Some Mammograms Fail to Detect Breast Cancer

re: Some Mammograms Fail to Detect Breast Cancer

jeremyroos — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 16:42:42 GMT

A pre cancerous condition? Don't we all have a precancerous condition; if it's not cancer, it's not cancer. What's a pre- precancerous condition (being healthy?) can they treat for that? Unnecessary procedures and more money into tier system.. What a crock. These doctors just hope they find cancer so they can put you through treatment... that's what puts food on their table.

A good reason to get a thermograph if you want a clinical test. It's far safer; so why would you want to radiate yourself?

Aluminum containing antiperspirants have been linked to breast cancer as well.

re: Some Mammograms Fail to Detect Breast Cancer

mmc88121 — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 20:09:07 GMT

It still all boils down to the money. As the Ledger article said we have a lot of money invested in this technology, and it is profitable so it is not going to go away. It is a shame people think like that.

Mary

re: Some Mammograms Fail to Detect Breast Cancer

Bridestein — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 17:14:13 GMT

There is an Associated Press story today that says if Elizabeth Edwards had only had a mammogram, she could have detected her cancer much sooner. I believe this story is being run in response to the story which ran yesterday that said mammograms were over-rated and dangerous.
Which one do you suppose most people will believe?

re: Some Mammograms Fail to Detect Breast Cancer

Russ Bianchi — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 15:53:57 GMT

Once Again Proving Reactive Models Are Not Fool Proof, or perhaps only for FOOLS.

A preventative lifestyle across the spectrum, delivering net better results at lower cost, will beat a reactive and BROKEN medical health care model, or POOR dietary intake, or TOTALLY CORRUPT pharmaceuticaL system, EVERY time.