Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 88

Thread: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

  1. #11
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    A mammogram is an x-ray of the breast.
    "Routine" annual mammograms beginning at age 40 means that by the time a woman's 50, she's had that breast x-rayed ten times.
    By the time she's 70, thirty or more times.
    It's a x-ray, for cripe sake. "No conclusive evidence"?
    Are you f'ing kidding me?
    Each mammogram exposes the breast to more radiation; the effect is cumulative.
    If you drip water into a bucket 30 times in a row, does that mean you can wash your car with what you've got in there? Or is the number of times you add water less important than the actual amount of water you've put in there?

    Again, if it's so mind bogglingly obvious, how come there aren't any scientific studies conclusively showing that mammograms cause breast cancer?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  2. #12
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    If you drip water into a bucket 30 times in a row, does that mean you can wash your car with what you've got in there? Or is the number of times you add water less important than the actual amount of water you've put in there?

    Again, if it's so mind bogglingly obvious, how come there aren't any scientific studies conclusively showing that mammograms cause breast cancer?
    There's no way to know, honestl y- if someone gets routine mammograms and is exposed to that radiation - and then later developes breast cancer - there *might* be a link or they're *might* not be a link.

    I think it's such a delicate issue that the process of finding out for sure would be quite time consuming, challenging if at all possible - you're dealing with the unknowns. . .there's no way of telling the difference between some cancers caused by radiation and their naturally-occuring forms.

    I think, then, that presuming that breast cancer might be caused by overexposure to that type of radiation is a safe medium.


    http://www.boloji.com/wfs3/wfs337.htm
    Last edited by Aunt Spiker; 11-17-09 at 03:57 AM.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  3. #13
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by Aunt Spiker View Post
    There's no way to know, honestl y- if someone gets routine mammograms and is exposed to that radiation - and then later developes breast cancer - there *might* be a link or they're *might* not be a link.

    I think it's such a delicate issue that the process of finding out for sure would be quite time consuming, challenging if at all possible - you're dealing with the unknowns. . .there's no way of telling the difference between some cancers caused by radiation and their naturally-occuring forms.

    I think, then, that presuming that breast cancer might be caused by overexposure to that type of radiation is a safe medium.


    Radiation Causes Breast Cancer by Stephanie Hiller
    There's absolutely a way to know - conduct a scientific study. So far, no study has proven a link.

    You're free to err on the side of caution as it relates to your own personal choices, but when it comes to setting policy for the nation, we should be looking at scientific facts.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #14
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    There's absolutely a way to know - conduct a scientific study. So far, no study has proven a link.

    You're free to err on the side of caution as it relates to your own personal choices, but when it comes to setting policy for the nation, we should be looking at scientific facts.
    Lack of a study doesn't mean there's not a legitimate concern - but mammograms aren't mandatory. I'll never be getting one, that's for sure.
    Heck, even things that have had countless studies turn around all the time - "don't eat before bed, eat before bed" "don't wear pantyhose while pregnant, do wear pantyhose while pregnant" ... study study study, evidence evidence evidence. . . .and it all conflicts.

    But this all points back around to the government being involved in healthcare, period - and why it shouldn't be doing it.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  5. #15
    Passionate
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    03-07-11 @ 04:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    15,675

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines | Health | Reuters



    I'm all for cutting back on care that isn't cost-efficient, but the timing of this move really does make you wonder whether the new guidelines were influenced by something other than science.
    This is on MSNBC's home page. When I saw it last night, I though, "Huh?" I agree. WTH is going on with this?

  6. #16
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by aps View Post
    This is on MSNBC's home page. When I saw it last night, I though, "Huh?" I agree. WTH is going on with this?
    *gasp* noooo.
    MSNBC reporting something thta's against hte president's prerogative - my my pigs fly.

    *poking*
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  7. #17
    Advisor LiveUninhibited's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    05-11-10 @ 03:41 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    549

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    Presumably the panel took that into account when it "concluded that one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women age 40 to 49 who are screened for 10 years, compared with one death for every 1,339 women age 50 to 74, and one death for every 377 women age 60 to 69."

    If the risk were anywhere near as large as you're suggesting, it wouldn't make sense for the procedure to be worthwhile to save 1/1,339 but not 1/1,904. Furthermore, since the panel excludes women with the BRCA gene from its new guidelines, I don't see how this proposal will affect them at all.
    It is known that the younger you are, the more likely radiation exposure is to be harmful, both in terms of susceptibility and the likelihood of the cancer to come soon enough to make a difference in lifespan. This is a major reason they do not do the screening before 40, and since the two highest quality trials found no mortality benefit given current practices, it does make sense to cut out the 40-50 range. Screening for breast cancer with mammography

    Another thing this systematic review highlights is that the trials are biased by the fact that cause of death, e.g. origin of the cancer, is more likely to be known with screening. Furthermore:

    Screening is likely to reduce breast cancer mortality. As the effect was lowest in the adequately randomised trials, a reasonable estimate is a 15% reduction corresponding to an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%. Screening led to 30% overdiagnosis and overtreatment, or an absolute risk increase of 0.5%. This means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will have her life prolonged and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress for many months because of false positive findings. It is thus not clear whether screening does more good than harm. To help ensure that the women are fully informed of both benefits and harms before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on Nordic Cochrane Centre.
    People often forget that overtreatment is a risk in medicine. More medicine is not always better medicine.
    Last edited by LiveUninhibited; 11-17-09 at 04:51 AM.

  8. #18
    Professor
    bowerbird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    australia
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 09:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,430

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    Quote Originally Posted by 1069 View Post
    As far as I know, this recommendation has been in the works for some time.
    For the past several years at least, there's been no consensus within the medical community on when mammograms should start.
    There are a couple of issues here:

    1. Each mammogram raises one's risk of cancer slightly.

    2. Breast cancer under age 50 is rare.

    3. Before menopause, mammograms are unlikely to detect cancer, because there is a lot of fibroid tissue in pre-menopausal breasts that makes it difficult if not impossible to detect tumors with a mammogram.

    So, these ideas have been kicked around for some time. The debate has been going on for years.
    I think a lot of experts in the field are now beginning to lean more toward routine mammograms only after age 50.
    That does not mean no mammograms ever for women under 50.
    It just means that it depends upon the circumstances.
    For many women under 50, mammograms would be of little benefit, and the slight risk these women incurred from undergoing mammograms unnecessarily would not be justified.

    I personally do not plan to have my first mammogram until I'm 50.
    Mammograms are free here and only done routinely after age fifty for all the reasons you quoted.
    Greenhouse gases: Any gas that, by an accident of chemistry, happens to absorb radiation of a type that the Earth, by an accident of history, would like to lose.
    The internet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhoea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind- boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it.


  9. #19
    User
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Last Seen
    04-12-12 @ 08:42 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    64

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    The reccommendation was based on a cost-benefit analysis,which means that the panel had to arrive at the dollar value of a woman's life. I wonder what that value was. I notice on the EPA website that a human life is valued at around $5 Million. Folks,here's your death panel in action. I'm wondering do different races have different rates of breast cancer? If so,why no outcry over the racism of this decision?

  10. #20
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Experts question motives of mammogram guidelines

    The rationing begins.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •