REPRODUCTIVE JUSTICE  
comments_imageCOMMENTS: 41

Why the New Breast Cancer Guidelines Are Racist

Black women get breast cancer at younger ages, but the new breast-cancer guidelines entirely ignore that fact. This is the very definition of institutionalized racism.
November 23, 2009  |  
 
 
 
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:

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

 
 
Advertisement
 

    Some might think the word racist is overused and too harsh for the new breast cancer guidelines, issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. The fact is, though, the new rules that call for raising the recommended age for women to begin getting mammograms from 40 to 50 ignore the thousands of Black women who die from the disease each year. Black women, in fact, are typically diagnosed with cancer at a younger age than white women, and at a more advanced stage of the disease. The appropriate protocol for women of color would be to receive mammograms earlier not later. 

    When you entirely dismiss a segment of the population, and that population happens to be a racial minority — one that is at a greater risk of dying from breast cancer than any other population — what do you call it? It might not be overt racism, but these new guidelines are the very definition of institutionalized racial discrimination.

    Here are some facts to consider, courtesy of Sisters Network, the Black Women's Health Imperative and the American Cancer Society:

    • An estimated 19,540 Black women will be diagnosed with breast cancer this year, and more than 6,000 will die.
    • Black women are 53 percent more likely than white women to be diagnosed at a later stage in the disease, and about 26 percent are less likely to receive radiation after breast-conserving surgery.
    • Black women are more than twice as likely to receive no surgery at all and 39 percent more likely to die from breast cancer.

    And the worst of it is the government appears to be making the change in order to appease or shore up the bottom line of the insurance industry.

    The new guidelines

    As we know, Black women are often diagnosed at an earlier age, but in a more advanced stage of breast cancer. Just as the federal agency announced it would make the change, many health education advocates for racial minorities were beginning to campaign to lower the age from 40 to 35.

    Health educators have said one of their biggest obstacles in educating Black women about breast cancer is that much of the existing prevention information is not inclusive enough of women of color — something that isn't likely to change with the new guidelines.

    The move will be save a lot of money for the insurance industry, but those savings come at a huge cost for women in general, and especially women of color. These new recommendations will undoubtedly affect insurance coverage, and women under 50 will likely have to pay out of pocket for breast cancer exams, which will, of course, play a part in determining how many have them.


Devona Walker is TheLoop21.com's senior reporter, focusing on politics and economics. She may be reached at devona@theloop21.com.
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
See more stories tagged with: cancer, breast cancer, health reform, black women, mammograms


Comments are closed-

What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: lefty010 on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if we are subjecting ALL women to some kind of risk when their breast tissue is exposed to the radiation from a mammogram. There has been quite a bit of commentary on the risk of mammography and that risk is increased the younger the person is getting the test.
This article is worth the read from "Information Liberation". I understand that it's not msm but it offers over 25 sources that claim that mammography may cause cancer.
http://informationliberation.com/?id=28007

Here's one stat from the article:

------

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms.

-------

If this is the case then mammography may not be the appropriate way to detect breast cancer for anyone but even more so for Black women whom this article states are diagnosed and die from breast cancer at younger ages.

I would also question why it is that mammography is still used to treat mostly female problem when there might be even an inkling of a chance that the testing procedure could in fact be causing cancer.

So along with the idea that the procedure may be racist is it not also sexist? I don't hear about men smashing their penis' and testicles between to pieces of hard plastic and shooting the area with radiation to detect testicular or prostate cancer.

And furthermore, WHY are women of color getting breast cancer so early? What is going on in their environment that is causing the cancer so early? Why is the focus not placed on WHAT is causing the breast cancer rather than the hideous way black women are treated (or not treated) once they already have breast cancer. That is where I see institutionalized racism playing the biggest part in the marginalization of Black women and Black people in general.

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

» Ah typos...gotta love 'em Posted by: lefty010
» YES! Posted by: lefty010
» Mixing apples and oranges. Posted by: lefty010
» In other words... Posted by: mjabele
» And to this... Posted by: lefty010

Comments are closed-

THE GAME OF STATISTICS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 23, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over the last ten years I've known of 9 women in their thirties who were diagnosed with breast cancer. They had not had mammograms until AFTER the lump was discovered. Then it was done to make a more accurate diagnosis. So waiting until fifty is crazy. Is there a connection between breast cancer and birth control pills? Other side of the argument: why are women who do not have children more likely to get breast cancer? Until we know much more about the causes of the disease we should make mammograms available to all young women after age 28. It's not an old ladies disease and the waiting makes no sense. ANNA

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


Comments are closed-

Mammograms aren't saving lives.
Posted by: heid on Nov 24, 2009 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let me clarify that I agree with this article about the inherent racism in the new recommendations for mammography, as well as the previous recommendations and all other homogenous medical advice.

