Breast Exams revisited.

[coolhand]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574543721253688720.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

[CountryBoy]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574543721253688720.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion

No specialist on the panel..hmm, sad, but not even the least bit unexpected. I heard the same thing is going to happen with prostate exams. Well that's one way to save money.

"More spending on "prevention" has long been the cry of health reformers, and President Obama has been especially forceful. In his health speech to Congress in September, the President made a point of emphasizing "routine checkups and preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies—because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."

It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.

[Show-me]

But according to its review, because there are fewer cases of breast cancer in younger women, it takes 1,904 screenings of women in their 40s to save one life and only 1,339 screenings to do the same among women in their 50s. It therefore concludes that the tests for the first group aren't valuable, while also noting that screening younger women results in more false positives that lead to unnecessary (but only in retrospect) follow-up tests or biopsies.

Of course, this calculation doesn't consider that at least 40% of the patient years of life saved by screening are among women under 50. That's a lot of women, even by the terms of the panel's own statistical abstractions. To put it another way, 665 additional mammograms are more expensive in the aggregate. But at the individual level they are immeasurably valuable, especially if you happen to be the woman whose life is saved.


Tell it to the woman it saves. Now we are getting on the slippery slope. Granted this study was done a 1.5 years ago according to another article I read or seen and it is normal for this panel to review and make new recommendations. The timing is bad for health care reformers and may give the public a looking glass into what they may be in for under Obamacare. It is leaving a bad taste for many women and the media is really playing it up. I watch the Nightly News with Ann Curry interview HHS Sec. Sebelius and Ann was not kind to her.

[James48843]

...
It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.

I think I would call a foul on this claim- in fact, if you read the report, they don't even use cost as a criteria in the evaluation. Instead, they use a scientific approach as to what works, evaluting various studies on how much is gained by a test, vs. changing the existing protocol.

See the summary of their findings here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm#summary


You can read the whole document here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm

It's better to evaluate with your own brain what the work of the independent panel, which has nothing to do with the political administration one way or another, and see what they used for the scientific evidence, rather than simply depend on some opion piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by a guy who - in the opinion piece, wrote this:




More important for the future, every Democratic version of ObamaCare makes this task force an arbiter of the benefits that private insurers will be required to cover as they are converted into government contractors. What are now merely recommendations will become de facto rules, and under national health care these kinds of cost analyses will inevitably become more common as government decides where finite tax dollars are allowed to go.
A political slam by an opinion writer at the WSJ, rather than fact based scientific study reviewed by medical professionals.

Yes, I believe medical science and review of the current state of the art medicine SHOULD be part of the decisions going into what basic coverages should be in health care plans. It was this panel who recommended mamography in the first place. Without this panel's recmooendations in the past, based on the state of the art medical studies at the time, we never would have had mamorgraphy as a covered treatement in the first place. Insurance companies would have called it "experimental treatment", and refused to cover paying for it.

This panel, who released this report, made RECOMMENDATIONS- They are NOT the government, they only review medical science, and make recommendations. it's not a politicial body.



Here is who studied and made the recommendations:
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm#asterisk) are Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado); Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH, Vice-Chair (Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona); Thomas G. DeWitt, MD (Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Allen J. Dietrich, MD (Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire); Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California); David Grossman, MD (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington); George Isham, MD, MS (HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri); Rosanne M. Leipzig, MD, PhD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York); Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RN (School of Nursing, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia); Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN (Arizona State University College of Nursing & Health Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona); Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas); Judith K. Ockene, PhD (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts); George F. Sawaya, MD (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California); J. Sanford Schwartz, MD (University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH (University of Minnesota Department of Medicine and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota). *Members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm (http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm).


Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.


How about we look at medical facts, and scientific evidence, rather than one more slam against the President?

[grandma]

This article doesn't mention that included in the report was advice to discourage self-exams...they stated self-exams were ineffective, and they were to be discouraged. It is hard for me to understand `they' can make such statements, obviously believing them, without a review of various cancer patients, asking those women and men, how they came to the situation of asking for a mammogram... which, obviously, is why the government doesn't want any self-exams done, cuz then mammograms won't be demanded. Don't you know some insurance companies are going to pick up on this!! I am curious as to whether the women in these peoples' lives are as duped as the men who put this obnoxious report together.

[James48843]

This article doesn't mention that included in the report was advice to discourage self-exams...they stated self-exams were ineffective, and they were to be discouraged. It is hard for me to understand `they' can make such statements, obviously believing them, without a review of various cancer patients, asking those women and men, how they came to the situation of asking for a mammogram... which, obviously, is why the government doesn't want any self-exams done, cuz then mammograms won't be demanded. Don't you know some insurance companies are going to pick up on this!! I am curious as to whether the women in these peoples' lives are as duped as the men who put this obnoxious report together.

They said that self-exam had a very low detection rate compared to clinic exam (in a doctor's office), and that the only two studies that had been done on self-exam showed statistically that it was inferior to the other options, and caused more harm than good.

Again, they just evaluate the studies that have been done and compare them with the scientific results and outcomes.

I guess we need to do a lot more studies on breast self-exams. I will go home tonight and study with my wife. It may take repeated homework on that one.....

[Show-me]

I have to agree with James. The panel looked at statistics only not at the money. Some outside the panel may use this to save money but these guys are looking at just the medical side.

They are trying to determine if the amount of false positives and unnecessary procedures out weight the number of people saved.

As Grandma mentions I can not fathom why they would recommend against self examinations. To me that is a first line of defense.

I also understand about the physiological effect. They are saying around 10% false positives cause unnecessary medical procedures and stress. Compared to the 1 in 1900 that actually have cancer.

10% of 1900 is 190 women that are told they may have cancer and end up not. That may be causing more harm that good. Those 190 women are going through hell thinking they have cancer. The physiological effects can make you sick thinking you are sick. Been there done that.

To me it goes back to taking charge of your health. If your family has a history, grab your physician and have a serious talk. Risk factors are the key.

[James48843]

You know- this probably should have it's own thread- as I bet we'll hear lots of voices about this study, and this thread was meant more for the Congressional health care debate, than the merits of just one panel's study.

Would someone like to start a breast cancer panel recommendation thread?

[Show-me]

I got time I will move it.

[Intrepid_Timer]

I know a lot of people, to include Dr.s, who believe that mammograms only make the problem worse by pushing the cancerous tumor cells into the blood stream. They believe that thermal mammographies are the way to go. However, they are more expensive and most insurance companies don't cover them. Think the govt. run health care system will? :rolleyes:

[Steadygain]

included in the report was advice to discourage self-exams...they stated self-exams were ineffective

hard for me to understand `they' can make such statements

obviously believing patients will ask for a mammogram...

insurance companies are going to pick up on this!!

Was totally 'shocked' by this Thread !!

Grandma, these are my sentiments exactly.

Would like to include that 'we' have screenings now that go way beyond the Mammogram --- -for breat cancer -- Lab on a Chip and that will likely be the most dominate wave of the future because the screening is so accurate and can catch things way before a mammogram.

So 'Medically' -- 'Technology' we are making incredible advancements.

Heath Care System -- however -- is a different story

[Frixxxx]

Under a government public option, how many different panels would have to approve/disapprove measures for this type of preventative/diagnostic care?

I'm not up on this specific debate, but would like to know more!

My wife is a few years older than me and she is still on the ceiling about this one!:confused:

[Valkyrie]

I know a lot of people, to include Dr.s, who believe that mammograms only make the problem worse by pushing the cancerous tumor cells into the blood stream. They believe that thermal mammographies are the way to go. However, they are more expensive and most insurance companies don't cover them. Think the govt. run health care system will? :rolleyes:

Isn't it interesting II, that nobody responds to your truthful comments.
The billion dollar cancer industry likes pushing radiation into sensitve breast tissue that can now easily become cancerous from the radiation. Lets not talk about how vitamin D and having a proper ratio of omega 6:3 ratio will prevent and reverse cancer. people rather be scared to death by the chemo doctors which will kill most in 3-6 months faster than the cancer would kill the person if diet is not changed.
Lets not talk about the latest research for the last 10yrs has been that all sickness, disease and cancer is caused by an underlining inflamation of the body tissues. Not enough omega 3 fats is one cause on inflamation.
www.drday.com (http://www.drday.com)
www.naturalnews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com)
www.dadamo.com (http://www.dadamo.com) wrong foods per blood type cause inflamation.

[Frixxxx]

Isn't it interesting II, that nobody responds to your truthful comments.
The billion dollar cancer industry likes pushing radiation into sensitve breast tissue that can now easily become cancerous from the radiation. Lets not talk about how vitamin D and having a proper ratio of omega 6:3 ratio will prevent and reverse cancer. people rather be scared to death by the chemo doctors which will kill most in 3-6 months faster than the cancer would kill the person if diet is not changed.
Lets not talk about the latest research for the last 10yrs has been that all sickness, disease and cancer is caused by an underlining inflamation of the body tissues. Not enough omega 3 fats is one cause on inflamation.
www.drday.com (http://www.drday.com)
www.naturalnews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com)
www.dadamo.com (http://www.dadamo.com) wrong foods per blood type cause inflamation.
Thanks for the sites, wow...where you been Valkyrie?

[Steadygain]

My wife is a few years older than me and she is still on the ceiling about this one!:confused:

Please let her know that's not good for the RSD and you'll probably need to lightly and lovingly carry her down. ;)

Also make sure you tell her that many of the Posts and Threads are sometimes displayed for their 'shock value' -- and that's what sparks some lively discussions.

Let her know the bright side about 'stress' and times like this are what makes those cruises so much more enjoyable and that you've got some plans in the making....

that will get her smiling and things should improve....:p:toung:

[Steadygain]

Lets not talk about the latest research for the last 10yrs has been that all sickness, disease and cancer is caused by an underlining inflamation of the body tissues. Not enough omega 3 fats is one cause on inflamation.
www.drday.com (http://www.drday.com)
www.naturalnews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com)
www.dadamo.com (http://www.dadamo.com) wrong foods per blood type cause inflamation.

This is Excellent !! Valkyrie :)

Many are finally comming to the light -- and by that hopefully the trend towards healty lifestyles and 'nature' will increasingly eliminate both the need for Pharmaceuticals and Doctor visits.

We're also seeing this in the Salmon --- with 40 dams a year being destroyed and letting 'nature' be as it should. Going from 3,000 to 390,000 and all 5 species comming back strong.

[Frixxxx]

Let her know the bright side about 'stress' and times like this are what makes those cruises so much more enjoyable and that you've got some plans in the making....

that will get her smiling and things should improve..

FYI

Sunday - zero:nuts:
Monday - two
Tuesday - zero:nuts:
Wednesday - one
Today - zero:nuts:

Walkin on sunshine whoaaa

[Intrepid_Timer]

Isn't it interesting II, that nobody responds to your truthful comments.
The billion dollar cancer industry likes pushing radiation into sensitve breast tissue that can now easily become cancerous from the radiation. Lets not talk about how vitamin D and having a proper ratio of omega 6:3 ratio will prevent and reverse cancer. people rather be scared to death by the chemo doctors which will kill most in 3-6 months faster than the cancer would kill the person if diet is not changed.
Lets not talk about the latest research for the last 10yrs has been that all sickness, disease and cancer is caused by an underlining inflamation of the body tissues. Not enough omega 3 fats is one cause on inflamation.
www.drday.com (http://www.drday.com)
www.naturalnews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com)
www.dadamo.com (http://www.dadamo.com) wrong foods per blood type cause inflamation.

Thanks for the links! I had forgotten about the www.dadamo.com one. The girl I just started dating is type O and just like the site states, she has thyroid and stomach issues. We'll be changing her diet right away. Amazing how accurate it is................

[mick504]

Thanks for the blood type web site. I don't know if I believe all that or not. My sister an RN, told me about this theory years ago. I'm big into vitamins and herbs, which I believe help alot. The treatment of cancer has been quite a disaster for years; however is getting better. I think it really depends on the type of cancer you get. I've known several personally who have gottten it and died rather soon. I would have to think wether I would go thru the treatments or not.

[James48843]

Earlier I said this:


They said that self-exam had a very low detection rate compared to clinic exam (in a doctor's office), and that the only two studies that had been done on self-exam showed statistically that it was inferior to the other options, and caused more harm than good.I just went back and read that breast exam data more carefully.

It basically boils down to this- it is clear from the two studies that they reviewed (the only two available to them, neither of which was done in the United States, but rather in other countries) that there WAS a statistically significant difference between detection rates when done by a medical professional, and a person doing a self-exam. The data showed that self-exam actually had a very, very poor detection rate, when compared to a doctor doing it in the office, OR compared to a mamogram.

So, I got an idea.

What we REALLY need to do, is raise the proficiency level of breast examinations. Instead of just pushing self-examinations, perhaps we need to train and deploy a cadre of specially trained para-professionals experienced in checking every nook and cranny, looking for anything out of the ordinary.

A sort of "Peace-Corps" set of volunteer trained breast inspectors.

Heck- I think maybe we can even do our own study. I'll get the training set up, and then advertise my services as a para-professional breast inspector, and volunteer to test each and every potential person myself. Kind of like a "First Responder" that is highly trained.

What do you think? Can we gather enough volunteers for to create a force of para-professional breast inspectors to try this out?:nuts: Maybe we need some badges, and a black bag, to project just the right image....

[Buster]

oooo, under any other circumstances your last sentence or two would be funny as hell..but James, I think this was not in very good taste at all...this IS a rather touchy subject you know...;)

[nnuut]

I've known women in their 20s and 30s that found a lump with self examiantion and it saved their life. Have you ever known someone that died with breast cancer, it is one horrible way to go. For Christs Sake find it early.:cool:

[James48843]

Oh lordy, here we go again. I can see it now.

A few days ago the group issued new recommendations of breast cancer screening, and everyone went nuts.

This morning- they issued new recommendations on cervical cancer screening- PAP smears- and recommended fewer of them, based on the scientific data.

I can see the arrows flying already.....
----------------------------------------------------------
New cervical cancer screening guidelines released

By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/

[burrocrat]

so no more checkin out

7300

and no more cervical exams

?anyone got a pic for this one?

next will be the prostrate thing

?don't want to see that one?

some of my best recollections come from playing doctor, now it's good luck finding one who will accept your plan.

where are we headed?

c'mon buster i know you got the file storage capacity for this one.

happy thanksgiving.

[Viva_La_Migra]

Oh lordy, here we go again. I can see it now.

A few days ago the group issued new recommendations of breast cancer screening, and everyone went nuts.

This morning- they issued new recommendations on cervical cancer screening- PAP smears- and recommended fewer of them, based on the scientific data.

I can see the arrows flying already.....
----------------------------------------------------------
New cervical cancer screening guidelines released

By Saundra Young, CNN Medical Producer

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The new mammogram recommendations out earlier this week caused quite an uproar. Now comes another change in screening tests for women -- this one for cervical cancer.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) releases new guidelines Friday, saying women don't need their first cervical cancer screening -- or Pap test -- until they're 21 years old. And, they don't need followup examinations as often as previously recommended.

According to the guidelines, women younger than 30 should be screened every two years, instead of annually. Women 30 or older can be examined once every three years.

"The tradition of doing a Pap test every year has not been supported by recent scientific evidence," said Dr. Alan G. Waxman, who developed the document for ACOG's Committee on Practice Bulletins-Gynecology. "A review of the evidence to date shows that screening at less frequent intervals prevents cervical cancer just as well, has decreased costs, and avoids unnecessary interventions that could be harmful."

