The Mammogram Scam [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : The Mammogram Scam


Glocksanity
11-27-2012, 12:03
Cancer is a for profit industry. Buyer beware.

Despite substantial increases in the number of cases of early-stage breast cancer detected, screening mammography has only marginally reduced the rate at which women present with advanced cancer. Although it is not certain which women have been affected, the imbalance suggests that there is substantial overdiagnosis, accounting for nearly a third of all newly diagnosed breast cancers, and that screening is having, at best, only a small effect on the rate of death from breast cancer.

http://www.naturalnews.com/038099_mammograms_false_positives_overdiagnosis.html#ixzz2DRwmqijG

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1206809?query=featured_home&&

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 12:06
Cancer is a for profit industry.

Yep. Those doctors keeping my dad alive are such *******s.

You really are insane.

Critias
11-27-2012, 12:23
Cancer is a for profit industry. Buyer beware.
Right there in your excerpt it says that early screening has reduced the rate at which women get advanced cancer, and that screening is having a small effect on cancer death rates.

So...uhh...how large does the effect have to be, how many women does it have to save, before you'll feel it's not a scam? Or, let me rephrase that question: how many women are you okay with killing, by telling them NOT to go get screened?

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 12:26
Cancer is a for profit industry. Buyer beware.



Thank God!

If not we'd be stuck waiting in lines for cut, burn or poison IF we found out about it before we died.

Thanks to big pharma and biotech we now live in the golden age of cancer treatment like targeted therapies and advanced screening techniques.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 12:29
Right there in your excerpt it says that early screening has reduced the rate at which women get advanced cancer, and that screening is having a small effect on cancer death rates.

So...uhh...how large does the effect have to be, how many women does it have to save, before you'll feel it's not a scam? Or, let me rephrase that question: how many women are you okay with killing, by telling them NOT to go get screened?

I don't think he even understands what he posted.:rofl:

Andy W
11-27-2012, 12:32
Go back to your basement, put your tin foil hat back on and go back to your Alex Jones podcast. This is the kind of bull**** that kills people.

nmk
11-27-2012, 12:40
Dude, wtf?

gwalchmai
11-27-2012, 12:46
I thought this thread was going to be about something else...

Glocksanity
11-27-2012, 12:46
The study from the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that "early detection" leads to a 93% false positive which means that millions of women have their breasts mutilated, their bodies ravaged by toxins, and that is done without them ever being in danger of getting a life threatening form of cancer.

This does not suggest that women should never get this treatment for breast cancer, but it is like going to the mechanic and having him tell you that you need a new transmission when you don't. That does not mean you might need a new transmission in the future, but that only about 7% of time you would.

The inability of people to think and question authority boggles my mind. No wonder this country is full of fat, sick, diabetic, heart diseased, looooooosers!

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 13:02
The study from the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that "early detection" leads to a 93% false positive

Yes. It's a very, very interesting result.

How frequently to do a preventative scan is a difficult question to answer. It goes beyond the mere statistics. If a patient "feels" that they're at risk for breast cancer, and they demand the test, what do you do?

The inability of people to think and question authority boggles my mind.

What the hell are you talking about? The very study you quote is an example of "questioning authority." It's proof positive that the scientific and medical establishments continue to investigate and police themselves to the best of their ability.

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 13:18
The study from the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that "early detection" leads to a 93% false positive which means that millions of women have their breasts mutilated, their bodies ravaged by toxins, and that is done without them ever being in danger of getting a life threatening form of cancer.

This does not suggest that women should never get this treatment for breast cancer, but it is like going to the mechanic and having him tell you that you need a new transmission when you don't. That does not mean you might need a new transmission in the future, but that only about 7% of time you would.

The inability of people to think and question authority boggles my mind. No wonder this country is full of fat, sick, diabetic, heart diseased, looooooosers!

TOS prevents me from calling you a moron, or I would.

Google Stereotactic Breast Biopsy, and then come back and talk about your mutilation.

My closest friend does several per day.

Then Google Breast Cancer Assay, pay particular attention to Estrogen Receptor, Progesterone Receptors, Her2neu Receptors and understand how they interplay.

Then google Targeted Cancer Therapies

If after reading all of that you still don't understand why the TOS must prohibit me from calling you a moron, well.......

