BREAST MONTH
- Thread starter leVieux
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Reckon them are natural?
I think once a year after age 40 is reasonable. Where did a recommendation for 30 months come from? I have had family die of breast cancer in less than 30 months. Asset allocation just means rationing.
Of course it means rationing. MMGs cost money & require people & machines. About the only that isn't rationed one way or another is air.
LeVieux pointed out the exceptions that ought to be more frequent.
<>
No, but that is easier to diagnose and there is no controversy about the treatment. A worse actor than either is cancer of the ovary in Women, b/c it is so darned hard to detect until too late.
Breast cancer is a disease that the more one learns about it, the more one realizes that what they thought they really knew for sure, the less they actually knew.
One really strange thing is that many breast cancers never hurt anyone and are only found at autopsy. The big problem that presents is that we are very far from being able to predict which is which. I’ve seen many cases in which the mammogram finding that seemed so worrisome was completely benign, but the Pathologist found a malignant tumor in the same specimen, that we couldn’t ever see on the mammograms, even in retrospect.
Our society has sufficient facilities, equipment, & expertise to do about the number of screening mammograms needed per year in our nation; but we can’t seem to get the tests distributed evenly to those who need them.
That, and the fact that the public has been sold on “more is better”, which is certainly not the case.
And, our capabilities for diagnosis are far from perfect.
<>
No, but that is easier to diagnose and there is no controversy about the treatment. A worse actor than either is cancer of the ovary in Women, b/c it is so darned hard to detect until too late.
Breast cancer is a disease that the more one learns about it, the more one realizes that what they thought they really knew for sure, the less they actually knew.
One really strange thing is that many breast cancers never hurt anyone and are only found at autopsy. The big problem that presents is that we are very far from being able to predict which is which. I’ve seen many cases in which the mammogram finding that seemed so worrisome was completely benign, but the Pathologist found a malignant tumor in the same specimen, that we couldn’t ever see on the mammograms, even in retrospect.
Our society has sufficient facilities, equipment, & expertise to do about the number of screening mammograms needed per year in our nation; but we can’t seem to get the tests distributed evenly to those who need them.
That, and the fact that the public has been sold on “more is better”, which is certainly not the case.
And, our capabilities for diagnosis are far from perfect.
<>
<>
It came from me supervising and interpreting some 20K mammograms over about 24 years.
And, from me trying to get tests done for the many who had never had even one.
If you read the O..P., I carefully separated out the three known higher risk groups, who require expert consultations & management, no matter their mammogram findings.
Please tell us what your expertise is in this area.
<>
Everything cost money but we are not talking about a rare condition. The one year cost of my seeing my dentist for having my teeth cleaned twice a year would pay for at least 3 years of annual mammograms. I don't think skipping my dental care once is as likely to kill me as my better half missing her mammogram. Evidence for having a mammogram every 2 years? The real problem is not the cost (can be had for $50 in some clinics) is that not enough women have them done. Once a lump is felt and breast cancer diagnosed mortality is 50% and again, that diagnosis is one in eight women. If you believe that early detection (hopefully before a lump is felt) saves lives than breast imaging on a timely basis (sonography, MRI, mammograms) is warranted. Timely is the question. One year is reasonable. For the dental people, is having your teeth cleaned every six months timely? Fatal if not done once a year?
The doc asks my experience, funerals for friends that missed their mammograms.
The doc asks my experience, funerals for friends that missed their mammograms.
Fishkiller
TGT Addict
I did a mommogtam on the wife last night. No lumps. Just a bulge, and you know where
Some people need their teeth cleaned every month. Some need it very 5 years.
I've been to funerals for people that had their MMGs.
Public health is not about individuals, it's about statistics.
"If it saves one life" is a common argument for gun control.
I've been to funerals for people that had their MMGs.
Public health is not about individuals, it's about statistics.
"If it saves one life" is a common argument for gun control.
I didn’t use the “if it saves one life argument ”. I don’t know squat about oral surgery but let’s be honest, are you going to let your wife skip an annual mammogram assuming she is 40 or older? I think everyone can decide on their own. But having a doctor recommend going to 30 months is a very poor choice, not surprising from the source.
