Re: Nurse practitioner explains why she refusesto endorse routine mammography

[Guest guest]

I guess there are risks to everything we do, but medical tests we require if we're doing CR or not, to catch/prevent cancer, the one thing we know little about.

Who's to say those x-rays don't help retard it, for example?

I agree that overprescribing was and still is too common, but if we don't do these tests, we never get the data. And by using the equipment many times the price comes down.

The same approach is suggested for prostate cancer, although just a blood test.

But once you have that data go positive, you want to see it every 6 months.

The thing that they never cover is what is the cost of ONE extended cancer killing procedure/process compared to these mammograms?

BTW, 1 in 2000 is more prevalent than the 3 in 10,000 which was using HRT for CVD.

If we had a useful pancreatic cancer test, it might catch that and prevent a few deaths. There was a novel test using light in the stomach to picture the Pancreas - not available yet.

Regards

Re: [ ] Nurse practitioner explains why she refusesto endorse routine mammography

No risks? Mammograms are x=rays and they’re cumulative during one’s lifetime. In other words, the fewer, the better. There’s plenty of info out there that catching cancer early by mammogram does not translate to women living longer.YMMV but I happen to agree with the article. Like so many tests nowadays (and over prescribing medications IMH), I’m going to avoid them unless there’s a reason for me to go have one.On 10/19/10 11:23 PM, "Tamara Rajaram" <tamarar@...> wrote:

Hello Francesca:Per your request...I am not sure why you posted this for this group. However, though I too agree with the use of mammograms in this article, I do not agree with not doing self exams. Prevention is the key to anything much like the CRON diet. Since it is easy and no risks then why not. The problem is compliance so the monkey should be on doctor's back to check regularly esp with patients that refuse mammograms. Too bad we have a broken healthcare system.This article does not provide me with quality scientific info (though I already know all there is out there and its validity). It leaves me with this person's opinion and that did not seem of use to this educated and well informed group of people.Thanks for the info but maybe scientific references of both sides would have been better.Best,TamaraOn Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

Who says we “require” them? The data now shows we don’t.

As for prostate cancer tests, don’t get me started on those. The current tests for prostate cancer are so inaccurate as to be laughable.

Doctors push these things so they won’t get sued and because we’ve heard the party line so often: “early detection saves lives”. But the study I posted says differently! There does not seem to be a correlation.

Of course we must all choose for ourselves what we want to do with our bodies.

On 10/20/10 11:29 AM, " jwwright " <jwwright@...> wrote:

I guess there are risks to everything we do, but medical tests we require if we're doing CR or not, to catch/prevent cancer, the one thing we know little about.

Who's to say those x-rays don't help retard it, for example?

I agree that overprescribing was and still is too common, but if we don't do these tests, we never get the data. And by using the equipment many times the price comes down.

The same approach is suggested for prostate cancer, although just a blood test.

But once you have that data go positive, you want to see it every 6 months.

The thing that they never cover is what is the cost of ONE extended cancer killing procedure/process compared to these mammograms?

BTW, 1 in 2000 is more prevalent than the 3 in 10,000 which was using HRT for CVD.

If we had a useful pancreatic cancer test, it might catch that and prevent a few deaths. There was a novel test using light in the stomach to picture the Pancreas - not available yet.

Regards

Re: [ ] Nurse practitioner explains why she refusesto endorse routine mammography

No risks? Mammograms are x=rays and they’re cumulative during one’s lifetime. In other words, the fewer, the better. There’s plenty of info out there that catching cancer early by mammogram does not translate to women living longer.

YMMV but I happen to agree with the article. Like so many tests nowadays (and over prescribing medications IMH), I’m going to avoid them unless there’s a reason for me to go have one.

On 10/19/10 11:23 PM, " Tamara Rajaram " <tamarar@...> wrote:

Hello Francesca:

Per your request...

I am not sure why you posted this for this group. However, though I too agree with the use of mammograms in this article, I do not agree with not doing self exams. Prevention is the key to anything much like the CRON diet. Since it is easy and no risks then why not. The problem is compliance so the monkey should be on doctor's back to check regularly esp with patients that refuse mammograms. Too bad we have a broken healthcare system.

This article does not provide me with quality scientific info (though I already know all there is out there and its validity). It leaves me with this person's opinion and that did not seem of use to this educated and well informed group of people.

Thanks for the info but maybe scientific references of both sides would have been better.

Best,

Tamara

On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:43 AM, Francesca Skelton <fskelton@...> wrote: