-mongering and ignorant hysteria. Why don't you just join the Church of Xenu while you're at it?
would be helpful to ya'll:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r051fXtfng8&fe...
And I won't ever have one unless I discover a lump during self-examination or find some other sign of a problem.
I successfully breast-fed four children (some past the age of two) and I have no family history of breast cancer.
I avoid any unnecessary x-rays like the plague. There is a reason the gal comes in and places that giant metal shield over your body when you're having dental x-rays. And there's a reason she runs around the corner to snap the picture.
Even though it may be a small amount of radiation, my sixth sense has always told me to avoid a procedure that every woman I have talked with tells me is "extremely painful" and that may be causing an unnecessary exposure to cancer-causing radiation.
Besides, as a radical "for-profit insurance corporation" boycotter, what would I do if I DID have a mammogram and the doctor said, "Oh! You need major surgery and chemo and radiation right away or you're going to DIE!!" I don't happen to have an extra hundred grand sitting in the bank to pay for any of the services I would supposedly need. Same goes for having a cardiac work-up..."Oh!! You have four coronary arteries 98% blocked and you are minutes from having a massive coronary! You need to have by-pass surgery STAT!! or you will DIE!!!" Really?! Gee. I don't happen to have an extra $300 grand in the bank to pay the surgeon, the hospital etc., etc.
I feel like the old lady sitting up by her cabin eating fresh veggies from the garden and fish from the stream and having a little nip of moonshine and lemonade every evening while all this nonsense passes me by.
To mammogram or NOT to mammogram???
Two doses of psyllium husks every day, a vegetarian diet and no colonoscopy???
Have no health insurance, roll those dice and knock on wood!
And on and on it goes.....
Are not painful in my understanding. Anyone else want to weigh in?
You're getting squooshed pretty hard.
I know it's best to defer to female authority on this, but I detest the non-scientific disinformation. It is your body and your decision to take whatever risks you feel appropriate. I just don't want anyone to avoid mammograms because of irrational fear (rational fear of radiation exposure is fine).
I find it hard to believe that "every woman (Abbywood has) talked with tells (her it) is 'extremely painful.'" I've heard "uncomfortable" and "embarrassing" but never "extremely painful". (Reasonably large sample size too, for some reason.)
My pain threshold is admittedly pretty high. Perhaps Abbywood's is less so.
I got a baseline mammogram at the age of 35 because my stepmother and aunt both got breast cancer at the ages of 36 and 38 respectively.
I got my first regular mammogram at 40 and have had one every other year since. I do it because there's a family history (and I've had another type of cancer before) and it would be foolish for me not to be careful.
However, for other women, it may be an unwarranted action. I respect that there is no one answer for every person.
"On the other hand, I have heard older women joke that getting one is like laying your breast on a driveway and letting a SUV run over it."
This pretty much describes the comments I have been handed in my various discussions with female clients/patients who have had the procedure.
if not many women. Too bad that I was right! :(
"It is your body and your decision to take whatever risks you feel appropriate."
What ELSE needs to be said?!!
It hurts like hell. She said she cried the first time they did one.
No thanks.
I can tell you that the pain I experienced in my mammogram was nothing to my labor pains, which lasted hours longer.
It was also nothing to the discomfort of the side effects of radiation when I went through my cancer treatments.
However, I have a family history. If you don't, maybe it's not worth the risk to you.
But not like labor. Then again, I'm tiny, both kids were big and I had no pain meds with either. I also have a collagen defect so I squish more than normal, and that is likely behind the pain. But the the really flat pancake squish of a pretty small breast I guess made for a very clear picture.
The good news is I have no family history on either side and no risk factors for breast cancer. I even have a few factors indicating lower risk. I'm not sure I'm going to have another before my 50s, perhaps never (in my 40s now). I had one done in my 30s before we had my family history (I had been adopted), as a precaution.
