REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 46

Do Yearly Mammograms Save Women's Lives?

Controversial new recommendations on breast cancer prevention have caused a stir in the women's health community. But do yearly mammograms really change death rates?
November 19, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email.

 
 
Advertisement
 

EDITOR'S NOTE: Since this article was written, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has yielded to the uproar generated by new guidelines from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force, and essentially urged women to ignore the committee's recommendations, and continue with their yearly mammograms, and monthly self-examinations.

The new recommendation from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force that women under 50 should not undergo routine mammography is generating a lot of controversy -- it is a direct challenge to the strong message women have been receiving for two decades that they should have yearly screening starting at age 40. The task force also recommends that women age 50-74 have a mammogram every two years (rather than yearly) and finds that there is little benefit in screening women over 74 at all.

To the experts who have been questioning the benefits of mammography for several years, these recommendations are no surprise -- and they are welcome. The World Health Organization, and many European countries where the government pays for routine mammography screening, already follow these guidelines. But how is this news playing in Peoria?

The initial reaction from many health professionals, breast cancer survivors and advocates has been outrage and anger, with many insisting that women's health will be compromised if these recommendations are implemented. Still others see the new guidelines as evidence that the government is using comparative-effectiveness studies to justify rationing care. Leading this onslaught are some key members of the cancer establishment: The American Cancer Society, The American College of Radiology and the National Cancer Institute.

Dr. Otis W. Brawley, chief medical officer of the ACS, released this statement in response to the Preventative Task Force report: "As someone who has long been a critic of those overstating the benefits of screening, I use these words advisedly: this is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over, be she a patient, a stranger, or a family member."

Dr. Carol H. Lee, chair of the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Commission, launched a blistering attack on the Preventative Services Task Force recommendations, calling them  "unfounded" and "incredibly flawed," saying that, if adopted, they will "result in many needless deaths." Furthermore, says Lee, they  "seem to reflect a conscious decision to ration care." Lee's organization, of course, has reason to worry about the long-term effects of this report; the American College of Radiology estimates that $3.3 billion was spent on mammograms in the last year alone.

In reality, the mission of the Preventative Services task force is to provide evidence-based recommendations and treatment guidelines for clinicians -- they are not charged with rationing care. Appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, they are an independent group of 16 experts who specialize in prevention and primary care. True to their mission, the task force members were quite thorough in their research. According to the New York Times "in order to formulate its guidelines, the task force used new data from mammography studies in England and Sweden and also commissioned six groups to make statistical models to analyze the aggregate data."


Naomi Freundlich is a patient advocate at the Century Foundation who writes regularly for HealthBeat.
Email
Print
Share
Post on reddit
Post on stumbleupon
Post on facebook
Post on digg
Post on twitter
Post on delicious
LIKED THIS ARTICLE? JOIN OUR EMAIL LIST
Stay up to date with the latest Reproductive Justice headlines via email


Comments are closed-

In the country with about the worst health care in the world, women should not ignore their health
Posted by: Beadmaster on Nov 19, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The spam postings above notwithstanding (have reported them and hope they will be removed shortly), statistics don't mean anything here. Just because women in England and Sweden - e.g., civilized countries, where health care is a given, not withheld by greedy insurance companies - can go longer without mammograms and don't "need" self-exams doesn't mean that's good for women here.

Why is Washington continually trying to whittle away at the tiniest bit of good insurers might do for women? The day I accept that this recommendation is a good idea is the day they decide to do a study that says Viagra is overused and not recommended to be covered by insurers or government programs. When impoverished women are discouraged from getting abortions, birth control and now diagnostic breast cancer tests, while Viagra is freely given to men who are on welfare, something is seriously wrong, especially when the assistance in making unwanted babies is generously given in the form of an expensive, totally unnecessary medication. Impotence may be difficult on a man, but it is not life threatening. Breast cancer is life threatening, particularly if not caught in time.

And then on top of that, oh, no, paying for mammograms for women of a certain age is "unnecessary." Yes, and don't bother examining your breasts, because statistically, you don't have to worry about it...we'll let it sneak up on you instead.

Really, they can get away with this crapola in Sweden and England, where women don't go without necessary health care. Because they get routine checkups from doctors. Nowhere do I see anything which says, along with this new recommendation, the recommendation is also for women to increase their visits to a gynecologist for that breast exam they're not encouraged to do anymore. If you're going to advocate denial of sound diagnostic tools to women who live in a country that routinely denies them the tiniest amount of health care, you're going to end up with a lot of dead women.

