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.

what does THIS have to do with abortion?
doesn´t the NYT realize that all the money that goes for "breast cancer" actually is for abortions and the DNC?!!

It has only been a few weeks since the article about colonoscopies not being necessary. Here it all comes with obamacare!

Bull. This is all about reducing medical care for paying patients, to cover illegals and others.

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...

#8 I was diagnosed this week. Do not know what stage or grade just yet. I have CAT scan, bone scan and MRI on Thursday. I am thankful for a mammogram that picked it up.

Interesting note: Article is from the Washington Post not New York Times.

Thank you. Missed that correction. LCom Staff.

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.

prayers going out for you #9..
Thank you #10.. I appreciate it..

And so the propaganda begins. Why are we looking at Norwegian studies when we have better medicine ? Next, they will look at the NHS in the UK while they are killing off the population.

I didn´t get a CAT Scan recently because "You don´t want too much radiation exposure" Sorry, but at this point, I should light up in the dark and still standing as a 23 year cancer survivor.

We cannot let Zippycare do this to us without a fight.

I had a mammogram this year that dxed "a benign cyst" that turned out to be Stage 2 cancer. I´ve had chemo and am facing radiation starting next week.
God save us from obamacare.

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.

(cont´d)

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.

Early diagnostics for Democrats good

Early diagnostics for Republicans unnecessary

If you want medical care in the future it might be wise to change your designation to D. Just sayin´.

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.

Seems like there have been a lot of these stories from the MSM in the run-up to single payer, national healthcare. Almost daily, in fact.

I´m sure Hollywood will come up with a ribbon for this.

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