Great news ladies! Women under 50 not at risk anymore!
 

Of breast cancer. Don't worry about getting screened and don't worry about being covered under your insurance policy either. :eyebrow:

Fantastic news from an "independent panel". (vomit)

Self- examinations are also not recommended. Hey! Forget about it!!! That cancer stuff wasn't, like, for real.

I feel like doing some "independent" paneling of my own.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/n...hould-start-50

"A woman who still wants to be screened after having the conversation with her clinician and considering the balance of benefits and harms should absolutely be screened," Pettiti tells WebMD.

What a shame that my two aunts didn't know about this. They both died in their 40's of breast cancer. If that panel had been around back then, I'm sure they'd be alive today.

Who the hell puts out this crap, anyway? Oh barf! :eyebrow:

Yes I had the same conversation once. Then I just read a guideline that says "probably benign" is not supposed to be a diagnosis anymore.


I would be paying....out of pocket!! Sure if you insist on it, you will pay. It's betting time.

Oh this makes me ill. I heard something about "but before the age of 50 mammograms ain't so good at detectin' 'em some breast cancer" and that there are a lot of UNNECESSARY BIOPSIES. OH. MY. GAWD. The whole point of screening is...oh man I can't even go on with this rant it's too upsetting.

I don't care if starting screening early saves 10 lives a year...it's worth it. Start at 20!

The lies and deceit at the expense of health, particularly lowly women...we don't need no stinkin' reform.

Goddammit, what's the suggested age level for Viagra?

:mad:

What risks? What risks? It might cost some money, a false positive? A biopsy is in order? So? There are no "risks" to the woman. The "risk" lies in not finding breast cancer, a treatable cancer if caught early, early enough to do a damn thing about it.

Someone needs to smack Jeanne, or at least get her out of the insurance companies pockets.

I am so glad that the lead researcher is a woman. She developed the "model". What model? Let's see the model. I need a graph, chart, outline, or anything she has about this new "model".

Hey Shawnee don't feel yourself up, you could hurt yourself...te heee heee. :p

She's a Benedickless Arnold!

Yep, no more self-exams for me. I will be AT RISK for finding something unusual! Oh, the horrors!

No, no one ever had complications from a biopsy. :rolleyes:

Glad to see that knee-jerk ignorance is still in fashion. Carry on.

Yes, thousands of women die every year from unnecessary biopsies. I believe the number is higher than breast, ovary, and cervical cancer combined. We must stop the madness. This isn't about money AT ALL. :rolleyes:

They're just trying to cull the herd to pave the way for Obamacare. Can't cover too many people now, can we?

Not too many women. The old farts still get their boners though. I mean, that's just fair.

Hear that, Bri? It's all in your head.

There was an article in the NYT recently about this. It said that the "risk" was in "overtreating" cancers that didn't need aggressive treatment. In other words (I hope I get this right) though most people are too stupid to know this, there are cancers that don't need to be treated because they grow slowly - and I guess by the time they kill you, you'll already probably be dead from something else.

So, if you get screened and they find cancer, even if it's one of those slow ones, chances are you'll flip out and bombard it with every option available, resulting in your feeling like shit, losing your hair, and probably performing badly on your job. ( my own editorializing -- 'cause you know that's what REALLY matters.) Which is way worse than missing a fast, killer cancer because you didn't get screened, because really, what are the odds?

That reminds me, I'm several months overdue for my mammogram. I better get in there while they'll still agree to do it.

What Wolf said.

I still have my mother because she trotted down for a mammogram on her lunch hour one day. They found something. They biopsied. It was cancer. She's alive. 10 fucking years later, my mother is alive and with me.

My mother's life is worth more than an accusation of ignorant, so call me stupid...but it's about money, bottom line, and you know it. Instigating is an art form, at times, is it not?

The article is so illogical from top to bottom I can't even begin to go into it...

I can tell you that it reads as if Cancer is fine if it does not kill you.....immediately? The statistics are also inconclusive. I call bullshit.

It only applies to those with little to no risk factors.

Since when did anyone suggest one? Think clearly for a moment about erections and non-erections, Shawnee. Does age come into it at all, on reflection?

Perhaps the addition of a ha-ha smiley along with the ":mad:" might have conveyed the sardonic tone you may have wanted.

this thread has extra estrogen

I'm afraid this is just the beginning.

