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

[monster]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by monster

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?

[monster]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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?

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.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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?

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

Sebelius tries to debunk this right away: The U.S. Preventive Task Force is an outside independent panel of doctors and scientists who make recommendations. They do not set federal policy and they don't determine what services are covered by the federal government. ... Indeed, I would be very surprised if any private insurance company changed its mammography coverage decisions as a result of this action.

The Obama administration says its mammogram policy is unchanged despite a U.S. panel's finding that routine tests aren't necessary for women in their 40s.

Yeah Democrats!

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

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

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.

[SamIam]

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

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.

Robert Smith, director of cancer screening for the American Cancer Society, says his organization also is sticking with the current guidelines "because we not only looked at the evidence that the task force looked at, but we also looked at newer, modern data."

Smith says a good part of the current disconnect is due to the rules of evidence used by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. It's a rigorous system that values above all else the "gold standard" of large randomized trials of screening tests such as mammography.

That's all well and good, he says, but mammography screening has reached the point where these expensive trials are vanishingly rare — if not practically and ethically impossible.

Smith cites a very recent study from Sweden, where mammography has a long history and record-keeping is meticulous. It's not a randomized trial of mammography, but instead compares breast cancers diagnosed in different time periods among women who were screened for cancer with mammograms and women who weren't. "It includes hundreds of thousands of women examined over many, many years," he says.

Breast cancer deaths declined 19 percent over time among women who didn't get regular mammograms. But women who did get screening mammograms had a 48 percent reduction in breast cancer mortality.

That's very different from the U.S. task force's estimate. It says the evidence indicates that mammograms reduce breast cancer deaths by 15 percent among women ages 40 to 49.

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

Originally Posted by glatt

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.

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Redux

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.

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

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

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

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.