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.
But it doesn't have to be that way. And it certainly isn't about cost. Eastern Bloc and less medically 'advanced countries are the ones that defer to thermography and incidentally have lower death and incidence rates. Which is why its undoubtedly a question of material interests vs morality, which is why, in my opinion, it is quite appropriate to call our prevention methods a form of soft eugenics.
but stopping them all together is an absurd idea that comes from ignorance.
Again that's not what I said. I said mammography - blasting one's self with radiation, is an ill conceived idea of prevention.
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.
I don't have to. There are plenty of people (and some I know personally) that refuse chemo and beat cancer just fine -
if they aren't swat teamed by the medical dictatorship. (If that isn't imposing one's beliefs I don't know what is)
A race for the cause? What in the world do you think we're trying to do?!!
The big 'Race for the Cure' non profit channels its funds back to the drug companies for R&D on treatment - not causes.
Yes Rueben - I am a troll. I've never owned a Montero, and have been a member of this board since 02 with the sole purpose of arguing with you.
<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/lol.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif" alt="" />
