MADDOG'S LAIR
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact

Should women undergo screening breast cancer mammography at all?

5/9/2016

Comments

 
Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening

No, next question. Ok, ok, this is a personal choice issue and everyone should be allowed to make that choice themselves, but insurers should have to offer policies with and without these dangerous "preventative" procedures.

More after the break!
When Maddog discusses this issue with women in the US, the response is uniform surprise, as if what I am saying is new to them. These women believe screening mammograms are only positive, and offer no harm. Here is what the article authors say:

"Women should be unpassionately informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening using absolute effect sizes in a comprehensible fashion. In an era of limited health care resources, screening services need to be scrutinized and compared with each other with regard to effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and harms."

Agreed. Inform, unpassionately, and fully, however, this is not possible for most physicians since they make money from these procedures. And an entire medical industry relies upon the continuation of screening mammogram, regardless of how injurious, and deadly to the women. 

How do other nations deal with this problem? 

"Mammography screening is recommended (and in Europe offered through organized programs) in most Western countries. However, in Switzerland an independent panel of experts (the Swiss Medical Board) reviewed the evidence on mammography screening and concluded that harms outweighed the benefits and recommended against mammography screening;[17] that is, that screening programs should not be implemented in areas where such programs do not exist and that the ongoing programs should be phased out."

Pressure to continue these programs is intense, and worsened by groups like Komen, who also have a huge, vested financial interest in maintaining the screening mammogram industry. 

The authors conclude:

"Conclusion

Women should be correctly informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening (Figures 1 and 2). A comprehensible way of communicating information on benefits and harms of mammography screening is presented in Figure 1: among 1,000 women who start screening at age 50 and are screened for 20 years, 2 to 3 will avoid dying from breast cancer and 200 women will have at least one false positive test, 30 will undergo a biopsy, 3 will be diagnosed with an interval cancer, and breast cancer will be overdiagnosed in 15.

In an era of limited resources for health care and preventive services, we need to scrutinize our efforts in screening and prevention. One of the overarching goals of screening is the reduction of incidence or mortality of disease. Currently, we do recommend some screening services (such as mammography), while others are debated or discouraged (such as prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer or aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease and premature death). However, as Figures 4 and 5 show, these differences in recommendations do often not reflect differences in effectiveness or harms between the different tests.[49,62]"

Please make sure you are informed, and understand the consequences of all preventative medical screenings before you undergo the procedure. Today, medicine has become mostly big business, and far less medicine, or art. The fact that over diagnosis to benefit in breast cancer mammography is 15 to 2.5 (2 to 3) is shocking. Far more women are injured than are helped. 

The problem we have today is that we cannot determine which women are more likely to be helped by screening, and which will not be helped. The result is the industry simply recommends screening everyone, and damn those injured. At the same time, we find we do not understand which cancers, can be successfully treated. Thus, we screen everyone, and treat all "cancers." In the end, this "shotgun" approach is injuring myriad, while helping few. 

Until we figure out who will directly benefit, and which cancers should be treated, women need to be extremely cautious about these procedures. 

More generally, we all need to be more cautious about medical, and cancer screening, it is never as simple as the physicians proclaim. Nor is it the panacea they so strongly declare.

Counterintuitively, the best way to avoid breast cancer is to not use mammography screening . . . 
Comments
comments powered by Disqus

    Author

    Maddog

      Blog Subscription

    Subscribe to Blog

    Categories

    All
    1000-ways-to-die
    Abortion
    Amazon
    America
    Antisemitism
    Anti-semitism
    Bible
    Blogging
    Blue-model
    Book-links
    Booze
    Bus
    Cancer
    Children
    China
    China-ccp
    China-gdp
    China-ghost-cities
    China-ponzi
    Climate-change
    Coast-guardrescue-swimmer
    Cold-war
    Concealed-carry
    Constitution
    Cool-stuff
    Corruption
    Creative-destruction
    Crime
    Crisis-change
    Dead-guy-vote
    Dead-pool
    Death-of-the-pc
    Declaration-of-independence
    Deflation
    Democrat
    Demographic-decline
    Diet
    Earth-hour
    Ecommerce
    E-commerce
    Economic-change
    Economy
    Education
    End-of-history
    Energy
    Environmentalism
    Epa
    Eric-barker
    Europe
    Executive-outcomes
    F35
    Faith
    Family
    Fascists
    Financial-irresponsibility
    Financial-times
    Firearms
    First-world-problems
    Fitness
    Flight-to-security
    Food
    Fourth-turning
    Free-eye-exam
    French
    Funny
    Gdp
    Gdp-usa-vs-britain
    Gdp-usa-vs-germany
    Gdp-usa-vs-sweden
    Generational-theft
    Global-warming
    Government-incompetence
    Government-we-deserve
    Happiness
    Health
    Helicopter-parent
    Hell
    Holocene
    Honor
    Housing-affordability
    I-love-beaver
    Imf
    Immigration
    Independence-day
    Inefficiency
    Inflation
    Innovation
    Intelligence
    Intergenerational-conflict
    International-relations
    Investing
    Iran
    Iraq-war
    Islamic-reformation
    Italian-travel
    Japan
    Jodie-foster-effect
    Kayaking
    Keynesian-economist
    Kurdistan
    Law
    Leave-nato
    Leave-the-un
    Light-rail
    Maddog-story
    Marine
    Marriage
    Media
    Medical-insurance
    Medicine
    Middle-east
    Military
    Military-waste
    Money
    Monopoly
    Nanny-college
    News
    New-seasons
    Nirvana-is-another-name-for-hell
    North-korea
    Nukes
    Obama-doctrine
    Oil
    Oregon
    Organic
    Parenting
    Partition
    Pearl
    Pensions
    Peter-principle
    Police
    Politicians
    Portland
    Portlandia
    Portland-transit
    Predictions
    President-bush
    President-feckless-odither
    President-obama
    Psychology
    Race-huckster
    Rape
    Recession
    Recipe
    Replace-the-un
    Republican
    Research-studies-are-always-wrong
    Reviews
    Russia
    Salafism
    Sanctions
    Science
    Science-versus-faith
    Self-defense
    Self-drive-vehicle
    Sex
    Shale-oil
    Shia
    Sjw
    Sleeper
    Smart-growth
    Socialism
    Sovereignty
    Sport
    Sunni
    Supreme-court
    Syria
    Tax
    Technology
    Terrorism
    The-fed
    The-house-of-saud
    The-last-economic-superpower
    Therapy
    Trade
    Transit
    True-believer
    Tvfilm-review
    Un
    Union
    Urban-planning
    Urinals-of-note
    Venezuela
    Voter-fraud
    Wages
    Wahhabism
    War
    War-crimes
    Weird
    Weird-science
    Welfare
    Whole-foods
    Work



    RSS Feed

​Maddog's Lair is copyright 2016-2018 by Mark Sherman. Please feel free to quote from this site provided you link back to the original article.
Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • About
  • Contact