Well I'm so glad to know that I even though I'm 41 with an extensive family history of breast cancer, that I can STOP preparing for my yearly mammograms by slamming my breast in the door of the refrigerator and then pressing on it as I tell myself, "honey it will be over soon!!"

LOL - audibly

Save the TATAs - and the women!

Ha! Everyone jumps on the wagon when you say tatas or tits...but talk about breast cancer and titmongers everywhere pussy right the fuck out.

Whatever it takes for awareness! You roxx, spexx! You, at least, have a pair (not tits, those other things.) :)

I don't need my annual check-up, but thank you doc. :D

I didn't read the article, but heard about it on TV last night. The good thing is that the American Cancer Society is not agreeing with this study. From their site:
(link: http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/co...Guidelines.asp)

I think I'm gonna go with them.

Yeah, I'll buy that... use your doctor and your brain, not some headline.

vs suffering and death? Don't bother locking the door because Freddy Kruger might not be outside? Nay, fuck that... take care of yourself... take care if the tits.

"unnecessary treatment of cancers that would never become life threatening"

A little cancer never hurt right? Hey what doesn't kill me makes me stronger...Cancer is irrelevant unless it is fatal? oooh kay then.

Just think how much the government will save under the new Obamanation healthcare plan!

Some tumors grow so slowly they have no effect on their host. So yes, some cancer tumors are irrelevant.

Esp if you are 75 years or older, or so the government wants you to think. Because you know after the age of 75....

Chemo and mastectomy are horrible things, with many permanent nasty side effects. if you have a tumor that is growing so slowly that it most likely won't cause you health problems until you're 200 and is not metastasizing, why in the hell would you undergo these procedures?

If I'm 75 and have a tumor that won't kill me in the next 25 years, I'll take the no treatment route. It has nothing to do with the government.

And if you think that the government should be telling you to ignore it and it kills you in 2 years and you never see you great grand children because you ignored it how do you justify it to your family?

To bad so sad?

This recent "recommendation" is just the other shoe dropping IMO.

There has been plenty of research around for plenty of time suggesting that some cancer tumors are fine just left alone. And many are not. And the methods of telling which are which are improving all the time. But the current mindset is "kill all" just to be sure. Which would be fine if the killing of all was risk-free. It's the same mindset that wants antibiotics for everything, wants everyone to hand sanitize all the time, wants everyone to get a shot for the latest strain of flu, wants all men circumcised to prevent cancer.....

In some cases doing nothing is just fine. However this has nothing to do with the diagnostic tests.

It is imperative to know about what's going an and to have the information to decide whether this is a cancer one should do nothing about ....or not. Whether to screen and whether to treat are different arguments, though of course you can't treat if you don't screen...

what in the hell are you waffling on about? I'll be asking the doctors not the government about when it's likely to kill me. And making my own decisions. ANd I won't have to justify anything to anybody. My greatgrandchildren wouldn't give a shit at that age, and i wouldn't be able to see them anyway if i'm having chemo, mastectomy and radiation which is bad abough at 42, never mind as 75.

You're such a panic-merchant.

I'm gonna make a guess here that the issue may be who is going to pay for what if you decide to get screened, have a mammo or surgery. I have no idea of the answer at this point, but thats what I was reading into his posts.

Or maybe "the government" will ignore the "recommendation". Oh look, they have.

Yeah Democrats!

well it certainly isn't the government that pays for it now.... :rolleyes:

So scientists are recommending something based on studies and numbers and stuff, and the politicians think it's political suicide to implement the changes recommended by the scientists. So they are simply ignoring the science. There ought to be a thread for posting examples of this sort of perverting of science for politics.

Science? That's what you're calling using insurance actuary tables to determine if we should ignore this woman or that woman's tits?

mmmmmk!

I don't think it is perverting science. The study says "only" 15% of women would have their cancer detected by screening in their 40's. ONLY 15%??????? That's quite a few lives, doncha think? We are not talking about epidemiology among squirrels here - these are human lives. :eyebrow:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=120562878

I dont think it is necessarily perverting science when policy makers evaluate the findings of one group of scientists to have more or less credibility or to be more or less in the public interest than another. It is the role of policy makers to make those choices.

