Topic: New Guidelines For Breast Cancer -- Piggy Back
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
At present the National Taskforce, as with the IDSA, this group has often produced what many consider the "Gold Standard" of recommendations, and thus it carries enormous weight with physicians, insurance companies and other groups.
Here is a news excerpt from Associated Press Writer JOCELYN NOVECK
"For many women, getting a mammogram is already one of life's more stressful experiences.
Now, women in their 40s have the added anxiety of trying to figure out if they should even be getting one at all.
A government task force said Monday that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 -- a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
The news seemed destined to leave many deeply confused about whose advice to follow."
Sound familiar? The National Cancer Society and a variety of advocacy groups balked at this news. The fear is that many women have no known risk factors or family history of Breast Cancer, and thus still develop it -- about one out of 70 will experience it.
With that knowledge, why would a woman avoid this routine testing, in-spite of what this Task Force recommends?
Personally, as a Lyme Patient, even I know that there are plenty of women who's lives were saved by having the testing done in their "FORTIES."
Now, this applies directly to our situation. I think we should capitalize and write news articles stating that we're experiencing the same thing in the Lyme Community, and that the IDSA produced guidelines in 2006 which were at complete odds with another society of physicians (ILADS). Additionally, the conflicts of interests accusation following an investigation by the AG of Connecticut over those specific guidelines, represents a new era of Insurance Companies and other groups manipulating studies and guidelines authors of both the government and of universities into producing guidelines which serve their interests in cost savings, via sacrificing "some" lives -- in other words, the guidelines are produced without the patients best interest.
Let's write CNN, and other networks (both local and national) and revisit our controversial circumstance while using the current Breast Mammogram controversy as a relevant entry of equal concern.
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
I have written a letter to CNN and now to other groups: Here is the letter:
--------------------------
My main question is the last paragraph, with other supporting paragraphs explaining why the question is meaningful:
At present the National Taskforce, as with the IDSA (Infectious Disease Society Of America), this group has often produced what many consider the "Gold Standard" of recommendations, and thus it carries enormous weight with physicians, insurance companies and other groups.
Here is a news excerpt from Associated Press Writer JOCELYN NOVECK
"For many women, getting a mammogram is already one of life's more stressful experiences.
Now, women in their 40s have the added anxiety of trying to figure out if they should even be getting one at all.
A government task force said Monday that most women don't need mammograms in their 40s and should get one every two years starting at 50 -- a stunning reversal and a break with the American Cancer Society's long-standing position. What's more, the panel said breast self-exams do no good, and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
The news seemed destined to leave many deeply confused about whose advice to follow."
The National Cancer Society and a variety of advocacy groups balked at this news. The fear is that many women have no known risk factors or family history of Breast Cancer, and thus still develop it -- about one out of 70 will experience it.
With that knowledge, why would a woman avoid this routine testing, in-spite of what this Task Force recommends?
Personally, as a Lyme Patient, even I know that there are plenty of women who's lives were saved by having the testing done in their "FORTIES."
Now, this applies directly to my situation and that of other patients suffering from Chronic Lyme Disease -- which is currently denied as a legitamate condition -- inspite of adequate studies to the contrar. This report mirrors what the Lyme Community is experiencing. IDSA produced guidelines in 2006 for the treatment of Lyme Disease and associated tick born infections. These guidelines are at complete odds with another society of physicians (ILADS) International Lyme And Associated Disease Society.
Additionally, there was an anti-trust investigation over conflicts of interests by the authors who produced the IDSA Lyme Guidelines. The Attorney General of Connecticut picked up on the situation via Advocacy groups and pursued this. These Breast Cancer Guidelines as well as the guidelines on Lyme Disease may represents a new era of Insurance Companies and other groups manipulating studies and guidelines authors of both the government and of universities into producing guidelines which serve their interests in cost savings, via sacrificing "some" lives in-spite of appropriate evidence. In other words, the guidelines are produced without the patients best interest.
Can CNN (Or other group) invest some effort at this time into also reviewing the circumstance with Chronic Lyme Disease and the IDSA guidelines. Patients are being denied medications and reimbursement for treating an officially diagnosed condition by their physician, because the insurance companies remain rooted in using the IDSA guidelines as their gold standard.
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
MB...
Good morning!
I saw a detailed report on this topic last night on the news.
The article says... "The fear is that many women have no known risk factors or family history of Breast Cancer, and thus still develop it -- about one out of 70 will experience it."
The report I heard stated very clearly that this was NOT applicable for woman at risk, such as those with a family history, etc.
The whole concept is a huge turn around in the medical world... no doubt.
And it does make me wonder the motive... and yes, knowing the IDSA and their "cost-effective, insurance friendly" guidelines, I do have to suspect something is not right.
IF, and I don't know, there is good science (by GOOD people- not the IDSA conflict of interest pigs we got stuck with) it would mean a couple of things.
1. A LOT of $$ have been wasted- much of it tax maoney and our donations. If people are being educated falsely.. bad $$ deal!
2. It will please many who, like me, who would rather eat nails than have a mammogram!
Where are the doctors and scientists who actually CARE about people?
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
Here is a short version for news networks that do not permit lengthy data:
Title: Mammogram Controversy Mirrors Lyme Disease
Patients are being denied medications and reimbursement for treating an officially diagnosed condition by their physician, because the insurance companies remain rooted in using controversial (and faulty) IDSA guidelines as their gold standard. The authors of the Lyme Disease Infectious Disease guidelines were investigated in 2006 by the attorney general of Connecticut (AG Richard Blumenthal) and found to have profound conflicts of interest. Some Physicians and Researchers have reviewed the available studies on persistent infection with Lyme on the pubmed.gov database and have been openly critical of the IDSA Guidelines. At the same time opposing guidelines exist in contrast to the IDSA which are ignored, even though the government has posted them on The National Guidelines U.S. Governments Clearinghouse: Website is guidelines.gov Guideline Name is: Evidence-based guidelines for the Management of Lyme Disease.
These Breast Cancer Guidelines as well as the guidelines produced by the IDSA on Lyme Disease may represents a new era of Insurance Companies and other groups manipulating studies and guidelines authors of both the government and of universities into producing guidelines which serve their interests in cost savings, via sacrificing "some" lives in-spite of appropriate evidence. If you have further questions, write me back or feel free to call: ***-***-****
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
I think the justifications for stopping education of self exam and of routine testing are absurd. Stress and anxiety are much better than death. I'd rather be terrified if they found something on my scan, and then later found it was benign, than not be scanned and die because I didn't get checked consistently of a "MAJOR" killer of women.
Think about it folks, 1 out of 70. That is huge. We have 300 million, people in the US, about half are women. You do the Math.
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
quote:Originally posted by METALLlC BLUE: [QB] I think the justifications for stopping education of self exam and of routine testing are absurd. Stress and anxiety are much better than death. women.
This is definitely ALL ABOUT THE MONEY! It's unimaginable that they would do this. Actually, they tried it several years back.
When the gov takes over health care you can forget about yearly mammograms.
-------------------- --Lymetutu-- Opinions, not medical advice! Posts: 96223 | From Texas | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Vermont_Lymie
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 9780
posted
Right on MB. That is the first thing that I thought went I heard these recommendations.
Early mammograms saves lives. There is no one disputing that women in their 40's who have had their breast cancers caught early with mammograms have survived due to these tests.
Posts: 2557 | From home | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
massman
Unregistered
posted
MB is that figure correct ?
In the 1980's in chiro college I was taught it was 1 in 9 at that time and the rate was getting worse.
Got into an "intresting discussion" with the professor as he cared about the statistics + not the reasons why it was increasing so much. guess he didn't like it when I questioned his "authority" + wouldnt back down.
Not sure what / where is best way to check.
IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
It's an average of all the different age ranges. 70-80, is typically what is seen.
A woman's chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer is
1 out of 233 by age 40, 1 out of 53 by age 50, 1 out of 22 by age 60, 1 out of 13 by age 70. 1 out of 8 70 thru death.
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
Hoosiers51
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 15759
posted
The first thing that crossed my mind when I read about this, was that they realized the exposure to radiation with mammograms is itself a risky behavior (perhaps too much of a risk to merit getting frequent mammograms), and they are trying to mitigate that risk.
Keep in mind that exposure to radiation in itself can cause cancer. Maybe they realized the risk is greater than previously thought.
My theory is that they don't want to come out and say that that is one of the reasons, to save their a$$'s. So they are referring to vague reasons, just saying it's "unnecessary."
Who wants to say that the past guidelines could have been EXPOSING women to cancer?
This is just all MY personal theory. Either that, or it has to do with insurance company pressure. Because I doubt anything else would be a good enough reason to change the guidelines.
There has to be something they aren't telling us...because it doesn't add up.
Just my 2 cents.
Though I think your idea is great, MB...any opportunity we can get to get Lyme press is great.
But to me, this seems similar to when they took the Lyme vaccine off the market for "lack of interest." Yeah, right. If that's what you want to call it. (sarcasm)
And I bet someday they'll finally change the childhood vaccination guidelines, spacing them out more, because of "unnecessary concerns from parents." Notice the trend here. It's never the medical establishment's fault, when they discover something they advocated was harmful. They always find a way to turn it back on the consumers.
Posts: 4590 | From Midwest | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Carol in PA
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 5338
posted
I ordered a book and received it today, Hippocrates' Shadow, Secrets from the House of Medicine.
Marnie had recommended this book, on another discussion.
In glancing quickly through the book, I came upon a discussion of mammograms. This subject was just in the newspaper, so I was interested.
Here are a few quotes.
In research studies on mammograms at least one in every four cases of breast cancer is found after a "normal" mammogram.
Ninety-seven percent of "positive" mammograms are wrong.
During ten years of mammograms about 20 percent of women, or one in every five, will have a false positive that leads to a biopsy.
If 70 million women have mammograms and one in every five has a biopsy due to a false positive, then we can estimate that between $14 billion and $70 billion is spent performing surgical procedures on normal breasts.
The risk of actually causing cancer due to radiation from the mammogram... ...we can estimate that mammograms cause about 7000 additional cases of breast cancer for every ten years of screening.
...in 2001... a group of scientists...exhaustively examined the data on mammograms.
...nearly half a million (women) from all over the world...(who) were enrolled in studies and assigned to one of two groups: routine checkups (with) mammograms, and routine checkups only.
(They) were followed for over ten years to determine how many died in each group and how many lived.
The total magnitude of the benefit was then calculated across all of the studies, and a rather surprising number was found: zero.
Having mammograms was of no benefit at all.
Women were alive and surviving at the same rate whether they had been assigned to receive mammograms or not.
===== The book then discusses why the different medical groups would recommend mammograms.
Quote: Mammograms mean big reimbursements, big money, and a large role for radiologists in routine preventive care. In addition, many mammograms are positive, and although 97% of these are false, it will take lots of surgical procedures to sort out which ones are and which ones are not.
The recommendation for...routine mammograms therefore supports the referral of millions of women for surgical procedures. This means payments for services to both the radiological and surgical establishments.
Hippocrates' Shadow: Secrets from the House of Medicine (Hardcover) David H Newman Publisher: Scribner; (September 9, 2008) pp. 35-39
Posts: 6947 | From Lancaster, PA | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
map1131
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 2022
posted
The next thing to happen....insurance companies denying claims for mammograms. Can you image the fight between patients & insurance?
All of us know the excuses they use for our denials.
Pam
-------------------- "Never, never, never, never, never give up" Winston Churchill Posts: 6478 | From Louisville, Ky | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic