Re: Nurse practitioner explains why sherefusesto endorse routine mammography

[Guest guest]

Good point.

A blood test indicated I had kidney failure by some obscure math thing (eGFR).

Turned out after several more tests (and Drs), they were 109%.

Next blood test they RAISED the LIMITS on creatinine.

Regards

Re: [ ] Nurse practitioner explains why sherefusesto endorse routine mammography

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