EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Give Thanks to Kathleen Sibelius For Saving 47,000 Women From Death by Cost-Benefit Analysis
That is the approximate number projected to die by the United States Preventative Task Force if their recommendations on scaling back mammograms had been accepted. It is their number, if you do the arithmetic, which they apparently did not.
Their statistics say that the life of "only" one woman in 1900 will be saved if mammograms start at age 40 instead of age 50. In other words, a 40-year-old woman's "risk" of dying from breast cancer in the next ten years is only 1 in 1900. That seems like no risk at all. 1 divided by 1900 equals .000526. About half a woman per thousand. Miniscule, right?
Now, how many women in America would be affected?
The most recent (July, 2008) census figures say there are about 304,000,000 Americans, of which 50.7 percent are female. That's about 154,000,000 females. Roughly 80,000,000 of them are under forty and about another 20,000,000 between 40 and 50. Of the 80,000,000 under 40, each one, under the proposed guidelines, would not get a mammogram until age 50. If "only" 1 in 1900 die as a result, that would be .000526 times 80,000,000, which equals about 42,000.
In short, moving the mammogram age from 40 to 50 would result in the deaths of 42,000 women now 40 or under, according to the statistics of the United States Preventative Task Force. Of the 20,000,000 between 40 and 50, it could mean the deaths of as many as 10,500 women, though the figure may be somewhat lower because half are more than halfway through the critical period. There might be as few as half, say, 5,000 deaths. Adding 42,000 and 5,000, we get a ballpark figure of 47,000 of currently alive American females who would die needlessly under the proposed task force restriction on mammograms. Of course, as more are born, the absolute numbers would go up.
What is at issue is called "framing." The Preventive Task Force chose the probability of risk frame: only 1 in 1900. But the arithmetic frame reveals the more important truth.
Framing, in this case as in so many others, is a matter of life and death. Take the framing in the NY Times (November 18, 2009) in the front-page news analysis by Kevin Sack and in the op-ed by Robert Aronowitz. Sack frames the mammogram debate as the "science of medicine" versus "medical consumerism." Aronowitz calls it "wishful thinking" that early mammograms could help and speaks of "the very small numbers of lives potentially saved."
You can see why cost-benefit analysis can kill. Its use isn't science. Real scientists do arithmetic as well as statistics. Medical science is about real people, not percentages or statistics, especially when large numbers of real people are involved and small differences in risk can produce large numbers of deaths.
The Preventive Task Force also uses the "harm" frame. The task force observes that more mammograms mean more false positives and claims that false positives do "harm." But no science is presented showing that the "harm" done is greater than the deaths of 47,000 women.
What is the "harm?" Anxiety and unnecessary biopsies from false positives are listed as the "harms." My wife had such a false positive. The anxiety came for economic reasons: she had to wait for a biopsy because no one who could perform one was present when the mammogram was done, due to economic restrictions. The biopsy when it came was simple: a needle inserted to withdraw fluid, like taking a blood sample. No harm. If the biopsy had been done immediately, there would have been no need for anxiety. But the task force does not recommend immediate biopsies as a way to eliminate such "harm."
Aronowitz also claims that the figures show that mammograms haven't helped prevent breast cancer. He observes that rate of 28 breast cancer deaths per 100,000 people has not changed substantially since the 50's, despite more mammography and better treatments. But that could mean, and probably does mean, that there has been an increase in breast cancer offset by earlier detection and better treatment, saving tens of thousands of lives, but not affecting the overall rate. But he did not consider the possibility that the occurrence of breast cancer might have increased, while the rate of deaths did not change because of earlier detection due to mammograms.
I suspect that the real "harm" intended is economic harm - the costs of the "unnecessary" mammograms and biopsies. But the task force gives no figures weighing the economic costs versus the human "cost" of the deaths of 47,000 women. Now, in cost-benefit analysis, a commonly cited figure for the value of an American life is $6.5 million. 47,000 times 6.5 million is $305, 500,000,000. That is, 305 billion five hundred million dollars. Of course, that would be spread over the next forty years, but it's not clear that such a cost-benefit analysis would make this less than the cost of mammograms and biopsies, all moral issues and human costs aside. Unfortunately, the Preventive Task Force doesn't do the calculation, so my figures may be off. The exact figures are not the point. The point is to go beyond rates to numbers.
In the present debate over health care, economics has become the main issue, but the Preventive Task Force hides it by framing. "Cost-benefit analysis" has been reframed as "risk-benefit analysis," as if the Preventive Task Force were not concerned with "cost" to insurance companies and tax-payers, but rather with "risk" to women. But "risk-benefit analysis" is just cost-benefit analysis, which in turn is what corporations use to maximize profit in the short term. Both cost-benefit analysis and the Preventive Task Force were introduced as government institutions by the Reagan administration. They were right-wing moves - part of the strategy to privatize government.
As the Obama administration shifted the health care debate from morality to economics, cost-benefit analysis entered in the form of "evidence-based medicine," where the "evidence" comes from statistics. This is seen as a major way to reduce the cost of health care. This is where "risk-benefit analysis" is cost-benefit analysis publicly and proudly discussed.
Is such an application of cost-benefit analysis always immoral? Hardly. It can be very useful. But it has to be looked at carefully, as the mammogram example shows. In the mammogram example, low probability events can have major effects!
When is a case of "evidence-based medicine" that uses cost-benefit analysis an instance of low probability events that can have major effects, effects serious enough to far outweigh the cost-benefit analysis? This is a serious and difficult question.
It is also a question of concern in the Obama White House. There are three high-powered experts there committed to such questions. One is Ezekial Emanuel, Rahm Emanuel's brother, who is perhaps the best-known advocate of evidence-based medicine. He is an advisor to Peter Orszag, Budget Director, who sees medicine as an economic problem. The third is Cass Sunstein, Obama's Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, also known as the cost-benefit czar. Sunstein is known for specializing in low probability events that have major effects. Political observers should watch how such issues are handled by the administration as they arise.
The official administration reaction is so far against the Preventive Task Force recommendation. Health and Human Services Secretary Sibelius has rejected it and said to make no change.
Hooray for Kathleen Sibelius! Tens of thousands of women owe her their lives.
The political fallout has been instructive. Business columnist for the Washington Post Steve Pearlstein (November 20, 2009) attacked Sibelius as not wanting to save money, but rather promoting waste. This is pretty much what the NY Times position (both front-page analysis and op-ed) seems to be. Most voices on the right have ignored Sibelius' official response and instead attributed the Reagan-era Preventive Task Force's recommendations to official Obama Health care policy, calling it "rationing" health care, while ignoring the fact that most rationing of health care is actually done by insurance companies. As expected, the most radical conservatives have seen this not only as an Obama move, but have likened it to mythical "death panels."
I stand with Sibelius, and I take it to be the official Obama administration view. When arithmetic is added to statistics, this is a clear case of a low probability event with major life-and-death consequences for tens of thousands of people. The overly simplistic framings - either accepting or rejecting the cost-benefit analysis without looking further - are dangerous. Just accepting the task force's recommendation is dangerous to the women of this country, now and in the future. Calling it "rationing" and using it to argue against the health care bills in Congress is dangerous to us all.
As we sit down to Thanksgiving dinner, let us thank Kathleen Sibelius.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
39 Comments so far
Show AllPresent a totally repugnant plan and then throw a curve, which serves as a deflection and makes it about abortion or threats to health care for women and that becomes the issue rather than the health INSURANCE looting bill. What happens then is the focus becomes about winning on the deflection.
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/06/24/18603750.php
Lets talk about framing....
And the death panels begin, with Herr Obama's blessing.
You are as ignorant as Lakoff here. This is not a mandate, it is one study and one analysis that is a suggestion from one group Obama's own secretary of Health and Human services said she won't follow these recommendations to the letter. The sky isn't falling. Nice bit of parroting the fear mongering corporate apologists though.
Peace,
Tex Shelters
Apparently George Lakoff is a complete and total moron who doesn't care about the unnecessary suffering inflicted upon millions of healthy women in order to save these 47,000. The logic behind his argument is the very logic that has plunged America's health care system into the crisis it is in today: every sperm is sacred, every life must be saved no matter what the cost. I suggest then that we start testing women as young as 12 for breast cancer, you never know. Also, we should start testing men for prostate cancer at 20 and so on and so forth. You never know. Who cares how much it costs, or how many millions of healthy people will suffer in the process from unnecessary procedures. People like George Lakoff simply do not understand the concepts of risk and probability; he probably plays the lottery too: hey, you never know. Moron.
Yea I agree. The world can't be made perfectly safe for everyone in every case. Unfortunately we just can't afford it, (but it would be great if we could!).
We need to make rational decisions concerning costs vs benefit. He also isolates the debate to cost vs benefit to breast cancer alone. You also have to think about how all the money spent on further testing of false positive breast cancers could be spent in other areas, like immunizations, or better testing in the area of heart disease which kills more women (and men) than breast cancer does.
"I suggest then that we start testing women as young as 12 for breast cancer, you never know. Also, we should start testing men for prostate cancer at 20 and so on and so forth. You never know. Who cares how much it costs, or how many millions of healthy people will suffer in the process from unnecessary procedures"
You know full freaking well that this is NOT what Lakoff is saying.
Mr. Lakoff,
While I agree with the Secretary's decision, she didn't save any lives. This panel was a recommendation and NOT a mandate. And she said it wouldn't be part of the bill. How is that saving lives? It is stopping perhaps a bad policy from possibly being enacted sometime in the future. Possibly.
I plan on driving safely this weekend. How many lives have I saved?
That said, what is missing in this "science" is real science. For many women, i.e. women with no history of cancer in their family or other risk factors for cancer, waiting until 50 is completely safe. For others with risk factors, earlier screening, even starting at age 30 is wise. Every person needs to be evaluated separately.
Why isn't anyone mentioning that?
Peace,
Tex Shelters
texshelters.com
myspace.com/texshelters
Oh, keep your shirt on, Lakoff. Here is a much better article on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911u/mammograms
Apparently, Swedish researches' conclusion is that there is virtually no benefit from mammograms for women under 55.
Reread your much better article several times. And reread Lakoff's article. Until you understand the numbers used in both articles. Lakoff is using the same damn numbers as your Swedish study, which did NOT conclude what you claim it concluded.
There are (many) more American women than there are Swedish women. Because there are more American women than there are Swedish women, the absolute number of American women who would be affected would be more, even though the relative number (percentage) is the same.
BTW, just because something might not be "statistically significant" does NOT mean that there is no difference. Something that might not be "statistically significant" often still is a difference in the real world when you look at the absolute numbers.
Hmm. So, in your opinion, what did the Swedish study conclude?
I did reread the article, and here is what stands out:
“. . . little advantage is derived from screening mammograms. For example, the relative survival benefit of 20 percent among women 40-74 who had mammograms in the Swedish trials translates to 511 women dead of breast cancer out of 130,000 who were screened for 15 years—a death rate of 0.4 percent.
Among the comparison group of 117,000 Swedish women who did not have mammograms, the breast cancer death count was 585 women, or 0.5 percent. True, that’s a 20 percent relative benefit in favor of mammography. But 0.4 and 0.5 are very tiny numbers.”
“Given the intensive, virtually nationwide breast cancer screening underway in Sweden, one would expect that country's breast cancer death rate to have fallen precipitously over the past two decades. But between 1990—the year regular mammograms became available to nearly all Swedish women—and 1998, Sweden's national breast cancer death rate fell by a scant 2 percent, or less than one fewer death in every 100,000 women.”
Now, maybe you want to explain what it means, instead of saying what it does not mean. To me, it clearly means: don’t bother getting a routine mammogram screening until 55. (That’s not to say that you should never get a mammogram, By all means, do go and get one if you think that you need one, or your doctor advises you to do so. )
“There are (many) more American women than there are Swedish women”, so more American women would be affected. Thanks for stating the obvious, but what’s your point?
Here is the link to the article in NYT that Lakoff mentions. I find it pretty interesting, especially the part where Aronovitz asserts that our understanding of cancer is built on shaky ground:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/20/opinion/20aronowitz.html?_r=1
And here is another one, titled “Cancers Can Vanish Without Treatment, but How?” :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/27/health/27canc.html?em
(Please, don’t jump to conclusions - read the whole article, and not just the title.)
Reread the numbers. Reread Lakoff's numbers. Think about what the numbers mean in ABSOLUTE terms in the real world, not relative terms. Yes 0.4 and 0.5 are tiny numbers, relatively speaking. What happens when you translate that 0.4 and 0.5 into absolute real world numbers? 0.4 of 1000 people is 4 people. 0.4 of 10000 people is 40 people. 0.4 of 100000 people is 400 people. And so on.
That is Lakoff's point. 0.4 or 0.5 out of a small population, Swedish women, is a (very) small number. 0.4 or 0.5 of a much larger population, American women, is a larger number. Lakoff's argument is whether that 0.4 or 0.5 is a small enough number that mammograms should not be done, and that people need to look at the issue both relatively and absolutely.
The problem with "statistically significant" is that something might not be "statistically significant" but it might actually matter in the real world. Simply relying only on statistical analysis, for anything, whether it be for looking at mammograms and death rates, or analysing baseball / sporting performance, is lazy analysis. Many things are not "statistically significant" and would be written off by statistical analysts as "random variation" or "statistical noise", but make an actual difference in the real world. Statistical analysis is a very useful tool. It isn't the only tool.
That is NOT "evidence based" analysis. It is statistical based analysis. It is trend that is driven in part by the book Moneyball, which looked at (in an extremely biased manner) the use of statistical analysis in baseball.
Yes, there is much about cancer that is unknown. That is the dirty little secret that oncologists don't necessarily like to admit: there will be no cure for cancer per se. I've also seen articles from medical journals, that yes, it is possible that cancer can cure without the horrible treatments that are used.
0.4 of 100000 people is 400 people.
"But between 1990—the year regular mammograms became available to nearly all Swedish women—and 1998, Sweden's national breast cancer death rate fell by a scant 2 percent, or less than one fewer death in every 100,000 women.”
Something doesn't add up here.
Mr. Lakoff forgets about the increased cancer risk from the x-ray exposure from the mammogram, when that is factored in, later or less-frequent mammograms may still be a good idea - certainly so if the woman has no breast cancer family history, or history of carcinogen exposure.
Also, the fundamental axiom of economics is that the resources for anything are limited. This same argument could be made about any cancer. Abdominal MRI's for everyone at 6-month intervals starting at 40 would save the lives of tens of thousands from pancreatic, liver, and stomach cancers. But the cost would be astronomical. The other axiom of economics is that social systems will arise to allocate those resources. Here in the US, resources are allocated based on how rich you are. The rich can afford extensive preventative treatments that reduce already-low chances of an early death even lower. The poor, tough luck. Is this fair?
The British NHS has a separate institute (NICE) that studies exactly these questions. The US right has called them a "death panel" but if every measure available in medicine to prevent or treat every possible potentially fatal illness, (then cryogenic preservation after that) regardless of advanced age, terminal condition, or marginal benefit, the costs would quickly approach infinity.
Face it, we all are going to die.
I am from a large, but serious illness-free family, my parents will both pass away from simple old-age within a couple years. But I am having to face my own benefit-cost analysis with my cat who has terminal kidney failure. There are dozens of meds and treatments now available to keep him alive for a couple more years sometimes longer (thanks to felinecrf.org, no thanks to the incompetent veterinarians around here), but the cost is ultimately going to get very high - hundreds of dollars a month. And with all the other suffering in the world (starting with the dozens of young healthy cats facing death at the local animal shelter every day), the whole thing seems terribly self-indulgent.
The risks of radiation exposure are already taken into account. Beginning age 40, the benefits far outweigh the risk, vis a vis radiation exposure.
OK, I may stand corrected. But that was only a small part of my argument. Everything has to be evaluated with respect to its costs and benefits. Resources are not unlimited.
Of course resources are not unlimited. Of course everything has to be evaluated with respect to its costs and benefits. That is actually what Lakoff is trying to do
0.4 and 0.5 are small numbers relatively speaking. What happens when you apply 0.4 and 0.5 to a large population? Do the costs of the procedure outweigh the benefits?
That is Lakoff's point.
