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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22184734

To prevent one death from breast cancer, one must screen 400 women annually over a 10 year period. 4,000 mammograms to save one life. If you or someone you love is that one person, I will not debate the absolute value of mammograms. But step back and consider the dollar cost of those 4,000 mammograms. And while I do not have the statistics handy, I am quite sure that more than one false positive accompanied by unnecessary treatment is associated with those 4,000 screens.

Even reducing screening to every other year seems like a reasonable tactic. A decision for each of us to make without pressure from the pink ribbon crowd.

I noticed you cited a .gov site. I just want to say that I'm no Obama fan, but this is something his administration is bang-on about and I'm glad they are looking at the science.

PubMed? I'm not sure what Obama has to do with it, it's been around forever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubMed

NIH.GOV. Government funded I assume. Could be wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

Well, that's a damn shame.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

That explains why physicians peddle drugs, legally and illegally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

That explains why physicians peddle drugs, legally and illegally.

I can definitely say there are doctors who prescribe certain meds based on bonuses. I dare say that the overuse of statins was/is one of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

Well, that's a damn shame.

Double-edge sword methinks. I get what you mean though. I'd love to think people were driven more by their hearts. Such is human nature...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

Well, that's a damn shame.

Double-edge sword methinks. I get what you mean though. I'd love to think people were driven more by their hearts. Such is human nature...

The Hippocratic oath would be good enough for me. Ha, ha.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Yes, and it is worth it. Big profits and fame drive the search for new drugs that can really make a difference in people's lives. If you take the profit and fame out of, say, curing AIDS, I'm not sure the incentive to do so would be there.

Well, that's a damn shame.

Double-edge sword methinks. I get what you mean though. I'd love to think people were driven more by their hearts. Such is human nature...

The Hippocratic oath would be good enough for me. Ha, ha.

I hear ya. Do no harm has turned into don't sue me in an imperfect world.

I feel bad for physicians these days.

[Anonymous]

I was reading up about breast density in light of these new laws being passed and the new "know your breast density campaign".

Something to consider: if you are pre-menopausal, you usually have more dense tissue. Age 50 was chosen as an arbitrary age because a great number of women who are menopausal are 50 or older For women (like myself) who are not menopausal, my tissue will be denser.

For a pre-menopausal woman with no lumps, no issues, no history in the family, a mammogram can actually do more harm than good, especially psychologically because you are much more vulnerable to call-backs. Which is why the recommendations were switched to start at age 50, not 40. You are also much more likely to go through further invasive testing.

I noticed on the forms I filled out, they did NOT ask if I was still menstruating. So the radiologist has no idea if I am pre-menopausal or post-menopausal. All they have is the age of 53, and they will make assumptions based on that. Not really good medicine, eh?

So I will not heed any potential recommendations for further testing simply based on breast density. They will have to tell me they found something, show me what it is on the x-ray, and tell me why they want to explore further. After menopause, that thought process will change.

I did ask the doc at my gyno about it and she agreed that the false positive risk was high and it's a balancing act.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women I know dutifully go each year for their mammogram. Most women I know also drink alcohol fairly regularly, are overweight, and eat a lot of junk and too few fruits and vegetables. Too much emphasis on early detection and pink ribbon campaigns and not nearly enough prevention, IMHO.

If only it were true. I'm a breast cancer survivor who has posted on this thread -- I had node-positive cancer. When I was diagnosed I had been a vegetarian my entire adult life, I was physically fit -- a runner -- and not at all overweight, I was not a person who ate junk food, at all, and as for drinking if you count two or three glasses of wine in a week as "regular" I guess I did that. No family history. Prevention is the dream but we just aren't there yet. Diet and exercise can help around the margins. Probably some breast cancers every year can be prevented through better diet and exercise. But not most of them. Just as you can't assume you are safe if you have no family history, you can't assume you are safe if you have a healthy lifestyle.

I agree with most of what you say and I am not at all trying to blame the victim. However, given that more than two thirds of this country is overweight or obese, I still believe that more healthful diet would make a difference at the population level. The government currently recommends 9 servings of fruits and veggies a day. And if you exclude french fried potatoes and ketchup, how many of us really do that?! Even vegetarians tend to fill up on grains rather than true veggies. So my point is not that mammograms are bad, just that they are insufficient. Best wishes to you and may you continue to thrive.

You would sneer at my son, who is obese. What you would not know, is that his thyroid was sluggish and he had insulin resistance and I could not get a pediatric endocrinologist to touch it, due to lawsuit issues. At that time, he was simply overweight. At 18 I took him to an adult endo who said the poor kid's metabolism was so slow, nothing but meds would have helped him, meds he was denied.

I would most certainly not sneer at your son nor any other overweight person who was receiving lousy medical support for a medical issue. If you choose to feel offended at my observation that the majority of our citizens do not eat healthy diets, then that is your issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was reading up about breast density in light of these new laws being passed and the new "know your breast density campaign".

Something to consider: if you are pre-menopausal, you usually have more dense tissue. Age 50 was chosen as an arbitrary age because a great number of women who are menopausal are 50 or older For women (like myself) who are not menopausal, my tissue will be denser.

