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