Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
- Thread starter Rouser2
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cancer mammograms
Originally posted by Zep [/i]
>>After all, most of these mamograph screening programs are paid for by governments out of taxes, and the health budgets are notoriously placed at the bottom of the out-basket. Which means there has to be a really, REALLY good scientific case to be made to get the pollies to cough up even the tidbit of cash they have so far to make the screening possible. And if it EVER proved to be ineffective, I'm sure the money supply would dry up (have dried up) instantly.
Comment: Naivete squared.
-- Rouser
>>After all, most of these mamograph screening programs are paid for by governments out of taxes, and the health budgets are notoriously placed at the bottom of the out-basket. Which means there has to be a really, REALLY good scientific case to be made to get the pollies to cough up even the tidbit of cash they have so far to make the screening possible. And if it EVER proved to be ineffective, I'm sure the money supply would dry up (have dried up) instantly.
Comment: Naivete squared.
-- Rouser
Rouser2 said:
Which are biopsied and found not to be malignant
The alternative being (in rouserworld) wait until the tumor is the size of a golf ball and then hope for a spontaneous remission.
Medicine is NOT perfect, is it however demonstrably better than the alternative in almost all cases.
Response: Wilful ignorance to the n<sup>th</sup> power.Rouser2 said:
No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy. There is no monetary benefit involved - it is a "sink" of funds. So is education and public transport and similar. Why do you think so much of it is being forced into "private" hands these days??
Therefore the cheapest and most effective technologies will win ongoing funding approval. Technologies such as immunisation, and X-ray cancer screening, and so on, with proven track-records of effectiveness. And as I said, if a better, cheaper technology comes along then the old will be dropped ASAP. Examples abound, if you only care to look (!).
posted by Zep [/i]
>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.
The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.
-- Rouser
>>No government of any flavour is going to fork out for more health benefits than they can afford to keep the people happy.
The US government does it all the time. I suspect so does the Austrialian government. Need has little to do with it. But greed, everything to do with it.
-- Rouser
Re: Re: Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
Originally posted by The Don [/i]
>>So checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits include the earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the possibility of early treatment, which probably allows more cure of cancers than radiological exposure is able to cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>But of course this is just an assertion because checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study
But I provided that balance in reference to the Danish study of 2000 which studied several of the major, but flawed previous studies. No mortality benefit from mammograms at all.
-- Rouser
Originally posted by The Don [/i]
>>So checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benefits include the earlier detection of cancers by radiological examinations and the possibility of early treatment, which probably allows more cure of cancers than radiological exposure is able to cause.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>But of course this is just an assertion because checking whether there was a balance of benefit was outside the scope of their study
But I provided that balance in reference to the Danish study of 2000 which studied several of the major, but flawed previous studies. No mortality benefit from mammograms at all.
-- Rouser
Humility, dear Rouser, salvage your humility by not making such ignorant utterences.Rouser2 said:
Tis better to be silent and thought a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
No, big gummermant is not out to get us. All governments have one goal in mind: To be a tool of social good. In refusing to do this, citizens may overthrow the government, which they ought to do if their government is tyrannical, and a nation with no government is usually unstable, a nation with no government will likely descend to the status of "third-world". That hurt everyone.
Governments are not greedy, they are your friend. If they were truely greedy, they could easily garnish the totality of your income above minimum wage.
Your conspiracy theories do plenty in the way of failing to impress me.
Originally posted by Yahweh [/i]
>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others.
Duh????
>>Mammograms (at about 50% sensitivity) are less efficient than sonography (90% sensitivity) (source: Pub-med), but that is not to say they are medically worthless. They save lives, and why you object to that is beyond me.
Mammograms may save some lives, but they also kill. The question is, do they save more than they kill?
>>So you managed to find some studies which extremely false data that happen to agree with you, well color me unimpressed.
"Extremely false data??? How so?
-- Rouser
>>I am perfectly aware mammograms may miss tumors, but for every tumor they miss, they find 20 others.
Duh????
>>Mammograms (at about 50% sensitivity) are less efficient than sonography (90% sensitivity) (source: Pub-med), but that is not to say they are medically worthless. They save lives, and why you object to that is beyond me.
Mammograms may save some lives, but they also kill. The question is, do they save more than they kill?
>>So you managed to find some studies which extremely false data that happen to agree with you, well color me unimpressed.
"Extremely false data??? How so?
-- Rouser
Originally posted by BTox [/i]
>>You're in the same situation as your inane anti-vaccination claims. First, you have to quanitfy the number of cancers attributed to mammograms. You have no such data, just a guesstimate based partially on nuclear bomb survival data.
A "guesstimate"??? So BTox has acquired a new word?? Ah, but not a "guestimate" at all but an extrapolation. A "guesstimate" is more like when Dr. Strangeloves like you pull numbers from out of the air as to how many deaths would occur had not this or that vaccine been administered. That's "guesstimate".
-- Rouser
>>You're in the same situation as your inane anti-vaccination claims. First, you have to quanitfy the number of cancers attributed to mammograms. You have no such data, just a guesstimate based partially on nuclear bomb survival data.
A "guesstimate"??? So BTox has acquired a new word?? Ah, but not a "guestimate" at all but an extrapolation. A "guesstimate" is more like when Dr. Strangeloves like you pull numbers from out of the air as to how many deaths would occur had not this or that vaccine been administered. That's "guesstimate".
-- Rouser
Good, you acknowledge mammograms find many many more tumors than they miss, which is much much better than finding none by refusing to get a mammogram, so we are in agreement.Rouser2 said:
The amount of radiation, as wipeout pointed out, is about as dangerous a few Brazil nuts.
They do not and cannot kill, they only offer mild pain but the benefits (knowing you're in proper health, or finding cancer before it has a chance to cause damage) are worth quite a bit more I would say.
The little tidbit regarding "mammograms do indeed cause more cancer deaths than they prevent" is where I'd put my money on "extremely false", and perhaps a little change on "No mortality benefit from mammograms at all".
You know, a walk through a store with a wall of televisions poses a bigger cancer "risk" than a mammogram, perhaps we should be going after Big Media
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Yahweh said:
Oh yes they are!!! Rouser2 has seen the black helicopters!!! Yes sir, he has! They flew right over the top of his double wide!
And remember, he can also tell you how they faked the moon landing!
Yet another toxic post. First, the number one killer of women, by a long way is heart disease. It is already known that a womans chance of dying from BC before age 65 in the US is only 5% for all causes of death. In other words, more women die in car accidents over that age group than BC. In the landmark CDC cancer study performed over 30 years, if you correct for cigarette smoking, sun bathing, and HIV infection, not only are cancer deaths declining across the board, but incidence of cancer is also declining (yep, even including those who get regular mammograms.) Further, even including smoking and HIV etc. our life expectancy is still going up. So should women be obsessed with BC? Not really, they should eat healthier, exercise more, get regular medical check ups and fight for safer driving conditions. Of course, much of health today is a lifestyle issue (snmoking, tanning, safe sex, diet, exercise etc,) and alternative gurus like to place the blame on "evil conventional medicine" or "energy imbalances" etc. Anything to shift the blame away from personal responsibility, which is what most people want to hear.
Re: Re: Re: Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
There is a more recent study which, I note, you have not referenced.
Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/newtechnologyfeature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
Apparently the older you are, the greater the benefit.
Score one more for the medical community:
- A study throws up new and controvertial evidence (past studies poorly performed - no evidence for effectiveness)
- The medical community repsonds by taking criticisms on board
- A better study is performed
- The results are reviewed
- They don't let the matter lie
As opposed to the "alternative community"
- An assertion is made
- The assertion is maintained despite evidence to the contrary
- All opposing evidence is ignored on the grounds that it has been planted as part of some conspiracy
Rouser2 said:
There is a more recent study which, I note, you have not referenced.
Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/newtechnologyfeature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
Apparently the older you are, the greater the benefit.
Score one more for the medical community:
- A study throws up new and controvertial evidence (past studies poorly performed - no evidence for effectiveness)
- The medical community repsonds by taking criticisms on board
- A better study is performed
- The results are reviewed
- They don't let the matter lie
As opposed to the "alternative community"
- An assertion is made
- The assertion is maintained despite evidence to the contrary
- All opposing evidence is ignored on the grounds that it has been planted as part of some conspiracy
Originally posted by Quasi [/i]
>>and alternative gurus like to place the blame on "evil conventional medicine" or "energy imbalances" etc. Anything to shift the blame away from personal responsibility, which is what most people want to hear.