However, mammograms are not actually saving lives - at least, not in the way they're used. Yes, some lives are saved, but others are lost, and many many others suffer from unneeded treatment. They carry risks, one of which is that they cause the disease itself. Another is that they may catch the disease at an early stage when the body might naturally cure it, while treating it may be harmful.

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that early detection equates to greater survival. Here's an article that can explain: Cancer—Does Early Detection Really Mean Longer Life?

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


Comments are closed-

Cadillac plans?
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 24, 2009 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taxes or out-of-pocket expenditures await people who begin cancer screenings before the data indicate is necessary, on average, under the strong combination of the federal invasion of health care and the insurance industry who paid good money for their Congresscritters.

Yet another reason to keep Obama, his cronies, and his Congresscritters out of our health decisions.

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


Comments are closed-

They're not trying to take your mammograms away...
Posted by: Iskander07 on Nov 24, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't taking anyone's mammograms away, although the insurance companies might - that's another problem entirely. The new guidelines are meant to be apply to a whole population. As a whole, women 40-50 are more likely to be harmed by early screening - the incidence of false positives far outweighs the number of actual cases that are detected.

This is an inherent problem with all screening programs when applied to a population, and why they oftentimes don't work very well. Screening tests are used not because they're particularly accurate or definitive, they're used because they're cheap and easy. Mammograms are cheap and easy. They definitely have a use - they're minimally invasive and, well, cheap and easy. Their utility is harmed by overuse and that's what these guidelines are supposed to address. If 98 of 100 positives are false for a population group then that population group needs to be excluded from testing.

Unfortunately prevention is being touted as the same as a cure, and thus the mammogram and the PSA test have been overplayed. Critics of both government run healthcare and of insurance companies can both seize upon this non-issue. In the insurance company's case it's obviously malice - they're too cheap to screen because it would uncover an extremely expensive illness and, after all, it's cheaper for you to die of it before it's discovered. Critics of government run healthcare have already been pointing this out as an example of the inevitable "rationing" of care on the part of the government.

All this being said the guidelines are meant to apply to populations, not to individuals. They say that any random person in a population group is exponentially less likely to benefit from screening than those who are 50 or more Individuals will vary from the population which is why it is critical for patients to have a good working relationship with their doctors, mammograms can be entirely appropriate for someone in their 30s or 40s who have a family history of breast cancer, but the number of people who would benefit are very few in those groups.

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


Comments are closed-

Seems sexist to me!
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 24, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black women might get breast cancer earlier (if that is actually true) for factors that have nothing to do with race. Women that are heavier are more likely to get breast cancer - so maybe black women are on average heavier than white women and therefore are more susceptible to that.

It seems more like the new guidelines are sexist - could this be the beginning of Obama's dreaded death panels!

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


Comments are closed-

What bothers me
Posted by: JSquercia on Nov 24, 2009 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What bothers me is people are now blaming this on Obama Care . In fact the advisory Panel was set uo by BUSH .
There is NO Obama care and the public option has not yet been defined much less passed . Do these people understand that the for PROFIT Insurance company's are CERTAINLY going to jump on THIS with BOTH FEET .Doctors will have to fight for screenings . It will be your Insurance company that denies you coverage . In many Instances you have little to NO choice in picking your Insurance company as it is provided by your employer. Incidentally as it now stands THIS lucrative market will be unavailable whatever Public Option is finally adopted

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


Comments are closed-

These are guidelines
Posted by: SalB on Nov 24, 2009 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For otherwise healthy women. Women with a family history AND African American women will continue to be recommended for early screening. This racism claim is silly.

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


Comments are closed-

Guidelines, not rules, and expanding accessibility
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2009 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guidelines indeed do not prevent individuals and physicians from establishing screening criteria that are individually appropriate.

Because more black women than white are poor and therefore less likely to ever get mammograms efforts should be made to expand screening to more women. More women getting screened would have a greater impact on early detection and postponement of death than screening those already in the system more often.

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


Comments are closed-

Mammograms...a stupid way to fight cancer...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 24, 2009 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are studies which show that the set of women who did not get mammograms had lower rates of cancer than those who did.