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/11/20/cervical.cancer.guidelines/
I think it's a vast right wing conspiracy designed to eliminate soccer moms from the voting pool! After all, the Republican health plan is for people to "die quickly" right?

Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.

[Buster]

Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.

Or medical marijuana;)

[Viva_La_Migra]

Or medical marijuana;)
Maybe when I retire. Don't want to lose my job over a little weed!:cool:

[James48843]

From today's New York Times-
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/22/weekinreview/22kolata.html

Get a Mammogram- No, Don't. Repeat
November 21, 2009
By GINA KOLATA (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/gina_kolata/index.html?inline=nyt-per)

The current dispute over mammograms (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/test/mammography/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) gives many people who’ve been around since the 1980s a sense of déjà vu. Like archeologists arguing endlessly over the same set of bones, cancer (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) specialists, it can seem, have been arguing endlessly over pretty much the same set of data.

The problem is that the screening test is not very helpful in preventing breast cancer (http://health.nytimes.com/health/guides/disease/breast-cancer/overview.html?inline=nyt-classifier) deaths. Current estimates are that it reduces the death rate by 15 percent. If it were completely effective it would reduce the death rate by 100 percent. And screening has some downsides. It leads to false positives and unnecessary biopsies.

But more important, and only recently recognized, it leads to overdiagnosis — the test is finding cancers that grow so slowly that if they were left alone they would never be noticed or cause any problem in a woman’s lifetime. Since the harmless cancers look the same as deadly cancers, they are treated as if they are potentially lethal, with surgery, chemotherapy (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/chemotherapy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) and radiation.

So the arguments continue to rage over risks and benefits, and over how strongly to recommend mammograms, and for whom, just as they have for decades:

1963 Health Insurance Plan of New York, or HIP, begins first mammography trial.
1971 HIP reports that mammography reduces breast cancer deaths by 30 percent.
1977-83 Four randomized trials are begun in Europe; eventually, they find that mammography cuts the breast cancer death rate by up to 30 percent. But two in Canada find no benefit for women in their 40s, and find a breast examination equally effective for women over 50.
1979 A National Institutes of Health (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_institutes_of_health/index.html?inline=nyt-org) conference recommends annual screening for women 50 and older. It supports screening for women in their 40s only if they have had cancer or a family history of it.
1980s After sharp debate, the National Cancer Institute (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/national_cancer_institute/index.html?inline=nyt-org) recommends routine screening for women in their 40s.
1989 Eleven health care organizations recommend an initial baseline mammogram for women age 35 to 39, and mammograms every one to two years for women over 40.
1992 The American Cancer Society (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/a/american_cancer_society/index.html?inline=nyt-org) drops its recommendation for baseline mammography for women 35 to 39.
1993 Citing growing evidence from randomized trials, the National Cancer Institute drops its recommendation for screening in the 40s.
1997 A National Institutes of Health conference concludes that there is not enough evidence to recommend routine screening for women in their 40s. But the Senate votes to encourage an institute advisory board to reject that conclusion, and the institute recommends beginning mammography in the 40s and continuing every one to two years.
1997 The American Cancer Society recommends annual mammography for all women over 40, and clinical breast exams close to or, preferably, just before the annual mammogram.
2001 A Danish study questions the findings of earlier trials and suggests that mammography’s value may have been overstated.
2002 After reviewing the research, an independent panel at the National Cancer Institute decides it can no longer make a recommendation on whether women should be screened. The institute concludes that the new analysis did not refute evidence that mammography is effective, and stands by its earlier recommendation: women 40 and older should have routine screening.
2007 Guidelines issued by the American College of Physicians acknowledge that regular mammograms for women in their 40s can reduce the risk of dying from breast cancer by a modest amount. But a very high percentage will get false positive results that lead to unnecessary biopsies, increased costs and risks of injury. The college recommends that women in their 40s and their doctors periodically evaluate their risk to guide screening decisions.
2008 A Norwegian study in the Archives of Internal Medicine suggests that some invasive breast cancers may go away without treatment, raising the possibility that some cancers detected by mammograms may “spontaneously regress.
November 2009 New guidelines published in The Annals of Internal Medicine recommend that most women start regular breast cancer screening at age 50, not 40, and that women age 50 to 74 should have mammograms less frequently — every two years, rather than every year. Doctors should also stop teaching women to examine their breasts on a regular basis, according to the guidelines issued by an independent panel of experts in prevention and primary care appointed by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/h/health_and_human_services_department/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

[Buster]

Maybe when I retire. Don't want to lose my job over a little weed!:cool:
Not to possess silly:rolleyes:



Originally Posted by Viva La Migra http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.tsptalk.com/mb/showthread.php?p=240961#post240961)
Might be time to invest in Oxycontin stock.


Is investing in Legal Medical Marijuana stock illegal?:confused:

[James48843]

Mammograms May Boost Cancer Risk
in High-Risk Women

By Kathleen Doheny
HealthDay Reporter
Tue Dec 1, 5:03 pm ET

TUESDAY, Dec. 1 (HealthDay News) -- Mammograms may actually boost the risk of breast cancer in some high-risk women, a new study suggests.

Dutch researchers analyzed six previously published studies, four examining the effect of low-dose radiation exposure from mammography among women with the genetic mutation boosting breast cancer risk and two looking at the effect of radiation from screening in women with a family history of breast cancer.

"Women who were exposed before the age of 20 had a 2.5 times increased risk of breast cancer," said Martine Jansen-van der Weide, an epidemiologist and researcher at the University Medical Center Groningen, in the Netherlands. So did women with five or more exposures.

She was to present the findings Monday at the Radiological Society of North America's annual meeting in Chicago

More: http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20091201/hl_hsn/mammogramsmayboostcancerriskinhighriskwomen

[James48843]

Not to possess silly:rolleyes:

Is investing in Legal Medical Marijuana stock illegal?:confused:

Stock symbols= for Medical Marijuana stocks--

How about these:

OTC: MJNA (Medical Marijuana, Inc)

OTC: HESG (Health Sciences Group, Inc.)

Press release this week: "Health Sciences Group, Inc. (Pink Sheets:HESG) would like to announce that its lawyer Mr. Robert Young is aggressively seeking realtors in the Los Angeles area to open up Health Sciences offices. The company intends on pursuing with new consultant agreement under Marijuana Inc. a joint venture to market management services."

OTC: CBIS ( Cannibas Sciences, Inc.)



Any others out there?

[James48843]

Overuse of CT scans will lead to new cancer deaths, study shows

Each year that today's scanners are used, 14,500 deaths could result, researchers say. When healthy people are exposed to the radiation, the imaging may create more problems than it solves.

Widespread overuse of CT scans and variations in radiation doses caused by different machines -- operated by technicians following an array of procedures -- are subjecting patients to high radiation doses that will ultimately lead to tens of thousands of new cancer cases and deaths, researchers reported today.

Several recent studies have suggested that patients have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts, but two new studies published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine are the first to quantify the extent of exposure and the related risks.


More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-ct-scans15-2009dec15,0,3370000.story

[Viva_La_Migra]

Overuse of CT scans will lead to new cancer deaths, study shows

Each year that today's scanners are used, 14,500 deaths could result, researchers say. When healthy people are exposed to the radiation, the imaging may create more problems than it solves.

Widespread overuse of CT scans and variations in radiation doses caused by different machines -- operated by technicians following an array of procedures -- are subjecting patients to high radiation doses that will ultimately lead to tens of thousands of new cancer cases and deaths, researchers reported today.

Several recent studies have suggested that patients have been unnecessarily exposed to radiation from CTs or have received excessive amounts, but two new studies published Tuesday in the Archives of Internal Medicine are the first to quantify the extent of exposure and the related risks.


More: http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-sci-ct-scans15-2009dec15,0,3370000.story
Guess what else won't be covered by government controlled healthcare? First mamograms, now CT Scans. All they need now is the study showing MRI's are unnecessary in 75% of the cases and the trifecta will be complete.