I have a friend though. She is in her 20s, she has multiple risk factors and multiple close relatives that got breast cancer in their 20s and 30s. She is on Medicaid, and they will not cover a mammogram at her age. I wish my insurance would let me donate mine to her, but they are annoyed enough I am skipping mine, even though my doctor is not concerned. I don't think she will even care if it hurts, I wish she could get regular ones starting in her 20s.
over. No fun, I tells ya!
how many have you had? ;)
It's a crap shoot. Having never had kids, I am at a higher risk. Having had cancer, I don't know, since if I were to be diagnosed with bc, they'd say it's "totally unrelated" unless it was a metastases of the previous.
As a non smoking vegetarian, I did end up with cancer. However I had other contributing factors I either did not know I had, or had no idea they were contributing.
That said, when I get a notice to come in for a mammogram, I usually get around to making an appt. Usualy a few months later, that way I end up not getting them every 12 months. And I do so, because cancer is not pleasant. As for the pain-meh. Cancer and its aftermath hurt loads more. I think it depends on your pain threshold. I've had much much worse.
The tech had to lower the machine a little because otherwise I had to get on my tip toes. All of that combined, and it's no surprise I hurt. I'm sure an older, taller, veteran of mammograms would have an easier time, or at least I would hope so.
Edit - On the other hand, I have heard older women joke that getting one is like laying your breast on a driveway and letting a SUV run over it. But it didn't hurt that much when I had mine, so I don't know.
I am a living example. I was diagnosed at 48 at a very early state. I had a lumpectomy and radiation and was put on medication for 5 years. I'm hear to tell the tale. You wait and yes the chances go up for mastectomy and chemo. And yes the costs go out of sight. And most importantly, you're quality of life is diminished, at least in the short run.
this was somewhat of a surprise to me. i'm not sure what to make of it yet. this is just a "guideline" so it's not set in stone if you will. most physicians will adhere to the guidelines already in use. there certainly will be groups suggesting this is clear.. care rationing and others saying cost control. i say we need more consensus/collaboration to be sure........watch....... this will be "obama's fault"/scheme.
As a mammographer for twenty-five years--this is good news. This is evidence-based medicine. Very few patients understand:
1. The effects of cumulative radiation.
2. The younger and denser the breast--the more radiation.
3. The denser the breast--the less you can see--no matter what.
4.. Not everything found in a breast has to come out--adenoma's and most cysts are benign--but tell a woman she has one-- and out it comes.
How soon we forget the results of the nurse’s study and hormone replacement therapy. HRT was considered standard therapy for millions of women. Doctors and drug companies told women they were safe. Do you still believe that long-term HRT is safe?
One of the best developments in mammography was the involvement of the government. The Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA) forced facilities to update their equipment, and keep it updated. Before then the doses were obscene on some machines. . Radiologists went crazy--"this will put us to of business"--well, business is still thriving. This Act is why there is no delay in getting results.
If you and your doctor decide you need to be screened--you will be screened, if you are high risk--you will be screened, if you find a lump--you will get your mammogram.
Take a look at the Cochrane Review site—evidence-based reviews of clinical trials. Inform yourself--do not let the social issue/emotional aspects substitute for real knowledge and risk evaluation.
exploits the fears of women period.
Thank you so much for that information.
I had a mammo today, and the tech did talk about surgeons doing too many surgeries to explore cysts. But she is of the mind that early detection is better because it saves lives and it costs less money to treat cancer sooner rather than later, when it's worse.
*
http://www.breastthermography.info tells the incredibly sad story.
I appreciate it....
I have a few, I forget on what parts, in my lower abdomen. Not worried. No one cares.
They found them after an MRI where the doc wanted to be 100% sure the severe lower abdominal pain was just the support muscle/ligament strain due to my unstable SI. It was.
I'm not cavalier about cancer risks. The one cancer where I have history and risk, I have been screened every other year since my mid-30s (when I learned the familial risk). I agree the message that benign cyst is not cancer needs to get out there. Surgery has risks too.
As one might expect in the second half of his show Beck is going crazy over this and saying it is the first step in "Obama Care"
exploit women's fears like that...
You're a braver woman than I.
I hope you have good health insurance. I predict you'll be experiencing nausea and severe headaches.
This is old news. It's been long known that the widespread screening finds more false positives and they are risks of radiation. The only reason people still recommend mammograms for screening purposes in women under 50 with no family history is just CYA.
but if women under the age of 40 want mammograms, their insurance company should continue to pay for them.
They should NOT be allowed to use a report like this to deny legitimate claims. They already deny enough of them as it is.
This being said, I do agree the risk of mammograms causing cancer may outweigh the risk of not having one, so for women under 40 it might be a good recommendation if they are not in a high risk group.
This report is about women age 40 - 50. Women under 40 with no risk factors should definitely not be getting mammograms for screening purposes.
This country really needs to "get it together" on this. No doubt the sickness industry is perfectly happy with the way things are. The more toxins, poisons, chemicals, by products and who knows what the hell else the better!
Oh, shut up and eat your bisphenols.
(i.e. read: "agreed" for the snark impaired)
Jogging along a major city freeway jogging trail during mass rush hour for example thinking,
"I . .am getting healthy workout!"
Come on already
No no no, you can't inform and educate people and then allow them to make a decision about a matter concerning themselves! You have to decide for them! Like with drugs!
I mean look at the fine shape our Country is in after 58 years of the people taking the experts advise.
Sometimes I think the problem is that we do not listen to the experts. We smoke, we drink too much, we don't exercise enough... I know the drill - I've been there. Imagine: If we actually took better care of ourselves and our polluted environment, maybe we might not get sick.
I quit smoking in July, joined the Y and hopefully it works.
Just make sure you don't get hit by a bus. If the thunder don't get you, the lightning will! :)
Lightning, schmitning.
I was irate to see that the guidelines changed by the US Preventative Service Taskforce concerning mammograms. In 2003, when I was 48, I was diagnosed with breast cancer. It was discovered through a mammogram. There was no lump, instead a cluster of calcification, bright as day, told my story. If I had waited until I was 50 to have the mammogram or until I found a lump I would have had a much more complicated case. I probably would have needed chemo and a mastectomy. As it was I had a lumpectomy and radiation. The geneticist I talked to told me women with no history in the family are being diagnosed at younger and younger ages and there are studies backing this up. So why have the guidelines changed? This is not just about life and death, or anxiety, or cost. It's about quality of life. Finding cancer early determines quality of life.
So glad you made it through. Congrats! And you're right. Quality of life matters. Every life is important. If there is something wrong with the tests then CHANGE THE TESTS. Make safer mammograms, don't stop early detection!
Because look - sonograms are only good if someone has a confirmed issue. Mammos are the gold standard for finding cancer.
To the breast friendly "Thermography"...and then there is the easy blood AMAS test.
you will make bOrac cry.lolz
Susie, yes - I agree, women should have all the information they need about mammograms. Lets remind women that the cost of treating advanced stages of cancer is far greater than the $172 it costs to buy a mammogram. Lets talk about surgeons who perform unnecessary lumpectomies and make a butt-ton o'cash.
I am not willing to shake the dice and bet on my odds of getting cancer from a routine mammogram. I think most women would prefer to err on the side of caution and go for early detection. And that is where the confusion lies - millions of women will forgo the routine mammo because it's suddenly not important.
So these doctors think that very expensive, invasive surgeries to treat cancer are smarter than catching cancer early? Really? Who's tallying the invoices? The health insurance companies? Because that's where cash is made. Not on cheap mammograms.
Susie,
I disagree with every fiber of my being. I went in at age 39 for a baseline mammogram at my doctor's suggestion. I have no family history, no risk factors whatsoever, but lo and behold I was diagnosed with Breast Cancer. If I had been advised to wait until age 50 for that mammogram, I would probably be dead. There is a very compelling thread at breastcancer.org with similar stories from other survivors. http://community.breastcancer.org/forum/110/t...
The scary thing is that the younger you are when you get breast cancer, the more likely it is to be quite aggressive. The older you are when you get it (i.e., post-menopausal) the less aggressive the cancer tends to be.
Breast cancer is affecting 1 in 8 women, many of whom are being diagnosed in their 20's and 30's thanks to SBE's.
Please, don't minimize the importance of screening - it's the only thing we have right now, because there is NO CURE!
