Death Panels Already Beginning

[Shady]

Mammogram recommendations change drastically: This scares me

A government task force reversed long-standing recommendations on when women should start having mammograms and how often they should have them. According to the new standards, women should start having mammograms at age 50 rather than at 40.

Link

So there you have it women. Don't bother getting ANY mammograms during YOUR 40'S! Wait untill YOU'RE 50! The Obama led task force (Death Panel) says so.

What will be next?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Shady

[Michael Hardner]

Mammogram recommendations change drastically: This scares me

A government task force reversed long-standing recommendations on when women should start having mammograms and how often they should have them. According to the new standards, women should start having mammograms at age 50 rather than at 40.

Link

So there you have it women. Don't bother getting ANY mammograms during YOUR 40'S! Wait untill YOU'RE 50! The Obama led task force (Death Panel) says so.

What will be next?

Shady, this is really a terrible post. Do you really think Obama wants to kill Americans ? This appears to be becoming the next chapter in the paranoid style of American politics a la Richard Hofstadter. The far left troothars have 9/11 conspiracies and now the far right has this.

I resent these topics being on MLW, yet I don't like these threads not having a proper response, so I'm compelled to reply.

[Shady]

Shady, this is really a terrible post.

Not at all. Don't you think women should get mammograms during their 40's? It's a simple question.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually, I think it's telling that you would be asking me - a person with no idea whatsoever - what my opinion is on the topic. Look into it - I'm sure that there are people who know more than me about this topic that were asked their opinion.

[Shady]

Actually, I think it's telling that you would be asking me - a person with no idea whatsoever - what my opinion is on the topic. Look into it - I'm sure that there are people who know more than me about this topic that were asked their opinion.

Well, statistics show that 1 in every 68 women in their 40's are diagnosed with breast cancer. What's your opinion now?

[Michael Hardner]

Shady,

[replying to post immediately above this one]

Give me a chance to read some background. It's ridiculous for you to expect me to give you an opinion on this based on you giving me a stat like this. Even if it turns out to be a bad decision, it had to be made by weighing risks and doing some due diligence.

It reminds me of troothars who love to post how it's OBVIOUS that World Trade Centre 7 was brought down by explosives. There are professionals who do this type of things, and although things do go wrong you need to provide a degree of trust. If you are suspicious that the shadowy clan of professionals are not doing things properly, these boards are the ideal place to objectively look into it and come up with a reasonable assessment.

A bad place to get a reasonable assessment is the mainstream media, and worse is the extremist blogs that are everywhere on the net. I'll look at this later.

Edited November 19, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[Sir Bandelot]

These are the days of the counter-truthers.

[GostHacked]

Shady. If you want to increase the risk of breast cancer, then by all means get a mammogram. And by all means get them regularly, some new studies are showing that mammograms actually increase the risk of breast cancer. So in a way Shady, you yourself support these death panels by getting them to get screened more often.

http://www.preventcancer.com/patients/mammography/ijhs_mammography.htm

Radiation Risks

Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1- 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2). Thus, premenopausal women undergoing annual screening over a ten-year period are exposed to a total of about 10 rads for each breast. As emphasized some three decades ago, the premenopausal breast is highly sensitive to radiation, each rad of exposure increasing breast cancer risk by 1 percent, resulting in a cumulative 10 percent increased risk over ten years of premenopausal screening, usually from ages 40 to 50 (4); risks are even greater for "baseline" screening at younger ages, for which there is no evidence of any future relevance. Furthermore, breast cancer risks from mammography are up to fourfold higher for the 1 to 2 percent of women who are silent carriers of the A-T (ataxia-telangiectasia) gene and thus highly sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation (5); by some estimates this accounts for up to 20 percent of all breast cancers annually in the United States (6).

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091116/ap_on_he_me/us_med_mammogram_advice

But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/20091117/Startling-new-mammogram-guidelines-incite-debate-about-risk-cost.aspx

The new guidelines, published online in The Annals of Internal Medicine, are aimed at preventing possible harm from overtreatment. "While many women do not think a screening test can be harmful, medical experts say the risks are real. A test can trigger unnecessary further tests, like biopsies, that can create extreme anxiety. And mammograms can find cancers that grow so slowly that they never would be noticed in a woman's lifetime, resulting in unnecessary treatment" (Kolata, 11/16).

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2007/04/02/mammograms.html

Disadvantages included the risk of false positive results, which can lead to unnecessary biopsies, anxiety and cost, as well as exposure to radiation.

[Oleg Bach]

Woman hate? Need I say more? It's everywhere. Old style femanism has given way to dehumanization and persecution of natural woman. IF you are some sort of sexless creep then you get the best treatment available. IF you are a nasty sob that harrasses your fellow citizens and assists the state then they perseve your life at all cost to ensure continued henchmanship. As for death panels..we have them in Canada and have had them for a while - we also have death houses (lower end non-profit housing) where the unsavory useless eaters are slowly and incrimentally genocided..drug addicted and protein starve..so what else is new? Welcome to the brave new world run by lieing cowards.

[Sir Bandelot]

Radiation Risks

Radiation from routine mammography poses significant cumulative risks of initiating and promoting breast cancer (1- 3). Contrary to conventional assurances that radiation exposure from mammography is trivial- and similar to that from a chest X-ray or spending one week in Denver, about 1/ 1,000 of a rad (radiation-absorbed dose)- the routine practice of taking four films for each breast results in some 1,000-fold greater exposure, 1 rad, focused on each breast rather than the entire chest (2).

One rad per breast is a significant dose of radiation. If a woman gets both breasts irradiated, and gets 2 rads, that is 4 times the annual limit for nuclear radiation workers, like those who work at a reactor facility.

In some cases the dose might even give cancer to a certain percentage of the women who get the mammograms. If that percentage/risk starts to approach the percentage of cases where cancer is detected and cured, it becomes questionable as to whether the risks outweigh the benefits. But its the job of the experts to determine where that dividing line is, and that decision should be done by understanding medical science, not determined by partisanship or in the interests of saving money.

[Oleg Bach]

No there is no excuse for this travesty and attack against woman and human beings in general. Just remember that the group that presented the results of their study used a COMPUTER MODEL...This sounds like 1984. Where a computer is going to decide who lives or dies. The woman who was part of this recomondary study group was a very odd person - She looked over medicated and remorseless - NOT a very nice picture here - people who are re-engineered by big pharma running a study and giving cold and calculated advice on how to save a few buck by killing off a few females - SCAREY.

[Michael Hardner]

Shady - It looks like posters have put the relevant information here.

[Pliny]

Shady,

The worst enemies of progressivism are Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Why because they reveal it for what it is.

I am inclined to agree with Michael Hardner on this thread.

Obama by releasing this task force study may, perhaps inadvertently, be doing women under 50 a service which negates the entire premise of the thread. We could, in my opinion, do with a lot less medical intervention in our lives. I do not wish to kill people by expressing this opinion but each person must in matters of health make their own decisions based on the information they find or are given and what they accept. I would exercise caution in thinking that "authority" or the medical establishment knows it all. They don't, and the system tends to keep them myopic by fostering a state of uncertainty and fear that can only be assuaged by the collective force of the herd mentality. Do everything by the book and you are safe. Right and wrong play a little, if any, role.

My opinion in politics is that socialist concepts fail in the long run and create more pain in the process than they are worth. Proponents of socialism range from those who simply and superfluously see it as helpful in general to those who wish to run other people's lives in entirety at any cost. These are the Nancy Pelosi's and Barack Obama's of the world. There may or may not be some evil intent in their views but the cloak of good is the best place for evil to hide under. Vigilance, caution and keeping oneself educated and informed is of importance in being able to detect true intent.

I may be the worst person in the world but I leave that for others to decide. Unfortunately, most decide I am. It seems I don't advocate the government look after them because government doesn't really care except for it's own sanctimonious aggrandizement. People in government have little responsibility except to regulation and rules and they act that way because there is no option to reason - there is only the law.

[Oleg Bach]

You would assume that in a civilized western nation that all people would be entitled to life liberty and good health? It's all about the money and not about the people. Even the big pharma companies state side are jacking up their prices just in case there is some sort of socialized medical plan for all - That way they can gouge even bigger profits by going directly and unimpeded into the public purse. It looks as if big pharma is taking pre-emptive action in regards to profiting no matter what.

Where are the femanists that used to scream so loudly in the protection of their sisters? Have the feminist of the 70s grown comfortable and become what they hated most - fat old rich white males?

[bush_cheney2004]

You would assume that in a civilized western nation that all people would be entitled to life liberty and good health? It's all about the money and not about the people....

Why would anyone assume that? Nothing in the US Constitution about breast cancer that I can see. Nope....if you want the best advice on breasts, contact Hugh Hefner !

People want to be entitled to lots of things, but don't want to pay for them.

[Oleg Bach]

Why would anyone assume that? Nothing in the US Constitution about breast cancer that I can see. Nope....if you want the best advice on breasts, contact Hugh Hefner !

People want to be entitled to lots of things, but don't want to pay for them.

