New Mammogram Guidelines Contradict Controversial Task Force Recommendations

Not to say they might not be right, but how big a grain of salt should we take with a story that's basically, “Associations whose members make money from breast cancer screenings encourage more breast cancer screenings”?

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by WashIndependent, TMC Member Feed. TMC Member Feed said: Wash. Independent: New Mammogram Guidelines Contradict Controversial Task Force Recommendations: Just when you thou… http://bit.ly/4RoBix [...]

That's what I was thinking. “So… this recommendation to *not* cut back on radiological screenings… comes from two institutions whose existence is predicated on the promotion and provision of said radiological screenings? Interesting.”

I hear the NFL is discouraging people from watching less football, too. And Coke recommends we drink less Pepsi.

[...] it sounds like we have come full circle, but don’t let it throw you off. Speak to a medical professional if you have any concerns. One of [...]

So if a mamogram detected cancer in your mother, wife, daughter at age 40 and it saved her life you still would feel it was unnecessary. It saved my daughter's life at age 41. It was mearly a government cost “savings” attempt.

Since women can develop breast cancer at any age, keeping the minimum age for yearly mammograms at 40 is better than waiting until you are 50. As this is the only detectable way to find lumps, following the guidelines is crucial to all women everywhere. Just because a woman has no family history of cancer, if you have no history to go by, getting a mammogram is key to combating the disease.

I'm with mrcarter and akwhitacare. I think those radiological associations are just hyping things up about the reduced mortality. Only people who are more prone to breast cancer really need these screenings. Just because it saved someelese's life does not mean I should be subjected to one.

I was the first one in my family to have Breast Cancer. I my first Mamo at 40. Thank god…..Found it quick….I could just imagine what it would have been like it i would have waited until I was 50.

Just because you have no history of breast cancer in your family does not mean you should not get a mammogram at 40 – you people are fooling yourselves if you think these associations are just trying to make more money – they are trying to save lives and you all need to listen up. My mom was diagnosed last year with breast cancer (we had no previous history in our family) and is now cancer free thanks to a mammogram – wise up people.

We as no doctors trust the experts in medicial procedures to make the best informed desisions for us and our families. In the last few years I have asked, is this really is needed. This really should be based on persent health condition, family history (if there can be documented), other forms of cancer, and is there any masses present. I recently had my mass removed becuase it did turn out to be a solid mass. This is because I turned forty that I had a mammogram done. I had this mass for 15 to 20 years and not once anyone suggest to a mammogram but was noticable to the touch. So should I have one done earlier is a question I wonder about. It might come from the insurance company on some things they will and will not cover before reguardless of circumstances.

Early detection from a mammogram is a neccesity, just because you don't have a genetic predisposition doesn't mean you are excluded only less likely. Anyone who thinks they will never get breast cancer is the person who is most likely to be stricken with it, just for being ignorant and not taking the precautionary measures.

I agree with smartey! Every one who thinks they don't need a mammogram will whine and complain when they are diagnosed with late stage breast cancer. Then probably blame some one for not screening earlier! I've seen it one too many times.

To tcs1968 – Hate to tell ya, but the majority of women getting breast cancer are the ones with no known history or as you say “prone”. I was 41 when I received the news of breast cancer. I worked out, ate right, didn't smoke, ate organic foods. No one in my family ever had breast cancer or for that matter any cancer. So if I had waited until I was 50, I would have been dead! If you do not want to get screened you do not have to, otherwise keep your mouth shut!

Those “medical professionals better start seeking the Almighty when they making their “new” recommendations, cause screening at the age that their NOW suggesting, is not applicable for everybody.E.g. IBC can not be detected through a mammogram, the youngest person to be diagnosed with that was in her early twenties!!
Stop playing GOD!

Id rather get a mammogram and find out if I am clean or at risk at 40, 41, 42, 43, etc. Than wait til I am 50 and find out that its stage 4 and could have been prevented. If you think its a waste…dont get one. Personally, I love my life and feel I have a lot to live for rather than risking it.