The only thing that would make this finding valid for the unique and lousy situation we enjoy in the US is if the government made it a law that all women can demand at least a once-yearly gynecological exam...for free...just like the way men on welfare can get free Viagra. This is the only thing that would put health care for women here the tiniest bit closer to the same level as countries like Sweden and England.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I want to know who appointed these researchers
Posted by: EncinoM on Nov 19, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One great wayto derail the healthcare debate is for washington bureaucrats to provide ammo for the lunatic fringe.

Those that argued that the healthcare reforms would lead to rationing, only have to point to this lastest report for evidence.

After reading the report and watching Sanjay Gupta interview one of the researchers, it seems as if authors were more concerned with the dollars and cents of mamograms than with the lives that they would save. The heade of the Health and Humans Services department has distanced themselves from this study.

How many women are going to die because health insurance companies have a new reason to deny coverage, and how many americans are going to die because oppenents of healthcare reform have a new arrow in their quiever?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why be nasty? Posted by: plantland
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: Beck
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Not emough is done to stop cancer by promoting breastfeeding
Posted by: plantland on Nov 19, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem with so much emphasis being given to early detection thrugh mammogram screenings is that not enough has been done to help keep breast cancer from developing in the first place.

High risk women- those with a famiy history (mother or sister who had alaready developed breast cancer) had their breast cancer rate cut by 59% even if they breast fed for as little as three months. ( Alison Steube,UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Sept. '09 Archives of Internal Medicine)

Breastfeeding for several years is protective of a younger woman's not getting breast cancer - the ages for which the recommendations for routine mammograms are being revised. (Perhaps non high risk women rates are so much lower that the lengthier time breastfeeding was necessary to show up statistically, and that a shorter period also helps them avoid developing breast cancer.)

(After menopause, having breastfed a child no longer makes a difference in cancer rates.)

African American women have the highest breast cancer fatality rates in younger women, and the lowest breast feeding rates.

Beyond the message that breast feeding is good for your child, with fewer ear infections, and less lifelong asthma, and better school outcomes, it is good for the mother.
Society should help a woman choose breast feeding by financial help, since being able to care for the baby can be more important than even continuing at a job or getting some credits. We can actually save social secuity costs for the children of mothers who have passed away by emphasizing the critical importance of the best start in life that is possible.

My dream would be that this incentive is good for only two children!

Fewer children educated better, eating less but better food- living better during the economic contraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The answer is yes. Mammograms probably do change the cancer death rate.
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smash a woman’s breast and give it radiation enough times and it’ll change the cancer death rate for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Horrified!
Posted by: mountainmama on Nov 19, 2009 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am living....yes LIVING...proof that yearly mammograms are saving lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am literally horrified and furious by this even being suggested. It must be a decision by a man.

In my case, had I not had a yearly mammogram, I'd not be writing this here right now!!! Even the surgeon and others on the team could not feel the lump because it was embedded so deep. It was ONLY by mammogram that it was found. I have been cancer free for over 5 years and my 2 daughters, who now get mamms every year because of me, and my 4 grandchildren still have a mother and grandmother! You don't want to know what I'd like to do to those bastards who suggest this!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Horrified! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Horrified! Posted by: mountainmama
» P.S. Posted by: mountainmama

Comments are closed-

ritami
Posted by: ritami on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The negative result of my wire-guided breast biopsy was a false positive. I was on the crest of the wave of mammography recommendations in the late 80's, and have had them nearly yearly since I was 36. That's a lot of mammography. My family history is negative, my breasts are small and fibrous. Getting a good reading meant sometimes multiple mammo views, with the attendant radiation. At this point, at 58, I'm happy to see the recommendations and to feel less guilty about resisting yet another yearly mammo. Others can make their decisions for themselves. I am comfortable with every other year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MORE ERODED TRUST IN "EXPERTS"
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest "victim" in all of this is the continued erosion of already seriously damaged trust in so called experts and in our federal health agencies by the average American health care consumer.

This eroded trust will take decades to rebuild- if ever?

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

There are cures to cancer.
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A place to start fining out about them are two books on the subject. “Cancer Step Outside the Box” by Ty M. Bollinger and “Cancer Free Your Guide to Gentle Non-Toxic Healing” by Bill Henderson. They give the cures. Just read the book reviews on a web site like Amazon dot com. That’s a good place to start anyway.
You can be cancer free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There are cures to cancer. Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

Three heavily touted USA propaganda ideas have been:
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have a yearly mammogram.
Sadam has weapons of mass destruction.
Get your Swine Flu, H1N1 shot.

RESEARCH that shot. Find out what is in it. Find out about what the side effects are. The outrage and propaganda against anyone who is not for the H1N1 shot is so strong now, I don’t feel I can tell you the answers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» believing rumors? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: believing rumors? Posted by: saywhat

Comments are closed-

Mammograms
Posted by: osd on Nov 20, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought that women are better off to use the good sense we have, and think about what we are stepping into, before we are hip deep in it. I've always thought that sticking a needle into a lump to take a sample was a really bad idea. We all know that if it is cancerous, it will leak and spread after being punctured. same goes for smashing the breast to irradiate it. They have come up with better ways and we need to start insisting that these new procedures are being used. One of the best things we can do for ourselves is bolster our own immune system. Your own body knows how to keep cancer at bay. Preventive is the right path that we all need to follow. There is allot of alternative medicine that needs to be looked at. Who better than each of us to check this out for ourselves. Knowledge really is the best kind of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

death panels for boobies.
Posted by: majr17440 on Nov 20, 2009 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes im for universal health coverage that isnt for profit. I do not trust the American government to keep my best interest in mind when dolling out the cash for any universal plan. This announcement was most likely just to test the waters and see what type of cut backs Americans will be willing to sit back and take. Come on America is run by an oligarchy that is only worried about keeping itself in power, more oil wars, and subverting any nation that is trying to make its economy work for its people...not shareholders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

fredrika fearless
Posted by: fritzi cohen on Nov 22, 2009 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always thought of the entrenched corporate interests that have gotten the government to push reimbursement. GE as I understand it is the mammogram manufacturer. I've known of the downside of mammograms for a long time, but to me it is an individual's decision, its just that I've also seen mammograms pushed in the most obnoxious way by doctors, disregarding the concerns of their patients. Unfortunately there probably is a big economic interest in which procedures are considered eligible for reimbursement, and the patient is simply an easy customer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

g
Posted by: dewre on Nov 24, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nonsense that topic.
Blu ray ripper *Blu Ray Ripper for Mac

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bill
Posted by: mycuz on Dec 8, 2009 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife died of breast cancer, and I have been an acitivist for over 17 years, and I find some of these posting juvenile. These guidelines have nothing to do with money. It is amazing to me that the trust we place in our medical system and the information they fail to supply. One example is needle biopsy the research shows that this procedure can spread cancer if it is prevalent in the lump. How many doctors tell women this??
Now for some FACTS and not emotion about mammograms.
John Gofman, MD ph>D. a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, and one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers of radiation. Presents compelling evidence in his book Radiation from Medical Procedures int he Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease that over 50% of the death rate from cancer is in fact induced by x-rays. How Mammography increase your cancer risk.
x-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation have been for decades a proven cause of biological mutations. When such mutations are not cell-lethal, they endure and accumulate with each additional exposure to x-rays or other ionizing radiation. X-rays are also an extablished cause of genomic instability, often a characteristic of the most agressive cancers. Radiation risks are about four times greater for the 1-2 percent of women who are silent carriers oa the A-T gene which by some estimates accounts for up to 20% of all breast cancer diagnosed annually. When everything is taken into account reducing exposure to medical radiation such as unnecessary mammograms would acutually reduce mortality rates.
Women should remember this is a highly emotional issue, and they should take the time to find out the facts before assuming this is some type of government conspiracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

In the country with about the worst health care in the world, women should not ignore their health
Posted by: Beadmaster on Nov 19, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The spam postings above notwithstanding (have reported them and hope they will be removed shortly), statistics don't mean anything here. Just because women in England and Sweden - e.g., civilized countries, where health care is a given, not withheld by greedy insurance companies - can go longer without mammograms and don't "need" self-exams doesn't mean that's good for women here.

Why is Washington continually trying to whittle away at the tiniest bit of good insurers might do for women? The day I accept that this recommendation is a good idea is the day they decide to do a study that says Viagra is overused and not recommended to be covered by insurers or government programs. When impoverished women are discouraged from getting abortions, birth control and now diagnostic breast cancer tests, while Viagra is freely given to men who are on welfare, something is seriously wrong, especially when the assistance in making unwanted babies is generously given in the form of an expensive, totally unnecessary medication. Impotence may be difficult on a man, but it is not life threatening. Breast cancer is life threatening, particularly if not caught in time.

And then on top of that, oh, no, paying for mammograms for women of a certain age is "unnecessary." Yes, and don't bother examining your breasts, because statistically, you don't have to worry about it...we'll let it sneak up on you instead.

