The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)
-   -   Great news ladies! Women under 50 not at risk anymore! (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=21423)

Cicero 11-17-2009 11:38 AM

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

glatt 11-17-2009 11:45 AM

"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.

SamIam 11-17-2009 11:48 AM

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:

Cicero 11-17-2009 11:50 AM

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.

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 11:55 AM

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:

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 12:20 PM

Quote:

Jeanne S. Mandelblatt, MD, MPH, of Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center led the research team that developed the model.

The team concluded that mammogram screening every two years achieves most of the benefits of annual screening with far fewer false-positives and other negative outcomes.

"Mammogram screening clearly has benefits, but there are potential risks as well," she tells WebMD. "Women need to discuss their own individual balance of risks and benefits with their health care providers."
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.

Cicero 11-17-2009 12:40 PM

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

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 12:42 PM

She's a Benedickless Arnold!

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

Pie 11-17-2009 12:53 PM

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

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

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 12:57 PM

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:

wolf 11-17-2009 01:04 PM

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

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 01:05 PM

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

Juniper 11-17-2009 01:10 PM

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.

Juniper 11-17-2009 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolf (Post 609294)
They're just trying to cull the herd to pave the way for Obamacare. Can't cover too many people now, can we?

What Wolf said.

Shawnee123 11-17-2009 01:12 PM

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?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.