The routine use of mammograms has led to more than 1 million women being unnecessarily treated for breast cancer over the past three decades, according to the latest scientific report to cast skepticism on the effectiveness of the test. The study, published Wednesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, concluded that nearly one-third of women diagnosed with breast cancer would never have developed the full-blown disease if left untreated. Nevertheless, in such cases patients typically undergo invasive procedures such as surgery, radiation therapy,
Comments: What will this mean now under 0bamaCare? This has been a ´´major´´ weapon in the diagnosing of breast cancer for more than a generation. What will the Susan B; Kolman people do now? Give more to Planned Parenthood so these woman won´t be born?/S
I only know that as one ages, medicine is beginning to highly contradict itself. This seems sinister in the long run when medical costs burdening most governments of the world.
I have never heard of one woman who had "unnecessary treatment" as a result of a mammogram.
If something suspicious is found, an ultrasound may be performed. Treatment, or a decision that none is required, follows that step.
A fair number of friends, relatives and acquaintances have benefitted from the early diagnosis of breast cancer made via a mammogram, thus preventing their having to have the radical mastectomies of old, the high dose chemo, the radiation (which is usually used only when the breast cancer has metastasized to other areas), or death from metastasizing breast cancer.
This, in my estimation, is propaganda - and the real war against women by the Obama administrtion and its media cohorts.
BTW, I don´t know what the definition of "full-blown disease" is in the case of breast cancer.
This may be the dumbest statement in the article:
The researchers also concluded that today’s sharply lower death rate for breast cancer is mainly due to factors such as improved treatments rather than early detection through mammograms.
Without detection - early or late - by mammogram and ultrasound, there is no treatment, improved or otherwise.
Setting the table for Obamacare´s requirement that Doctors reduce recommendations for annual mammograms ... every three years is fine, you know it is true because the NYTimes said so back in 2012. /SP/
My wife is alive today because a mammogram detected a tumor early. The Times is promulgating bad medical advice here. Some women will likely die if they follow it. With no family history, the diagnosis of breast cancer like to shocked my wife to death. But the shock of discovery is far better than dying from an undetected tumor. Darling wife is five years clear now, but still gets a mammogram every year.
I remember a number of years ago, some newspaper ran an article about unnecessary chest x-rays done with various medical procedures.
I happened to call on radiologists at the time and brought up this article to one of the doctors I spoke to that day.
The doctor told me at least three times a year, he found things on those "routine" x-rays that led to things like cancer diagnosis in patients who had no idea they had the disease.
Unnecessary, huh? It´s like another doc once told me about "adverse reactions," which studies liked to address in percentages (you know, like 7% of patients have an adverse reaction to a drug). He said there were only two numbers he worried about ... 0% or 100% -- you either didn´t have a reaction or you did.
I beg to differ with that theory..I had surgery almost 3 weeks ago. It was early, stage 1...BUT it was grade 3..fast growing. Next week I will find out if I will need chemo along with radiation.
I am so thankful for the yearly mammograms. I wonder how long the fools who came up with this expects women to wait to have treatment....The Liberals preach about the woman having control over her body...well dang it... I do and I am so thankful this happened before Obamacare kicks in... At my age I would have been told to "take a pill" No treatment...
As an RN, I have seen a woman with late stage breast cancer. It is not something I will ever forget nor the lady whose name was Marge. I know the government has been pushing for the last few years to reduce the number of these kinds of tests to reduce costs. Too bad they don´t try reducing malpractice insurance through tort reform instead. My hopes and prayers are for the best for both of you, Jackie and Periwinkle.
This is another attempt to set the stage for doing away with preventative care...i.e pap smear, colonoscopy, mammograms, prostate cancer exams...all test that save lives that the government doesn´t want to pay for. It´ll get worse...
I was diagnosed with breast cancer 4 years ago after a mammogram. Initially they told me is was Stage 0 (never heard of that before) but after the lumpectomy I was told they discovered a second tumor. Thankfully it was only Stage 1 and my treatment was just the 6.5 weeks of radiation. I don´t like to think about what would have happened if I´d waited until age 50 for my first mammogram.
1. Studies are done & reported to be supportive of thesis different from widely accepted views. Even when results are equivocal, authors can skew wording to make conclusions more controversial and, therefore, more publishable despite having no useful information to publish. Instead of enlightening people, they do a disservice by confusing the lay public when MSM latches onto their non-stories.
2. Like polls, studies can be designed to say anything. The internal designs have to be closely looked at & the data scrutinized for investigator bias. Scientists are not above being dishonest. Case in point: the Mann hockey stick & manmade global warming. Scientists have to live on grant money and have motive for being less than honest at times.
3. Ultimately, given a Bell curve distribution of survival for any given cancer stage & grade (due other patient´s individual factors affecting prognosis), there will always be people who do not die even when afflicted with cancer or have a more benign course. That is a given.