Hmmm..you do know that the number one killer of women is heart disease right? It kills more women than ALL the cancers combined. Not that I don't think we need to be screened but more attention needs to be paid to the number one killer of women.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Lakoff is an over-the-hill pissed out liberal fart-in-a-trance-with-himself opportunist who did his level best to undermine the student occupiers of the Wheeler building at UC Berkeley earlier this week. The students in solidarity with university workers had four demands:
1) Rehire all 38 AFCSME custodial workers recently laid off.
2) Drop all charges and provide total amnesty to all persons occupying buildings and involved in student protests concerning budget cuts.
3) Maintain the current business occupants of the Bears Lair food court and enter into respectful and good faith negotiations.
3) Preserve Rochdale apartments leased to Berkeley student cooperative for $1 a year in perpetuity.
Lakoff was incensed that students would dare to use the effective tactic of occupying buildings and related public protest to draw public and media attention to the California Regent's 32% tuition hike and related budget cuts (due to California's insane 66% State Legislature voting rule that has to be surmounted to pass a sane budget). He prefers the typical DLC Dimocrat tactic of quietly surrendering to corporate privatization of every public good. So Lakoff grabbed a microphone outside the ongoing building occupation and regaled the crowds with his defeatism.
He newspeakurged Orwellian submission by asserting that since the students knew they would be met with police violence, therefore the students themselves would be responsible for creating that violence if they chose to remain. He was also witnessed lying to the student occupiers repeatedly insisting that there had been no police violence outside the building, no rubber bullets, and no injuries in an apparent attempt to con the student occupiers into giving up their protest and demands and exiting the building.
(Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/maher11242009.html)
In fact, while the student unrest in California received scant national corporate media attention in Amurka, video of the police violence at Berkeley and related student protests went out globally and resulted in sympathy protests by students in Austria.
If Lakoff is this big a DLC-type sell-out to corporate privatization interests, and he clearly was eager to betray and undermine the authentic progressive grass roots protest movement of his own university's students, then why listen to his sorry fat ass about health care or any other subject?
My sentiments exactly, metal.
The "framing" dynamics that made Lakoff extremely popular with mellow progressives in recent years are useful enough, but based on his articles and occasional teevee appearances, I always felt that there was less to him than meets the eye.
· Yr Obd't Servant
OS and metal, I too am disappointed with this article by Lakoff. He had a lot of interesting ways to make it possible for even a typical Idahoan to think liberal. All we can do is take the good side of him and pass it on. Like Thomas Frank, I'm afraid Lakoff has lost his groove.
No mamograms for women under 50, but free viagra for men over 40
That is the priority of the typical white male politician
More evidence that Lakoff is just another Gatekeeper and is certainly NO Progressive, as revealed from the counterpunch article I linked in a comment yesterday and metal reposted below:
"Particularly egregious in this respect was Democratic Party “framing” strategist and self-styled movement guru George Lakoff. Visibly angered by the occupiers’ refusal to leave Wheeler voluntarily (without any of their demands having been met, of course), Lakoff seized the megaphone to spew the morally bankrupt argument that since the students knew they would be met with police violence, they would themselves be responsible for creating that violence if they chose to remain. No more repulsive a phrase was uttered that day. And were this not sufficient, Lakoff was even heard lying repeatedly to the occupiers, insisting that there had been no police violence, no rubber bullets, and no injuries outside the building, all in an effort to manipulate those inside into abandoning the occupation."
I too am very disappointed in Lakoff. He is, after all, a wealthy ivory tower academic with tenure. He has demonstrated his true colors and which side he is on.
Lakoff's shtick has been as transparent as Obama's phony-ass "liberalism" all along. I have never been suckered in by Lakoff's tripe. He's obsessed with "Framing," as if nothing else under the bloody sun could possibly matter in politics. First, it isn't all that new an idea, politicians and assorted hucksters, shysters, and mainly corrupt lawyers in service to Power, have been "framing" issues for thousands of years to achieve mostly nefarious ends. Lakoff lecturing the students that any cop violence directed at them was the STUDENTS' fault is just his addiction to his trite notion of framing kicking in. They weren't framing their demands to suit him, so they were violating a sacred principle. He's an ass, and like most grandstanding asses he's managed to fool millions of "progressives," just as Obama did.
