-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
-
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Breast Exams revisited.
- Thread starter coolhand
- Start date
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
No specialist on the panel..hmm, sad, but not even the least bit unexpected. I heard the same thing is going to happen with prostate exams. Well that's one way to save money.
"More spending on "prevention" has long been the cry of health reformers, and President Obama has been especially forceful. In his health speech to Congress in September, the President made a point of emphasizing "routine checkups and preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies—because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."
It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.
No specialist on the panel..hmm, sad, but not even the least bit unexpected. I heard the same thing is going to happen with prostate exams. Well that's one way to save money.
"More spending on "prevention" has long been the cry of health reformers, and President Obama has been especially forceful. In his health speech to Congress in September, the President made a point of emphasizing "routine checkups and preventative care, like mammograms and colonoscopies—because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse."
It turns out that there is, in fact, a reason: Screening for breast cancer will cost the government too much money, even if it saves lives.
Show-me
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
Tell it to the woman it saves. Now we are getting on the slippery slope. Granted this study was done a 1.5 years ago according to another article I read or seen and it is normal for this panel to review and make new recommendations. The timing is bad for health care reformers and may give the public a looking glass into what they may be in for under Obamacare. It is leaving a bad taste for many women and the media is really playing it up. I watch the Nightly News with Ann Curry interview HHS Sec. Sebelius and Ann was not kind to her.
Tell it to the woman it saves. Now we are getting on the slippery slope. Granted this study was done a 1.5 years ago according to another article I read or seen and it is normal for this panel to review and make new recommendations. The timing is bad for health care reformers and may give the public a looking glass into what they may be in for under Obamacare. It is leaving a bad taste for many women and the media is really playing it up. I watch the Nightly News with Ann Curry interview HHS Sec. Sebelius and Ann was not kind to her.
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
I think I would call a foul on this claim- in fact, if you read the report, they don't even use cost as a criteria in the evaluation. Instead, they use a scientific approach as to what works, evaluting various studies on how much is gained by a test, vs. changing the existing protocol.
See the summary of their findings here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm#summary
You can read the whole document here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
It's better to evaluate with your own brain what the work of the independent panel, which has nothing to do with the political administration one way or another, and see what they used for the scientific evidence, rather than simply depend on some opion piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by a guy who - in the opinion piece, wrote this:
Yes, I believe medical science and review of the current state of the art medicine SHOULD be part of the decisions going into what basic coverages should be in health care plans. It was this panel who recommended mamography in the first place. Without this panel's recmooendations in the past, based on the state of the art medical studies at the time, we never would have had mamorgraphy as a covered treatement in the first place. Insurance companies would have called it "experimental treatment", and refused to cover paying for it.
This panel, who released this report, made RECOMMENDATIONS- They are NOT the government, they only review medical science, and make recommendations. it's not a politicial body.
Here is who studied and made the recommendations:
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* are Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado); Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH, Vice-Chair (Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona); Thomas G. DeWitt, MD (Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Allen J. Dietrich, MD (Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire); Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California); David Grossman, MD (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington); George Isham, MD, MS (HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri); Rosanne M. Leipzig, MD, PhD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York); Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RN (School of Nursing, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia); Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN (Arizona State University College of Nursing & Health Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona); Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas); Judith K. Ockene, PhD (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts); George F. Sawaya, MD (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California); J. Sanford Schwartz, MD (University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH (University of Minnesota Department of Medicine and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota). *Members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm.
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
How about we look at medical facts, and scientific evidence, rather than one more slam against the President?
I think I would call a foul on this claim- in fact, if you read the report, they don't even use cost as a criteria in the evaluation. Instead, they use a scientific approach as to what works, evaluting various studies on how much is gained by a test, vs. changing the existing protocol.
See the summary of their findings here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf/uspsbrca.htm#summary
You can read the whole document here:
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstf09/breastcancer/brcanrs.htm
It's better to evaluate with your own brain what the work of the independent panel, which has nothing to do with the political administration one way or another, and see what they used for the scientific evidence, rather than simply depend on some opion piece in the Wall Street Journal, written by a guy who - in the opinion piece, wrote this:
A political slam by an opinion writer at the WSJ, rather than fact based scientific study reviewed by medical professionals.
Yes, I believe medical science and review of the current state of the art medicine SHOULD be part of the decisions going into what basic coverages should be in health care plans. It was this panel who recommended mamography in the first place. Without this panel's recmooendations in the past, based on the state of the art medical studies at the time, we never would have had mamorgraphy as a covered treatement in the first place. Insurance companies would have called it "experimental treatment", and refused to cover paying for it.
This panel, who released this report, made RECOMMENDATIONS- They are NOT the government, they only review medical science, and make recommendations. it's not a politicial body.
Here is who studied and made the recommendations:
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
Members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force* are Ned Calonge, MD, MPH, Chair (Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado); Diana B. Petitti, MD, MPH, Vice-Chair (Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona); Thomas G. DeWitt, MD (Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, Ohio); Allen J. Dietrich, MD (Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire); Kimberly D. Gregory, MD, MPH (Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California); David Grossman, MD (Group Health Cooperative, Seattle, Washington); George Isham, MD, MS (HealthPartners, Minneapolis, Minnesota); Michael L. LeFevre, MD, MSPH (University of Missouri School of Medicine, Columbia, Missouri); Rosanne M. Leipzig, MD, PhD (Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York); Lucy N. Marion, PhD, RN (School of Nursing, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, Georgia); Bernadette Melnyk, PhD, RN (Arizona State University College of Nursing & Health Innovation, Phoenix, Arizona); Virginia A. Moyer, MD, MPH (Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas); Judith K. Ockene, PhD (University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts); George F. Sawaya, MD (University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California); J. Sanford Schwartz, MD (University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the Wharton School, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania); and Timothy Wilt, MD, MPH (University of Minnesota Department of Medicine and Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota). *Members of the Task Force at the time this recommendation was finalized. For a list of current Task Force members, go to http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/uspstfab.htm.
Disclaimer: Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
How about we look at medical facts, and scientific evidence, rather than one more slam against the President?
Last edited:
grandma
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
This article doesn't mention that included in the report was advice to discourage self-exams...they stated self-exams were ineffective, and they were to be discouraged. It is hard for me to understand `they' can make such statements, obviously believing them, without a review of various cancer patients, asking those women and men, how they came to the situation of asking for a mammogram... which, obviously, is why the government doesn't want any self-exams done, cuz then mammograms won't be demanded. Don't you know some insurance companies are going to pick up on this!! I am curious as to whether the women in these peoples' lives are as duped as the men who put this obnoxious report together.
This article doesn't mention that included in the report was advice to discourage self-exams...they stated self-exams were ineffective, and they were to be discouraged. It is hard for me to understand `they' can make such statements, obviously believing them, without a review of various cancer patients, asking those women and men, how they came to the situation of asking for a mammogram... which, obviously, is why the government doesn't want any self-exams done, cuz then mammograms won't be demanded. Don't you know some insurance companies are going to pick up on this!! I am curious as to whether the women in these peoples' lives are as duped as the men who put this obnoxious report together.
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
They said that self-exam had a very low detection rate compared to clinic exam (in a doctor's office), and that the only two studies that had been done on self-exam showed statistically that it was inferior to the other options, and caused more harm than good.
Again, they just evaluate the studies that have been done and compare them with the scientific results and outcomes.
I guess we need to do a lot more studies on breast self-exams. I will go home tonight and study with my wife. It may take repeated homework on that one.....
They said that self-exam had a very low detection rate compared to clinic exam (in a doctor's office), and that the only two studies that had been done on self-exam showed statistically that it was inferior to the other options, and caused more harm than good.
Again, they just evaluate the studies that have been done and compare them with the scientific results and outcomes.
I guess we need to do a lot more studies on breast self-exams. I will go home tonight and study with my wife. It may take repeated homework on that one.....
Show-me
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
I have to agree with James. The panel looked at statistics only not at the money. Some outside the panel may use this to save money but these guys are looking at just the medical side.
They are trying to determine if the amount of false positives and unnecessary procedures out weight the number of people saved.
As Grandma mentions I can not fathom why they would recommend against self examinations. To me that is a first line of defense.