Black women do not produce the necessary Vitamin D to help prevent the disease because they don't get the sunshine.

Cancer appears usually in the upper outer quadrant--right where pit poisons called deodorants and antiperspirants are applied. the chemicals and facilitate cancer, the anti- perspirants prevent the pits from doing their detox thing with sweat.

If memory serves, black women also face thyroid issues which can promote cancer.
And, lets not forget the obesity issue which is often linked...the 'Butt Sisters' are alive and well and spreading at the hips, stomach and thighs because they eat more garbage than a trash compacter.

Ladies, that damned machine doesn't do anything for your figure or your health... just keeping your Vitamin D levels to the high side and eating right will do much more for you...Its a question of what you want...'Health', or 'health care.'

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


Comments are closed-

The group that put out the guidelines is not in any
Posted by: harpy on Nov 24, 2009 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
way a federal task force. They are the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG. They are a PRIVATE, voluntary, non-profit organization which issued guidelines which are not binding. They are guidelines, nothing else. As professionals who deal with women's bodies, they have seen firsthand the fear that goes with false positives. Also, mammograms don't PREVENT breast cancer, they only detect it.

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


Comments are closed-

The ACS themselves have recanted about the mammogram miracle
Posted by: jparsons on Nov 24, 2009 11:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much in the news about it, but here...

Mammograms?

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

» Thanks for the link Posted by: lefty010

Comments are closed-

Race has nothing to do with the issues.
Posted by: Lara1967 on Nov 25, 2009 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a group of person screams the word racists on any issues, it just takes one who screams it to know themselves as one.

Everyone knows the health of many african Americans aren't always healthly.Their family line has many different dieases and this is caused by genetics. Or the food they eat and the products the used to make themselves beautiful. Ladies those fake nails from the nail salon the chemicals causes CANCER.


12 toxic beauty product ingredients are just a few linked to breast cancer and other forms of cancer, so get to know them and always read the labels on beauty products before you purchase them!

http://dkmomm yspot.com/12-toxic-beauty-product-ingredients-linked -to-breast-other-cancers/

So, since this is the case and many women loves to put cancer causeing ingredients on their face and body, the only ones to blame is themselves.

Beauty To Die For
by Leigh Erin Connealy

http://www.healthsta tus.com/articles/Beauty_To_Die_For.html

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


Comments are closed-

Institutional Racism As American As Apple Pie
Posted by: desidid on Nov 26, 2009 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and to the above poster who acts as if Black women are the only women getting fake nails, really? In a world where there is an entire tv network made up of housewives (the majority are white, none are Asian or Native) who embody every aspect of gluttony, self gratification, vanity, and elective procedures I would think your observations would effect white women 4 to 1 over any other group.

What would any rational person expect from an industry that did medical testing on slaves against their will? What now all of a sudden those statiticians should include people they never count? What frigging sense does that make? Blacks are invisible in the employment, health, housing, and education stats. We only become visible when crime stats are released. And of course the mental midget trolls who reside here will take away from that those stats are the only valid ones, nothing racialized in that thinking right?

I would like to suggest a name change for our union, Titanic sounds fitting to me.

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


Comments are closed-

I appreciate you
Posted by: parça kontör on Nov 30, 2009 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet Comments:

Comments are closed-

What if mammograms cause cancer?
Posted by: lefty010 on Nov 23, 2009 1:10 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What if we are subjecting ALL women to some kind of risk when their breast tissue is exposed to the radiation from a mammogram. There has been quite a bit of commentary on the risk of mammography and that risk is increased the younger the person is getting the test.
This article is worth the read from "Information Liberation". I understand that it's not msm but it offers over 25 sources that claim that mammography may cause cancer.
http://informationliberation.com/?id=28007

Here's one stat from the article:

------

The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms.

-------

If this is the case then mammography may not be the appropriate way to detect breast cancer for anyone but even more so for Black women whom this article states are diagnosed and die from breast cancer at younger ages.

I would also question why it is that mammography is still used to treat mostly female problem when there might be even an inkling of a chance that the testing procedure could in fact be causing cancer.

So along with the idea that the procedure may be racist is it not also sexist? I don't hear about men smashing their penis' and testicles between to pieces of hard plastic and shooting the area with radiation to detect testicular or prostate cancer.

And furthermore, WHY are women of color getting breast cancer so early? What is going on in their environment that is causing the cancer so early? Why is the focus not placed on WHAT is causing the breast cancer rather than the hideous way black women are treated (or not treated) once they already have breast cancer. That is where I see institutionalized racism playing the biggest part in the marginalization of Black women and Black people in general.

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

» Ah typos...gotta love 'em Posted by: lefty010
» YES! Posted by: lefty010
» Mixing apples and oranges. Posted by: lefty010
» In other words... Posted by: mjabele
» And to this... Posted by: lefty010

Comments are closed-

THE GAME OF STATISTICS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Nov 23, 2009 3:24 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Over the last ten years I've known of 9 women in their thirties who were diagnosed with breast cancer. They had not had mammograms until AFTER the lump was discovered. Then it was done to make a more accurate diagnosis. So waiting until fifty is crazy. Is there a connection between breast cancer and birth control pills? Other side of the argument: why are women who do not have children more likely to get breast cancer? Until we know much more about the causes of the disease we should make mammograms available to all young women after age 28. It's not an old ladies disease and the waiting makes no sense. ANNA

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


Comments are closed-

Mammograms aren't saving lives.
Posted by: heid on Nov 24, 2009 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, let me clarify that I agree with this article about the inherent racism in the new recommendations for mammography, as well as the previous recommendations and all other homogenous medical advice.

However, mammograms are not actually saving lives - at least, not in the way they're used. Yes, some lives are saved, but others are lost, and many many others suffer from unneeded treatment. They carry risks, one of which is that they cause the disease itself. Another is that they may catch the disease at an early stage when the body might naturally cure it, while treating it may be harmful.

The fact is that there is absolutely nothing to demonstrate that early detection equates to greater survival. Here's an article that can explain: Cancer—Does Early Detection Really Mean Longer Life?

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


Comments are closed-

Cadillac plans?
Posted by: franklyspanking on Nov 24, 2009 5:13 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Taxes or out-of-pocket expenditures await people who begin cancer screenings before the data indicate is necessary, on average, under the strong combination of the federal invasion of health care and the insurance industry who paid good money for their Congresscritters.

Yet another reason to keep Obama, his cronies, and his Congresscritters out of our health decisions.

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


Comments are closed-

They're not trying to take your mammograms away...
Posted by: Iskander07 on Nov 24, 2009 6:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This isn't taking anyone's mammograms away, although the insurance companies might - that's another problem entirely. The new guidelines are meant to be apply to a whole population. As a whole, women 40-50 are more likely to be harmed by early screening - the incidence of false positives far outweighs the number of actual cases that are detected.

This is an inherent problem with all screening programs when applied to a population, and why they oftentimes don't work very well. Screening tests are used not because they're particularly accurate or definitive, they're used because they're cheap and easy. Mammograms are cheap and easy. They definitely have a use - they're minimally invasive and, well, cheap and easy. Their utility is harmed by overuse and that's what these guidelines are supposed to address. If 98 of 100 positives are false for a population group then that population group needs to be excluded from testing.

Unfortunately prevention is being touted as the same as a cure, and thus the mammogram and the PSA test have been overplayed. Critics of both government run healthcare and of insurance companies can both seize upon this non-issue. In the insurance company's case it's obviously malice - they're too cheap to screen because it would uncover an extremely expensive illness and, after all, it's cheaper for you to die of it before it's discovered. Critics of government run healthcare have already been pointing this out as an example of the inevitable "rationing" of care on the part of the government.

All this being said the guidelines are meant to apply to populations, not to individuals. They say that any random person in a population group is exponentially less likely to benefit from screening than those who are 50 or more Individuals will vary from the population which is why it is critical for patients to have a good working relationship with their doctors, mammograms can be entirely appropriate for someone in their 30s or 40s who have a family history of breast cancer, but the number of people who would benefit are very few in those groups.

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


Comments are closed-

Seems sexist to me!
Posted by: bigbrother on Nov 24, 2009 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Black women might get breast cancer earlier (if that is actually true) for factors that have nothing to do with race. Women that are heavier are more likely to get breast cancer - so maybe black women are on average heavier than white women and therefore are more susceptible to that.

It seems more like the new guidelines are sexist - could this be the beginning of Obama's dreaded death panels!

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


Comments are closed-

What bothers me
Posted by: JSquercia on Nov 24, 2009 10:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What bothers me is people are now blaming this on Obama Care . In fact the advisory Panel was set uo by BUSH .
There is NO Obama care and the public option has not yet been defined much less passed . Do these people understand that the for PROFIT Insurance company's are CERTAINLY going to jump on THIS with BOTH FEET .Doctors will have to fight for screenings . It will be your Insurance company that denies you coverage . In many Instances you have little to NO choice in picking your Insurance company as it is provided by your employer. Incidentally as it now stands THIS lucrative market will be unavailable whatever Public Option is finally adopted

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


Comments are closed-

These are guidelines
Posted by: SalB on Nov 24, 2009 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For otherwise healthy women. Women with a family history AND African American women will continue to be recommended for early screening. This racism claim is silly.