His ideas on framing were good but up to a certain point. Like Thomas Frank, he has become a party loyalist. Both of them have been getting richer anyway.
Interesting what you said on the cop violence. The old George Lakoff would have talked about the way conservatives used framing to blame the victim. I used to be stupid and believe that liberals were saints until 2007 when the Democrats took power and they made themselves worse than 2005 and 2006.
Hint: Once, George Lakoff admitted that his goal was to speak with reference to taking a political side. Being truly independent was not part of his plan. I can't completely say. My wife knows him better since she took more time to study this guy out a few years ago. She was concerned about Lakoff tilting too much towards one party and rarely mentioning Nader and Green Party.
This is one of the most peculiar articles I have read. It actually, though "probably" inadvertently, is laced with sarcasm.
Here is my reading.
The Obama administration has a Health and Human Services Secretary, Kathleen Sibelius, who is trying to do her job well. We should be thankful.
However, at the same time, her work is being challenged by people who would allow corporations to reduce access to healthcare based on any number of types of costs analysis and interpretation. The administration has many people who do this kind of thinking and analyzing.
Let's NOT mention all the work the administration has done to favor the greedy corporations.
This following quote is like some weird symptom of Clintonian triangulation.
"When is a case of 'evidence-based medicine' that uses cost-benefit analysis an instance of low probability events that can have major effects, effects serious enough to far outweigh the cost-benefit analysis? This is a serious and difficult question."
Really?
It could also be arguied that this quote is the result of mental self-stimulation to the point of uselessness.
How are we to take this seriously when this administration REFUSES to even think about the abundant evidence that private health insurance companies play a significant part in harming our economy and forcing many, many, hard working families into bankruptcy?
So, "yes we can" be thankful that there is a person in the administration who doesn't just do the bidding of the corporate masters, but, when she leaves the position, the structural failure which this administration has encouraged will still be there to erase her resistance.
Before we get too excited about Mr. Lakoff's arithmetic (I'm sure his 4th grade teacher would be proud of him) we ought to consider what he has left out. How about the cancers caused by mammogram radiation? It's a very small percentage, but considering the millions of women involved, there are doubtless a certain number who get cancer due to mammograms. Thus, whether mammograms should be done or not shouldn't be a cost-benefit analysis, but a risk-benefit analysis. Does the potential benefit outweigh the potential risk? That's the important calculation.
Similarly, mammograms produce false positives that lead to a certain number of unnecessary breast biopsies--low-risk, but not no-risk procedures. Are these likely to be done more often on younger women, and what is the risk-benefit analysis of that?
So, despite his going on at length, Mr. L seems to have little to say that contributes fact, rather than polemic, to the discussion of this important issue.
Exactly. Mr. Lakoff seems to ignore that Sibelius is supporting the radiation industry in what she has said, rather than doctors who are looking at risk.
Breast Cancer Rates Soar after Mammograms and Some Cancers may Heal Naturally
http://www.naturalnews.com/024901.html
Sibelius (amember of the Bilderberg Group along with KIssinger and Rockefeller) is pushing CDC's false numbers so is not terribly concerned with the truth. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/24/Superstar-CBS-Reporter-Blows-the-Lid-Off-the-Swine-Flu-Media-Hype-and-Hysteria.aspx
And in terms of what is best for people, she wants vaccines that are already killing people worldwide made mandatory. Not someone most women would care to get advice from.
200 DEATHS IN CANADA FROM PANDEMRIX SWINE FLU VACCINE, REPORTS EURONEWS
http://www.theflucase.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2069%3A200-dead-in-canada-from-swine-flu-vaccine-reports-euronews&catid=41%3Ahighlighted-news&Itemid=105&lang=en
Mr. Lakoff does better talking about language issues because he seems to miss that this government is corruptly working for the profit of medical industries, whether its vaccine manufacturers
http://www.laleva.org/eng/2004/03/vaccinations_risks_and_myth_upi_investigates_the_vaccine_conflict_and_cdc_corruption.html
or the nuclear one behind mammogram machines, and at the expense of the public.
Besides, Thermograms are a Much Safer Alternative to Mammograms
http://www.naturalnews.com/025170_cancer_thermograms_brst_cancer.html
Statistically, the cancer risk increases 2% (of cancer risk, not overall of course) for each mammogram taken.
I had a mammogram in my early thirties, because my doctor discovered a small lump in my breast(it turned out to be benign). Given the circumstances, I'd still have it, even if my doctor did tell me that it would slightly increase my risk of cancer, (which she didn't). But there is no way I am going to get 15 mammograms between 40 and 55, knowing that it will increase my chance of getting cancer by 30%.
Here is an excerpt from an article from a site Moore links to:
"Despite better technology and decreased doses of radiation, scientists still claim mammography is a substantial risk. Dr. John W. Gofman, an authority on the health effects of ionizing radiation, estimates that 75 percent of breast cancer could be prevented by avoiding or minimizing exposure to the ionizing radiation. This includes mammography, x-rays and other medical and dental sources.
Since mammographic screening was introduced, the incidence of a form of breast cancer called ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) has increased by 328 percent. Two hundred percent of this increase is allegedly due to mammography. In addition to harmful radiation, mammography may also help spread existing cancer cells due to the considerable pressure placed on the woman's breast during the procedure. According to some health practitioners, this compression could cause existing cancer cells to metastasize from the breast tissue.
Cancer research has also found a gene, called oncogene AC, that is extremely sensitive to even small doses of radiation. A significant percentage of women in the United States have this gene, which could increase their risk of mammography-induced cancer. They estimate that 10,000 A-T carriers will die of breast cancer this year due to mammography.
The risk of radiation is apparently higher among younger women. The NCI released evidence that, among women under 35, mammography could cause 75 cases of breast cancer for every 15 it identifies. Another Canadian study found a 52 percent increase in breast cancer mortality in young women given annual mammograms. "
http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_cancer_brst_cancer_mammography.html
While I know one shouldn't believe everything one reads on the internet, and I don't have time to thoroughly evaluate it right now, it will certainly motivate me to look for more information before I make a decision how often I should have a mammogram.
It's hard to know who to trust any more. I used to work for a family doctor, who used to give maybe 2-3 referrals a year for an MRI. That was until he got a visit from a director of an MRI center - after that, he gave at least 2-3 referrals a WEEK. Coincidence?
Needless to say, the doctor also got some periodic "follow-up visits" from the MRI center director, who, I'm sure, properly expressed his gratitude.
Thermograms require machines too. If Sibelius were pushing thermograms, would you be ranting that she is propping up the radiation machine industry, since she would be require the purchase of lots of themorgram machines?
"Before we get too excited about Mr. Lakoff's arithmetic (I'm sure his 4th grade teacher would be proud of him) we ought to consider what he has left out."
His 4th grade teacher should be fired. George can't do arithmetic (or spell). He wrote: "Their statistics say that the life of 'only' one woman in 1900 will be saved if mammograms start at age 40 instead of age 50. In other words, a 40-year-old woman's 'risk' of dying from breast cancer in the next ten years is only 1 in 1900. That seems like no risk at all. 1 divided by 1900 equals .000526. About half a woman per thousand. Miniscule, [sic] right?"
Um, no. One in 1900 isn't minuscule, it's huge.
Fortunately, it's also wrong: George has conflated the total number of women in the 40-50 year-old cohort with the number of women in that cohort who will go on to develop and die from breast cancer.
Nowhere near 47,000 currently alive USan women will die of breast cancer if they don't get annual mammograms between the ages of 40 and 50. Maybe one in 1900 who receive diagnoses of invasive breast cancer might have been saved with mammographic screening, but we are talking about a tiny number of people, and even within that subset, "might" is not "for sure." There are far more women in that age cohort who do develop breast cancer who die not because their breast cancer wasn't diagnosed early through mammography, but because they didn't get treatment.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello akocker,
Since you are commenting about the article I will comment on your comment. What is the number of cancers caused by mammogram radiation verses no mammograms at all. For men no need for prostate cancer checks. What number of prostate cancers would not be detected until it is too late for effective treatment? How much would you save by dropping both conditions from your insurance policy if you have one? what about other conditions you do not want to cover?
Eh. I don't know. Who are these people who run around getting mammograms all the time?
Does anyone know anyone without a family history who actually does this?
Isn't it amazing how under capitalism health and the prevention of disease comes a distant second to profits?
Isn't it even more amazing how women's health comes even farther behind?
(Yes, I DO support screening for prostate cancer as well.)
Hey, I've got an idea: let's avoid this whole stupid argument and STOP CAUSING CANCER IN THE FIRST PLACE? How bout if we concentrate on what's important rather than let ourselves be diverted into endless arguments about how much it costs angels to do biopsies with the tip of a needle?
Let conservatives argue all they want about how mammograms are "prevention". To say that finding cancer once it's already started is "preventing" it is a sign that someone is either lying, stupid or crazy, which should come as no surprise---IT’S THE CONSERVATIVES, for their vengeful and mean-spirited Old Testament God’s sake!
Let the right wing argue all it wants about tenths of a percent and whine about the exorbitant number of pennies it takes to save lives with medical tests (when they’re effective, which is a question for medical researchers, not accountants and Republicans and DINOS and half-educated products of a twisted American [sic] childhood and schooling.) We're going to spend about 3 trillion dollars—on what exactly?—in Iraq (and cause a lot of horrible death by cancer, by the way, with depleted uranium shells, not to mention the trauma and other suffering which is far far greater). But we can't afford the few bucks it takes to save lives with medical tests and make people more productive by helping them not get sick? How bout if we tell the right wing to go to hell; we take care of our own, and if they’re against health care they can opt out of receiving it.
What if we insist on the precautionary principle--chemicals are guilty until proven innocent? (as opposed to people, who should be considered innocent until proven guilty, but aren't any more. How did our priorities get SO COMPLETELY BACKWARDS?) What if we hold corporations and the people who make corporate decisions accountable for the harm they do? What if we hold government officials accountable?
What if we change our lives, diets, industry and agriculture to stop making tens of thousands of mind-bogglingly-complexly-interacting poisons, and actually stop causing cancer in the first place?
How bout if we all read aloud from Living Downstream: an Ecologist Looks at Cancer and the Environment, by Sandra Steingraber? And then how bout if we start voting with our heads and hearts and elect people who will help us end this sick and sickening machine society and s-t-o-p c-a-u-s-i-n-g c-a-n-c-e-r?
Yes, I agree, accountability is key. However, I think that means for each individual woman as well. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for ourselves? Many women are led like sheep to do whatever the media, government or medical establishment tell them to do. I guess it requires too much energy to research a question then make an independent decision. This is ultimately the fracture for the nation as a whole that will lead to our demise.
And for #@$%#'s sake, WHY oh WHY has no one on television mentioned the fact that repeatedly irradiating our bodies can also CAUSE CANCER???
Not to mention the trauma to the tissues caused by so many medical tech "boobs" smashing our boobs so inexpertly.
They never seem to do any analysis of how much damage is done by all the unnecessary testing. The talking heads made it seem as if the only damage ever done by mammograms was a wee bit of anxiety caused by false positives and unnecessary biopsies, as if those things were incredibly trivial and the ONLY damage.
And how about statistics on just how long women live after cancer treatments and just how decimated much of the end of their lives are?
When is this society going to lose its Christian martyr complex, face the realities of death and try to give our lives some peace and relief from suffering?
The whole topic just makes me grrrr.....
artist & evolutionary revolutionary
palexandria
When the new recommendations came out I scanned the article looking for any reference to radiation as a reason to cut back on mammograms. I believe the full report contained a reference to the dangers of X-ray exposure, but it was noticeably absent from all of the MSM reports.
The main point is as palexandria notes above--the tests are dangerous. The tests can cause the cancers they are purported to prevent.
Not just in mammography, but in every aspect of medicine, way too many unnecessary studies involving radiation are done.
What is crazy is that it is never addressed. The radiation risk is considered a non issue.
I don't get it.
Also, enough with the pink ribbon frenzy.
Breast cancer is not nearly as deadly as colon cancer, brain cancer, pancreatic cancer etc. But it gets all of the attention and money.