I also understand about the physiological effect. They are saying around 10% false positives cause unnecessary medical procedures and stress. Compared to the 1 in 1900 that actually have cancer.
10% of 1900 is 190 women that are told they may have cancer and end up not. That may be causing more harm that good. Those 190 women are going through hell thinking they have cancer. The physiological effects can make you sick thinking you are sick. Been there done that.
To me it goes back to taking charge of your health. If your family has a history, grab your physician and have a serious talk. Risk factors are the key.
I have to agree with James. The panel looked at statistics only not at the money. Some outside the panel may use this to save money but these guys are looking at just the medical side.
They are trying to determine if the amount of false positives and unnecessary procedures out weight the number of people saved.
As Grandma mentions I can not fathom why they would recommend against self examinations. To me that is a first line of defense.
I also understand about the physiological effect. They are saying around 10% false positives cause unnecessary medical procedures and stress. Compared to the 1 in 1900 that actually have cancer.
10% of 1900 is 190 women that are told they may have cancer and end up not. That may be causing more harm that good. Those 190 women are going through hell thinking they have cancer. The physiological effects can make you sick thinking you are sick. Been there done that.
To me it goes back to taking charge of your health. If your family has a history, grab your physician and have a serious talk. Risk factors are the key.
James48843
Well-known member
Re: Obama on Health Care
You know- this probably should have it's own thread- as I bet we'll hear lots of voices about this study, and this thread was meant more for the Congressional health care debate, than the merits of just one panel's study.
Would someone like to start a breast cancer panel recommendation thread?
You know- this probably should have it's own thread- as I bet we'll hear lots of voices about this study, and this thread was meant more for the Congressional health care debate, than the merits of just one panel's study.
Would someone like to start a breast cancer panel recommendation thread?
Intrepid_Timer
Well-known member
I know a lot of people, to include Dr.s, who believe that mammograms only make the problem worse by pushing the cancerous tumor cells into the blood stream. They believe that thermal mammographies are the way to go. However, they are more expensive and most insurance companies don't cover them. Think the govt. run health care system will? 
Steadygain
TSP Elite
Re: Obama on Health Care
Was totally 'shocked' by this Thread !!
Grandma, these are my sentiments exactly.
Would like to include that 'we' have screenings now that go way beyond the Mammogram --- -for breat cancer -- Lab on a Chip and that will likely be the most dominate wave of the future because the screening is so accurate and can catch things way before a mammogram.
So 'Medically' -- 'Technology' we are making incredible advancements.
Heath Care System -- however -- is a different story
Was totally 'shocked' by this Thread !!
Grandma, these are my sentiments exactly.
Would like to include that 'we' have screenings now that go way beyond the Mammogram --- -for breat cancer -- Lab on a Chip and that will likely be the most dominate wave of the future because the screening is so accurate and can catch things way before a mammogram.
So 'Medically' -- 'Technology' we are making incredible advancements.
Heath Care System -- however -- is a different story
Frixxxx
Moderator
Under a government public option, how many different panels would have to approve/disapprove measures for this type of preventative/diagnostic care?
I'm not up on this specific debate, but would like to know more!
My wife is a few years older than me and she is still on the ceiling about this one!
I'm not up on this specific debate, but would like to know more!
My wife is a few years older than me and she is still on the ceiling about this one!
Valkyrie
Well-known member
I know a lot of people, to include Dr.s, who believe that mammograms only make the problem worse by pushing the cancerous tumor cells into the blood stream. They believe that thermal mammographies are the way to go. However, they are more expensive and most insurance companies don't cover them. Think the govt. run health care system will?
Isn't it interesting II, that nobody responds to your truthful comments.
The billion dollar cancer industry likes pushing radiation into sensitve breast tissue that can now easily become cancerous from the radiation. Lets not talk about how vitamin D and having a proper ratio of omega 6:3 ratio will prevent and reverse cancer. people rather be scared to death by the chemo doctors which will kill most in 3-6 months faster than the cancer would kill the person if diet is not changed.
Lets not talk about the latest research for the last 10yrs has been that all sickness, disease and cancer is caused by an underlining inflamation of the body tissues. Not enough omega 3 fats is one cause on inflamation.
www.drday.com
www.naturalnews.com
www.dadamo.com wrong foods per blood type cause inflamation.