JW1178
11-27-2012, 13:29
I get it. You give someone so many X-rays looking for cancer that the radiation causes cancer.

devildog2067
11-27-2012, 13:34
I get it. You give someone so many X-rays looking for cancer that the radiation causes cancer.

Yep.

Like I said, it's a really, really interesting problem in an intellectual sense.

If you don't do any scans, you'll miss treatable cancers and people will die unnecessarily.

If you do too many scans, you'll trigger false positives and in some cases may actually cause cancer due to radiation exposure, and people will die unnecessarily.

What is the "just right" amount? How do we figure it out?

Also, what policies do we make in the meantime while we're collecting data? Unlike in physics, in medical science there are ethical implications to consider. If the policy becomes "women under 50 shouldn't get mammograms because the risks outweigh the benefits" but some 28-year-old woman with a family history of breast cancer wants one, what should be done?

Medical science is really, really hard. Sometimes I'm glad I'm a physicist.

Psychman
11-27-2012, 13:38
Medicine, is and always will be a combination of science and art.

fx77
11-27-2012, 13:52
the issue is would one rather have a falsee positive or a false negative?

Silent_Runner
11-27-2012, 14:11
The study from the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that "early detection" leads to a 93% false positive which means that millions of women have their breasts mutilated, their bodies ravaged by toxins, and that is done without them ever being in danger of getting a life threatening form of cancer.

This does not suggest that women should never get this treatment for breast cancer, but it is like going to the mechanic and having him tell you that you need a new transmission when you don't. That does not mean you might need a new transmission in the future, but that only about 7% of time you would.

The inability of people to think and question authority boggles my mind. No wonder this country is full of fat, sick, diabetic, heart diseased, looooooosers!
No treatment is done based on mammogram results alone. If cancer is indicated a biopsy is done.

Gallium
11-27-2012, 14:25
...

Medical science is really, really hard. Sometimes I'm glad I'm a physicist.


What do you call someone with a MSc in Biology?

Just starting. :supergrin:

Kilrain
11-27-2012, 14:26
No treatment is done based on mammogram results alone. If cancer is indicated a biopsy is done.

Stop it with your science! :supergrin:

You didn't know that a biopsy mutilates the breasts and ravages the body with toxins like Glocksanity said????

Me neither........:dunno:

certifiedfunds
11-27-2012, 14:37
the issue is would one rather have a falsee positive or a false negative?

It really depends on what is being tested for, what disease might exist and the consequences of both.

For example

There was a huge false positive rate in women's HPV testing. When that happened they were subjected to surgery in many cases, unnecessarily.

On the other hand something like 90% of actual hi risk genotype HPV infections self-resolved without becoming clinical.

But that 10%......

What you really want is a high positive predictive value

Detectorist
11-27-2012, 15:34
Heck, I'm glad to do my part to lower health care costs. I give free breast exams.

Leigh
11-27-2012, 15:50
TOS prevents me from calling you a moron, or I would.


My mother, a 70-year old breast cancer survivor isn't subject to Glock Talk's TOS rules....

On her behalf, the OP is a complete MORON.

Feel free to ban her (or me), moderators.

JMS
11-27-2012, 15:53
No treatment is done based on mammogram results alone. If cancer is indicated a biopsy is done.

You've just shot down the whole OP's "theory." His other threads are just as crazy :whistling:

2-8 Marine
11-27-2012, 15:53
Heck, I'm glad to do my part to lower health care costs. I give free breast exams.

As I always say; I'm not a Doctor, but I'll take a look. :supergrin:

2bgop
11-27-2012, 15:54
Yep. Those doctors keeping my dad alive are such *******s.

You really are insane.

My father as well, he was diagnosed with a very aggressive from of prostrate cancer. His greedy profit driven doctors have done an excellent job of keeping him with us.

true believer
11-27-2012, 17:29
The study from the New England Journal of Medicine concludes that "early detection" leads to a 93% false positive which means that millions of women have their breasts mutilated, their bodies ravaged by toxins, and that is done without them ever being in danger of getting a life threatening form of cancer.

This does not suggest that women should never get this treatment for breast cancer, but it is like going to the mechanic and having him tell you that you need a new transmission when you don't. That does not mean you might need a new transmission in the future, but that only about 7% of time you would.

