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

reuters ^ | Feb 12 | Staff

[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.

[Rabin]

No words on the down side of annual exposure to high dose ionizing radiation.

Rab.

[Pearls Before Swine]

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.

[goodnesswins]

Thermography is a better alternative...

[Pearls Before Swine]

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

[pieceofthepuzzle]

“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.

[Jane Long]

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

[Tax-chick]

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.

[fso301]

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.

[Tax-chick]

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.

[dr_lew]

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!

[BitWielder1]

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.

[Lizavetta]

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?

[sten]

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

[nvscanman]

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.

[Fledermaus]

More left wing BS!!

[RoadGumby]

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.

[Gene Eric]

*** 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?

[Caipirabob]

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.

[Tax-chick]

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

[Mrs. Don-o]

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...