Whorebasher Whacktard Jerry Brown: No Evidence Mammograms Work

[Brainster]

The darling of the National Organization for Women, turns out to be an anti-science kook:

Smelling blood after a Jerry Brown associate used the word “whore” in connection with Meg Whitman’s campaign strategy, Republican sources have provided a 15-year-old video of the Democratic gubernatorial hopeful dismissing mammograms in an old interview.

The trip to the vault comes as Brown’s camp has been on defense after The Los Angeles Times reported on a conversation between him and an associate, inadvertently left on a police union official’s voice mail, in which he discussed Whitman and the unions and suggested she’ll cut a deal over pensions. Another person is heard on the recording saying, “What about calling her a whore?”

Brown responded to the release of the clip by courageously coming out against cancer:

He added, ‘Fifteen years ago, as a radio host, Jerry participated in discussions about it. He never said, don't get screened for cancer, he never said the government shouldn't pay for cancer screening. And while this clip is about mammograms specifically, he also talked about prostate cancer screening at times, so trying to make this a gender issue is a bit silly. Jerry Brown opposes cancer in all cases.”

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is a quote from the abstract from the Lancet 1995:

Abstract

Summary

The early trials of screening mammography, reporting 30% relative reduction in mortality from breast cancer in women over 50 years of age, led to strong professional and public demand for screening programmes. There has been little publicity about the subsequent trials showing no significant benefit in any age group, or about the harm and costs associated with screening mammography. For women under 50, there is a reluctant consensus that screening is not beneficial, but there is increasing pressure for publicly funded programmes for older women.

http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0140673695926550

So at the time, he was not being inaccurate about what the lancet said.

TAM

 

[Cain]

I like the timing on the release of this 15 year-old video.

There was a big brouhaha about these screenings a year or two ago when some poindexter health panel appointed by Obama said the money for these screenings could be better spent elsewhere. I think their findings also admitted that as a result more women would die from breast cancer, but fewer people would die overall. Then that M. Sanjay Gupta Night Shymalalnanan/whatever his name was came on CNN and started demagoguing the issue.

What's SOOOOOOO special about breast cancer? This is just our boob culture. A woman under forty, especially an unmarried woman, NEEDS her boobs. Guys, naturally, want to see boobs.

 

[uk_dave]

So this is the result of some desperate searching by republicans to try to find something said by a democrat candidate which can counter the absurdities of the teabagger idiots?

 

[T.A.M.]

So this is the result of some desperate searching by republicans to try to find something said by a democrat candidate which can counter the absurdities of the teabagger idiots?

yah pretty much. Like I said, if you read the abstract alone, you realize while he was making too much of a generalization, he was not inaccurate in his quote. In 1995, there was a body of evidence that the statistical significance of mammograms, in all ages but in particular in the younger age group, was questionable.

TAM

Edit:

here is the full abstract from the article he was referring to,

The Lancet, Volume 346, Issue 8966, Pages 29 - 32, 1 July 1995
<Previous Article|Next Article>
doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(95)92655-0Cite or Link Using DOI
Screening mammography and public health policy: the need for perspective
Original Text
C.J. Wright FRCS * a, C.B. Mueller FRCSC b
Abstract
Summary
The early trials of screening mammography, reporting 30% relative reduction in mortality from breast cancer in women over 50 years of age, led to strong professional and public demand for screening programmes. There has been little publicity about the subsequent trials showing no significant benefit in any age group, or about the harm and costs associated with screening mammography. For women under 50, there is a reluctant consensus that screening is not beneficial, but there is increasing pressure for publicly funded programmes for older women.
When analysed in terms of population benefit, the randomised controlled prospective trials showed that the numbers of women screened to achieve one less death per year ranged from 7086 (Health Insurance Plan of New York), to 63264 (Malmo), to infinity (Canadian National Breast Screening Study). About 5% of screening mammograms are positive or suspicious, and of these 80-93% are false positives that cause much unnecessary anxiety and further procedures including surgery. False reassurance by negative mammography occurs in 10-15% of women with breast cancer that will manifest clinically within a year. Our calculations confirm others that the mean annual cost per life "saved" is around $1·2 million (£558 000).
In the allocation of limited resources, public health policy on a proposed mass population intervention must be based on a critical analysis of benefits, harm, and cost. Since the benefit achieved is marginal, the harm caused is substantial, and the costs incurred are enormous, we suggest that public funding for breast cancer screening in any age group is not justifiable.

 

[fuelair]

I do like to point out (and, yes I know it is anecdotal and entirely against the statistics) that although the stats say I should not have had a follow up on a minor change in PSA and should have waited before actually doing anything after they found one very small cancer spot in my prostate and told me it would be five years or more before there would likely be any need to do anything by way of treatment, it turned out that I would likely have been dead or heading there within a few months had we not decided on surgery (DaVinci surgery btb). Specifically two pretty nice tumors right at the edge of the capsule. Where health is concerned, I'm not real fond of going by the general stats. Especially after that.


Interestingly, on my first post surgical visit the urologist told me they got two small spots that weren't endagering the capsule. Second visit, he casually mentioned they had been a bit big and were near, but in no danger of breaking out of the capsule. Third visit, got the truth: two between 10 and 13 mm diameter each and right at the capsule. 5 years cancer free in Nov.

Sometimes, statistics can kill you!

 

[johnny karate]

I like how the thread title tacitly supports Jerry Brown's assertion that Meg Whitman is a whore.

 

[ktesibios]

Just in case anyone is interested in the subject of cancer screening, its effectiveness and risk-benefit ratios instead of gratuitous demonstrations of authoritarian-follower psychology, Orac, a working breast cancer surgeon and researcher, has blogged about it many times over at Scienceblogs.

If you just click a couple of days back on the blog you should find his most recent post and you can use the tags to find more.

 

[Tricky]

I like how the thread title tacitly supports Jerry Brown's assertion that Meg Whitman is a whore.

Maybe not. Perhaps he just doesn't want Meg's political comments to taint honest whores.

 

[T.A.M.]

I do like to point out (and, yes I know it is anecdotal and entirely against the statistics) that although the stats say I should not have had a follow up on a minor change in PSA and should have waited before actually doing anything after they found one very small cancer spot in my prostate and told me it would be five years or more before there would likely be any need to do anything by way of treatment, it turned out that I would likely have been dead or heading there within a few months had we not decided on surgery (DaVinci surgery btb). Specifically two pretty nice tumors right at the edge of the capsule. Where health is concerned, I'm not real fond of going by the general stats. Especially after that.


Interestingly, on my first post surgical visit the urologist told me they got two small spots that weren't endagering the capsule. Second visit, he casually mentioned they had been a bit big and were near, but in no danger of breaking out of the capsule. Third visit, got the truth: two between 10 and 13 mm diameter each and right at the capsule. 5 years cancer free in Nov.

Sometimes, statistics can kill you!

You were right to point out that it is anecdotal. As much as it is horrible that cases like yours occur, if we had to treat everyone with the thought that we should screen for every illness in all demographics, it would cripple ALL HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS.

I know you are likely in agreement here, so I won't belabor it beyond that. Just felt I should give you my pov as a physician who has to make these type of decisions EVERY DAY.

TAM

 

[MaGZ]

Jerry Brown is clearly more qualified to run the state of California.