On the contrary, it is the Cancer Research Establishment which minimizes prevention in favor of ever seeking the magic bullet "cure". And the notion that conventional medicine such as x-rays and other radiation treatments as well as chemotherapy in fact causes cancer is indisputable.
-- Rouser
>>and alternative gurus like to place the blame on "evil conventional medicine" or "energy imbalances" etc. Anything to shift the blame away from personal responsibility, which is what most people want to hear.
On the contrary, it is the Cancer Research Establishment which minimizes prevention in favor of ever seeking the magic bullet "cure". And the notion that conventional medicine such as x-rays and other radiation treatments as well as chemotherapy in fact causes cancer is indisputable.
-- Rouser
NHS program screens women from their 50's in the UK every 3 years until the age of 60years.
3 years ago my Mother was free. Then she had her mammogram and the cancer showed up. I wouldn't say they cause any more.
I agree with bug-girl, it is uncomfortable for the larger breasted women. I not look forward to having mine though mine mammogram-ed. Men should have the same then they would be more sympathetic.
HRT trials have just been stopped in Switzerland(?) as it showed a unreasonable high rise in breast cancer rates to those who had the disease previous. The one thing that looks like started my Mothers grade3 breast cancer.
Bad thing to stop trials on one hand, as HRT helps those women who suffer badly with hot flushes and bad menopauses. What is left for them? the other hand at least those testing are prepared to put lives of other a priority first.
Oestrogen might be a more high probability in cancer causes than mammograms.
3 years ago my Mother was free. Then she had her mammogram and the cancer showed up. I wouldn't say they cause any more.
I agree with bug-girl, it is uncomfortable for the larger breasted women. I not look forward to having mine though mine mammogram-ed. Men should have the same then they would be more sympathetic.
HRT trials have just been stopped in Switzerland(?) as it showed a unreasonable high rise in breast cancer rates to those who had the disease previous. The one thing that looks like started my Mothers grade3 breast cancer.
Bad thing to stop trials on one hand, as HRT helps those women who suffer badly with hot flushes and bad menopauses. What is left for them? the other hand at least those testing are prepared to put lives of other a priority first.
Oestrogen might be a more high probability in cancer causes than mammograms.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
Originally posted by The Don [/i]
>>Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/ne...ature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women who get regular mammograms could reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 28 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 percent of what? No indication here as to whether the stated percentage is "relative" or "absolute,", is there???
-- Rouser
Originally posted by The Don [/i]
>>Like the Swedish study
http://www.medtech1.com/new_tech/ne...ature.cfm/117/1
which indicates that
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Women who get regular mammograms could reduce their risk of dying from breast cancer by 28 percent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 percent of what? No indication here as to whether the stated percentage is "relative" or "absolute,", is there???
-- Rouser
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
Rouser2 said:*snip*
On the contrary, it is the Cancer Research Establishment
The what? Cancer research is done at hundreds of independent institutes distributed in numerous countries
which minimizes prevention in favor of ever seeking the magic bullet "cure".
Yeh, that explains why we have a new "this causes cancer" scare every week.
And the notion that conventional medicine such as x-rays and other radiation treatments as well as chemotherapy in fact causes cancer is indisputable.
Rouser: BREATHING causes cancer. This is indisputable. I suggest you lay it off.
-- Rouser
Hans
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do Mammograms Cause Cancer?
Huh ?
Pick a worst case and demonstrate to me how this saves fewer lives than are lost by exposure to xrays from mammograms.
Remember, number of cases potentially caused by xray exposure was 29
Unless there were a total of only 100 fatal cases of breast cancer then a 28% reduction has this beaten.
Rouser2 said:
Huh ?
Pick a worst case and demonstrate to me how this saves fewer lives than are lost by exposure to xrays from mammograms.
Remember, number of cases potentially caused by xray exposure was 29
Unless there were a total of only 100 fatal cases of breast cancer then a 28% reduction has this beaten.