Really, they can get away with this crapola in Sweden and England, where women don't go without necessary health care. Because they get routine checkups from doctors. Nowhere do I see anything which says, along with this new recommendation, the recommendation is also for women to increase their visits to a gynecologist for that breast exam they're not encouraged to do anymore. If you're going to advocate denial of sound diagnostic tools to women who live in a country that routinely denies them the tiniest amount of health care, you're going to end up with a lot of dead women.

The only thing that would make this finding valid for the unique and lousy situation we enjoy in the US is if the government made it a law that all women can demand at least a once-yearly gynecological exam...for free...just like the way men on welfare can get free Viagra. This is the only thing that would put health care for women here the tiniest bit closer to the same level as countries like Sweden and England.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

I want to know who appointed these researchers
Posted by: EncinoM on Nov 19, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One great wayto derail the healthcare debate is for washington bureaucrats to provide ammo for the lunatic fringe.

Those that argued that the healthcare reforms would lead to rationing, only have to point to this lastest report for evidence.

After reading the report and watching Sanjay Gupta interview one of the researchers, it seems as if authors were more concerned with the dollars and cents of mamograms than with the lives that they would save. The heade of the Health and Humans Services department has distanced themselves from this study.

How many women are going to die because health insurance companies have a new reason to deny coverage, and how many americans are going to die because oppenents of healthcare reform have a new arrow in their quiever?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Why be nasty? Posted by: plantland
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: Beck
» RE: Why be nasty? Posted by: bornxeyed

Comments are closed-

Not emough is done to stop cancer by promoting breastfeeding
Posted by: plantland on Nov 19, 2009 7:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One problem with so much emphasis being given to early detection thrugh mammogram screenings is that not enough has been done to help keep breast cancer from developing in the first place.

High risk women- those with a famiy history (mother or sister who had alaready developed breast cancer) had their breast cancer rate cut by 59% even if they breast fed for as little as three months. ( Alison Steube,UNC Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Sept. '09 Archives of Internal Medicine)

Breastfeeding for several years is protective of a younger woman's not getting breast cancer - the ages for which the recommendations for routine mammograms are being revised. (Perhaps non high risk women rates are so much lower that the lengthier time breastfeeding was necessary to show up statistically, and that a shorter period also helps them avoid developing breast cancer.)

(After menopause, having breastfed a child no longer makes a difference in cancer rates.)

African American women have the highest breast cancer fatality rates in younger women, and the lowest breast feeding rates.

Beyond the message that breast feeding is good for your child, with fewer ear infections, and less lifelong asthma, and better school outcomes, it is good for the mother.
Society should help a woman choose breast feeding by financial help, since being able to care for the baby can be more important than even continuing at a job or getting some credits. We can actually save social secuity costs for the children of mothers who have passed away by emphasizing the critical importance of the best start in life that is possible.

My dream would be that this incentive is good for only two children!

Fewer children educated better, eating less but better food- living better during the economic contraction.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

The answer is yes. Mammograms probably do change the cancer death rate.
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 8:15 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smash a woman’s breast and give it radiation enough times and it’ll change the cancer death rate for sure.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Horrified!
Posted by: mountainmama on Nov 19, 2009 8:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am living....yes LIVING...proof that yearly mammograms are saving lives!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I am literally horrified and furious by this even being suggested. It must be a decision by a man.

In my case, had I not had a yearly mammogram, I'd not be writing this here right now!!! Even the surgeon and others on the team could not feel the lump because it was embedded so deep. It was ONLY by mammogram that it was found. I have been cancer free for over 5 years and my 2 daughters, who now get mamms every year because of me, and my 4 grandchildren still have a mother and grandmother! You don't want to know what I'd like to do to those bastards who suggest this!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Horrified! Posted by: bornxeyed
» RE: Horrified! Posted by: mountainmama
» P.S. Posted by: mountainmama

Comments are closed-

ritami
Posted by: ritami on Nov 19, 2009 10:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The negative result of my wire-guided breast biopsy was a false positive. I was on the crest of the wave of mammography recommendations in the late 80's, and have had them nearly yearly since I was 36. That's a lot of mammography. My family history is negative, my breasts are small and fibrous. Getting a good reading meant sometimes multiple mammo views, with the attendant radiation. At this point, at 58, I'm happy to see the recommendations and to feel less guilty about resisting yet another yearly mammo. Others can make their decisions for themselves. I am comfortable with every other year.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

MORE ERODED TRUST IN "EXPERTS"
Posted by: drricklippin on Nov 19, 2009 10:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The biggest "victim" in all of this is the continued erosion of already seriously damaged trust in so called experts and in our federal health agencies by the average American health care consumer.