Frixxxx
Moderator
Thanks for the sites, wow...where you been Valkyrie?
Steadygain
TSP Elite
My wife is a few years older than me and she is still on the ceiling about this one!
Please let her know that's not good for the RSD and you'll probably need to lightly and lovingly carry her down.
Also make sure you tell her that many of the Posts and Threads are sometimes displayed for their 'shock value' -- and that's what sparks some lively discussions.
Let her know the bright side about 'stress' and times like this are what makes those cruises so much more enjoyable and that you've got some plans in the making....
that will get her smiling and things should improve....
:toung:
Steadygain
TSP Elite
This is Excellent !! Valkyrie
Many are finally comming to the light -- and by that hopefully the trend towards healty lifestyles and 'nature' will increasingly eliminate both the need for Pharmaceuticals and Doctor visits.
We're also seeing this in the Salmon --- with 40 dams a year being destroyed and letting 'nature' be as it should. Going from 3,000 to 390,000 and all 5 species comming back strong.
Frixxxx
Moderator
FYI
Sunday - zero:nuts:
Monday - two
Tuesday - zero:nuts:
Wednesday - one
Today - zero:nuts:
Walkin on sunshine whoaaa
Intrepid_Timer
Well-known member
Thanks for the links! I had forgotten about the www.dadamo.com one. The girl I just started dating is type O and just like the site states, she has thyroid and stomach issues. We'll be changing her diet right away. Amazing how accurate it is................
Thanks for the blood type web site. I don't know if I believe all that or not. My sister an RN, told me about this theory years ago. I'm big into vitamins and herbs, which I believe help alot. The treatment of cancer has been quite a disaster for years; however is getting better. I think it really depends on the type of cancer you get. I've known several personally who have gottten it and died rather soon. I would have to think wether I would go thru the treatments or not.
James48843
Well-known member
Earlier I said this:
It basically boils down to this- it is clear from the two studies that they reviewed (the only two available to them, neither of which was done in the United States, but rather in other countries) that there WAS a statistically significant difference between detection rates when done by a medical professional, and a person doing a self-exam. The data showed that self-exam actually had a very, very poor detection rate, when compared to a doctor doing it in the office, OR compared to a mamogram.
So, I got an idea.
What we REALLY need to do, is raise the proficiency level of breast examinations. Instead of just pushing self-examinations, perhaps we need to train and deploy a cadre of specially trained para-professionals experienced in checking every nook and cranny, looking for anything out of the ordinary.
A sort of "Peace-Corps" set of volunteer trained breast inspectors.
Heck- I think maybe we can even do our own study. I'll get the training set up, and then advertise my services as a para-professional breast inspector, and volunteer to test each and every potential person myself. Kind of like a "First Responder" that is highly trained.
What do you think? Can we gather enough volunteers for to create a force of para-professional breast inspectors to try this out?:nuts: Maybe we need some badges, and a black bag, to project just the right image....
I just went back and read that breast exam data more carefully.
It basically boils down to this- it is clear from the two studies that they reviewed (the only two available to them, neither of which was done in the United States, but rather in other countries) that there WAS a statistically significant difference between detection rates when done by a medical professional, and a person doing a self-exam. The data showed that self-exam actually had a very, very poor detection rate, when compared to a doctor doing it in the office, OR compared to a mamogram.
So, I got an idea.
What we REALLY need to do, is raise the proficiency level of breast examinations. Instead of just pushing self-examinations, perhaps we need to train and deploy a cadre of specially trained para-professionals experienced in checking every nook and cranny, looking for anything out of the ordinary.
A sort of "Peace-Corps" set of volunteer trained breast inspectors.
Heck- I think maybe we can even do our own study. I'll get the training set up, and then advertise my services as a para-professional breast inspector, and volunteer to test each and every potential person myself. Kind of like a "First Responder" that is highly trained.
What do you think? Can we gather enough volunteers for to create a force of para-professional breast inspectors to try this out?:nuts: Maybe we need some badges, and a black bag, to project just the right image....
Last edited:
Similar threads
