Good example of anecdotal evidence vs. data.
Almost every woman and their doctor has come out in severe opposition to this report.
And it is about the numbers and the money, no doubt.
Reading and writing technical reports is tedious at best and often misinterpreted.
The common headline on this has been something like "Panel recommends eliminating mammograms for women under 50" which sounds ludicrous, because it is.
Being the devil's advocate for a moment, that isn't the recommendation here.
But like most research scientists, they don't do well communicating with people.
What they did find, was that most routine, annual mammograms between ages 40-49 found nothing. About 1 in 1900. After age 50 it is 1 in 1345.
The key words here were routine, annual and most importantly, with no family history.
And while that may be true, most people didn't hear it that way, and most don't realize that it is women themselves that find the lumps and the vast majority didn't have a family history of breast cancer AND that it can occur at ANY age.
Way too many variables here to publish this narrow, poorly worded guideline.
(See above reference to poor communication skills for these people)
If I believed in coincidences, I would be swearing up and down right now that this was one of those "death panels" we've been warned of, but this panel has been around for 20 years and has strong ties to the insurance industry, and as I said, no oncologists, even though they make recommendations on many cancer treatments - both men and women.
So I don't believe it's a coincidence, but probably "payback" for eliminating pre-existing conditions, etc.
The good thing is, most doctors being interviewed on this have carefully explained the difference between what most people think it says, and what it means. And hopefully their patients are listening closely.
A mammogram may not detect a cancer in many women in their 40's, but if you or your doctor think it's a good idea - then do it!
:worried3:
