[Shana B]

So apparently researchers had nothing to do as usual and they decided to pass the time they would research the pros and cons of mamography.

The results they came up with is that womaen don't need mamograms until they are the ripe ole age of 50..... apparently they say that women under 50 don't need all that radiation because it gradually does more harm than good

One person on the view speaking on the issue called it "Gender Genocide".....what say you my dhaz counterparts?
Do you think they should deny women under the age of 50 mamograms?
Do you think the need for awareness is worthe the potentential damage?

Over and over they have said that the key to surviving cancer is early detection, so how exactly does delaying the testing procedures help that cause?

[Mz K]

Uhm In a way i agree b ut that doesn't stop you from checking your breast often and going to the doctor. Why take a mamography for? I don't know much that's why i'm asking. My mom only took one when she found a lump and turns out it was nothing.

That works for anything else. If i remember right certain test they don't do on men before a certain age because statistic wize not as many dies at "that" age versus another age...

Why would it be Gender genocide? these women on the view sometimes are so I can't get the right word....

[BlueSerenity]

ive listening to a lot of talk about this...pro and con...and one thing that both sides agree upon seems to be that mammograms have lowered the death rates of women with cancer because women catch the cancer at an earlier stage...you would think that would outweigh everything else right...since many women under the age of 50 have been hit by breasts cancer...so i find it very strange when ppl come out with arguments that seem counter actual facts...ive heard doctors come on saying that having a mammogram cause anxiety, and its uncomfortable and that there is a possibility for false-positives which then lead to unnecessary biopsies...now u tell me, would you rather go thru a short period of anxiety, discomfort instead of being told that you have cancer and only have a certain amount of time left AND that it could have been caught had u had a mammogram...this is the reason the study makes no sense to me...PLUS the fact that minority women were under-represented in the study...what it looks like to me is another excuse for insurance companies not to cover a procedure that could be life saving for women....do i believe its a deliberate decision fro "gender genocide" ? NO....but i do believe its all about the bottom line...Money money money...women's lives will just be collateral damage..

[Shana B]

Originally Posted by Mz K

Uhm In a way i agree b ut that doesn't stop you from checking your breast often and going to the doctor. Why take a mamography for? I don't know much that's why i'm asking. My mom only took one when she found a lump and turns out it was nothing.

That works for anything else. If i remember right certain test they don't do on men before a certain age because statistic wize not as many dies at "that" age versus another age...

Why would it be Gender genocide? these women on the view sometimes are so I can't get the right word....

they claim that they're research shows that self examinations are pointless which i kinda found weird cause my doctor always reccommend that

[Shana B]

Originally Posted by BlueSerenity

ive listening to a lot of talk about this...pro and con...and one thing that both sides agree upon seems to be that mammograms have lowered the death rates of women with cancer because women catch the cancer at an earlier stage...you would think that would outweigh everything else right...since many women under the age of 50 have been hit by breasts cancer...so i find it very strange when ppl come out with arguments that seem counter actual facts...ive heard doctors come on saying that having a mammogram cause anxiety, and its uncomfortable and that there is a possibility for false-positives which then lead to unnecessary biopsies...now u tell me, would you rather go thru a short period of anxiety, discomfort instead of being told that you have cancer and only have a certain amount of time left AND that it could have been caught had u had a mammogram...this is the reason the study makes no sense to me...PLUS the fact that minority women were under-represented in the study...what it looks like to me is another excuse for insurance companies not to cover a procedure that could be life saving for women....do i believe its a deliberate decision fro "gender genocide" ? NO....but i do believe its all about the bottom line...Money money money...women's lives will just be collateral damage..

did you see that lil 12 year old on GMA last month she was diagnose at 10...even though they see its rare for pre teens i still say waititng til 50 is a bad ideahttp://ibnlive.in.com/news/10yearold.../92965-17.html

I also find my self thinking that at the end of the day the little ppl will suffer....those ppl who depend on gov't insurance will have to wait until what ever age they agree upon and they might just slip through the cracks cause they have no choice

[Mz K]

Originally Posted by Shana B

they claim that they're research shows that self examinations are pointless which i kinda found weird cause my doctor always reccommend that

Well that i never heard off i say whatever these scientist say follow a doctor you trust...

