HER2 Support Group Forums - View Single Post - A Message from Dr. Love about the New Mammography Guidelines

Debbie L. · 11-20-2009, 10:22 PM

So Debbie, because I disagree with the NY Times article you quoted and also disagree with Dr. Susan Love - that makes me "reactionary and paranoid" ?

Not at all. Disagreement and polite debate is how we all learn. We don't necessarily come to agreement, but we learn more about our thoughts and beliefs, and gain an understanding of others thoughts and beliefs also, when we debate politely and with respect.

But to start talking of conspiracy, financial gain, lack of concern for women's health, "death panels" -- as motives for the guidelines that are currently under discussion - yes that's reactionary and paranoid. The panel (USPSTF) took the information available (and they tell us what that information IS, if we want to read their references) and they evaluated both that information and its reliability (how well the studies were done), and they used it to draw their conclusions.

These guidelines are not based on new information. This information (that mammography is not as great as the awareness campaigns would have us believe) has been debated, re-examined, and supplemented by new studies for many years. And still there's controversy about mammography's value in saving lives. Everyone would agree that it's not a very good tool, at best, but it's what we have so we use it.

It has been known for a long time that the solution to breast cancer is much more complex than "early (small) detection", yet the awareness and early-detection campaigns have taken on a life, and a (false) reality of their own, and they have most women believing that if you have a mammogram, you will not die of breast cancer.

There's lots more to say on this subject, but the experts have said it far better than I could. If you're interested, check out the explanations at Susan Love's, NBCC's, or BCA's website. These organizations exist SOLELY to find out how to eradicate breast cancer, or at least to eradicate breast cancer deaths. To disagree with what they say is your right. To imply that they have some ulterior motive (finance or power, for example) is insulting and (again) reactionary and paranoid.

Debbie Laxague

11-20-2009, 10:22 PM	#18
Debbie L. Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 463	Re: A Message from Dr. Love about the New Mammography Guidelines So Debbie, because I disagree with the NY Times article you quoted and also disagree with Dr. Susan Love - that makes me "reactionary and paranoid" ? Not at all. Disagreement and polite debate is how we all learn. We don't necessarily come to agreement, but we learn more about our thoughts and beliefs, and gain an understanding of others thoughts and beliefs also, when we debate politely and with respect. But to start talking of conspiracy, financial gain, lack of concern for women's health, "death panels" -- as motives for the guidelines that are currently under discussion - yes that's reactionary and paranoid. The panel (USPSTF) took the information available (and they tell us what that information IS, if we want to read their references) and they evaluated both that information and its reliability (how well the studies were done), and they used it to draw their conclusions. These guidelines are not based on new information. This information (that mammography is not as great as the awareness campaigns would have us believe) has been debated, re-examined, and supplemented by new studies for many years. And still there's controversy about mammography's value in saving lives. Everyone would agree that it's not a very good tool, at best, but it's what we have so we use it. It has been known for a long time that the solution to breast cancer is much more complex than "early (small) detection", yet the awareness and early-detection campaigns have taken on a life, and a (false) reality of their own, and they have most women believing that if you have a mammogram, you will not die of breast cancer. There's lots more to say on this subject, but the experts have said it far better than I could. If you're interested, check out the explanations at Susan Love's, NBCC's, or BCA's website. These organizations exist SOLELY to find out how to eradicate breast cancer, or at least to eradicate breast cancer deaths. To disagree with what they say is your right. To imply that they have some ulterior motive (finance or power, for example) is insulting and (again) reactionary and paranoid. Debbie Laxague