BREAST MONTH

[1911'S 4 Me]

We should just make breast cancer illegal.

An executive order should take care of that.
After all Bidet said cancer would be eliminated during his term.

 

[leVieux]

We should just make breast cancer illegal.

<>

Point well-taken !

<>

 

[V-Tach]

Yes "breast cancer fund raising" has become big business and it is very profitable for a many. If the funds are going for pre screening and or actually given back in some way to help actual women, I'm good with that. But "research" is subsidizing big pharma.......

How much will they make if they find a cure vs treatment long term...........


Raising awareness is good and necessary, but there is a dark side too............


A lot of folks are too emotionally involved to actually discuss the problem rationally.......

 

[FireInTheWire]

I clicked on this thread expecting Exactly what I've seen so far! Ya'll are more predictable than the phasing of the moon.

 

[leVieux]

<>

In the beginning, the ONLY rationale for suggesting that the screening mammogram be made “annual” was this:

“We’ve got women coming-in for annual exams & Pap smears, let’s just do a mammogram evey year then, too.”

There was ZERO scientific basis or other more valid reason.

Then, there is the major differences b/t “screening” & diagnostic mammograms which needs to be understood.

The entire issue causes massive unnecessary anxiety in healthy Women.

<>

 

[leVieux]

I clicked on this thread expecting Exactly what I've seen so far! Ya'll are more predictable than the phasing of the moon.

<>

You know it !

<>

 

[leVieux]

Yes "breast cancer fund raising" has become big business and it is very profitable for a many. If the funds are going for pre screening and or actually given back in some way to help actual women, I'm good with that. But "research" is subsidizing big pharma.......

How much will they make if they find a cure vs treatment long term...........


Raising awareness is good and necessary, but there is a dark side too............


A lot of folks are too emotionally involved to actually discuss the problem rationally.......

<>

Look into “Komen’’ !

<>

 

[Younggun]

This thread is stupid.


“Some women don’t get mammograms. The answer must be that other women get too many”

What kind of backwoods inbred hillbilly logic is that? Sounds like some women just don’t take the issue as serious as others.


And the awareness programs are bad too apparently, even though some women apparently aren’t getting mammograms often enough.


Tardation abounds.

 

[V-Tach]

Yep......tardation abounds............

 

[SARGE67]

The women I know, including my wife, take the screenings seriously. I don't probe into how often they get them but do know they get them. They also say they get checked for skin cancer yearly or more often if have a history. Now, I can't say us men are as diligent on screenings for prostate or skin cancers. Most men I know say stuff like, "Oh I don't need that junk, I'm just fine". Is why God invented wives, to nag their butts to the doctors.

My sister-in-law in her 30's was screened and they found breast cancer, did surgery but had to go back and get what they missed the first time, a common thing I hear. Now she's in the waiting period process of more screening. If she had waited until age 40 to be screened, well.....

 

[Moonpie]

I clicked on this thread expecting Exactly what I've seen so far! Ya'll are more predictable than the phasing of the moon.

Stop being a titty baby.

 

[leVieux]

This thread is stupid.


“Some women don’t get mammograms. The answer must be that other women get too many”

What kind of backwoods inbred hillbilly logic is that? Sounds like some women just don’t take the issue as serious as others.


And the awareness programs are bad too apparently, even though some women apparently aren’t getting mammograms often enough.


Tardation abounds.

<>

We know from years of amassed statistics that our domestic diagnostic medical industry has proper capacity. And we know from detailed cancer records about how many tests are proper for the number of “at risk’’ persons living in the USA.

It is not any “logic”; the problem is that many either can’t afford, don’t trust, or are just plain scared of having a diagnosis. Not rational.


Also, while on the topic, don’t forget that b//t 2% & 8% of breast cancers are in MEN, and mammograms are not nearly as useful in them. I lost a friend to this a few years back. After decades of experience, my recommendation to men is this: If you have a hard breast lump of any size, get an ultrasound. It the lump is solid on ultrasound, have the lump & breast surgically removed now.

I am not considered an expert in this area.

leVieux

<>

 

[alternative]

<>

We know from years of amassed statistics that our domestic diagnostic medical industry has proper capacity. And we know from detailed cancer records about how many tests are proper for the number of “at risk’’ persons living in the USA.

It is not any “logic”; the problem is that many either can’t afford, don’t trust, or are just plain scared of having a diagnosis. Not rational.


Also, while on the topic, don’t forget that b//t 2% & 8% of breast cancers are in MEN, and mammograms are not nearly as useful in them. I lost a friend to this a few years back. After decades of experience, my recommendation to men is this: If you have a hard breast lump of any size, get an ultrasound. It the lump is solid on ultrasound, have the lump & breast surgically removed now.

I am not considered an expert in this area.

leVieux

<>

Something we can agree on.

 

[leVieux]

<>

It has been impossible to get the American Public to understand and accept the public health rationale of “SCREENING”.

Citizens have been taught to demand VW prices but get Bentley service.

<>

 

[KTXdm9]

Bewbs, the great uniter(s).