4. Unless the authors of this study have a way to differentiate or triage early cancer patients diagnosed by mammogram, I suggest they rein in their hubris and refrain from suggesting that there is somehow medically unnecessary cancer treatment being done on these early cancer patients.
5. Each patient, individually, has a threshold of tolerance for risks of medical intervention or complication risk if deferring treatment. Some, like my mom, went for radical, even when a lumpectomy was recommended. Others, fully informed prefer less aggressive modes of treatment. The decision is best made between the patient and her doctor. No one, save God, can tell what is better for that one individual. Statistics in studies tell what happens on the macro level but ultimately, where it counts, it is 0% or 100% at the individual level like poster #7 said.
6. Obamacare will take that physician-patient decision and turn it over to some faceless bean counter.
My eldest sister is a breast cancer survivor. She was diagnosed and had surgery at 40 and because of that, I had my first mammo at 36. I have had one every year ever since, religiously, like clockwork. Even if I have to pay for it myself, I will still have Thelma and Louise mashed on a yearly basis. I´m not taking any chances!!
The study isn´t surprising; the answer is in statistics. Any test will find a percentage of false positives. Those who experience the false positives will get unnecessary treatment, as well as the associated worry and costs. While individual stories of true positives are sincere - for those, the test is priceless! - on a statistical basis, there are others, far less likely to speak out, who had the experience of the worry, only to be grateful that theirs turned out to be a false positive.
The question is how many false positives should society accept- not just in terms of worry, but in terms of unnecessary medical procedures as well as their costs? We already make trade-offs - guidelines don´t suggest daily mammograms (just in case), but yearly or biannual ones. We know that we wouldn´t catch ´that many´ more if we did the tests daily...but there may be someone out there who has a clean mammogram this year and has a mass next year. For that one person, 12 months apart was too long.
Believe it or not binge drinking by young women is leading to a lot of benign tumors.Of course this is a closely guarded secret by the left who want young women binge drinking and possiblty needing an abortion.
What happens in the liver gets overwhelmed by the alcohol and doesn´t break the estrogen down in the liver so their bodies get flooded with hormones leading the benign breast tumors.Of course the don´t know they´re benign until they do more invasive tests,so that´s where a lot of wasted money comes in.
Older women are an entirely different story but I still believe breast cancer has a lot to do with hormone regulation. There´s more and more soy products in food which is loaded with estrogen pre-cursors.I think it´s also the reason boys are becoming more feminized.Look at all the soy milk on shelves and it´s promoted as a healthy alternative to cow milk. No thank you.
Well yeah. Any women saved from a cancer death by medical treatment are eventually going to die anyway, so what´s the point, right, leftists? So let´s get back to the real issue of free birth control and abortions. /s
Anyone who’s ever gone on a diet is told to lay off the booze because it’s high in calories. And that, of course, must make it very fattening indeed. Go onto the NHS Direct website, and you’ll be told a glass of wine contains as many calories as a slice of cake. Or if you prefer beer, the British Nutrition Foundation reminds you two pints are roughly the equivalent in calories to a full glass of single cream. So you may be surprised to learn that there’s no scientific evidence whatsoever to support the idea that alcohol makes you on weight. That’s hugely counter-intuitive, I know, because alcohol certainly is said to contain lots of calories.
President Barack Obama sounded a nostalgic personal note Sunday night and offered a rare self-assessment while criticizing congressional Republicans as an "impediment" to governing during the start of a West Coast fundraising tour for the Democratic Party. Obama told donors the sight of Mt. Rainier illuminated by a setting sun was particularly special because it reminded him of his mother, who attended high school in the Seattle area. "I feel the spirit of my mom," he said. He also attempted to contrast himself with Republicans who control the House of Representatives, saying they are "more focused on positioning themselves for
Los Angeles - Rather than thanking a list of friends and colleagues, Macklemore & Ryan Lewis used their American Music Awards acceptance speech to send a message of tolerance on Sunday night. Ben Haggerty, the rapper known as Macklemore, accepted the award for favorite rap/hip-hop album, then quoted Martin Luther King Jr. in a live satellite feed from the rap group´s latest tour stop. "Due to the fact that we are in Florida tonight accepting this award I want to acknowledge Trayvon Martin and the hundreds and hundreds of kids each year that are dying due to racial profiling and the violence that follows it," he said.