I find it odd that women even expose themselves to mammorgrams in the first place! Mammograms mash and radiate the breast which damages the soft tissue and expose you to radiation both are factors that increase your risk of breast cancer in the first place. The radiation from one 4-view bilateral mammogram is equal to 500 chest x-rays!! Cancer cell growth is rampent between 18-30 years old, not when women are 40 or 50. If anyone is looking into a SAFE NONINVASIVE alternative I urge you to research Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. This can actually detect abnormalities in the breast 8 years before a mammogram can! Insurance will probably not cover it and it cost about $150-$185 go figure this is less than what the insurance pays for mammograms which is app. $300! No wonder mammograms have become so political- if ins. companies covered Digital Imaging, less people would get mammograms and then what would radioogist do? And what about all those doc's that treat breast cancer? They would probably have less patients! It all comes down to money. And if we elminated mammograms there would be a decrease in the amount of rdiologist and oncologist needed, increasing the unemployment….

Wow! where did you get that crazy information. It is not equal to 500 chest xrays and does not cause soft tissue damage. Please inform yourself before you blog!

As a breast cancer survivor (diagnosed myself at the age of 37 while doing my breast self exam in the shower), I can clearly say that early detection and diagnosis is the best way to save our healthcare dollars and ourselves!!! I am a Family Nurse Practitioner and teach my patients how to check their breasts as well as make sure they are getting their annual mammograms and I have found many breast lumps on exam that turned out to be maligmant as well as on their mammograms!! I had no family history and led a very healthy lifestyle. Thank God I was paying attention to myself, otherwise, I would be 6 feet under and my kids would be motherless!!!

Mammogram Guidelines, Fibrocystic Breast Disease, the Iodine Deficiency Connection

Screening the population with mammograms based on guidelines unfortunately did not help a friend who just died from breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer has increased to 1 in 8 women, with 4,000 new cases weekly. You might ask, could there be a preventive measure which is safe, cheap and widely available that has been overlooked? The answer is YES , and it’s the essential mineral, Iodine, which was added to table salt in 1924 as part of a national program to prevent Goiter. It turns out that this same mineral is the key to breast cancer prevention. Much has been published in the medical literature on this, for example, B.A. Eskin published 80 papers over 30 years researching iodine and breast cancer. In short, iodine deficiency causes breast and thyroid cancer in humans and animals. Iodine deficiency is also known to cause a pre-cancerous condition called fibrocystic breast disease. W.R. Ghent published a paper in 1993 which showed iodine supplementation works quite well to reverse and resolve fibrocystic changes of the breast, and this is again the subject of a current clinical study.(Can J Surg. 1993 Oct;36(5):453-60.)

For more information see: http://jeffreydach.com/2007/05/05/jeffreydachdr…

Jeffrey Dach MD

Mammogram Guidelines, Fibrocystic Breast Disease, the Iodine Deficiency Connection

Screening the population with mammograms based on guidelines unfortunately did not help a friend who just died from breast cancer. The incidence of breast cancer has increased to 1 in 8 women, with 4,000 new cases weekly. You might ask, could there be a preventive measure which is safe, cheap and widely available that has been overlooked? The answer is YES , and it’s the essential mineral, Iodine, which was added to table salt in 1924 as part of a national program to prevent Goiter. It turns out that this same mineral is the key to breast cancer prevention. Much has been published in the medical literature on this, for example, B.A. Eskin published 80 papers over 30 years researching iodine and breast cancer. In short, iodine deficiency causes breast and thyroid cancer in humans and animals. Iodine deficiency is also known to cause a pre-cancerous condition called fibrocystic breast disease. W.R. Ghent published a paper in 1993 which showed iodine supplementation works quite well to reverse and resolve fibrocystic changes of the breast, and this is again the subject of a current clinical study.(Can J Surg. 1993 Oct;36(5):453-60.)

For more information see: http://jeffreydach.com/2007/05/05/jeffreydachdr…

Jeffrey Dach MD

Just because a woman has no family history of cancer, if you have no history to go by, getting a mammogram is key to combating the disease.