You're right. I think some folks are naive if they think early detection is a wash. That this issue is even coming up during the health care vote is highly suspicious.
Are you SURE you had breast cancer? Did you get a second opinion -- from say, a doctor in Canada or some other country that utilizes socialized medicine? And did you ever stop and wonder, due to the fact you had no risk factors, WHY you had breast cancer? Is it possible your doctor had to make his quota for the month and that's why you were diagnosed? Harsh, I know. But I just don't trust what has become of American healthcare. And if the quacks wern't so worried about being found out, they wouldn't be fighting so hard to kill healthcare reform.
She has a diagnosis. How dare you insinuate that she has been fooled by some quota-seeking doctor?
I lived in the European Union for eight years and had FREE socialized medicine. How very strange that the EU does not have breast cancer rates anywhere even close to the USA. Ah, can you explain THAT?
Also why is it that Arm & Hammer (an American company) manufactures a toothpaste that remineralizes teeth so that professional cleanings twice a year are not necessary, but Arm & Hammer only sells this toothpaste to countries that utilize socialized medicine. And by the way, in Europe, there is no such thing as a dental hygienist.
I dare you not to answer my questions.
Bully for you.
I've lived in the EU as well. Has absolutely nothing to do with a medical diagnosis of cancer.
It's not doctors with quotas here, which is your abusive and asinine projection on a cancer survivor. It's insurance companies.
And insurance companies DON'T WANT cancer diagnoses because they have to pay.
You want to rave like a lunatic at someone? Look who is on the panel that just made this recommendation. Are they employees of insurance providers? According to Jack Cafferty (link below in Calgarygal's post) there was not one oncologist on that panel.
There's your conspiracy. Now I suggest you start showing respect for me and other posters here or your time posting here is over.
Why is that? Yes, insurance companies are TOTALLY responsible, as told to me by the Indian Cardiologist from Los Angeles who I met on an expensive Mediterranen Cruise while accompanied by his wife, his FOUR children AND his mother-in-law. By the way, Dr. Indian Cardiologist takes a similar very costly vacation every year with the entire family. And also by the way, Dr. Indian Cardiologist is from a country where cows are sacred and the people are vegetarians. Gee, any wonder Dr. Indian Cardiologist is practicing medicine in Los Angeles?
You really are tin-foil hatted enough to believe that doctors are routinely giving out false diagnoses of cancer?
Give me a frakin' break.
The doctor you cited completely anecdotally and with no evidence of wrongdoing may choose to vacation wherever he wants (I've done a Med cruise too! How very guilty of me!), with whomever he wants (I traveled with my family too! Quelle horreur!) and may choose to practice in the US if he so wishes without any malevolence, as can my Danish husband who is licensed by the California Bar Association (why doesn't he practice in Denmark? He must be HIDING something!).
You have just proven yourself unworthy of serious discussion.
No risk factors. Why did she have breast cancer? Perhaps she was the perfect candidate to perpetuate the mammogram scam?
In shape, a non-smoker and still got breast cancer.
Shit happens.
Not everything is a ridiculous conspiracy.
Deal with it. Americans are ALL immigrants. We don't have the same genes. Some people come from better stock and have better blood. That doesn't mean the rest of us should be sheep.
[You are getting on a lot of peoples' pecs around here; not just mine and Nicole's. If you'd like to continue to post on this site, I suggest you back way off here. I remember you writing to the sitemonitor last time you were banned; this time will be permanent-Sitemonitor]
Unless you have my stepmother's case history in front of you, you don't know shit.
Don't make sweeping generalizations. Don't cast aspersions on cancer survivors and above all, don't give me shit about all your biases about immigrants and genetics when it's clear your tin foil hat is on too tight.
This is my site and I will ban you.
Some of us are native. No history of breast cancer in that line either.
That was an ignorant statement if I ever heard one.
Are you trying to say there are no such doctors? That every doctor, especially those performing high-end, high-paying procedures, is on the up-and-up? That there are no women who are misdiagnosed and undergo treatment for no reason?