The inability of people to think and question authority boggles my mind. No wonder this country is full of fat, sick, diabetic, heart diseased, looooooosers!

dood, you got problems!! imo...
my wife would be dead if she didnt have one...so your post sucks!!ymmv
:wavey:

JMS
11-27-2012, 18:53
Cancer is a for profit industry. Buyer beware.

Aluminum foil is a for profit industry. Buyer beware...of hoarders.

http://r9.fodey.com/2238/8020f0c152d4414582ba1bf7e4c9223f.0.jpg

ray9898
11-27-2012, 19:03
Is this for real? I find it hard to believe this level of ignorance exists in the wild.

jakebrake
11-27-2012, 19:10
so, you'd prefer that a woman just "takes her chances" and forgoes the test?

worked out well for my aunt Nori. she passed about a year ago.

dude, don't breed.

*ASH*
11-27-2012, 19:24
http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e332/KK_Koala/111712-OLYMPICS-obama-mckayla-maroney-not-impressed-LN-PI_20121117160420547_660_320.jpg

glockdoc21
11-27-2012, 19:54
This is part of medicine now. Every time we can fix something, we try to find a screening test for it. Unfortunately, we are finding that we are overscreening because 1. we think that it's what we're supposed to do 2. the patient wants it 3. we are afraid of lawyers. We've increased the number of pulmonary emboli detected with 64 slice CT scanners, but the mortality rate is staying the same. We are picking up PEs (blood clots in the lungs) that wouldn't have killed anyone. That buys them 6 months on blood thinners. If they fall and hit their head in that 6 months, bam they have a brain bleed that CAN kill them. The next 20-30 years will see us screening LESS and just telling the public "deal with it, some of you will unfortunately die from disease". The financial burden of this testing is getting to be too much.

F350
11-27-2012, 19:58
Yea this mammography stuff is a load of........ OH wait a minute; my wife is is alive today ONLY because of a routine mammogram.

Averageman
11-27-2012, 20:07
I was just wondering how all of this screening will fall to the wayside when we have Socialized Medicine. Afterall when you cannot affoard private insurance anymore and we are all footing the Obamacare bill, do you think the screenings will happen less and less?

jdavionic
11-27-2012, 20:12
Mammogram saved my Mom's life.

janice6
11-27-2012, 20:41
As I always say; I'm not a Doctor, but I'll take a look. :supergrin:


And people thought I was nuts for trying "Freelance
Gynecology".
_____________________________________________
Some years ago I was involved with an large computer company effort to do a high power preliminary analysis of mammograms, to increase the rate of evaluation, and decrease cost prior to Dr. referral. It was too difficult to process electronically, not a good business opportunity.

Need knowledgeable humans to evaluate and still difficult.

Difficult doesn't mean BAD. I still believe false positive is preferred to false negative.

ca survivor
11-28-2012, 06:35
Yep. Those doctors keeping me alive are such *******s. Hope you never have to go through CA treatment.

RenoF250
11-28-2012, 07:27
I am not on the cancer is a for profit industry but I think you that say "XXX is alive because of mammogram" are missing the point, they likely are not. This report is saying that the cancer that was detected and treated likely never would have gone to an advanced stage.

If I am not mistaken women now are told to get a mammogram every xx years. I think the point of this is don't bother with a mammogram unless you feel something to scan.

certifiedfunds
11-28-2012, 07:42
The Natural News article is straight up propaganda. Oncologists don't diagnose cancer, pathologists do. But there is something odd about the JAMA article. Breast cancer isn't diagnosed from mammography.

Caver 60
11-28-2012, 09:10
I'm not a doctor and certainly not an expert. But if a lump gets big enough to feel, it's already way to big. My wife has had breast cancer on both sides, and there is a strong history of it in her family.

First time, she had a doctors exam and a mammogram three months before I detected the lump during relations. My first thought was 'this couldn't be anything, she just had a checkup.' A biopsy confirmed a fast spreading cancer, and we dealt with it. Of course after that she got more frequent checkups.

Then 19 years later an ultrasound detected a cancer on the other side when it was very small. That was 5 years ago. We also dealt with that one. On her last checkup the blood work showed she was still cancer free, and actually the numbers were improving.

As one doctor told us, breast cancer is one of the most curable cancers there is, if it's caught early. Twenty four years ago, if we had ignored that first lump until her next annual checkup, I seriously doubt she would be alive today.