[Mtngrl]

Let me just say, for the record, that it's not at all clear that "early detection saves lives." If they could really tell which cancers were dangerous and which were not, that might be true. But by shifting the focus from (a) prevention (and I mean efforts to find out what's causing it and eliminate the causes--such as the soup of industrial pollutants that we all soak up every day) and (b) cure to "Let's find out you have it and do our standard 'slash, burn and poison' on everyone and, oh, by the way, we'll make billions of dollars on routine screening" I am not going to advocate everyone getting mammograms every year from age 40 on. Lots of false positives. Lots of false negatives. Lots of money to be made scaring people into thinking they have a higher risk of getting this disease than they really do (and then duping them into thinking early detection = cure.) The fact is, about 30% of people diagnosed and treated at a lower stage progress to Stage IV, and about 10% are Stage IV at diagnosis. Those are not particularly good survival statistics. I do not believe you can consider any breast cancer curable. We need to learn what causes metastasis and how to stop it. Then we can all go "racing for the cure" to make sure everyone gets that--a vaccine or a pill or whatever.

The gold standard in cancer is PREVENTION. Lung cancer rates have plummeted along with rates of smoking. Stomach cancer is almost a thing of the past now that we have refrigeration and antibiotics. Cervical cancer in women and throat cancer in men is now preventable with an HPV vaccine. That's what we need.

We know people--dear, beloved, sorely missed sisters on this board--who were diagnosed and treated at Stage 0 and died anyway. We'll never know how many were diagnosed "early" and went through all the trauma of treatment who would not have died if it had been found later, when they were symptomatic. A short time back an "accidental" pairing of matched populations in Europe showed NO difference in overall survival between starting routine screening early and starting it later. OTOH, it might make all the difference for an individual. At this time, there is no way to tell.

I have a friend who found her own enlarged axillary lymph node ONE MONTH after a "clear" mammogram. I have another friend who has a similar story. They are both Stage IV. I was maybe a little behind in my mammo schedule (due to insurance/budget concerns) but not all that far behind, and my tumor would have been Stage II if not for those pesky mets they found at diagnosis. So spare me the "early detection saves lives" mantra. You can't prove it.