I am extremely suspicious of anyone who uses the words "how dare you". Anyone and everyone is free to ask any question or express any opinion they like. No one here is royalty, Nicole. No one here is above questioning. So get off your high horse.
rude, inconsiderate, and offensive manner, then they should expect to have people pissed off of them.
I for one got tired of her shit. She has a right, I suppose, to believe, no matter how crazy it may or not be, that there's some worldwide conspiracy to trick people into believing they have cancer.
What she doesn't have a right to do, is push her crap on the original commenter in such a harsh and abusive manner. And then to keep stirring the pot in an equally offensive manner after someone called her on it! Jesus!
there are very few times I pull rank on this site, but this is one of those times.
The commenting policy is very clear: abusive posts and treating other posters with disrespect is not allowed.
This poster was clearly out of line in her insinuation about a woman sharing her cancer experience.
Don't like it, Excelsior? Find another place to post. And yes, the weather is just fine from my high horse. That's what my time as the Managing Editor/Contributer/Partner in this site has afforded me.
"Are you SURE you had breast cancer? Did you get a second opinion -- from say, a doctor in Canada or some other country that utilizes socialized medicine? And did you ever stop and wonder, due to the fact you had no risk factors, WHY you had breast cancer? Is it possible your doctor had to make his quota for the month and that's why you were diagnosed?" — Centrocitta
Centro- You are an absolute idiot for asking that question. Of course I had breast cancer - TWICE in fact! They do a biopsy of the tumor and they also send the tissue out for pathology to determine tumor markers, HER2, hormone status, etc., So yes, I am quite sure I had cancer.
As for "what did I do to cause it?" - well, it may surprise you to find out that MOST women diagnosed with breast cancer have NO "known" risk factors. There is an awful lot left to learn about this beast.
That's why early detection is the ONLY option we have for fighting it.
*
Had TB when she was a young girl.
She never smoked or did anything that would make someone point a finger.
When she was around 65, she was diagnosed with lung cancer.
They removed half of one of her lungs. She lived till she was 79.
No one can predict who's going to get what. It's just the luck of the draw.
But, early detection is a must.
To me, that's a no brainer.
One more thing. There ain't a snowballs chance in hell that I would jump into that argument up there.
Not a chance.
The early detection and the education surrounding it is very, very important. I'm not sure I would have known what to do when I discovered my problem in this area. Thankfully, since they sorta pound it into women's heads to get the mammograms and do the self-exams, I did know what to do, and was able to find out that I was *ok*...
Men don't walk 10 miles for their balls. They don't have prostrate rallies. Right? They get better tests and pills to fix their erections. And meanwhile, we walk until our feet fall off. Science can't even give us an exam without exposing us to radiation. WTF is wrong with this picture?
We should demand safer tests, better treatment and a goddamn chair.
I would absolutely walk 10 miles for my balls. Fortunately, the testicular self-exam is very easy, and testicular cancer is most common in men from ages 16 to 30 (when most of us are regularly fondling our testicles anyway.)
You do deserve a chair or something.
And good luck with those balls, sir.
testicular gentility.
Modern medicine is stacked your favor, Billy. You don't need to push for better health care. Women do. Apples and oranges, I guess.
"It goes against the advice we've had for decades". Obviously BAD advice for those decades -- or the breast cancer rate wouldn't be so high. Cancer is genetic. Some groups have it, some groups don't. Therefore, why should every healthy woman in America start getting mammograms at age 40 and possibly put herself at risk for side-effects from the radiation? I never bought into the mammogram scam and never will -- and I'm even healthier for not doing so. The only sickness I feel is when "National Breast Cancer Month" comes around every year. That's when I get nauseated watching all the sheep.
I totally agree with Abbywood said, with some addenda.
I did have a mammogram once-a freebie offered by an insurance company. It is a painful and humiliating procedure, and also quite expensive, no matter who pays for it.
I am 58 years old, have no family history, am not overweight,have nursed two children (one for eighteen months, the second for two years), took estrogen only briefly in the '70's as birth-control before switching to the diaphragm.
I weathered menopause WITHOUT going to a doctor for hormone replacement therapy, which actually DROVE UP the incidence of breast cancer and the resultant mortality. (It truly amazes me that women somehow missed how HRT, prescribed by their doctors, CAUSED breast cancer. This came out a couple of years ago. I was expecting a wave of lawsuits, but ...crickets.)
