I heard this on the radio news last night, and it got me thinking. Limbaugh commented on it this morning, but feel free to draw your own conclusion. Hopefully this will get some press, and at least get people thinking about the consequences of single payer health care.
Government study finds breast cancer screening not needed untill fifty
- Thread starter duffman
- Start date
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,575371,00.html?mep
Here is a link to the AP story. I have just started doing a little research on this, the details of the study are a little vague in the AP story. As best I can tell so far the study found that 1 in 1900 women are diagnosed in their forties, versus one in 1300 in their fifties.
The studies authors conclude that false positives cause more stress and damage than the lives that are saved by detection. With the numbers above I do not see how they can logically reach that conclusion.
Here is a link to the AP story. I have just started doing a little research on this, the details of the study are a little vague in the AP story. As best I can tell so far the study found that 1 in 1900 women are diagnosed in their forties, versus one in 1300 in their fifties.
The studies authors conclude that false positives cause more stress and damage than the lives that are saved by detection. With the numbers above I do not see how they can logically reach that conclusion.
I agree with you, this doesn't make any kind of sense. This is just WRONG! Definitely a step backwards in trying to have early detection so someone just might stand a chance of living through this.
My aunt was diagnosed at 35, luckily they caught it early. If they had waited till 50, well, she wouldn't have made 50, put it that way.
From what I got out of it, the current recommendation is 40, so it wouldn't really have made any difference?
They're not saying that you CAN'T get one, just that in many cases, the consequences of false positives can be pretty bad.
There's got to be a line somewhere to recommend, or else you start giving them at 15.
(Note: I don't really have an opinion either way, as this doesn't affect me, just pointing out that it's just a general guideline and each person should probably decide with their doctor anyway...)
If the odds were 1:1900 to win the lottery EVERYBODY would be playing it. I'm just sayin......
From a woman's perspective, I personally think the screening age should start at a younger age (like 35), rather than older. People follow these recommendations, and think why should they worry until they are at age 50. It sets a bad tone as to how serious of a problem this is.
I've just seen too many women lose their life with this.....and this was with the notion that screening really didn't need to be done until age 40, while they died much younger than that.
And just for you guys....you CAN get breast cancer too.
I've just seen too many women lose their life with this.....and this was with the notion that screening really didn't need to be done until age 40, while they died much younger than that.
And just for you guys....you CAN get breast cancer too.
From a woman's perspective, I personally think the screening age should start at a younger age (like 35), rather than older. People follow these recommendations, and think why should they worry until they are at age 50. It sets a bad tone as to how serious of a problem this is.
I've just seen too many women lose their life with this.....and this was with the notion that screening really didn't need to be done until age 40, while they died much younger than that.
And just for you guys....you CAN get breast cancer too.
I don't think there are any guidelines for men to get screened though
Just read some more, and one of the reports did mention that insurance coverage is unlikely to be dropped, but it does kinda look like a step in the wrong direction.
7
777
ACCOUNT CLOSED
http://www.9and10news.com/category/story/?id=179472 This video is of a local 27 year old girls battle.
Step backwards? The study found that there is more bad things then goods things that result from testing too early. That is looking at the BIG picture. Sure, some people benefit, but it seems, more people don't and are impacted negatively from it.
It seems contrary to thought, but there are negatives to early screening. Seems people too easily ignore these.
Where should the line be drawn? Note, that in all these studies, this recommendation is for people with NO other indicators. If family history, are whatever determine you are in a higher risk population, then I don't think the recommendations are for you.
It seems contrary to thought, but there are negatives to early screening. Seems people too easily ignore these.
Where should the line be drawn? Note, that in all these studies, this recommendation is for people with NO other indicators. If family history, are whatever determine you are in a higher risk population, then I don't think the recommendations are for you.
This paragraph explains it fairly well:
What bad things? Typically things are re-tested (and more thoroughly) before any *radical* form of treatment. I know this was true in my case.
There is always anxiety.....it is something very scary.
After having talked to women before they passed away, and have left young children behind, it was basically the same thing. Actually maybe worse......as some doctors didn't take things as serious to start with because of the recommendations in place. Now those recommendations are saying that the self exams do no good, as well as upping the age.
What bad things? Typically things are re-tested (and more thoroughly) before any *radical* form of treatment. I know this was true in my case.
There is always anxiety.....it is something very scary.
After having talked to women before they passed away, and have left young children behind, it was basically the same thing. Actually maybe worse......as some doctors didn't take things as serious to start with because of the recommendations in place. Now those recommendations are saying that the self exams do no good, as well as upping the age.
hmmm...
Here is an interesting one on prostate exams..
CNN - New England Journal of Medicine.
As for bad things, I think the most is treating a cancer that is not going to kill the person.
I think the important thing is to look at the death rates and compare those. What is the point of all of this early screening if it has little impact on the death rate?
Here is an interesting one on prostate exams..
CNN - New England Journal of Medicine.
As for bad things, I think the most is treating a cancer that is not going to kill the person.
I think the important thing is to look at the death rates and compare those. What is the point of all of this early screening if it has little impact on the death rate?
Last edited:
Similar threads
