Mammography guidelines should outrage all citizens
2 months ago | 721 views | 24 
| 9 
| 
| 
| 9 | |
How did they come to this decision? They have not consulted professionals who work every day in the health-care system with breast-cancer patients. The American College of Radiology as well as the American Cancer Society has refuted the task force’s recommendation with unmistakable language. Rarely do these organizations oppose clinical guidelines so adamantly and publicly. The reality is this is cause for alarm.
Everything we as health-care professionals have done to help women protect themselves from breast cancer is being torn down by this U.S. Preventive Services Task Force decree. The death rate from advanced breast cancer had not improved for more than 50 years, decreased by 30 percent since 1990 when screening mammograms at age 40 became commonplace. Early mammography screening means cancers can be caught sooner, allowing women to choose less invasive and less costly treatments that help to preserve the quality of women’s lives. I should know, not just as a hospital CEO, but as a 10-month breast-cancer survivor myself.
The big picture is, once the government controls health care as envisioned by the many of our congressional leaders, this type of rationing of care to cut costs will become the norm rather than the exception. This is nothing more than a ploy to save money at the risk of costing women’s lives. Countless women in their 40s and even 30s have come through Redmond’s Women’s Center and been diagnosed with breast cancer and effectively cured. Why risk their lives? I’m sure these women and their families could give you many reasons.
Women and men, too, your voice needs to be heard. Please write and or call your congressional representatives to get these dangerous guidelines revoked. Trust me, if nothing is done, you will find me sitting on Obama’s desk until Washington understands the gravity of this new recommendation.
BRENDA M. WALTZ, CEO, Redmond Regional and Polk medical centers
....nope, let's just search out articles that support our own view, right?
Just another testament to the sad state of inquiry in America.
I'll dig a little deeper over the weekend and find some facts that should really tick off some libs. LOL
Funny thing about the internet... even when you don't cite your sources it's usually pretty easy to find them.
The article you're referring to is self deceiving and inaccurate at best. ...but hey, at least it's not that liberal media huh?
I sure as hell don't have the answers.
...but I will say, that it was the mortgage lenders lead us down this road with their insatiable thirst for increased profits.
Once the bottom fell out of housing it was obvious we were in for a lot more.
Lastly I think it's pathetic that we can't expect our government to do two things at once.
Politics suck.
ah well. whatta gonna do?
This administration has wasted so much time and energy on junk, rather than real issues.
"People who would otherwise have participated in the local real estate economy but who could not thanks to having had their credit and assets wiped out thanks to this country's pigheaded attitudes about healthcare reform."
Your real estate market is in the shape it's in because of inflated government spending, corrupt tax codes, bailing out the wrong people, cash for clunkers, fanny mae/fredie mac, and government encroachment into our everyday lives, and a very corrupt government at that. The absence of government run healthcare has done nothing to this economy, and don't think we're dumb enough to buy that crap. The economy is the real crisis. We've gone 233 years without government enforced healthcare. We've never had an economy this bad, and they continue to ignore it. That's what breeds bankruptcies. It also turns industrial nations into 3rd world countries.
See how that works? You can't claim your statistic came from a reliable source and then not cite it.
People who are intellectually honest will actually go and look. Anything less is nothing more than the mere rehearsal of one's own preconceived notions.
(..as stated though. 17% is 17% too high)
You want to talk about the economy, that's one place to start: People who would otherwise have participated in the local real estate economy but who could not thanks to having had their credit and assets wiped out thanks to this country's pigheaded attitudes about healthcare reform.
As far as "todays big issues" go, fixing our economy is a much bigger issue. I'd be willing to bet a better economy would equal less bankruptcies of any kind. But your president refuses to address it, because they won't let a good crisis go to waste.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=leading cause of bankruptcy
Additionally, I find this entire thing odd as I try to take a 3rd person perspective. What we're effective saying is that since you have medical concerns we will be taking your assets, and adding obstacles to your future ability to participate in the capitalist way of life.
It's very odd how everyone looks the other way.
And if you measure what goes on in the world by whether you "personally know someone who," it's no wonder you have a hard time wrapping your mind around today's big issues.
Who in the world has this happened to? I can't find one story that supports your argument. I've had someone in my family in the hospital twice in the past four years, and we worked out very reasonable payment plans. I'm not exactly rolling in dough, and had no problem paying for their services. Almost as if putting me out of my house was the last thing they wanted to do!
No, I haven't confused profit with cost. You don't understand profit margin verses cost. That's why your a lib.
And point do you have in bringing up foreign and economic policy in the middle of a health care discussion? If you simply disdain the whole ball of wax you might want to take a deep breath and step back from these kinds of discussions for a while, because we've got the government we asked for, and can "continually replace" it only every two or four years.
CapitolG: Nobody with any sense thinks there is a free lunch anywhere, certainly not in health care. The problem is who bears the brunt of rising costs and whether those costs can be equitably distributed by that bogeyman called "society." Why should one person lose everything to medical bankruptcy due to lack of, or inadequate, insurance, while another sees everything taking care of at no cost to themselves? Conversely, why should medical practitioners be permitted to add to the cost burden through medical practices like fee for service which simply are not greed-proof?
No sensible person opposes the medical profession on profit grounds. You're confusing profit with cost.
Mammograms have been known to be unsafe for years. This isn't news to many of us. Depending on American Cancer Society for information is dangerous - they are a biased source.
The ACS has close connections to the mammography industry (Epstein, S. S. American Cancer Society: The world's wealthiest "non-profit" institution. Int. J. Health Serv. 29( 3): 565- 578, 1999.)
Five radiologists have served as ACS presidents; the ACS promotes the interests of the major manufacturers of mammogram machines and films, including Siemens, DuPont, General Electric, Eastman Kodak, and Piker.
It is critical to understand that radiation is carcinogenic and cumulative.
Women - get the facts:
1. Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography.
2. Regular mammography of younger women increases their cancer risks. Analysis of controlled trials over the last decade has shown consistent increases in breast cancer mortality within a few years of commencing screening. This confirms evidence of the high sensitivity of the premenopausal breast, and on cumulative carcinogenic effects of radiation.
The Politics Of Cancer by Samuel S Epstein MD, page 539
3. In his book, "Preventing Breast Cancer," Dr. Gofinan says that breast cancer is the leading cause of death among American women between the ages of forty-four and fifty-five. Because breast tissue is highly radiation-sensitive, mammograms can cause cancer. The danger can be heightened by a woman's genetic makeup, preexisting benign breast disease, artificial menopause, obesity, and hormonal imbalance.
Death By Medicine by Gary Null PhD, page 23
4. Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
5. 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.
http://www.annals.org/content/151/10/716.full
Nowhere did it say women between the ages of 40 and 49 should not receive mammograms. What it said was,
" Recommendations: The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms. "
Note the words routine and screening and individual and patient context.
Nowhere did it say women should not conduct BSE. What it said was,
"The USPSTF recommends against clinicians teaching women how to perform breast self-examination."
Most women find lumps by accident without doing the full BSE that hasn't shown any significant benefit. Doctors don't need to spend time teaching women who usually don't do all the steps anyway.
Practicing doctors usually don't review studies. That's why the 16-member Task Force chose some professionals to review the scientific data from the clinical trials for them.
The 6-person group was charged with reviewing evidence-based scientific data and reporting the outcomes without prejudice or emotion since their livelihood isn't dependent upon the results. That's what they do for a living.
If you're having trouble with the conclusions of the studies the team reviewed you might want to check PubMed for the addresses of the groups that did the clinical trials and contact them.
I'm a citizen of America and I'm not outraged one bit. It's what the scientific data have been saying since the new studies were published since the last task force report in 2002.
Do you really think the government is telling women not to do BSE?
BTW the 6-member panel concluded their study in Nov 2007, passed it on to some reviewers, then sent it to the task force which voted on it in June 2008. It's a real stretch to try to blame it on someone else.