[Shana B]

i think they need some real work to do ...like finding a real cure for cancer

[Lady F]

To your questions :Do you think they should deny women under the age of 50 mamograms?
Do you think the need for awareness is worthe the potentential damage?

I think that any women that wants to be tested should be allowed to, with history or no history. As women our body carry so much already (family, men, school, life) we always have to be on it to make sure we are healthy and safe.

In this world with all the things that are already killing us slow (fast food, swin flu, men!!, work, global warming) I dont see where the risk is. Awareness is key, regarldless. I'm not saying get one every month but being aware of your body and how it feels. Plus now that you say the self exam means nothing.

[MrCee]

Surveys say that some women are getting cancer at younger ages so all this talk about cutting back on mammograms is puzzling. I say if cancer runs in your family then get that checked out by any means.....

[BlueSerenity]

Originally Posted by Shana B

did you see that lil 12 year old on GMA last month she was diagnose at 10...even though they see its rare for pre teens i still say waititng til 50 is a bad idea10-year-old youngest breast cancer patient

I also find my self thinking that at the end of the day the little ppl will suffer....those ppl who depend on gov't insurance will have to wait until what ever age they agree upon and they might just slip through the cracks cause they have no choice

trust me this is all about money...just laying the ground work so that insurance companies can have an excuse not to pay for mammograms for women under 50....everyone can get a mammogram if they want to however they will have to pay for it themself if they are under 50...i guess women becoming aware and taking resposibility for their health and actually using the insurance they have been paying for all this time, was cutting into the insurance companies profits and trust me no shareholder like to step back in profit...a shreholder could make 50 mil more in profit this year than they did last year but if they dont make more than that additional 50 mil next year they will see it as a lost...that just how it is...so a good way to adjust the bottom line is by cutting cost elsewhere...not taking into consideration the human cost...

[Mr. Marcus ™]

the pros by far outweigh the cons

[BlueSerenity]

now im hearing that some news reporter checked into who was on the board that came out with the new recommendations and it turns out that none of the doctors on there was a breast cancer expert and not only that but several of the doctors are funded by a few of the larger insurance companies...they have also estimated that if the insurance companies stopped paying for mammograms for women between the ages of 40-49, these companies would save or profits would increase by at least 2.5 Billion dollars a year....as the always say...just follow the money....so what if the previous system was effective in saving lives....they dont care about that...the bottom line justify the means....

[Shana B]

this morlning on the news they changed the guidelines for pap smears as well...now a female can't get a pap til 21 and instead of evry 6 months or once a year its once evry 2 years

i agree that its all about the money...for those saying that if somebody wnats to get tested they should it won't be as easy as that if they are on government funded insurance because they will stick to the 'guidelines" and like i said before those ppl suffer cause the rich can pay to get whatever they need to get done

[gifted chick]

i think they are beneficial.. yes the risk of breast cancer does increase with age (as with most illnesses) so it is more logical to get one only when you are older, but more "younger" women seem to be getting it.. especially when there is a genetic predisposition

as my mother always says prevention betta dan cure

[liltsangie]

Originally Posted by Shana B

this morlning on the news they changed the guidelines for pap smears as well...now a female can't get a pap til 21 and instead of evry 6 months or once a year its once evry 2 years

i agree that its all about the money...for those saying that if somebody wnats to get tested they should it won't be as easy as that if they are on government funded insurance because they will stick to the 'guidelines" and like i said before those ppl suffer cause the rich can pay to get whatever they need to get done

so true !!!!!great post its all about money and why encourage people to get tested when they are not paying