Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

New study adds to evidence that mammograms do not save lives.
reuters ^ | Feb 12 | Staff

Posted on 02/12/2014 7:11:51 PM PST by Rabin

Mammograms, the study found, increase perceived survival time without affecting the course of the disease.

British Medical Journal... The 25-year study of 89,835 women in Canada, aged 40 to 59, randomly assigned the volunteers to receive either annual mammograms plus physical breast exams or physical exams alone.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Health/Medicine
KEYWORDS: mammograms
No words on the down side of annual exposure to high dose ionizing radiation.

Rab.

1 posted on 02/12/2014 7:11:52 PM PST by Rabin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Mammograms sure helped my Sister in Law.

And I’m rather attached to PSA monitoring, given my family history.

Maybe I should feel good that the effort to cut down medical advance warnings is not sexist—the two biggies, breast and prostate, have both been the subject of “why bother” statistical studies.


2 posted on 02/12/2014 7:16:11 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Thermography is a better alternative...


3 posted on 02/12/2014 7:22:55 PM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Re thermography: Really? What sort of resolution does it provide?


4 posted on 02/12/2014 7:26:58 PM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
“Proponents of mammograms often point out that women whose breast cancer is diagnosed by mammography alone live longer than those whose cancer is diagnosed by physical exam. This study found that as well, but the apparent advantage was illusory, the researchers concluded. For one thing, if a cancer is sufficiently aggressive and resistant to treatment it will likely prove fatal no matter when it is detected. Finding it in 2011 by physical exam, as opposed to 2007 by mammogram, simply means that the woman lives longer knowing that she has cancer, not that she lives longer overall.”

The point is that mammography does find cancers earlier, it's just that we still have a long way to go towards finding the best treatments. My strong held belief is that reatments will improve, and thus early detection will be an advantage.

The statistical tools that outcomes analysts have are still very limited. Basing all of our treatment decisions on such statistical analysis is a huge mistake.

5 posted on 02/12/2014 7:28:03 PM PST by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Any chance this news is set to correspond with 0Scare limitations of coverage?


6 posted on 02/12/2014 7:28:38 PM PST by Jane Long (While Marxists continue the fundamental transformation of the USA, progressive RINOs assist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jane Long

Strong chance. It’s a simple fact of finance that, if you diagnose a cancer later, you save money, because the patients die.

I’ll have my colonoscopies if I have to save what should be my wine money and pay cash.


7 posted on 02/12/2014 7:37:40 PM PST by Tax-chick (The platypus is a metaphor for anything that's keeping you down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

Get used to a flurry of new findings that drive down the cost of Obamacare such as mammograms don’t help and colonoscopies are of no value.


8 posted on 02/12/2014 7:37:46 PM PST by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fso301

Get your colonoscopy while you can, in memory of Congressman Billybob!

If you have anesthesia, it’s nothing - and if you go without (as I did), it’s no big deal.


9 posted on 02/12/2014 7:39:15 PM PST by Tax-chick (The platypus is a metaphor for anything that's keeping you down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pieceofthepuzzle
Basing all of our treatment decisions on such statistical analysis is a huge mistake.

I already hated "studies". Now I really hate 'em! I'm a hater!

10 posted on 02/12/2014 7:43:52 PM PST by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
Just in time for 0-care not wanting to pay for screenings.
As long as it was private insurance paying for it, it was an absolute must have.

11 posted on 02/12/2014 8:10:11 PM PST by BitWielder1 (Corporate Profits are better than Government Waste)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
and if you go without (as I did), it’s no big deal.

Are you kidding? A wand camera into your intestines and it doesn't hurt?

12 posted on 02/12/2014 8:34:57 PM PST by Lizavetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

just another step to reduce expectations as 0bamacare won’t provide for all the normall tests


13 posted on 02/12/2014 10:44:22 PM PST by sten (fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

An agenda driven study from Canada reported by a British journal.
Both places have a STRONG incentive to convince people to
forgo diagnostic testing that would lead to expensive care. Fooling
people into waiting to learn about a breast cancer by physical exam
saves untold millions of dollars that would otherwise be wasted on
keeping useless peons alive.


14 posted on 02/12/2014 11:45:13 PM PST by nvscanman ( Jo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

More left wing BS!!


15 posted on 02/13/2014 12:02:19 AM PST by Fledermaus (If we here in TN can't get rid of the worthless Lamar, it's over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

How much dose are you opining about? 1 rem? 100 mRem? 3 Rad? What is the dose you believe is delivered? Come up with numbers.


16 posted on 02/13/2014 2:15:04 AM PST by RoadGumby (This is not where I belong, Take this world and give me Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin

*** New study adds to evidence that mammograms do not save lives ***

>> mammograms plus physical breast exams OR physical exams alone

Seems more like a testament to the physical exam.

Now, what if the physical exam was removed from the study leaving a strict evaluation of the mammogram?


17 posted on 02/13/2014 2:45:17 AM PST by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
New study adds to evidence that mammograms do not save lives.

Democrat's war on women. They want women to die from breast cancer. Less burden to the state and lower obamacare costs.

The death panel has spoken.

18 posted on 02/13/2014 3:16:01 AM PST by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta

Not worth mentioning, no. I did a little labor breathing, and a grandmotherly nurse patted my hand.


19 posted on 02/13/2014 3:58:05 AM PST by Tax-chick (The platypus is a metaphor for anything that's keeping you down.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: dr_lew; Rabin; pieceofthepuzzle
One thing they´ll never tell you is the way cancerous changes in the breast tissue are triggered by disruptions in the normal female hormone cycle.

All of the hormonal contraceptives --- pill, patch, implant, injection --- disorder the normal cycle. Most dangerous of all, the first-trimester termination of the first pregnancy deranges women´s hormones bigtime, significantly increasing the vulnerability of breast tissue to cancerous changes.

Look into it...

The pill can kill: AIIMS study
Durgesh Nandan Jha, TNN Jan 2, 2014, 01.59AM

NEW DELHI: Women who take oral contraceptives regularly are at a higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to others, shows a study by AIIMS doctors. Breast cancer risk was found to be 9.5 times more in women with a history of consuming such pills...

20 posted on 02/13/2014 8:41:38 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (Sanity is the adequate response of the mind to the real thing: adaequatio mentis ad rem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pearls Before Swine

Well..below is some info.....it is considered “experimental” but, so is a lot of stuff....it is likely the best for determining whether a mammogram is really needed....

http://www.btiscan.com/
http://www.iact-org.org/patients/breastthermography/what-is-breast-therm.html


21 posted on 02/13/2014 12:49:15 PM PST by goodnesswins (R.I.P. Doherty, Smith, Stevens, Woods.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Rabin
Mammograms, the study found, increase perceived survival time without affecting the course of the disease.

Kind of a silly statement, if you ask me. Of course it doesn't affect the course of the disease, that's just there. The beauty of a mammogram is that if you can find the cancer before it gets too far along, the treatment is less severe, which is better for the patient.

22 posted on 02/13/2014 3:40:33 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lizavetta
Are you kidding? A wand camera into your intestines and it doesn't hurt?

Oh, honey, they give you some GOOD drugs, and either you're out like a light, or you don't even care.;o)

23 posted on 02/13/2014 3:45:41 PM PST by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

Agree with your post completely.
I had them do it w/o anesthesia because my dentist told me the anesthesia after effect was worse than the procedure.
You really don’t feel much of anything.


24 posted on 02/13/2014 3:48:58 PM PST by nascarnation (I'm hiring Jack Palladino to investigate Baraq's golf scores.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson