<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Mammogram Controversy &#8211; Follow the Money</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/</link>
	<description>Sharing Excellence in Medicine for Optimal Health</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:50:59 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Linda</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-3/#comment-170</link>
		<dc:creator>Linda</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:33:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-170</guid>
		<description>For Pam,

You might want to research a little more, before making comments. Here is a good article at which to start:
http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/12/truth-squad—medical-reporting-on-mammograms/</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For Pam,</p>
<p>You might want to research a little more, before making comments. Here is a good article at which to start:<br />
<a href="http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/12/truth-squad—medical-reporting-on-mammograms/" rel="nofollow">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/12/truth-squad—medical-reporting-on-mammograms/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dolev Gilmore</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-3/#comment-169</link>
		<dc:creator>Dolev Gilmore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Dec 2009 09:40:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-169</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d like to suggest that all women with breast cancer or worried about it should look into &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/breastcancer.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dr. Lee&#039;s work&lt;/a&gt;, and also check out the connection between iodine deficiency and breast cancer. Search out &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.drbrownstein.com/homePage.php&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dr. David Brownstein&lt;/a&gt; and &lt;a href=&quot;http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/pdfs/IOD02.pdf&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Dr. Guy Abraham&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to suggest that all women with breast cancer or worried about it should look into <a href="http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/breastcancer.html" rel="nofollow">Dr. Lee&#8217;s work</a>, and also check out the connection between iodine deficiency and breast cancer. Search out <a href="https://www.drbrownstein.com/homePage.php" rel="nofollow">Dr. David Brownstein</a> and <a href="http://optimox.com/pics/Iodine/pdfs/IOD02.pdf" rel="nofollow">Dr. Guy Abraham</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: E. Connors</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-159</link>
		<dc:creator>E. Connors</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 03:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-159</guid>
		<description>Notice that the government is not suggesting thermography as a substitute for mammography.  Much of the uproar  is because citizens recognize the beginning of a &quot;less care is better care&quot; theme that will permeate the health care industry when the health care bill is passed through Congress.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Notice that the government is not suggesting thermography as a substitute for mammography.  Much of the uproar  is because citizens recognize the beginning of a &#8220;less care is better care&#8221; theme that will permeate the health care industry when the health care bill is passed through Congress.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kate Cherico,RN</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-155</link>
		<dc:creator>Kate Cherico,RN</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 22:39:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-155</guid>
		<description>No one has addressed the radiation exposure problem. I understand from Dr. Lee&#039;s book on Breast Cancer that each mammogram packs a 3% exposure to radiation that is actually causitive for cancer. Figure if a woman has a yearly mammogram for just ten years her exposure (and thus a risk factor for breast cancer) increases 30%! Who would not link these to the increase in breast cancers we are experiencing. When the diagnostics
actually come with an increased risk for cancer how can anyone trust this as a preventative test? Over time radiation is cumulative and builds with each exposure.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>No one has addressed the radiation exposure problem. I understand from Dr. Lee&#8217;s book on Breast Cancer that each mammogram packs a 3% exposure to radiation that is actually causitive for cancer. Figure if a woman has a yearly mammogram for just ten years her exposure (and thus a risk factor for breast cancer) increases 30%! Who would not link these to the increase in breast cancers we are experiencing. When the diagnostics<br />
actually come with an increased risk for cancer how can anyone trust this as a preventative test? Over time radiation is cumulative and builds with each exposure.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Karen Thompson</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-153</link>
		<dc:creator>Karen Thompson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-153</guid>
		<description>Was diagnosed with Breast Cancer 1992 at age 43, by exam and biopsy.  Tumor was over 5 cm and in 8 of 16 lymph nodes.  Had been having mammograms since age 40.  Nothing showed on the mammograms even the day that the Dr. found the lump and insisted on biopsy.  So, I have known since 1992 that mammograms are not effective in younger women or women with breast implants.   Since I now only have 1 breast to montior and a chest wall that also requires observation, the past few years I&#039;ve used Thermography.  Was referred by my Oncologist who told me that Thermography gives her a lot more information about what&#039;s going on with lymph nodes, chest and remaining breast than mammogram.  This was a &quot;God sent&quot; for me.  I don&#039;t have the discomfort of mammogram or the exposure to radiation..plus more information on any changes.  So, why doesn&#039;t my insurance cover this? Are they insane?  Thermography is FDA approved.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Was diagnosed with Breast Cancer 1992 at age 43, by exam and biopsy.  Tumor was over 5 cm and in 8 of 16 lymph nodes.  Had been having mammograms since age 40.  Nothing showed on the mammograms even the day that the Dr. found the lump and insisted on biopsy.  So, I have known since 1992 that mammograms are not effective in younger women or women with breast implants.   Since I now only have 1 breast to montior and a chest wall that also requires observation, the past few years I&#8217;ve used Thermography.  Was referred by my Oncologist who told me that Thermography gives her a lot more information about what&#8217;s going on with lymph nodes, chest and remaining breast than mammogram.  This was a &#8220;God sent&#8221; for me.  I don&#8217;t have the discomfort of mammogram or the exposure to radiation..plus more information on any changes.  So, why doesn&#8217;t my insurance cover this? Are they insane?  Thermography is FDA approved.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pam</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-149</link>
		<dc:creator>pam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:37:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-149</guid>
		<description>This seems like a really alarmist piece here. We really do not have any evidence that mammograms cause cancer and we do have evidence that early detection has saved lives and the more women have been getting screenings, the fatality rate has been going down.  I think your piece might be more believable if you cited some actual evidence of both the &quot;money making&quot; of the world of mammography etc. as well as the risks of mammography - you refer to them as if they are facts.  The recommendation which came out is confusing enough without your alarmist article.  Equally of concern is the implication that women who need screening won&#039;t get it now and that, in fact, the insurance industry will benefit by having something else they don&#039;t have to cover! So timely right before the possibility of real health care reform.  I found the piece very unprofessional.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This seems like a really alarmist piece here. We really do not have any evidence that mammograms cause cancer and we do have evidence that early detection has saved lives and the more women have been getting screenings, the fatality rate has been going down.  I think your piece might be more believable if you cited some actual evidence of both the &#8220;money making&#8221; of the world of mammography etc. as well as the risks of mammography &#8211; you refer to them as if they are facts.  The recommendation which came out is confusing enough without your alarmist article.  Equally of concern is the implication that women who need screening won&#8217;t get it now and that, in fact, the insurance industry will benefit by having something else they don&#8217;t have to cover! So timely right before the possibility of real health care reform.  I found the piece very unprofessional.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William J. Strandwitz, PhD</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-147</link>
		<dc:creator>William J. Strandwitz, PhD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:50:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-147</guid>
		<description>Thought your readers might want to read this.
Bill

A ‘Death Panel’ Surfaces by John Armor

This week, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force announced its recommendation that women between the ages of 40 and 50 no longer receive routine mammograms to detect breast cancer at its earliest and most curable stage. This was a near-total reversal of the same Task Force’s earlier recommendations, and contrary to the advice of the American Cancer Society and other authorities.
 
The Task Force did, of course, state its reasons for this radically different recommendation. They used computer modeling of three large studies of breast cancer, in Sweden, Britain, and the United States. According to that work, &quot;For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented while 480 women would get a false-positive result and 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.&quot;
 
The total cost of all mammograms of women of all ages is estimated as $5 billion per year, though the Task Force claimed that cost was not a factor in its decision-making. However, the very way they stated the basis of their recommendation suggests that claim is false. It is also one more example of the fact that the American media can totally miss a story which is right under their noses. There has been ample discussion of whether this recommendation makes sense. There is no discussion of how many preventable deaths will occur.
 
Notice that the women who are inconvenienced by the early exams are numbered. The report says that 480 false positives will result in additional tests, and 33 more will have unnecessary biopsies. What about the women who will die without the tests? That number is concealed behind a seemingly-small number of 0.7 deaths per 1,000. No one in the press apparently thought to open a copy of the last official Census in 2000, and figure out the number of extra deaths.
 
The Census data divides its results in the middle of every 10 years, rather than at the end of each decade. There are slightly less than 83 million Americans between the ages of 35 and 55. Cut out slightly more than half, because the number of Americans at each individual age, declines as age goes up. So, count 40 million Americans between 40 and 50.
 
The older we get, the more women there are in each age category. So it is conservative to count half of that group, 20 million, as women. Now, apply that seemingly small 0.7 percent to those Americans. The result is, 140,000 women will die every year if the 40-50 mammograms are eliminated. That is not a misprint. The Task Forces own figure of additional deaths at 0.7 percent does work out to 140,000 additional deaths of women.
 
Now, this Task Force does not have the power of compulsion. No private or public health programs have changed their policies as a result of this Task Force’s recommendation. However, the government health plan will have a review board which will have compulsion behind it. That board is in the Stimulus Act which has already passed and is in force.
 
It is that which Sarah Palin and other critics have called a &quot;death panel.&quot; When it has the power to reduce insurance coverage for individuals because some medical efforts are not &quot;cost effective,&quot; the deaths will begin.
 
No woman in my family &quot;likes&quot; to get a mammogram. But all of them who are older than 40, routinely submit to this life-saving indignity. What will happen when the board with real power cuts out procedures as &quot;inefficient,&quot; as not &quot;cost effective&quot;? People with money to spare may pay for their own mammograms. All the women who depend on insurance will be the first to die of undetected cancers that could have been prevented.
 
We know this from statistics that are right in front of us, this week. No one else has noticed and reported on the extra deaths. How telling. How sad.
 
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor John Armor practiced law in the Supreme Court for 33 years. John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. John_Armor@aya.yale.edu His latest book about Thomas Paine is available at www.TheseAreTheTimes.us. Contact him at John_Armor@aya.yale.edu.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thought your readers might want to read this.<br />
Bill</p>
<p>A ‘Death Panel’ Surfaces by John Armor</p>
<p>This week, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force announced its recommendation that women between the ages of 40 and 50 no longer receive routine mammograms to detect breast cancer at its earliest and most curable stage. This was a near-total reversal of the same Task Force’s earlier recommendations, and contrary to the advice of the American Cancer Society and other authorities.</p>
<p>The Task Force did, of course, state its reasons for this radically different recommendation. They used computer modeling of three large studies of breast cancer, in Sweden, Britain, and the United States. According to that work, &#8220;For every 1,000 women screened beginning at age 40, the modeling suggested that just 0.7 deaths from breast cancer would be prevented while 480 women would get a false-positive result and 33 more would undergo unnecessary biopsies.&#8221;</p>
<p>The total cost of all mammograms of women of all ages is estimated as $5 billion per year, though the Task Force claimed that cost was not a factor in its decision-making. However, the very way they stated the basis of their recommendation suggests that claim is false. It is also one more example of the fact that the American media can totally miss a story which is right under their noses. There has been ample discussion of whether this recommendation makes sense. There is no discussion of how many preventable deaths will occur.</p>
<p>Notice that the women who are inconvenienced by the early exams are numbered. The report says that 480 false positives will result in additional tests, and 33 more will have unnecessary biopsies. What about the women who will die without the tests? That number is concealed behind a seemingly-small number of 0.7 deaths per 1,000. No one in the press apparently thought to open a copy of the last official Census in 2000, and figure out the number of extra deaths.</p>
<p>The Census data divides its results in the middle of every 10 years, rather than at the end of each decade. There are slightly less than 83 million Americans between the ages of 35 and 55. Cut out slightly more than half, because the number of Americans at each individual age, declines as age goes up. So, count 40 million Americans between 40 and 50.</p>
<p>The older we get, the more women there are in each age category. So it is conservative to count half of that group, 20 million, as women. Now, apply that seemingly small 0.7 percent to those Americans. The result is, 140,000 women will die every year if the 40-50 mammograms are eliminated. That is not a misprint. The Task Forces own figure of additional deaths at 0.7 percent does work out to 140,000 additional deaths of women.</p>
<p>Now, this Task Force does not have the power of compulsion. No private or public health programs have changed their policies as a result of this Task Force’s recommendation. However, the government health plan will have a review board which will have compulsion behind it. That board is in the Stimulus Act which has already passed and is in force.</p>
<p>It is that which Sarah Palin and other critics have called a &#8220;death panel.&#8221; When it has the power to reduce insurance coverage for individuals because some medical efforts are not &#8220;cost effective,&#8221; the deaths will begin.</p>
<p>No woman in my family &#8220;likes&#8221; to get a mammogram. But all of them who are older than 40, routinely submit to this life-saving indignity. What will happen when the board with real power cuts out procedures as &#8220;inefficient,&#8221; as not &#8220;cost effective&#8221;? People with money to spare may pay for their own mammograms. All the women who depend on insurance will be the first to die of undetected cancers that could have been prevented.</p>
<p>We know this from statistics that are right in front of us, this week. No one else has noticed and reported on the extra deaths. How telling. How sad.</p>
<p>FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor John Armor practiced law in the Supreme Court for 33 years. John Armor practiced in the US Supreme Court for 33 years. <a href="mailto:John_Armor@aya.yale.edu">John_Armor@aya.yale.edu</a> His latest book about Thomas Paine is available at <a href="http://www.TheseAreTheTimes.us" rel="nofollow">http://www.TheseAreTheTimes.us</a>. Contact him at <a href="mailto:John_Armor@aya.yale.edu">John_Armor@aya.yale.edu</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William J. Strandwitz, PhD</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-146</link>
		<dc:creator>William J. Strandwitz, PhD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:36:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-146</guid>
		<description>I forgot to add in my previous comment, if you want to find a reliable thermography installation to
www.thermascan.com     then click on      
Imaging Centers (on the top of the page).
Type in you state to find one close to you.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I forgot to add in my previous comment, if you want to find a reliable thermography installation to<br />
<a href="http://www.thermascan.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thermascan.com</a>     then click on<br />
Imaging Centers (on the top of the page).<br />
Type in you state to find one close to you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William J. Strandwitz, PhD</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-145</link>
		<dc:creator>William J. Strandwitz, PhD</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 20:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-145</guid>
		<description>We used thermography by Thermoscan in our medical office and caught breast abnormalities, including cancerous lesions long before mammography studies. It is entirely non-evasive and can be easily repeated with no harm to the woman patient if needed.  
We received many complaints from the radiological physicians but not one of them could fault our results.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We used thermography by Thermoscan in our medical office and caught breast abnormalities, including cancerous lesions long before mammography studies. It is entirely non-evasive and can be easily repeated with no harm to the woman patient if needed.<br />
We received many complaints from the radiological physicians but not one of them could fault our results.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sandra morey</title>
		<link>http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/2009/11/mammogram-controversy-follow-the-money/comment-page-2/#comment-144</link>
		<dc:creator>sandra morey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:24:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.healthwatchersnews.com/?p=387#comment-144</guid>
		<description>I had a fibroid in my breast in 1994.  It was biopsied and found not to be cancerous.  Mammography followed it for a couple of years looking for changes.  In 1996 the changes were found, but I was not notifed for 3 months as the radiation department does not notify patients in these cases but notifies the doctor.  The doctor was reluctant to leave a message alerting me to call him and I am often hard to reach.  I didn&#039;t have a cell phone back then.  Thus, I went 3 months during which time my cancer was allowed to grow and was present in 2 out of 5 lymph nodes.  I eventually called the doctor as I was concerned about not receiving results of my yearly mammogram, left messages for him to call me twice-he didn&#039;t and I finally reached him in.  He was horrified that I fell through the cracks and everything was done to assure my timely treatment.  I had surgery twice, AC Chemo, radiation and 5 years of tamoxophen.  During that time I discovered Dr. Lee and began using natural progesterone cream.  I have been in remission since 1996 and hope to stay that way.  Mammograms can be helpful in some cases, but even a positive mammogram has to go through channels and in my case there was a big glitch.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had a fibroid in my breast in 1994.  It was biopsied and found not to be cancerous.  Mammography followed it for a couple of years looking for changes.  In 1996 the changes were found, but I was not notifed for 3 months as the radiation department does not notify patients in these cases but notifies the doctor.  The doctor was reluctant to leave a message alerting me to call him and I am often hard to reach.  I didn&#8217;t have a cell phone back then.  Thus, I went 3 months during which time my cancer was allowed to grow and was present in 2 out of 5 lymph nodes.  I eventually called the doctor as I was concerned about not receiving results of my yearly mammogram, left messages for him to call me twice-he didn&#8217;t and I finally reached him in.  He was horrified that I fell through the cracks and everything was done to assure my timely treatment.  I had surgery twice, AC Chemo, radiation and 5 years of tamoxophen.  During that time I discovered Dr. Lee and began using natural progesterone cream.  I have been in remission since 1996 and hope to stay that way.  Mammograms can be helpful in some cases, but even a positive mammogram has to go through channels and in my case there was a big glitch.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
