New advice from GOVT...what a bunch of idiots!

padee6339

Anger
This whole thing has made me so angry. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard on the news last night that women do not need to be taught to do SBEs. I found mine that way and I was 59 at the time. I see so many women on this board who are in their 20, 30 and 40's that it makes me sick to think what would have happened to them if not for SBEs and mammograms. Whose sick idea was this anyway? I'm leapin' mad about this.
Pat

carkris

padee6339 said:

Anger
This whole thing has made me so angry. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard on the news last night that women do not need to be taught to do SBEs. I found mine that way and I was 59 at the time. I see so many women on this board who are in their 20, 30 and 40's that it makes me sick to think what would have happened to them if not for SBEs and mammograms. Whose sick idea was this anyway? I'm leapin' mad about this.
Pat

one of my daughters is in
one of my daughters is in college and i am afraid she will believe this crap. i have the SBE card in their bathroom shower. I will have a talk with her

e_hope

what I want to know.... WHO
what I want to know.... WHO IS THIS NOT A RISK GROUP THEY ARE REVERING TO??????

I do not fit into any of the high risk groups or even at risk ....
* I have NO family history of breast or of any OTHER kindS of cancers
* I don't fit int any of there at risk groups
*** had first kid before 30
*** not obese
*** started menstral cycle after 12
*** breast fed

well guess what... I HAVE IDC ...

SBE... at 36 it SAVED MY LIFE AND MANY OTHERS OUT THERE... to tell woman not to be in touch with their bodies blows my mind..

I am such an advocate with my friends about doing theirs

S3

carkris said:

one of my daughters is in
one of my daughters is in college and i am afraid she will believe this crap. i have the SBE card in their bathroom shower. I will have a talk with her

I am outraged out it. I am
I am outraged out it. I am 45 and found mine through SBE. I am the 4th in the family. Maybe it should be pussed to do MRI's instead.

blazytracy

S3 said:

I am outraged out it. I am
I am outraged out it. I am 45 and found mine through SBE. I am the 4th in the family. Maybe it should be pussed to do MRI's instead.

I agree
Totally unbelievable!!! They are nuts! I think the age should be cut way down to like 30 or so - not raised! Wow! I agree with you too S3 about MRI's! Those should also be mandatory!!!

Unknown

blazytracy said:

I agree
Totally unbelievable!!! They are nuts! I think the age should be cut way down to like 30 or so - not raised! Wow! I agree with you too S3 about MRI's! Those should also be mandatory!!!

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

KathiM

Welcome to the world of statistics!!!!
Because of our large population in this country, we all get lost in the percentages. I am certain that, someone, somewhere, calculated that there is only a small percentage of positive mammos/negative ones, in people under 50. Just like colon cancer...when I started voicing my concern about colonoscopies not being covered till age 50, I was told "Well, there is only 1% of the colon cancer that is under age 50. So, sorry, but you are the exception!"

I shudder to think of what government-run healthcare will do to this...

Hugs, Kathi

Deb1969

KathiM said:

Welcome to the world of statistics!!!!
Because of our large population in this country, we all get lost in the percentages. I am certain that, someone, somewhere, calculated that there is only a small percentage of positive mammos/negative ones, in people under 50. Just like colon cancer...when I started voicing my concern about colonoscopies not being covered till age 50, I was told "Well, there is only 1% of the colon cancer that is under age 50. So, sorry, but you are the exception!"

I shudder to think of what government-run healthcare will do to this...

Hugs, Kathi

This was also discussed this
This was also discussed this morning on Good Morning America. Dr. Love was in agreement with mammograms being done at age 50 every two years. The other lady in the debate (didnt catch her name) was in disagreement. Said insurance companies wont have to pay for mammograms on younger women. I was diagnosed this Aug, I was 39, with breast cancer with liver mets.
Deb

jikaras

KathiM said:

Welcome to the world of statistics!!!!
Because of our large population in this country, we all get lost in the percentages. I am certain that, someone, somewhere, calculated that there is only a small percentage of positive mammos/negative ones, in people under 50. Just like colon cancer...when I started voicing my concern about colonoscopies not being covered till age 50, I was told "Well, there is only 1% of the colon cancer that is under age 50. So, sorry, but you are the exception!"

I shudder to think of what government-run healthcare will do to this...

Hugs, Kathi

TOTALLY AGREE
My jaw dropped as I was eating supper last night and saw the news......

what a bunch of baffoons.......

I want a better world for my daughter and any future grandkids; I guess this is the new 'health care' system in the US - let's just treat anyone who doesn't have any 'conditions'. if we do have 'conditions', just let us die; it's cheaper......

I need to move to an island

Jill

CypressCynthia

I have to agree
I found my cancerous lump (more a thickening) doing a self exam in 1987 at the old age of 33. A mammogram to check it out (my doc said she thought it was nothing) revealed breast cancer. If I hadn't been examining my breasts and if I hadn't had that mammogram.... I know my story is just 1 story, but I wonder how good the evidence really is that the government is basing their recommendations on????

lisa42

also outraged
I am also amazed and outraged at this! I personally have stage IV colorectal cancer at age 43 (diagnosed at 40) & have been hoping the screening age for it, as well as for breast cancer would be lowered- certainly not raised! I personally know of three women who have died from breast cancer in their THIRTIES! I just posted a thread on the colorectal site expressing my outrage over this, but had to check in here on the breast cancer site as well. Could this actually be an attempt to save money on screening, as our government prepares to have government back healthcare? I would hate to think so, but I'm starting to think so.
Very scary! I believe the American Cancer Society vehemently opposed this new "recommendation". Just because there have been some "unneccesary biopsies" isn't a reason to disregard all the many women who have been diagnosed and treated at ages under 50, and there have been many, many! This is a disgrace!

Lisa

lanie940

Sam726 said:

33
I found a lump myself...and I am not high risk so never had a mammogram. I think that women should have the right to have one. I dont believe the govt should dictate our choice. Now less and less will have them because insurance wont pay.

I just shot an e-mail off to
I just shot an e-mail off to Pres Obama telling him to NOT let these new guidelines pass. I think it is ludicris to let it go through. I was told my my local represenatives office I needed to contact Katherine Sebelius and Pres Obama, they are two who can stop it from taking place. Maybe if he gets enough e-mails from furious woman he won't let it happen!

LT

lisa42 said:

also outraged
I am also amazed and outraged at this! I personally have stage IV colorectal cancer at age 43 (diagnosed at 40) & have been hoping the screening age for it, as well as for breast cancer would be lowered- certainly not raised! I personally know of three women who have died from breast cancer in their THIRTIES! I just posted a thread on the colorectal site expressing my outrage over this, but had to check in here on the breast cancer site as well. Could this actually be an attempt to save money on screening, as our government prepares to have government back healthcare? I would hate to think so, but I'm starting to think so.
Very scary! I believe the American Cancer Society vehemently opposed this new "recommendation". Just because there have been some "unneccesary biopsies" isn't a reason to disregard all the many women who have been diagnosed and treated at ages under 50, and there have been many, many! This is a disgrace!

Lisa

My husband suggested
we all send our stories or copies of this thread to those in control????? The fear caused by a false positive is minimal compared to the loss of lives this change could cause. As for a mam every other year - mine last year was clear and this year bc showed its ugly face. I'll be out of cyber touch for a week due to more tests and surgery, etc. but when I check back in I hope someone will have a plan to inundate some office with testimonies and pictures of those of us whose lives were saved by mammograms and SBE. Count me in!

Sunrae

LT said:

My husband suggested
we all send our stories or copies of this thread to those in control????? The fear caused by a false positive is minimal compared to the loss of lives this change could cause. As for a mam every other year - mine last year was clear and this year bc showed its ugly face. I'll be out of cyber touch for a week due to more tests and surgery, etc. but when I check back in I hope someone will have a plan to inundate some office with testimonies and pictures of those of us whose lives were saved by mammograms and SBE. Count me in!

We need to get the American
We need to get the American Cancer Society to become more vocal about this issue. We should bombard them with our concerns, also the AMA. When I go to my onc Thursday, I'm going to discuss this with her. I'm sure our drs will be outraged over this as they know the value of mammograms and SBE. Perhaps they can make their voices heard too. I was surprised that Dr. Love agreed with the age 50 guidelines. She's been such a bc advocate. We need to do something for all those coming after us. I really think a lot of it is the insurance companies trying to get costs down; so what does it matter to them if our life is at risk. The new health insurance reform is going to take more than it gives. I dread what it will be like if it passes as its written right now.

concerned woman

Sunrae said:

We need to get the American
We need to get the American Cancer Society to become more vocal about this issue. We should bombard them with our concerns, also the AMA. When I go to my onc Thursday, I'm going to discuss this with her. I'm sure our drs will be outraged over this as they know the value of mammograms and SBE. Perhaps they can make their voices heard too. I was surprised that Dr. Love agreed with the age 50 guidelines. She's been such a bc advocate. We need to do something for all those coming after us. I really think a lot of it is the insurance companies trying to get costs down; so what does it matter to them if our life is at risk. The new health insurance reform is going to take more than it gives. I dread what it will be like if it passes as its written right now.

Who funded the study?
The formation of the task force was funded by some source. I have been trying to find out all morning who funded the study. This report will be cited by every insurance company as the reason for denial of a mammography no matter what your doctor may request. We need the full support and political clout of the ACS to counter this study or women will once again be dying because of late detection. HELP!!

mimivac

There are passionate discussions going on all over the web
I was just participating in one on www.youngsurvival.org, a site for women under 40 with breast cancer. One of the criticisms of the panel is that they looked at the accuracy of analog mammograms, rather than the more advanced digital ones. This is a mistake. We all know that when we go in for our mammograms now, they tell us right away if there's an abnormality. This is due to the more advanced digital technology. Also, I'd like to know the sample size and representation of the study.

