Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Health and Medicine
Reply to "Is a yearly pelvic ultrasound sufficient to protect against uterine/ ovarian cancer? "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I’m curious why you think ovarian and uterine cancers are “quite common”? That wasn’t my understanding at all, and doing a quick google search says both of these are rare. Do you mean you’re at a higher risk because of the other cancer you had? Not trying to be difficult here, just trying to understand where you’re getting your stats from. [/quote] ?? Ovarian cancer alone is 5th most common cancer [/quote] Not to mention, by the time you have real symptoms for most people you are already stage 3/4. Many doctors write off those symptoms as typical "female issues". Ultrasound yearly is a decent way to find any issues earlier than normal. [/quote] Why do you say this? What data do you have that suggests a yearly ultrasound improves outcomes? [/quote] Not PP but you do realize ovarian cancer is not a 100% death outcome? How can a yearly ultrasound not improve any chance of catching a mass earlier as compared to no ultrasound ever?[/quote] The logical end for this train of thought is that we should all be having full-body scans for every possible malady as frequently as possible. It has been studied, and 1) this way lies madness and 2[b]) it does not improve health outcomes[/b]. So regardless of whether you FEEL that it's true, all evidence suggests otherwise. [/quote] I don't understand how this is possible. It doesn't improve health outcomes that much across the board? So it's not worth the resources, across the board? Because there are people who have cancer and it's too late when they find it, but had it been found earlier prognosis would have been better. Doesn't it improve health outcomes at times A LOT for those people?[/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics