Back up the bus there Phil. While these epidemiological studies are extremely informative they do not, and should not, claim a causative effect of mammogram screening and HRT on breast cancer risk. Remember, people will tend to read your comment as a forgone conclusion, but these studies are far from that. Have you seen any randomized trials tackling this issue? I'm not very familiar with this literature.



Aaah the rhetoric <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" />

And then there's the one that no one really has much of a clue as to what the triggers are, and that's Inflammatory Breast Cancer. That one is a VERY fast killer if not treated in time; metasizes very quickly.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/IBC

Screw the junk science- early detection and intervention is still key.

Your right Sean, but redistribution is what they call it.

You and I earn the money....Govment takes our money....Govment distributes our money to the leaches. This redistribution takes many forms. This health care crap, Is just another way to tax the producers and give to the non-producers.

Reuben - so carry on then? Would a randomized test change your view? It is what it is. And its big biz - Multi-Billion big biz. So everybody buy pink stuff and feel down with the slogans. Race for the cure my <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/butwiggle.gif" alt="" /> Curing cancer is not economically viable.

If radiation causes cancer, why do we use radiation emitting machines to detect it? (60-70% false positives BTW)

"early detection saves lives" is simply a recruitment scam that increases risk exponentially over one's lifetime.


...to the topic. Who thinks it'll pass this time around? I'm not sure.

Try telling that to a young lady I know very well...... She's 33 years old, an oncology nurse and fortunately believes in self exams. She now has had a double mastectomy, minor lymph node removal, chemotherapy and reconstructive surgery.

I'd like you to tell her that the self exam was a waste of time. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> I think I know what she'd tell you.

And yes, I have the black Polo shirt with the pink logo.

Frank <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />

There's a quote for you.

Somebody dig up that Reader's Digest article.

So mammograms do not increase the risk of the very thing they detect? Is that what you are claiming? Does it repudiate the fact that many, if not the majority of mastectomies are entirely unnecessary (1 out of 2!!)? Is chemotherapy not carcinogenic?

If you want to believe your polo shirt is finding a cure that is your choice. The evidence suggests that money is going straight to a major part of the problem.

A race for the CAUSE is what true humanitarian science should be focusing on.

No. I'm claiming that your statement "'early detection saves lives' is simply a recruitment scam that increases risk exponentially over one's lifetime" is terribly short-sighted, misguided, inadequate, misleading and overly all-inclusive, because (among other things) included in early detection is the self-exam - a detection screen that costs nothing and that the study claimed was unnecessary.

The most important part of early detection is the self exam. Whether a person has a mammogram or not - and how often the procedure is utilized as a routine detection screen are separate issues.

Should we eliminate X-rays in the dentist's office, too? Will you forego PSA tests and ask your doctor to forget about the finger wave on your next annual physical?



By whose determination? Which half of them?...... and who (after the fact) can prove the theory? The last I heard, that decision was made by the patient in consult with her physician. When and if you get prostate cancer, will you let the government or your insurance provider tell you how it should be treated? I'm amazed by the number of men who think they know what's best for a woman's health - physical and mental...... and I'm amazed by the number of self-professed Libertarians who believe in personal freedom and choice, but want to impose their beliefs on others who are perfectly capable of determining their own choice of treatment.



It can be...... so can smoking marijuana..... or sniffing glue.



"Ignorance" is the problem.



Agreed - but not to the extent that those already afflicted should be overlooked. We should do both. After all, we don't tell children that they should let their teeth rot out while we try to find the cause of cavities.

Frank

Frank - all good points

Phil - what are you on?!!It's about risk of death. Do mammograms increase cancer risk per se in woman with a very low breast cancer risk? Of course, but we don't know who those women are yet and may never because there are genetic and environmental, and gene x environment interaction causes. If you stop mammogram screening you may prevent a slightly increased risk in low risk women, but at the same time increase risk of death in high risk women.

Are these screenings over done because of the healthcare system in this country? Probably, but stopping them all together is an absurd idea that comes from ignorance.

Chemotherapy a carcinogen <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> It's worst than that. But let's see you presenting that to cancer patient as a good reason to not have treatment even though they WILL die without it. So should they not gamble the small risk of developing further tumors with a treatment that may allow them to survive in the long term? It's all about risk assessment in individual patients. We are getting better at it and we will keep improving. You are, yet again, looking at the current body of knowledge as static which is ridiculous.

A race for the cause? What in the world do you think we're trying to do?!! <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" /> But like Frank said, should we ignore those with preexisting disease?

You know, it has crossed my mind numerous times that Phil is a troll. I find it difficult to imagine that someone who is obviously intelligent could be so misguided. May be I'm being naive <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />