Interesting research on the over diagnosis of breast 'cancer' due to mammograms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

Me too. I was only able to reach 40 because of early detection. Other women in my family were not so lucky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

Me too. I was only able to reach 40 because of early detection. Other women in my family were not so lucky.

What exactly happened to each of the other women?

[Anonymous]

How do our cancer stats compare to Europe's?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

You don't know if early detection saved your life. That's the point. You know early detection found your cancer, but you don't know if you had found a lump whether or not the same treatments would have saved your life.

Docs have little way to tell which cancer will metastasize and which won't, and how fast if it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

Me too. I was only able to reach 40 because of early detection. Other women in my family were not so lucky.

We haven't been sold a bill of goods. It's just that the medical community is still trying to figure out how best to fight and (hopefully one day) cure cancer. I'm not against early screening at all because I think that it can save lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really baffled. Why is suggesting that putting equal emphasis on good diet with special attention to fruits and veggies, exercise, and low or no alcohol consumption IN ADDITION TO MAMMOGRAMS been construed as a false promise of cancer immunity or blaming victims or sneering at overweight individuals???

Breast cancer is a nasty disease that no one deserves to get for any reason. And no amount of pure living can guarantee one will not get it. Nor will an annual mammogram. I think we can all agree that we would like to see the number of cases decline as quickly as possible to zero. My ONLY comment was that achieving that outcome would require addressing both screening AND prevention. And some good luck is also obviously required at the individual level.

I have obviously offended nearly everyone here, so I will not post again. My apologies.

This is 9:26.

... because having sat at the bedside of many breast cancer patients who are suffering and likely to die from this disease, telling them that they should have eaten fruits and vegetables more (than they already had) is just as rude as any other cheery but rude remark like "your dead child is in a better place" or "your miscarriage was God's Will" or "your SN child is dead, so your life will be easier" or any other cruel but "helpful" remark. Please stay out of the hospital and away from the grieving. They don't need your "help"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

+1

[Anonymous]

I am really baffled. Why is suggesting that putting equal emphasis on good diet with special attention to fruits and veggies, exercise, and low or no alcohol consumption IN ADDITION TO MAMMOGRAMS been construed as a false promise of cancer immunity or blaming victims or sneering at overweight individuals???

Breast cancer is a nasty disease that no one deserves to get for any reason. And no amount of pure living can guarantee one will not get it. Nor will an annual mammogram. I think we can all agree that we would like to see the number of cases decline as quickly as possible to zero. My ONLY comment was that achieving that outcome would require addressing both screening AND prevention. And some good luck is also obviously required at the individual level.

I have obviously offended nearly everyone here, so I will not post again. My apologies.

This is 9:26.


... because having sat at the bedside of many breast cancer patients who are suffering and likely to die from this disease, telling them that they should have eaten fruits and vegetables more (than they already had) is just as rude as any other cheery but rude remark like "your dead child is in a better place" or "your miscarriage was God's Will" or "your SN child is dead, so your life will be easier" or any other cruel but "helpful" remark. Please stay out of the hospital and away from the grieving. They don't need your "help"

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really baffled. Why is suggesting that putting equal emphasis on good diet with special attention to fruits and veggies, exercise, and low or no alcohol consumption IN ADDITION TO MAMMOGRAMS been construed as a false promise of cancer immunity or blaming victims or sneering at overweight individuals???

Breast cancer is a nasty disease that no one deserves to get for any reason. And no amount of pure living can guarantee one will not get it. Nor will an annual mammogram. I think we can all agree that we would like to see the number of cases decline as quickly as possible to zero. My ONLY comment was that achieving that outcome would require addressing both screening AND prevention. And some good luck is also obviously required at the individual level.

I have obviously offended nearly everyone here, so I will not post again. My apologies.

This is 9:26.

... because having sat at the bedside of many breast cancer patients who are suffering and likely to die from this disease, telling them that they should have eaten fruits and vegetables more (than they already had) is just as rude as any other cheery but rude remark like "your dead child is in a better place" or "your miscarriage was God's Will" or "your SN child is dead, so your life will be easier" or any other cruel but "helpful" remark. Please stay out of the hospital and away from the grieving. They don't need your "help"

Yep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

Me too. I was only able to reach 40 because of early detection. Other women in my family were not so lucky.

What exactly happened to each of the other women?

Metastatic cancer, and sometimes death, between ages 30 and 39.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am really baffled. Why is suggesting that putting equal emphasis on good diet with special attention to fruits and veggies, exercise, and low or no alcohol consumption IN ADDITION TO MAMMOGRAMS been construed as a false promise of cancer immunity or blaming victims or sneering at overweight individuals???

Breast cancer is a nasty disease that no one deserves to get for any reason. And no amount of pure living can guarantee one will not get it. Nor will an annual mammogram. I think we can all agree that we would like to see the number of cases decline as quickly as possible to zero. My ONLY comment was that achieving that outcome would require addressing both screening AND prevention. And some good luck is also obviously required at the individual level.

I have obviously offended nearly everyone here, so I will not post again. My apologies.

This is 9:26.


... because having sat at the bedside of many breast cancer patients who are suffering and likely to die from this disease, telling them that they should have eaten fruits and vegetables more (than they already had) is just as rude as any other cheery but rude remark like "your dead child is in a better place" or "your miscarriage was God's Will" or "your SN child is dead, so your life will be easier" or any other cruel but "helpful" remark. Please stay out of the hospital and away from the grieving. They don't need your "help"

+100

+1000 more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm 49 and holding.

Me, too. I think we've been sold a bill of goods, frankly.

Cancer is a terrible disease. Screening everyone for everything is not the way to fight it. Early detection turns out to be mostly an illusion.

Agreed.

Early detection saved my life, and I am under 40.

Me too. I was only able to reach 40 because of early detection. Other women in my family were not so lucky.

We haven't been sold a bill of goods. It's just that the medical community is still trying to figure out how best to fight and (hopefully one day) cure cancer. I'm not against early screening at all because I think that it can save lives.

25 year studies are showing that is not so.