To me, perverting science is when policy makers ALTER the findings of government scientists for political purposes.

In any case and in terms of government policies and recommendations, the HHS secretary made it clear that the currently accepted standards will prevail on this issue.

In the UK the standard testing is every 3 years for women over 50.
I would be able to request testing from the age of 40 due to family circumstances (Grandmother died of cancer in her 60s, Mother had breast cancer in her 60s). I probably won't though.

As glatt stated. To protect her ass and the ass of the Obama administration.

If only 1 life is saved, it is well worth it.

I'm not quite sure that is what glatt stated, but he can speak for himself.

The fact that government commissions independent scientific studies should never imply an automatic acceptance of the findings.

Nor should ithe government set pre-determined conditions on scientific research or cover up or alter the findings if they reach conclusions that run counter to policy. Unlike the previous administration, that was not the case here.

Sebelius was interviewed on NPR this morning. They boxed her into the question. Her pregnant pause was palpable. They are covering their ass. IMHO they should have just supported the findings and gone with it. It would have been a more honest approach and set the stage for how they are going to review future recommendations for care using various boards as recomending bodies. If they want to control costs this is a start. But don't backtrack when people jump all over them. ACOG has not supported these recommendations. The majority of OB-GYN organizations have not supported them. The original study was done by a family practice physician.

IMO, to suggest that any administration should simply and unquestionably accept any or all scientific research or studies it commissions would constitute a perversion of science.

But we have diverted the discussion on the underlying issue enough.

Yet these are the very type of panels that are suppose to help guide health policy in the future.The Medicare commissions are suppose to do just this. Dictate what is covered and how it will be paid for.

Then why are we settling for just one mammogram a year after age 40? Why don't we do screenings every month after age 20? A couple people in their 20's and 30's get breast cancer too, and the cancer can develop a fair amount in a whole year. If we do the screenings every month and also start at a younger age, then we'll catch more cancers early. Sure it will be expensive, but a few more lives will be saved. It will be well worth it.

The answer, of course, is that there are limited resources. It's important to use science and medical knowledge to tell us where it's best to target our efforts so we get the most bang for the buck.

For some reason, fighting breast cancer is super popular. It's a good thing for sure, but it's not rational that it's at the expense of everything else. The number one cause of death for women is coronary heart disease. Twice as many women in the United States die of cardiovascular diseases as from all forms of cancer, including breast cancer. Why aren't women all up in arms over the fact that you don't get annual stress tests? Your heart is much more important. How much plaque is built up in your arteries? Have you ever had any kind of test to tell you that? Since you're most likely to die of that, don't you think it's important?

Probably breast cancer gets so much attention because it IS mostly a woman's issue...and historically women's issues get far less attention than men's issues.

This is why I made the Viagra crack. We've all heard of insurance companies that will pay for Viagra but not birth control.

My dad, at risk for colon cancer, was told at his last colonoscopy he could start coming in every 3 years instead of every year. My comment to my mom was "bullcrap...so at the end of year 2 something develops but we don't see it until a year later when it's too late?"

Breast cancer may be an issue we, um, hang our hat on...but that is an inroad to pave the way for, perhaps, research in ovarian cancer which is widely ignored.

Men notice our breasts, so it's a good issue to start with. They don't give a hang about our ovaries. ;)

Whoever said that's its at the expense of everything else? Its not like women just go get a mammogram and ignore all other health concerns. I am as concerned over other aspects of my health as I am breast cancer. I'm sure I'm not the only women who feels this way. And for your information, I'm concerned over my cardiovascular health, too.

Why not?

O.K. My wife just got back from a follow up from her last. She has some kind of growth that will be biopsied on 3 Dec, if not sooner. She is pretty freaked out, I'm not freaked out, but I am in Iraq. A bit far to be very helpful, even if that is just being a solid point right now. We will see where this goes.

As it stands right now I'm in favor of testing before age 50.

Because they do get an annual stress test... it's called a mammogram.

Must admit that I have not read the entire Thread, but , has anyone noted that the origina lLink doesn't work? Comes up with an Error Message.

HaHa So true Bruce! Anyone, especially a man, who doesn't realize that a mammogram IS an annual stress test, has never had his nuts placed in a cold vice and squeezed to the point of almost popping just to make sure they are healthy!

Still works for me, Minx??