For a pre-menopausal woman with no lumps, no issues, no history in the family, a mammogram can actually do more harm than good, especially psychologically because you are much more vulnerable to call-backs. Which is why the recommendations were switched to start at age 50, not 40. You are also much more likely to go through further invasive testing.

I noticed on the forms I filled out, they did NOT ask if I was still menstruating. So the radiologist has no idea if I am pre-menopausal or post-menopausal. All they have is the age of 53, and they will make assumptions based on that. Not really good medicine, eh?

So I will not heed any potential recommendations for further testing simply based on breast density. They will have to tell me they found something, show me what it is on the x-ray, and tell me why they want to explore further. After menopause, that thought process will change.

I did ask the doc at my gyno about it and she agreed that the false positive risk was high and it's a balancing act.

Where I get my mammograms they do ask. But its somewhat irrelevant. I am well past menopause and still have dense breasts. The issue with breast density is not that it increases your risk but that it makes mammograms difficult to read. A good facility will ask for a magnified view of an area of density so they can get a better look.

-- signed, someone whose breast cancer diagnosis was delayed because the tumor wasn't seen due to breast density

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women I know dutifully go each year for their mammogram. Most women I know also drink alcohol fairly regularly, are overweight, and eat a lot of junk and too few fruits and vegetables. Too much emphasis on early detection and pink ribbon campaigns and not nearly enough prevention, IMHO.

If only it were true. I'm a breast cancer survivor who has posted on this thread -- I had node-positive cancer. When I was diagnosed I had been a vegetarian my entire adult life, I was physically fit -- a runner -- and not at all overweight, I was not a person who ate junk food, at all, and as for drinking if you count two or three glasses of wine in a week as "regular" I guess I did that. No family history. Prevention is the dream but we just aren't there yet. Diet and exercise can help around the margins. Probably some breast cancers every year can be prevented through better diet and exercise. But not most of them. Just as you can't assume you are safe if you have no family history, you can't assume you are safe if you have a healthy lifestyle.

I agree with most of what you say and I am not at all trying to blame the victim. However, given that more than two thirds of this country is overweight or obese, I still believe that more healthful diet would make a difference at the population level. The government currently recommends 9 servings of fruits and veggies a day. And if you exclude french fried potatoes and ketchup, how many of us really do that?! Even vegetarians tend to fill up on grains rather than true veggies. So my point is not that mammograms are bad, just that they are insufficient. Best wishes to you and may you continue to thrive.

Wow! thanks for the "best wishes" Blame the victim that ALWAYS works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have you guys ever looked at medical journals? The money spent by big pharma is astronomical. But the return on their investment must be worth it.

Sure. They have every woman over 35 running around getting "screening' and full bore treatment of a non cancer. profitable. But still, those who need it the most are not getting help because some cancers are just resistant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most women I know dutifully go each year for their mammogram. Most women I know also drink alcohol fairly regularly, are overweight, and eat a lot of junk and too few fruits and vegetables. Too much emphasis on early detection and pink ribbon campaigns and not nearly enough prevention, IMHO.

If only it were true. I'm a breast cancer survivor who has posted on this thread -- I had node-positive cancer. When I was diagnosed I had been a vegetarian my entire adult life, I was physically fit -- a runner -- and not at all overweight, I was not a person who ate junk food, at all, and as for drinking if you count two or three glasses of wine in a week as "regular" I guess I did that. No family history. Prevention is the dream but we just aren't there yet. Diet and exercise can help around the margins. Probably some breast cancers every year can be prevented through better diet and exercise. But not most of them. Just as you can't assume you are safe if you have no family history, you can't assume you are safe if you have a healthy lifestyle.

I agree with most of what you say and I am not at all trying to blame the victim. However, given that more than two thirds of this country is overweight or obese, I still believe that more healthful diet would make a difference at the population level. The government currently recommends 9 servings of fruits and veggies a day. And if you exclude french fried potatoes and ketchup, how many of us really do that?! Even vegetarians tend to fill up on grains rather than true veggies. So my point is not that mammograms are bad, just that they are insufficient. Best wishes to you and may you continue to thrive.

You would sneer at my son, who is obese. What you would not know, is that his thyroid was sluggish and he had insulin resistance and I could not get a pediatric endocrinologist to touch it, due to lawsuit issues. At that time, he was simply overweight. At 18 I took him to an adult endo who said the poor kid's metabolism was so slow, nothing but meds would have helped him, meds he was denied.

I would most certainly not sneer at your son nor any other overweight person who was receiving lousy medical support for a medical issue. If you choose to feel offended at my observation that the majority of our citizens do not eat healthy diets, then that is your issue.

People focus in too much on the weight aspect, it's like they have tunnel vision and because they are thin that must mean that they are eating healthy and are getting enough exercise. If that's true, they won't get sick - right? Keep telling yourself that. But it's not true.

Cancer doesn't discriminate. You can do everything right and still get it. I am overweight and I make an effort to eat healthy and exercise regularly - I do it to make myself feel good but I am not going to kid myself that it will make me immune to getting cancer or some of the other god awful diseases out there. The best thing that we can hope for is that they find a kinder, gentler way to treat these insidious diseases. Until then - I will weigh the pros and cons of these screenings.

[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.