The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, a government study panel, has just recently turned the yearly-mammogram-after-40 conventional wisdom on its head. Its panel of doctors, whose opinions influence both private insurance and medicare coverage, has stated that screening women in their 40s is not good medicine. As Dr. Diana Petitti, Vice Chair of the panel said, "The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s".
Personally, I have never understood the efficacy of traumatizing breast tissue and then irradiating it--and on a yearly basis, at that. Both radiation and breast trauma have been indicated in breast tumors, so when my doctor told me I would start having yearly mammograms eleven years ago, I said, "No, I won't." We discussed it, but I stood my ground. Turns out, I had a good point after all.
Not surprisingly, many medical doctors and the American Cancer Society have come out against this new advice. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer of this organization fears that women might become so confused that they opt out of screening altogether. Not only is that insulting to the intelligence of women, but one can't ignore the financial interests of this entity. I've often wondered where the money from all those pink brooms and scrubbie pads goes to, haven't you? In my opinion, the ACS has helped turn breast cancer into a circus sideshow, rather than a disease that merits serious research.
Our local paper had a large article in which they interviewed doctors from a nearby hospital. They were all outraged that the panel suggested these new guidelines. They spoke of very early stage cancers being found and "saving women's lives" and their belief that cumulative radiation risk is nothing compared to the benefits of mammography. Right next to this article is a very big advertisement from this very hospital. As a matter of fact, the only doctors ever interviewed by this paper for any health issue seem to work for this hospital. Hmmmm.
In January of 2009, the AARP Bulletin reported a study of 200,000 Norwegian women divided into two groups matched for age and reproductive history. One group had one mammogram in six years' time, the other had three. The tumor rate was 22% lower in the group that had only one screening. Could early stage cancers have resolved themselves? Of course, and that was the conclusion of the study. But those who make their living off the the Great American Cancer Scare don't want to hear that. Women need to be given all the facts before they submit to dubious medical testing. It's literally a matter of life and death.
Personally, I have never understood the efficacy of traumatizing breast tissue and then irradiating it--and on a yearly basis, at that. Both radiation and breast trauma have been indicated in breast tumors, so when my doctor told me I would start having yearly mammograms eleven years ago, I said, "No, I won't." We discussed it, but I stood my ground. Turns out, I had a good point after all.
Not surprisingly, many medical doctors and the American Cancer Society have come out against this new advice. The Deputy Chief Medical Officer of this organization fears that women might become so confused that they opt out of screening altogether. Not only is that insulting to the intelligence of women, but one can't ignore the financial interests of this entity. I've often wondered where the money from all those pink brooms and scrubbie pads goes to, haven't you? In my opinion, the ACS has helped turn breast cancer into a circus sideshow, rather than a disease that merits serious research.
Our local paper had a large article in which they interviewed doctors from a nearby hospital. They were all outraged that the panel suggested these new guidelines. They spoke of very early stage cancers being found and "saving women's lives" and their belief that cumulative radiation risk is nothing compared to the benefits of mammography. Right next to this article is a very big advertisement from this very hospital. As a matter of fact, the only doctors ever interviewed by this paper for any health issue seem to work for this hospital. Hmmmm.
In January of 2009, the AARP Bulletin reported a study of 200,000 Norwegian women divided into two groups matched for age and reproductive history. One group had one mammogram in six years' time, the other had three. The tumor rate was 22% lower in the group that had only one screening. Could early stage cancers have resolved themselves? Of course, and that was the conclusion of the study. But those who make their living off the the Great American Cancer Scare don't want to hear that. Women need to be given all the facts before they submit to dubious medical testing. It's literally a matter of life and death.
No comments:
Post a Comment