What really puts me at risk for cancer is my pack a day cigarette addiction, for Christ's sake! Lung cancer is the number one cancer that kills women. Men who smoke heavily get screened for lung cancer, and, if they are lucky, get cured.
Seriously. Lung cancer, in its early stages, can be detected and cured. My ex-husband and a co-worker are living proof.
Both males. I am equally, perhaps more at risk, than they for LUNG CANCER.
But if I go to a doctor, will I get referred for a simple chest X-Ray?
Absolutely not. I'm a lady and and they will be all over my lady parts.
ago, when I was 23, I had my one mammogram. I had noticed a lump on next to one of my breasts, then the doctor's hand exam found more lumps. They were Fibroadenomas. Obviously, I won't be getting regular mammograms until sometime later in life, but this still leaves me scratching my head because I'm unsure if these tumors were enough to warrant me starting the regular mammograms at 40 or if I should wait till 50...
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/18/...
suspicious now!
Yep, it's very suspicious.
How convenient for the insurance companies!
Breast Cancer can be prevented with Vitamin D3
Vitmin D3 also cures about 90% of 60% of cancers - Breast cancer is among them. There's a LOT of information on this on the internet. One place to start is www.vitaminDcouncil.org.
*
exactly how does vitamin D3 do this? how does a vitamin take a malignant cell and stop its mitosis? how does a vitamin differentiate between malignant cells and normal cells?
As a surgeon, I must say that this is at best a questionable therapy and at worst extremely deceitful. There no simple answers to any cancers that I know of. All the simple answers have been tried in the 50s and 60s.
that always exists between public health and personal health. To a public health expert one woman dying of BC and another dying of radiation induced BC are equivalent. On a personal level though, the one person developing BC would be loath to give up the means to detect it - and if you can't otherwise determine who that person is, neither would the other 1900 women who won't develop BC. Public health is not meant to be good for the individual - it's meant to be good for society as a whole. We aren't of course, society as a whole - hence the tension.
I talked about this extensively on my blog last night. As a trauma surgeon, I always want to err on the side of caution. In this case, caution would be mammograms at age 40. Talk with your doctor. Read. Be informed.
A place to start being informed might be the book "The Last Well Person" which makes the observation, based on the available studies in the medical literature, that much of the breast cancer awareness, has had little effect on outcome over the population and perhaps led to many unnecessary procedures. It is a sobering account of medicine that is based less on the art of practice and more on what can you demonstrate actually works. As such, it runs contrary to antidotal accounts and the money to be gained from many procedures.
But by all means Read. Be informed.
stood and spoke about this. She was surrounded by other Republican Congresswomen.
I stood stunned as Congresswoman Blackburn stated clearly and unequivecably that this advice to women not to get mammograms so early was, "the start of a slippery slope" of "bureaucrats coming between women and their health care providers" and therefore is very, very bad. In fact, Congresswoman Blackburn was pretty outraged at the very thought that bureaucrats would get between a woman and her health care providers.
Because, dog gone it, don't we all know that bureaucrats should never be allowed to come between women and their health care providers?
And I thought, "Oh my God, Congresswoman Blackburn, and all these supportive Republican Congresswomen nodding behind her, just denounced the Stupak Amendment and probably don't even know it."
It cannot be a good thing for bureaucrats to come between a woman and her health care providers below the waist but not above, can it?
And as I've said before, it disgusts me that our breast health as women has finally gotten some acceptance, but our anything having to do with our vaginas, ovaries, and uteruii is taboo and many women have to suffer because of it...
to determine what we may or may not do to ourselves.
The cognitive disconnect is pretty extreme.
I hope I'm not the only one to notice this and call those Republican women on this - my body, from head to foot, not some bureaucrats!
*
I am one of the people who believe this is about cost-cutting. Studies and statistics are so easily manipulated to favor one side or another, you can see the proof every time you see back-to-back prescription recalls on TV, and just how badly the patients suffered,
Like with prescriptions, it's probably a safer bet to stick with the older stuff and ideas here.