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


Comments are closed-

Guidelines, not rules, and expanding accessibility
Posted by: CJC on Nov 24, 2009 12:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guidelines indeed do not prevent individuals and physicians from establishing screening criteria that are individually appropriate.

Because more black women than white are poor and therefore less likely to ever get mammograms efforts should be made to expand screening to more women. More women getting screened would have a greater impact on early detection and postponement of death than screening those already in the system more often.

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


Comments are closed-

Mammograms...a stupid way to fight cancer...
Posted by: Prinzowhales on Nov 24, 2009 3:53 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are studies which show that the set of women who did not get mammograms had lower rates of cancer than those who did.

Black women do not produce the necessary Vitamin D to help prevent the disease because they don't get the sunshine.

Cancer appears usually in the upper outer quadrant--right where pit poisons called deodorants and antiperspirants are applied. the chemicals and facilitate cancer, the anti- perspirants prevent the pits from doing their detox thing with sweat.

If memory serves, black women also face thyroid issues which can promote cancer.
And, lets not forget the obesity issue which is often linked...the 'Butt Sisters' are alive and well and spreading at the hips, stomach and thighs because they eat more garbage than a trash compacter.

Ladies, that damned machine doesn't do anything for your figure or your health... just keeping your Vitamin D levels to the high side and eating right will do much more for you...Its a question of what you want...'Health', or 'health care.'

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


Comments are closed-

The group that put out the guidelines is not in any
Posted by: harpy on Nov 24, 2009 5:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
way a federal task force. They are the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians (ACOG. They are a PRIVATE, voluntary, non-profit organization which issued guidelines which are not binding. They are guidelines, nothing else. As professionals who deal with women's bodies, they have seen firsthand the fear that goes with false positives. Also, mammograms don't PREVENT breast cancer, they only detect it.

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


Comments are closed-

The ACS themselves have recanted about the mammogram miracle
Posted by: jparsons on Nov 24, 2009 11:57 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not much in the news about it, but here...

Mammograms?

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

» Thanks for the link Posted by: lefty010

Comments are closed-

Race has nothing to do with the issues.
Posted by: Lara1967 on Nov 25, 2009 12:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When a group of person screams the word racists on any issues, it just takes one who screams it to know themselves as one.

Everyone knows the health of many african Americans aren't always healthly.Their family line has many different dieases and this is caused by genetics. Or the food they eat and the products the used to make themselves beautiful. Ladies those fake nails from the nail salon the chemicals causes CANCER.


12 toxic beauty product ingredients are just a few linked to breast cancer and other forms of cancer, so get to know them and always read the labels on beauty products before you purchase them!

http://dkmomm yspot.com/12-toxic-beauty-product-ingredients-linked -to-breast-other-cancers/

So, since this is the case and many women loves to put cancer causeing ingredients on their face and body, the only ones to blame is themselves.

Beauty To Die For
by Leigh Erin Connealy

http://www.healthsta tus.com/articles/Beauty_To_Die_For.html

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


Comments are closed-

Institutional Racism As American As Apple Pie
Posted by: desidid on Nov 26, 2009 3:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and to the above poster who acts as if Black women are the only women getting fake nails, really? In a world where there is an entire tv network made up of housewives (the majority are white, none are Asian or Native) who embody every aspect of gluttony, self gratification, vanity, and elective procedures I would think your observations would effect white women 4 to 1 over any other group.

What would any rational person expect from an industry that did medical testing on slaves against their will? What now all of a sudden those statiticians should include people they never count? What frigging sense does that make? Blacks are invisible in the employment, health, housing, and education stats. We only become visible when crime stats are released. And of course the mental midget trolls who reside here will take away from that those stats are the only valid ones, nothing racialized in that thinking right?

I would like to suggest a name change for our union, Titanic sounds fitting to me.

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


Comments are closed-

I appreciate you
Posted by: parça kontör on Nov 30, 2009 5:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
 
Advertisement
From The Blog
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Most Read
Most Emailed
Most Discussed
On REDDIT
On DIGG
 
loading ...
POWERED BY DIGG'S USERS