Here is what I think: yes, mammograms and breast self exams produce false positives; they cause unnecessary procedures and cost money and make women anxious. But are those negatives worth sacrificing the lives of women whose cancers were caught by screening mammograms in time to save their lives? That % may be small, but should we chalk that up to an "insignificant minority" and allow these women to die? These are very high stakes, not just numbers. I wonder if we asked a member of the task force whether it would be OK if his wife or daughter died because these new guidelines made sense statistically? I wonder if he would say yes? Yeah, right.

Granted, we are an unlucky minority here, but our lives are worth the cost, damn it. And let's face it, we are all liabilities for insurance companies. There are very few people who will never become sick; never need tests or treatments. What they need to be doing is coming up with a better screening tool....

Mimi

Jeanne D

mimivac said:

There are passionate discussions going on all over the web
I was just participating in one on www.youngsurvival.org, a site for women under 40 with breast cancer. One of the criticisms of the panel is that they looked at the accuracy of analog mammograms, rather than the more advanced digital ones. This is a mistake. We all know that when we go in for our mammograms now, they tell us right away if there's an abnormality. This is due to the more advanced digital technology. Also, I'd like to know the sample size and representation of the study.

Here is what I think: yes, mammograms and breast self exams produce false positives; they cause unnecessary procedures and cost money and make women anxious. But are those negatives worth sacrificing the lives of women whose cancers were caught by screening mammograms in time to save their lives? That % may be small, but should we chalk that up to an "insignificant minority" and allow these women to die? These are very high stakes, not just numbers. I wonder if we asked a member of the task force whether it would be OK if his wife or daughter died because these new guidelines made sense statistically? I wonder if he would say yes? Yeah, right.

Granted, we are an unlucky minority here, but our lives are worth the cost, damn it. And let's face it, we are all liabilities for insurance companies. There are very few people who will never become sick; never need tests or treatments. What they need to be doing is coming up with a better screening tool....

Mimi

I was young the first time
I was 34 the first time I had breast cancer. So, if I had waited until 50, I would be dead.

Love, Jeanne ♥

Unknown

Jeanne D said:

I was young the first time
I was 34 the first time I had breast cancer. So, if I had waited until 50, I would be dead.

Love, Jeanne ♥

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

lanie940

mimivac said:

There are passionate discussions going on all over the web
I was just participating in one on www.youngsurvival.org, a site for women under 40 with breast cancer. One of the criticisms of the panel is that they looked at the accuracy of analog mammograms, rather than the more advanced digital ones. This is a mistake. We all know that when we go in for our mammograms now, they tell us right away if there's an abnormality. This is due to the more advanced digital technology. Also, I'd like to know the sample size and representation of the study.

Here is what I think: yes, mammograms and breast self exams produce false positives; they cause unnecessary procedures and cost money and make women anxious. But are those negatives worth sacrificing the lives of women whose cancers were caught by screening mammograms in time to save their lives? That % may be small, but should we chalk that up to an "insignificant minority" and allow these women to die? These are very high stakes, not just numbers. I wonder if we asked a member of the task force whether it would be OK if his wife or daughter died because these new guidelines made sense statistically? I wonder if he would say yes? Yeah, right.

Granted, we are an unlucky minority here, but our lives are worth the cost, damn it. And let's face it, we are all liabilities for insurance companies. There are very few people who will never become sick; never need tests or treatments. What they need to be doing is coming up with a better screening tool....

Mimi

The skill of the Radiologist
The skill of the Radiologist reading the digital mammogram is the key. The radiologist who read my mammogram I had in July said it was suspicious. He wanted another. I went to a different place for my second mammo, that radiologist KNEW it looked like cancer, told me so even before the biopsy. The biopsy was to determine what KIND.

fauxma

unknown said:

This comment has been removed by the Moderator

I am not happy that these
I am not happy that these guidelines are changing. And to suggest that woman not do self exams. Now I would think that self exams would be even more important if you aren't going to be having mammos until the age of 50. Not everyone goes for a yearly exam and not all doctors do breast exams at these visits. So there suggestion is don't check your breasts, don't get mammos. You will, of course, notice the lump when it is the size of a 3rd boob. Screw that. I am going to tell my daughter to continue to check her breasts monthly. Then when she is 40, she should go to her doctor and fake feeling a lump in both breasts. My understanding is that if a woman feels a lump, they must do a mammogram. They can't just say they don't feel it and let it go. Most doctors would not wish to take that chance anyway. They wouldn't want to risk a lawsuit if they refused and she turned out to have cancer. I hate game playing but if that's what it takes, let the games begin. What I found most disturbing with these new guidelines, is that they are so strongly supported by female doctors. And it gives many young woman a very false sense of security. The "I don't have to worry about breast cancer I am too young" feeling. So a whole generation of young woman will not be checking their boobs or having mammos and how large will the lump end up before they feel it or see it and how far along will the cancer be. I couldn't feel my lump and yes it was small. But my sister's was large and widespread into her lymphnodes and she couldn't feel hers and neither could her doctor. And she went every year for her mammos. How big would it have been and how widespread if she had to wait two years. This is pissing me off big time.
Stef