I can understand the questioning the value of mammograms. What I cannot understand is one of the other recommendations of this panel - that doctors not teach women about breast self exams. WTF? Why in the world is it better and more healthy to know less about your own body? It's outrageous and hardly anyone is talking about it.
wrong with getting to know the changes your breasts go through over the month. And not everyone is going to "luck out" like I do, and have a lump that is easily visible to tip you off to something being of concern...
Well my opinion is that this whole thing is about preparing for health care reform. They are hedging their bets, and I doubt this will be the last medical revelation. We will be seeing more of the "unnecessary" and "over-medicated" commentary.
There is no good reason why you should avoid learning how to check your breasts in lieu of a mammogram. None. They don't want you finding a possible lump and getting a mammogram as a result because it defeats their real purpose here.
Are you aware of how much you sound like a tea-bagger?
.........battle breast cancer for 3 years, all I can tell you is that ANYTHING that allows doctors to detect it as early as possible is a good thing. My wife was diagnosed at the age of 38. No real symptoms other than a recurring backache, and absolutely no family history.........she was stage IV when it was diagnosed. We couldn't believe it.
My wife lost her battle last year at the age of 41.
I'm not a doctor, and everyone has to make their own decisions. But I'll tell any woman the same thing: DO NOT EVER ignore any symptoms and DO NOT put off routine exams. If you have a problem you want to know what you're dealing with as early as possible. My wife is proof that it can happen to anyone. Cancer does not discriminate!
*
Breast cancer is a terrible disease (as is any cancer), and I feel for any woman (or man) that is battling it.
my sympathies for your loss.
My deepest condolences.
And thank you for telling us your wife's story.
It couldn't have been easy.
Thank You again.
Thanks for sharing your experience.
I had migraines for over 50 years. I had my first migraine in 1955. I was five. Migraines hit mostly women. So I've been through over half a century of American medicine's treatment of a condition that hits mostly women.
Which means over 50 years of misdiagnosis, over or under-medicated, insulted, patronized, no tests, too many tests, drugs that did nothing, drugs that made me feel like a psychotic break was immanent, (Topomax). I was patted on the hand and dismissed. I was told I had a hysterical nature.
The migraines were caused by chocolate, or coffee, or cheese, or cigarettes, or stress, or hormones, or my periods, or a self-indulgent nature.
In the late 90's, someone in Big Pharma began to crack the migraine code. My doctor gave me my first shot of Imitrex and, for the first time in my life, a migraine was completely taken away by a medicine, without me being knocked out for a day or so.
Turns out I didn't get them because I was emotionally weak and a girl, they're caused by a brain chemical imbalance, and can be treated easily now.
The most amazing part of this was my doctor's reaction. He was a good doctor, really cared, and really tried, and he spoke honestly about how this was going to force him to reassess all his notions about why women get migraines, most of which were sexist and insulting to women.
That was only 10 years ago.
My point in all this is that it is a relatively new phenomanon for doctors to realize that women's medical needs really are different, not inferior, to men's. Less than a generation. They're struggling too - and they screw up. Hell, pregnant women smoked and drank when I was growing up. It was common then, now it's almost criminal.
But I don't believe there is a nefarious government plot to deny women mammograms that they need. I think women's medicine, and cancer research, are rapidly changing and evolving along with our attitudes about gender issues.
I say, follow your instincts. If you think you should have mammograms, find a doctor who respects your instincts and will work with you. I always knew there was some other reason for my migraines than whatever the diagnosis du jour was, so I learned to find doctors who would work with me, and as soon as there was finally a real cure, my doctor was there for me with it.
Follow your instincts. Fight for the care you believe you should have. Demand and get respect from your doctor - or find a different doctor. You must always be your own best advocate.
is reminding me of a book I read ages ago, that talked about how men are considered the default human by medicine, and how that model of scientific inquiry is very unhelpful for women's health concerns, plus the sexist ways some doctors attribute them...
I can't remember the name of the book for the life of me though, no matter how much I want to...
Edit - Aha! Memory jogged. It's The Mismeasure of Woman by Carol Tavris.