This eroded trust will take decades to rebuild- if ever?

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton,Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

There are cures to cancer.
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 11:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A place to start fining out about them are two books on the subject. “Cancer Step Outside the Box” by Ty M. Bollinger and “Cancer Free Your Guide to Gentle Non-Toxic Healing” by Bill Henderson. They give the cures. Just read the book reviews on a web site like Amazon dot com. That’s a good place to start anyway.
You can be cancer free.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There are cures to cancer. Posted by: luzmejor

Comments are closed-

Three heavily touted USA propaganda ideas have been:
Posted by: saywhat on Nov 19, 2009 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have a yearly mammogram.
Sadam has weapons of mass destruction.
Get your Swine Flu, H1N1 shot.

RESEARCH that shot. Find out what is in it. Find out about what the side effects are. The outrage and propaganda against anyone who is not for the H1N1 shot is so strong now, I don’t feel I can tell you the answers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» believing rumors? Posted by: luzmejor
» RE: believing rumors? Posted by: saywhat

Comments are closed-

Mammograms
Posted by: osd on Nov 20, 2009 6:16 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought that women are better off to use the good sense we have, and think about what we are stepping into, before we are hip deep in it. I've always thought that sticking a needle into a lump to take a sample was a really bad idea. We all know that if it is cancerous, it will leak and spread after being punctured. same goes for smashing the breast to irradiate it. They have come up with better ways and we need to start insisting that these new procedures are being used. One of the best things we can do for ourselves is bolster our own immune system. Your own body knows how to keep cancer at bay. Preventive is the right path that we all need to follow. There is allot of alternative medicine that needs to be looked at. Who better than each of us to check this out for ourselves. Knowledge really is the best kind of power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

death panels for boobies.
Posted by: majr17440 on Nov 20, 2009 11:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes im for universal health coverage that isnt for profit. I do not trust the American government to keep my best interest in mind when dolling out the cash for any universal plan. This announcement was most likely just to test the waters and see what type of cut backs Americans will be willing to sit back and take. Come on America is run by an oligarchy that is only worried about keeping itself in power, more oil wars, and subverting any nation that is trying to make its economy work for its people...not shareholders.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

fredrika fearless
Posted by: fritzi cohen on Nov 22, 2009 6:13 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've always thought of the entrenched corporate interests that have gotten the government to push reimbursement. GE as I understand it is the mammogram manufacturer. I've known of the downside of mammograms for a long time, but to me it is an individual's decision, its just that I've also seen mammograms pushed in the most obnoxious way by doctors, disregarding the concerns of their patients. Unfortunately there probably is a big economic interest in which procedures are considered eligible for reimbursement, and the patient is simply an easy customer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

g
Posted by: dewre on Nov 24, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
nonsense that topic.
Blu ray ripper *Blu Ray Ripper for Mac

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]


Comments are closed-

Bill
Posted by: mycuz on Dec 8, 2009 12:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My wife died of breast cancer, and I have been an acitivist for over 17 years, and I find some of these posting juvenile. These guidelines have nothing to do with money. It is amazing to me that the trust we place in our medical system and the information they fail to supply. One example is needle biopsy the research shows that this procedure can spread cancer if it is prevalent in the lump. How many doctors tell women this??
Now for some FACTS and not emotion about mammograms.
John Gofman, MD ph>D. a nuclear physicist and a medical doctor, and one of the leading experts in the world on the dangers of radiation. Presents compelling evidence in his book Radiation from Medical Procedures int he Pathogenesis of Cancer and Ischemic Heart Disease that over 50% of the death rate from cancer is in fact induced by x-rays. How Mammography increase your cancer risk.
x-rays and other classes of ionizing radiation have been for decades a proven cause of biological mutations. When such mutations are not cell-lethal, they endure and accumulate with each additional exposure to x-rays or other ionizing radiation. X-rays are also an extablished cause of genomic instability, often a characteristic of the most agressive cancers. Radiation risks are about four times greater for the 1-2 percent of women who are silent carriers oa the A-T gene which by some estimates accounts for up to 20% of all breast cancer diagnosed annually. When everything is taken into account reducing exposure to medical radiation such as unnecessary mammograms would acutually reduce mortality rates.
Women should remember this is a highly emotional issue, and they should take the time to find out the facts before assuming this is some type of government conspiracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS