Death Panels Already Beginning

[Oleg Bach]

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?

Yes I forgot to mention. Those ugly pictures on cigarette packages seem to have one purpose, which is to break your reslove and spirt - to put the idea of cancer in the mind with hope that you will get it - I can't see any other real use for them. Like the picture of the tumor on the lung. Fixate on that image long enough and even a non-smoker will grow one - I wish that people would stop thinking bad thoughts and getting cancer. Faith is good health - I say to hell with the cancer industry. After a thousand billion bucks and 50 years of so-called research..not much real results - maybe it's time to stop looking for a cure - and simply live positive and faithful lives and let cancer take those that get it.

When I was a kid - only old people died of cancer as they were naturally terminated by nature - Now we have younger people growning senile and dieing of cancer - seems someone has learned how to inflict it but not to cure it. I have no faith in cancer or the industry...unless it's a mole you can burn or cut away......breast cancer is a farce - stop using them as sexual objects and bring them back to their real purpose which is feeding the young - and breasts should fair better.

[Sir Bandelot]

I wouldn't doubt that this has everything to do with money. Someone asked if this means the insurance companies aren't going to cover it anymore. The answer is, thats right, they probably won't cover it anymore. But you can get it extra, for a fee. Congratulations, you're now paying for a service other people used to get for free. Not only that, but probably paying more than they did, for less.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... The answer is, thats right, they probably won't cover it anymore. But you can get it extra, for a fee. Congratulations, you're now paying for a service other people used to get for free. Not only that, but probably paying more than they did, for less.

Free mammograms? I tried that in a mall one day and almost got arrested. Turns out that mammograms are not free at all, requiring the consistent payment of health insurance premiums in most cases.

[Gabriel]

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

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

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

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

All of your links are reporting on the new, and highly disputed, guidelines released from the American government task force (I forget its exact title, something along the lines of prevention task force). Major medical associations have already rejected these new guidelines - the American College of Physicians, the American Medical Association, and American Cancer Society (for starters). Canada's official guidelines also reject the new government guidelines. As do, I imagine, virtually all reputable international organizations.

Nice try masking the truth with bullshit, though.

[Nat]

The truth is radiation is a risk factor for breast cancer and mammograms produce radiation.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Nat

[Gabriel]

The truth is radiation is a risk factor for breast cancer and mammograms produce radiation.

The radiation produced from mammograms when used on the basis prescribed by a physician/specialist is inconsequential. Please stop spreading pointless facts that only serve to misinform.

[GostHacked]

The radiation produced from mammograms when used on the basis prescribed by a physician/specialist is inconsequential. Please stop spreading pointless facts that only serve to misinform.

Whooooaaaa, we got a live one here!!

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031014/does-mammogram-risk-outweigh-benefit

Two doctors talking about the pros and cons of early screening.

[BubberMiley]

Please stop spreading pointless facts that only serve to misinform.

How could a fact misinform?

[Gabriel]

Whooooaaaa, we got a live one here!!

Here is an interesting article.

http://www.webmd.com/breast-cancer/news/20031014/does-mammogram-risk-outweigh-benefit

Two doctors talking about the pros and cons of early screening.

Regardless of the article's points, the fact remains that mammography saves lives. All reputable organizations regarding this mater advocate screening for women starting at age 40 (except for governmental prevention task force). So, the large organizations that are the authorities on this matter advocate regular testing for women beginning at age 40. Case closed.

[Gabriel]

How could a fact misinform?

Is that a serious question? Do you know what context is? Do you know what relevance is? Apparently not....

[GostHacked]

Regardless of the article's points, the fact remains that mammography saves lives. All reputable organizations regarding this mater advocate screening for women starting at age 40 (except for governmental prevention task force). So, the large organizations that are the authorities on this matter advocate regular testing for women beginning at age 40. Case closed.

Oh, yes yes indeed CASE CLOSED !! You have spoken.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/mammograms

# What are the chances that a woman in the United States might develop breast cancer?

Age is the most important risk factor for breast cancer. The older a woman is, the greater her chance of developing breast cancer. Most breast cancers occur in women over the age of 50. The number of cases is especially high for women over age 60. Breast cancer is relatively uncommon in women under age 40. The NCI fact sheet Probability of Breast Cancer in American Women provides more information about lifetime risk. This fact sheet is available at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/probability-breast-cancer on the Internet.

This is from I hope would be a reputable site in your view.

# What are some of the limitations or harms of screening mammograms?

* Finding cancer does not always mean saving lives—Even though mammograms can detect tumors that cannot be felt, finding a small tumor does not always mean that a woman’s life will be saved. Screening mammograms may not help a woman with a fast-growing or aggressive cancer that has already spread to other parts of her body before being detected.

* False negatives—False negatives occur when mammograms appear normal even though breast cancer is present. Overall, screening mammograms miss up to 20 percent of the breast cancers that are present at the time of screening. False negatives occur more often in younger women than in older women because the dense breasts of younger women make breast cancers more difficult to detect in mammograms. As women age, their breasts usually become more fatty (therefore, less dense), and breast cancers become easier to detect with screening mammograms.

* False positives—False positives occur when radiologists decide mammograms are abnormal, but no cancer is actually present. All abnormal mammograms should be followed up with additional testing (a diagnostic mammogram, ultrasound, and/or biopsy) to determine if cancer is present. False positives are more common in younger women, women who have had previous breast biopsies, women with a family history of breast cancer, and women who are taking estrogen (for example, hormone replacement therapy).

* Radiation exposure—Mammograms (as well as dental x-rays and other routine x-rays) use very small doses of radiation. The risk of any harm is very slight, but repeated x-rays could cause problems. The benefits nearly always outweigh the risk. Women should talk with their health care provider about the need for each x-ray. They should also ask about shielding to protect parts of the body that are not in the picture. In addition, they should always let their health care provider and the technician know if there is any possibility that they are pregnant.

Luckily, we live in a free society, so it is recommended, but it's not forced. So if you want one, get one. If you don't want one, then no biggie.

Death Panels.

Edited November 20, 2009 by GostHacked

[Gabriel]

I'm not on the same page as Sarah Palin in claiming that death panels are part of Obama's health care plan. I'm not going to speculate why the government task force arrived at such conclusions contrary to well-established guidelines from major medical associations. All I am saying is that the new guidelines released by the government's preventative care task force have been rejected by all relevant organizations. Case closed.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel

[Michael Hardner]

Is that a serious question? Do you know what context is? Do you know what relevance is? Apparently not....

But your quote was "please stop spreading pointless facts" or "please stop spreading facts" for short. I suppose I know what you were getting at, but it sounds humorous by itself - do you see ?

[Michael Hardner]

Regardless of the article's points, the fact remains that mammography saves lives. All reputable organizations regarding this mater advocate screening for women starting at age 40 (except for governmental prevention task force). So, the large organizations that are the authorities on this matter advocate regular testing for women beginning at age 40. Case closed.

[Case open.]

Did you see the links by Ghost on the first page here ?

[Gabriel]

But your quote was "please stop spreading pointless facts" or "please stop spreading facts" for short. I suppose I know what you were getting at, but it sounds humorous by itself - do you see ?

It's only humorous if it's read out of context. The American Cancer Society, for example, acknowledges that false positives can occur during mammogram tasting. On the balance, though, there is greater value in regular testing for women after age 40 - contrary to the guidelines of the governmental preventative task force's new guidelines. To further ratify what I'm saying, the task force just today released "clarification" after its guidelines were rejected by all relevant organizations. So as much as dummies in here lie to play devil's advocate, the bottom line is that the task force was wrong in issuing its updated guidelines.

[Gabriel]

[Case open.]

Did you see the links by Ghost on the first page here ?

Did you read my reply to his post? All of his links referenced the task force's new guidelines as proof. And the task force's guidelines have been rejected by all relevant professional associations. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Disliking me isn't a reason to support incorrect positions.

[GostHacked]

Did you read my reply to his post? All of his links referenced the task force's new guidelines as proof. And the task force's guidelines have been rejected by all relevant professional associations. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Disliking me isn't a reason to support incorrect positions.

http://www.preventcancer.com/about/

This site is quoting articles from the 80s 90s 2000s. This one organization has existed since 1994. How can they reference this new task force's so called new findings, when these doctors have been saying just that long before this report?

But why would this not be big news. I will say the other 3 have gotten their information from this ne task force.

[Nat]

The radiation produced from mammograms when used on the basis prescribed by a physician/specialist is inconsequential. Please stop spreading pointless facts that only serve to misinform.

It's not inconsequiential if you have a false positive and they have to redo it twice, then the ultrasound then they wanted to do a biopsy. I told them I had enough of their science as I don't have and breast cancer in my family and none of the risk factors. So they decided I needed mammograms every 6 months, I told them to forget that too once every two years is more than enough. I guess this study says about the same thing.

[Gabriel]

http://www.preventcancer.com/about/

This site is quoting articles from the 80s 90s 2000s. This one organization has existed since 1994. How can they reference this new task force's so called new findings, when these doctors have been saying just that long before this report?

But why would this not be big news. I will say the other 3 have gotten their information from this ne task force.

Wow, dude... I never said NEW FINDINGS.... I said NEW GUIDELINES! Anyone who's been following this story (not you!) knows that the new guidelines aren't based on new research. They're based on a strange new evaluation of old research. The bottom line is that all other relevant organizations have rejected the new guidelines released from the governmental task force. To add insult to injury, the task force has released edited guidelines this evening after the wholesale rejection.

Do yourself a favour and stop talking about this story.

EDIT - This is like the 20th time you've misread a post of mine. You must have some sort of chronic disorder that impairs your reading comprehension.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel

[Gabriel]

It's not inconsequiential if you have a false positive and they have to redo it twice, then the ultrasound then they wanted to do a biopsy. I told them I had enough of their science as I don't have and breast cancer in my family and none of the risk factors. So they decided I needed mammograms every 6 months, I told them to forget that too once every two years is more than enough. I guess this study says about the same thing.

That's unfortunate, but the risks of false positives do not outweigh the benefits of regular examination. Another important fact that you are clearly unaware of is that over 90% of breast cancer patients have no history of breast cancer in their family. I am unsure of the other risk factors, but don't be so certain that a lack of other risk factors is a reason not to be examined. Anyways, it's your life. Do whatever you want. The guidelines from all relevant professional associations will remain the same - women should get annual mammograms after age 40.

EDIT - I just saw on CNN, 10 seconds ago, Sanjay Gupta saying that 75-90% of women who are diagnosed with breast cancer had no family history and NO RISK FACTORS. Just an interesting little piece of information.

Edited November 20, 2009 by Gabriel

[Michael Hardner]

Did you read my reply to his post? All of his links referenced the task force's new guidelines as proof. And the task force's guidelines have been rejected by all relevant professional associations. Stop arguing for the sake of arguing. Disliking me isn't a reason to support incorrect positions.

I don't know you, so how can I dislike you ? Fair enough, but the subject is contentious to say the least, so why impugn negative motives to one side, and call them death panels ?

[GostHacked]

That's unfortunate, but the risks of false positives do not outweigh the benefits of regular examination. Another important fact that you are clearly unaware of is that over 90% of breast cancer patients have no history of breast cancer in their family.

Can you provide some evidence?

[Nat]

All I know is my life was hell for 4 months after a false positive mammogram done in my 40's when the breast tissue is too dense to get a good picture. I wish I never had it done! Now if mammogram don't do much for people in there 40's and you insist they should have them done maybe you want everyone to have mammograms. Why not 30 year olds my niece in-law has breast cancer she's only 34 or maybe man need mammograms too as the drummer from KISS has breast cancer. If I use your logic if there is a chance of cancer than mammogram!

http://ap.thecabin.net/pstories/entertainment/20091118/521799699.shtml

Edited November 23, 2009 by Nat

[BubberMiley]

Here's an interesting article that shows just what an enormous liar Shady is.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/11/19/breast_panels

Too bad he's already scurried away.

[GostHacked]

Here's an interesting article that shows just what an enormous liar Shady is.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/11/19/breast_panels

Too bad he's already scurried away.

It's just another Shady-drive-by-posting. He won't be comming back to this thread anytime soon with anything meaningful. I'll put 5 whole Canuckian dollars on it.