No mammograms now because the insurance companies don't want to pay for them anymore. They must make a bigger profit.
The government is saying that early detection does not save lives. In other words, breast cancer is untreatable. It will kill you, or it won't, and you have no power over it either way. So why then to they recommend mammograms starting at age 50? It's enough to make you want to go get in line for a swine flu shot, no?
All this talk about detecting cancer and no talk about finding a cure. Detection of cancer only leads to treatment with chemicals and radiation that also cause cancer. If there was a treatment available that did not compromise your immune system, but instead bolstered your immune system to fight the cancer, early detection might be more useful. Or if we focused on the causes of cancer and searched for a cure, there might be no more need for detection devices.
In my case, I have history of cancer in my family and my sister was just diagnosed with breast cancer at 45. However, I will not get a mammogram, because I do not believe in unnecessary radiation. My father had lymphoma and died from the radiation treatments, not the cancer. My sister, most likely received her breast cancer from working as a dental hygienist and taking almost 50 xrays a day without wearing a lead shield.
In her case she had a mammogram 6 months before, came out clear as whistle, and 6 months later the lump was as big as a marble. She found it by self-examination (a diagnostic test I whole-heartedly approve of).
What's weird is that if you get cancer, doctors aren't interested in how you may have got it (except lung cancer). Unless we find out how cancer forms, how can we find a cure? In fact, if everyone in America was given a PET scan, I would bet a vast majority of us would light up like a christmas tree, with cancer cells throughout our bodies. We all have cancer cells, because we all have cells. The question is why do they mutate and spread? Stop healthy cells from mutating in the first place and you cure cancer. Current treatments do not do that. They only compromise healthy cells.
Why can't we focus more on cures?
You don't think there are people working on cancer cures? Of course there are. We just don't hear as much about them because their work doesn't intersect with the public, until the work is done. Why should the public "focus" on something they can't do anything about?
One novel development now being tested in clinical trials in the US and elsewhere was recently reported at MIT Technology Review. Worth the read.
http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/2...
What I screamed at the radio today:
* If screening is so important, why not screen every six months? Or three months? Or every day? Clearly there is some point of diminishing returns, and insisting on *annual* mammograms is perhaps as arbitrary a choice as anything else. If we want to be less arbitrary about it, then we should convene a panel to determine the optimal spacing between mammograms which minimizes the risks of missed cancers AND radiation/false positives. Oh wait, we just did.
* And if someone is going to start "rationing" care based on risk and outcome assessments, I'd rather it be the government (who is responsive to public outcry) than Blue Cross, who doesn't give a damn.
Watched Carly Fiorina on the morning Joe show this am.I wanted to hear her platform - she's another GOP stalwart failing upwards to run for a senate seat in Cali.She appeared on the show with the tell tale short crew cut- was asked about her opinion on the new mamm advice.she stated plainly that she "had" a mammogram that did not detect the cancer.She discovered the cancer on a self exam 3 months after the mamm.So, everyone has a story.
Where is all the hormonal cancer coming from? Is Europe and Japan safer for rejecting our synthetic hormone laden beef?
Professor Epstein answers.
UV rays and radiation from electronic devices interact with the chemicals and hormones in our bodies. Also, many cancers are viruses.
cuz it's fun! and you'll make the pig people cry.lolz
Effective Alternative Breast Cancer Screening
depends on the time of month for me; also depends on the skill of the technician, how still you are able to be, whether you took Motrin or Tylenol beforehand like they tell you to, whether or not you have been eating a lot of salt and are bloated . . .
But really, who cares!? My tetanus shot hurt so bad I couldn't raise my arm for two days, and since then I have not stepped on any rusty nails. Am I still glad I endured the pain? You bet.
One out of 2000 die from receiving the procedure annually? If a drug killed 1:2000 users, it would be taken off the market and subject to lawsuit.
You guys should read this: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/12/if_...
The author of Respectful Insolence, Orac, explains where Susie messed up, along with her somewhat defensive response.
Ms Madrak is a good writer, but IMO she tends to go off-the-rails if there's a "conspiracy" about.
Login or Register to post comments.