If a person or part of a nation are in need there is no need for the needy to be granted title in order to survive. If you want a bit to eat...I don't say to you, You are not entitled to eat..I give you what I have. You mention Hefner...that man represents those millions of white males that are boob fixated because they were not breast fed..me - I don't need a mamma - I was breast fed to the point where I could drag a chair across the room and make demands of my mother....I like boobs but they are not primary - More of a legs butt..face and vagina man...pert breasts are fine - artifical boobs - are for stupid woman and even more stupid men...So how are you? Still American? Ran into a sound guy that is from Alabama..had to explain to him that Canada had a racist establishement - THAT WERE NOT BREAST FED.

[bush_cheney2004]

...So how are you? Still American? Ran into a sound guy that is from Alabama..had to explain to him that Canada had a racist establishement - THAT WERE NOT BREAST FED.

Hi Oleg.....hope all is well. I agree that the world would be a better place if we all took time to breast feed.

But hell man, if these women are getting more than the recommended quarterly / annual occupational exposure to ionization radiation for mammograms, it is time for some cost-benefit analysis. It's bad enough getting your knockers painfully squeezed like a Play-Doh toy. I think I will ask my wife if I can photograph them for insurance purposes!

[Oleg Bach]

Hi Oleg.....hope all is well. I agree that the world would be a better place if we all took time to breast feed.

But hell man, if these women are getting more than the recommended quarterly / annual occupational exposure to ionization radiation for mammograms, it is time for some cost-benefit analysis. It's bad enough getting your knockers painfully squeezed like a Play-Doh toy. I think I will ask my wife if I can photograph them for insurance purposes!

The kid from Alabama is here to stay...great guy..more honest than those weasil jazz players that give the public warm gruel with little substance...Those creeps in their French barrets playing their shlock and blocking good spirited players from paying gigs...now that I got that off my chest - I will partner up with my black brother who is honest.

Now back to the breast issue. Breast feeding and having children at a fairly early age guards against cancers. Small wonder that the boobs want to fall off because of little real use ( feeding infants ) Radiation is not very good - but surely they could devise an MRI device for breasts? Play-Doh? Well if she's not flat before the exam - she will be latter...With the loss of elasticity after the age of forty - the pan caking of boobs might have a residual effect... I disagree with you about cost...We have developed a society that is not healthy as far as reproductive parts and feeding parts such as the breast. Prostrate cancer...well..use it or lose it.

[Oleg Bach]

Why would anyone assume that? Nothing in the US Constitution about breast cancer that I can see. Nope....if you want the best advice on breasts, contact Hugh Hefner !

People want to be entitled to lots of things, but don't want to pay for them.

Everybody pays no matter what one way or the other..The poor and nasty person that comes over for dinner - and does the dishes pays by doing the dishes. Someone pulled my boob post...what's with the censor ship - BC would have gotten a laugh out of it - do we want to have an unhappy Amerian in our midst - and ugly one? Or do we want joy?

[Oleg Bach]

Why would anyone assume that? Nothing in the US Constitution about breast cancer that I can see. Nope....if you want the best advice on breasts, contact Hugh Hefner !

People want to be entitled to lots of things, but don't want to pay for them.

George Washington had man boobs from what I heard..and wooden teeth- was there no dental plan of plastic surgery back then?

[punked]

WOLF THERE IS A WOLF

[Oleg Bach]

We could be two wolves with our friend the sheep that we except into our pack because we are politcally correct and don't want to discriminate against that little lamb..We could establish a democratic government of three..two wolves and a sheep - and we could vote on what to have for dinner - THEN when the sheep starts to run around spewing off crazy stuff like there is a conspiracy - we could spread it about that the sheep is a conspiracy nut - in need of medication...lol By the way - the sky is actually falling.

[GostHacked]

So where did Shay run off to?

[Nat]

As a woman who as had the runaround of a false positive mammogram I totally understand this decision!

But this Margaret Wente article hits the nail on the head too "Does cancer screening do harm?":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/does-cancer-screening-do-harm/article1368759/

[Oleg Bach]

As a woman who as had the runaround of a false positive mammogram I totally understand this decision!

But this Margaret Wente article hits the nail on the head too "Does cancer screening do harm?":

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/does-cancer-screening-do-harm/article1368759/

Just about every person will develope a cancer within the body at some time or another. If the cancer is not found sometimes you go into remission on your own..and never know you had it. Sometimes when cancer is found the treatment and the worry weaken the resolve and body plus spirit and you die when you should not have died. Don't want to sound corney but spirit is healer..as is the positive mind. Cancer is an industry. Maybe the powers that be are just downsizing?