China and India’s success in weakening the latest global warming agreement created friction with other developing nations that are seeking to step up the fight against climate change. The two countries insisted on single-word changes for a deal at a United Nations conference involving 190 nations on Nov. 23. Instead of making “commitments” to roll back fossil fuel emissions, they signed up for “contributions,” a formulation that allows more flexibility in their action. Those last-minute revisions at a meeting that ran overtime by almost 30 hours underscored the reluctance of China and India to join in the sort of emissions
Washington - Hobby Lobby, a chain of crafts stores, closes on Sundays, costing its owners millions but honoring their Christian faith. The stores play religious music. Employees get free spiritual counseling. But they do not get free insurance coverage for some contraceptives, even though President Obama’s health care law requires it. Hobby Lobby, a corporation, says that forcing it to provide the coverage would violate its religious beliefs. A federal appeals court agreed, and the Supreme Court is set to decide on Tuesday whether it will hear the Obama administration’s appeal from that decision or appeals from one of
A historic agreement on Iran´s nuclear programme was made possible by months of unprecedented secret meetings between US and Iranian officials, in further signs of the accelerating detente between two of the world´s most adversarial powers, it emerged on Sunday. The meetings ran parallel to official negotiations involving five other world powers, (Snip) The Obama administration asked journalists not to publish details they had uncovered of the secret diplomacy until the Geneva talks were over for fear of derailing them. The Associated Press and a Washington-based news website, Al-Monitor, finally did so
Tokyo - Japan’s foreign minister on Sunday refused to recognize China’s newly claimed air defense zone over disputed islands, signaling that Japan would not back down as tensions increased in the maritime dispute. China on Saturday said its “air defense identification zone” would give it the right to identify and possibly take military action against aircraft near the islands in the East China Sea. The uninhabited islands are administered by Japan but claimed by China and Taiwan. China’s announcement appeared to be the latest step in what analysts have called a strategy to chip away at Japan’s claims of control of the islands.
Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.) said on MSNBC’s “PoliticsNation” Wednesday that when Jesus fed five thousand people with five loaves of bread and two fish, “he didn’t charge food stamps.” “When Jesus had those five loaves and two fishes, he didn´t charge food stamps. He didn´t ask anybody how much money they had. He fed them because they were hungry, and that´s really where we ought to be,” McDermott said in response to Republican critics of the SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). In September, the House approved a plan by Republicans to cut $39 billion in food stamps over the next
The nation’s view of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, colored by the horrific Benghazi assassination of the U.S. ambassador to Libya on her watch, has suddenly turned upside down, with more now holding an unfavorable opinion of the likely 2016 presidential candidate. A new YouGov/Economist poll found Clinton, whose approval ratings have typically been sky high, with an unfavorable rating of 48 percent, more than the 46 percent who have a favorable opinion of her. The YouGov pollsters said that the change in American attitudes toward Clinton "suggests that negative press surrounding the tragic
President Obama will cast growing income inequality and a decline in economic mobility as a “fundamental threat to the American dream” during a speech Wednesday in Washington. The speech will serve as an early preview for next year’s State of the Union address, according to a White House official, who said Obama would focus much of his energy over the next three years on the issue. “The decisions we make over the next few years will determine whether or not our children will grow up in an America where, if you work hard, you can get ahead,” the official said.
Bill Clinton, the cliché goes, was the first black president, no matter his skin color. That being the case, Barack Obama is not the first black president, or the first African-American president, if you prefer, but the first hippie president. Clinton’s southern background and lifestyle were indeed more typically black, just as Obama’s was more typically hippie. And we’re not just talking about the “Choom gang” here, scarfing “Maui Wowie” on the sands of Oahu. We’re talking about all of it, the whole multi-culti-missing-white-mother-vanished-Kenyan-father-anti-imperialist-America-is-always-the-enemy-and-don’t-you-forget-it-nine-yards. And like most hippie culture as I knew and experienced it, it wasn’t about “peace and love.” Not
During a presentation at the White House in which President Barack Obama touted the benefits of the Affordable Care Act, the president declared that his signature health care reform law was not going to be repealed. This assertion led his administration members, his staff, and audience members to rise from their seats and give the president a standing ovation. Obama said that ACA opponents’ alternative to the health care reform law is to champion repeal and going back to the health care delivery system status quo ante. He specifically cited Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) who he said was asked directly for
A woman has revealed how difficult it is to eat healthily and stay full when living off an average food stamp budget. Melinda Moulton, from Huntington, Vermont, was one of 200 people to take part in the 3Squares Challenge, which saw her living for a week on just $36 worth of food, or around $1.71 a meal. Opting to try and eat as healthily as possible, Ms Moulton resorted to cheap foods like yogurt for breakfast, two handfuls of peanuts for lunch and lentil stew for dinner, all of which left her unsatisfied.´I don´t know how people do it,´ said
Good stuff from Jonathan Turley at today’s House hearing on executive power, although I regret that I couldn’t find a more user-friendly format for you to watch. There’s no compilation clip; you’ll have to make do with the C-SPAN embed by fast-forwarding to the time cues I give you and being patient while the vid buffers (and buffers, and buffers).(Snip)That brings us to point two: Even if Congress can’t stop Obama, the courts can. The problem there, though, says Turley, is that O and the DOJ have argued successfully in many cases that no one has standing to sue him