Overdiagnosis

Hooponopono

 
On Tuesday, November 25, 2008 a report was presented by the New York Times:

"Some cancers disappear untreated, study finds"

The researchers reported that women who had regular routine screenings (every two year, over a period of six years) had 22 percent more cancers than women who only had a screening at the end of the six years. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25iht-cancer.1.18132547.html)

[...] some experts remain unconvinced.

"Their simplification of a complicated issue is both overreaching and alarming," said Robert Smith, director of breast cancer screening at the American Cancer Society.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THURSDAY, April 22 (HealthDay News) -- A new review suggests that doctors need to address the problem of overdiagnosis in cancer care -- the detection and possible treatment of tumors that may never cause symptoms or lead to death. The review authors found that about 25 percent of breast cancers found through mammograms and about 60 percent of prostate cancers detected through prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests may be examples of overdiagnosis. And about half of lung cancers detected through some screening tests may also represent overdiagnosis, they added. For several types of cancer -- thyroid, prostate, breast, kidney and melanoma -- the number of new cases has gone up over the past 30 years, but the death rate has not, the authors noted. Research suggests that more screening tests are responsible for the increased diagnosis rate, they explained. "Whereas early detection may well help some, it undoubtedly hurts others," Dr. H. Gilbert Welch and Dr. William Black, of the VA Medical Center in White River Junction, Vt., and the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, wrote in a news release from the U.S. National Cancer Institute. "Often the decision about whether or not to pursue early cancer detection involves a delicate balance between benefits and harms . . . different individuals, even in the same situation, might reasonably make different choices." In a commentary, Dr. Laura Esserman, of the University of California at San Francisco, and Dr. Ian Thompson, of the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, wrote: "What we need now in the field of cancer is the coming together of physicians and scientists of all disciplines to reduce the burden of cancer death and cancer diagnosis. We must advocate for and demand innovation in diagnosis and management, fueled by science, harnessing modeling, molecular and immunology tools to address this problem." The review is published in the April 22 online edition of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
SOURCE: U.S. National Cancer Institute, news release, April 22, 2010-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following article might also be of interest for those who concider regular screening:http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/lab-notes/2009/04/01/will-a-mammogram-save-your-life.html------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Just wonna share some information here in order to help people make an educated decision regarding the use of regular screenings.

Regards,

Ronald 

Anonymous

Overdiagnosis??????? Im not sure that this is the right term to use.

If that diagnosis is " YES you have cancer",  then on the premise that no cancer is good cancer,  theres no such thing as "over diagnosis"  IMO. Who in their right mind would overlook a possible death sentence and play it down (for whatever reason) ??? Im not saying ...for example...there doesnt need to be more study into just how much radiation we are giving ourselves when we have 6 monthly mammos, and then take appropriate action on the findings. 

As far as Im concerned any safe screening is a good thing!  I take the view that "it may be your JOB, but this is MY LIFE".  Cancer is a life and death matter. I cant imagine anyone finally burying their head in the sand about it even though we might be tempted at times. At the end of the day its "hobsons choice" about what we have to do about it.

As far as detecting early BC...what???? OF COURSE we need to detect it early. It is a nobrainer. We know that cancer grows, along with the risks the longer we leave it.  Why pussy foot around with this evil disease. I cant imagine anyone NOT opting for early detection  unless they were seriously deluded!

Musical

otter

<yawn>

Ronald, that's old news we've discussed on these boards for quite a long time already.  The only thing you mention that was published recently was the "Review" by Welch & Black in JNCI.  I put the word "review" in quotation marks, because I've skimmed the full paper and it's more like a commentary than a true, unbiased review article. 

For example, the authors (Welch & Black) devoted two whole paragraphs to the evidence they've gathered supporting their claim of "overdiagnosis" of breast cancer.  They note that, of the 9 randomized trials they found that tested the benefits of mammography, only one trial had long-term follow-up to see how many of the women actually benefitted from screening mammograms.  That one study, the "Malmö" study, was conducted in Sweden, and the results were published in the British Medical Journal in 2006.  So, even that evidence is pretty old by today's standards.

The Malmö study was interesting, but not expecially convincing (IMHO).  What it said was that, if women were not provided with screening mammograms, some of them would have undiagnosed breast cancer that would, indeed, kill them.  But a fraction of the women whose cancers would have been diagnosed if they'd had mammograms (but weren't, because they didn't) would not have died of their cancer -- something else would have killed them first.  There was some "overdiagnosis" detected among the younger women (age 45-54); but, according to the authors of the Malmö study, the greatest risk of "overdiagnosis" was among the women in the 55-69 age group... where there was a ten percent risk of overdiagnosis.

Here's what the authors of the Malmö study said in the "conclusions" section of their paper's abstract:

"Conclusions on over-diagnosis of breast cancer in the Malmö mammographic screening trial can be drawn mainly for women aged 55-69 years at randomisation whose control groups were never screened. Fifteen years after the trial ended the rate of over-diagnosis of breast cancer was 10% in this age group."

Ten percent.  (Can you tell I'm not impressed?)

Here's the citation for the Malmö study.  You might want to read it.  BTW, when you're arguing a point, it's usually more effective to cite the original research, rather than a reporter's "daily news" e-zine article that contains a press release of someone's review paper that cites the original article.

Zackrisson S, Andersson I, Janzon L, Manjer J, Garne JP. Rate of overdiagnosis of breast cancer 15 years after end of Malmö mammographic screening trial: follow-up study. BMJ (2006) 332(7543):689–692.

Welch and Black said this in the Introduction section of their review article: 

"The conundrum in overdiagnosis is that clinicians can never know who is overdiagnosed at the time of cancer diagnosis. Instead, overdiagnosis can only be identified in an individual if that individual 1) is never treated and 2) goes on to die from some other cause. Because clinicians do not know which patients have been overdiagnosed at the time of diagnosis, we tend to treat all of them. Thus, overdiagnosis contributes to the problem of escalating health-care costs. But even where there no money involved, overdiagnosis would be a major concern: Although such patients cannot benefit from unnecessary treatment, they can be harmed."

So, the essential questions are, what is an acceptable rate of "overdiagnosis", and which women are really being "overdiagnosed"?  (In other words, how can those women be identified?)  The first question is an economic one:  How much money can we afford to "waste" on the overdiagnosis of breast cancer as a result of aggressive screening?  I am not going to go down that path at all.  (Look at the forum where you've posted your question.)  The second question is unanswerable at the present time.  So, IMHO, the issue is moot.

You might want to update your search strategy for next time.

otter

hymil

I suppose you are only obviously overdiagnosed if you are obviously dying of something else. Who in that condition is even going along for screening? I heard once that before a doctor orders a diagnostic test, s/he should consider what difference the result will make to treatment and if it wont make any difference then why do the test.

Hooponopono

Hi otter (and by the way, good point, hymil), 

I guess that, if you search long enough (and use a suitable interpretation of 'facts'), one can 'prove' - or believe/justify - just about anything.

Problem is, most people believe that conventional medicine is build on 'absolute facts' (like: there's only one proven 'cure' for cancer: surgery/chemo/radiation) and 'alternative therapies' are not, because they' re not aproved by the FDA (often on grounds of toxicity - what a joke, if they were sincere, they'd have to forbid most of conventional 'medicin' (like chemo and radiation).

Anyway, I understand that (and why) it's very hard to 'think outside the box'. Often, I tell myself: 'why bother trying to show people there's more out there beside what doctors/pharmaceutical firms/etc. want you to believe'.

good luck to you all,

Ronald 

otter

Ronald, the statements in your most recent post on this thread are correct.  All those things are true of some people:  manipulation of the "facts" to suit their own position on a subject; failure (refusal) to see beyond the borders of their own comfort zone; unwillingness to accept advice from people or institutions they do not trust.  Human behavior is a fascinating subject, isn't it?

I came back to this thread because I saw you had posted a comment after mine.  I then went back to take a look at the other posts you've made to these boards.  Very interesting...  I think I'll just close with a quote from a post you made to another thread.  Your words sum things up pretty well, all on their own:

"April 2 2009 my girlfriend had a mammo (this was an idea of her sister in law, who's a nurse). Two months later she had to come in again for further testing. MRI, Ultrasound and biopsy showed she had two malignant tumors in her right breast.

Our oncologist' s advice was mastectomy (followed by chemo and radiation) - this was confirmed by a 'second opinion' at a university hospital. To keep it short, we've refused all of this conventional treatment and my girlfriend is doing great at this date."

Best wishes to you and your girlfriend.

otter

OneBadBoob

Just shaking my head here. . .

Ronald, do you realize you are speaking of two months that your girlfriend is doing great as of this time?

1 cm Stage 1, Grade 2, 0/3 nodes er+ her2- is a great pathology report--

I am just stunned that you and she are choosing to do nothing about this.

It is none of my business, but I had a friend in the same situation about five years ago, and you know where she is now?  She is up in heaven (I hope), and her children are growing up without a mother. .  .

OneBadBoob

I deleted my post because I do not have enough information on "Ronald" and his girlfriend to really post anything constructive about it.

hymil

I don't get this, Ronald; Are you suggesting to us not to bother with screening? Because I think most of us are here because we already know we have Breast Cancer, diagnosed and hopefully being treated, not because we are trying to decide whether to be tested. Stable gate, horse, bolt....

maybe i have misunderstood your point and direction. And I do hope your girlfriend is still doing well. BTW re. the nurse's suggestion to get a mammo done, was it just a random idea, or was it based on some early symptoms and her own intuition? Maybe we could employ such sensitive highly intuitive individuals like her to discern people's health as they walk by, instead of using hightech equpiment? 

Anonymous

I completely agree with you Madalyn

I hope Ronald's girlfriend is still living. I wonder just how much weight to give his post. The entire story sounds fishy. I'd be darn if I let my "boyfriend" talk me out of having cancer treatment. 

My Dr informed me last month, that here i(n California), Drs will no longer order routine mammos for women under 50.

What a shame. We are going to be burying thousands of our sisters - if not millions - if this proceedure spreads across the US

hymil

Totally agree Lady4Law what a shame. Whereas my side of the pond we are planning to bring the routine screening age from the current 50 down to 47 to include the likes of me because so many agressive tumours are being found in younger women.

Otter your link and the follow-up made VERY interesting reading. I understand a lot more now. 

Hooponopono

Hi you all,

Indeed, I'm not the one who was diagnosed with malignant breast cancer and almost forced into having a mastectomy - by fear and lack of information -  to be followed by chemo/radiation. 

Her sister in law (a nurse) suggested she'd have a mammo, not because of earlier signs for breast cancer, or whatever, but just because my girlfriend got 50 and then 2-yearly mammo's are free in Belgium. As a nurse - you know how they are - she motivated her advice by saying something like: "one can't be careful enough with breast cancer; the earlier they find it, the easier it is to cure".

This seems to be the general attitude with most people: 'your body can't be trusted, you must go in regularly for check ups in order to stay healthy'. They don't realize that by doing this (even by having this negative attitude towards their body), they block their own healing processes - what one could call 'the immune system' - and surrender themselves to the greedy hands of modern medicine (if one can call chemo/radiation 'modern' - I'd rather call it 'barbaric').

Now, I realize this might sound like a lotta nonsense to you - because you rather put your eggs in the 'science' basket - but I'm not just a guy with alot of fantasy. For the last year I've been digging into this and not only by visiting websites/blogs, etc., but mostly by reading books (many written by doctors, who came to realize that their cumulated 'knowledge' was mainly being steered by 'Big Pharma', and people who got passed cancer and other serious 'diseases' by 'alternative means'), watching DVD's (ditto) and attending a few seminars.

I'm not trying to talk anyone into not having surgery/chemo/radiation, I'm just trying to give people some, in my view, vital information that our oncologist (and other doctors) either didn't want us to know, or didn't know about themselves.

Time for me to rap it up (again); don't feel like getting involved in endless discussions. In the end it's all about making personal choices...

best wishes to you all,

Ronald 

Beatis

Ronald,

I have asked you this before on another forum and you couldn't provide me with a satisfying answer, but perhaps you can now:

How are we supposed to know which cancers will disappear by themselves and which ones won't? In other words: how are we to know which cancers are overdiagnosed (because they will be kind enough to disappear by themselves and can therefore be safely left untreated) and which ones are not?

BTW, if you don't feel like getting involved in discussions, then why start them yourself all the time?

Fergy

Maybe if Ronald was diagnosed with prostate cancer he would have a different opinion about treatment.  Just my opinion. 

CrunchyPoodleMama

Ronald, I'm not going to flame you, but the conclusions reached in these articles are flawed.

Yes, there are cancers that resolve themselves. The first article states that "doctors need to address the problem of overdiagnosis in cancer care." That's ridiculous -- what is a doctor supposed to do about the supposed "problem of overdiagnosis"?? Arbitrarily tell certain patients that they shouldn't bother being screened? It's a ridiculous suggestion.

Instead, what needs to happen is RESEARCH into which tumors or pre-invasive/pre-cancerous areas are likely to resolve on their own vs. which aren't, as well as which diet/lifestyle/medical preventative measures can be proven to reverse or prevent progression. Watching and waiting, crossing your fingers and hoping it doesn't turn into cancer (while still eating your Arby's and drinking your Diet Pepsi) is NOT acceptable. 

baywatcher

Ronald-

I think I am the lone person that wishes I had not gone with conventional medicine. I wish I had thought "outside the box". Thanks for the info.

Leia

Ronald, I hear you. I don't know why so many women, here, flock to these totally destructive "treatments." Chemo, Radiation, DRUGS. Or even, a Mastectomy. When they have these tiny, TINY cancers. Ronald, you're right; it IS barbaric.

For my part, my diagnosis was a 2cm IDC, Stage 1, Grade 1, 0 of 3 nodes, ER/PR+/HER-. May, 2006. And I blew off EVERYTHING, but the surgery, that removed the cancer with huge margins. Because these "treatments" never made any sense, to me. And I remain cancer-free, to this day. 

baywatcher,  I did ultimately reject all of this, but it was HARD. I had the medical-industrial complex HARD against me. YOU'LL DIE if you don't HAVE THESE TREATMENTS. They kept insisting. And I even got to the point where I had the CT scan, in preparation for the Radiation. But then, they put that Consent Form in front of me, for the Whole Breast Radiation, and I refused to sign it. I just said, NO, and walked out of the place. 

The most liberating thing that I've ever done.

But then, I did not, do nothing. I'd had Cancer. So, I totally changed what I was eating. We are what we eat. And by just eating, better, this changed my total life style.  I began to FEEL so much better. Because with the healthy food that I was now eating, I WAS better. 

 And I still am. I have been never healthier, in my life. And just last month, I had another test and my cholesterol had gone down 10% from one year ago. AND, the good, UP, the bad, DOWN. 

And NO Cancer recurrence.  

People on this board seem to need "studies" to validate their choices. I, do not. Because there are no "studies" of how eating healthy food, improves, your life.  

But that is what I believe. Eating healthy food, improves your life. Chemo, radiation, and drugs, kill you.  

Beatis

You don't seem to realize that surgical removal of the tumour is the primary and most effective treatment for solid cancers. Chemotherapy and radiation are used as adjuvants only, to improve the prognosis and lower the chance of recurrence. (You don't seem to realize either that Ronald opposes surgery as well.)

The higher the grade of the cancer, the higher the risk of recurrence, but also the more responsive it is to chemotherapy.

In my country women with your diagnosis often are not even advised chemotherapy. Therefore, with all due respect, I sincerely doubt if your doctors really told you that you would die without chemo or radiation. If this were true, they wouldn't have needed to bother with the surgery would they?

You pretend it is your diet and your decision to wave chemotherapy and radiation alone that have kept your cancer from recurring, but completely ignore the fact that your surgery has been instrumental in giving you a very good prognosis to begin with.

CrunchyPoodleMama

Just want to clarify my earlier post. (To my alternative peeps, you already know how I feel about this!)

I absolutely DO think that diet and lifestyle play a major role in recovery and in some cases are MORE effective than conventional treatment. In pre-cancerous situations like fibrocystic changes and ADH, and in many cases of DCIS, I believe that diet/lifestyle can reverse it (hint: iodine!).

I believe certain cancer and pre-cancer situations are OVERTREATED, but that is a different thing than OVERDIAGNOSED. The original post implied a "bury your head in the sand" approach. It suggested that "doctors" take the main role in deciding who should be diagnosed and who shouldn't. That part is ridiculous. I believe in getting an accurate diagnosis (not burying one's head in the sand) but then doing something aggressive (with diet and lifestyle) to reverse or prevent progression. 

As for chemo and radiation, in some cases it's probably best to do them, but I believe diet and lifestyle are often a more effective (and safer) adjuvant treatment, simply because (as we all know) chemo and radiation are themselves carcinogenic, and I'd rather see patients stay cancer-free for 30-50 years or more, not just for the 5-10 years that will improve some study's survival statistics.

I'm betting my own longterm health on this. I did have surgery to remove my DCIS, but rejected the recommended radiation and Tamoxifen. I realize that statistically (because of my young age and other factors), I have a high probability of recurrence, but I plan to greatly reduce those odds with the diet and lifestyle changes I've made (and will stick to for the rest of my life).  

Beatis

I do believe that is what Ronald is advising, but not just that. He wants us to go without screening, but also without any form of standard therapy, surgery included. 

Instead, he claims that cancer can only be cured by means of dietary changes and doing German New Medicine to solve the psychological conflict that is supposed to have caused the cancer. 

MarieKelly

CrunchyPoodleMama wrote:I believe certain cancer and pre-cancer situations are OVERTREATED, but that is a different thing than OVERDIAGNOSED. 

I completely agree with the statement Crunchy made regarding the REAL problem being over treatment, not overdiagnosis.  Medical science is finally inching it's way slowly but surely towards more individually directed treatment, which will eventually be the key to minimizing the overtreatment  problem. Standards of care in medicine take a long, long time to change, but they'll get there eventually.  Some medical minds seem to think the problem of overtreatment can be solved by preventing diagnosis ( limiting screening) which seems like a very backward way of tackling the underlying problem - a don't find it and you won't have to treat it way of thinking. 

Yes, there definately are some indolent, low grade breast cancers (and other types of cancer as well) that, if just left alone or never identified at all, would never become life threatening or might even resolve spontaneously (a very, very rare event, but it does occur).  But someone not allowing surgical removal of a known invasive cancer because they believe that breast cancer is being overdiagnosed and then assuming that they're lucky enough to be dealing with a cancer that's one of the rare ones which would resolve on it's own, does not have all their neurons firing in the correct order.  I'm someone who is completely supportive of refusing certain treatments for low grade breast cancer when those treatments have a reasonable probability of being  unnecessary.  However, refusing to have a known cancer surgically removed is beyond foolish. 

Beatis wrote in response to Leia  "You pretend it is your diet and your decision to wave chemotherapy and radiation alone that have kept your cancer from recurring, but completely ignore the fact that your surgery has been instrumental in giving you a very good prognosis to begin with."

I agree. It seems there are many who fail to realize that surgical removal of a tumor is the #1 weapon in breast cancer treatment and often completely curative. There's nothing wrong with believing that diet and lifestyle changes are beneficial and perhaps they do offer some resistance to reocurrence.  However, when someone has an extremely good prognosis after surgery to begin with,  it's unreasonable to credit those lifestyle changes for remaining recurrence free when the prognosis was so good to begin with.. In all probability, someone with breast cancer that has a good post surgical prognosis could be a couch potatoe and eat bon bons all day and still not have a recurrence. 

I had a good prognosis breast cancer, was already in menopause at diagnosis, refused hormonal therapy (arimidex and tamoxifen) and refused radiation after lumpectomy, so the only treatment I've had was surgical.. I've made absolutely no life style changes and I remain recurrence free 6+ years later. I have a crappy diet, am 30 lbs overweight, am out of shape physically, don't do any routine physical exercise and I smoke.  Would my overall health and well being benefit from lifestyle changes?  Absolutely, you betcha!  Would making those lifestyle changes have had an effect of keeping me recurrence free to this point? Obviously not, since I didn't make any changes over the last 6 years and still have had no recurrence.

hymil

MarieKelly I like that approach; Thankyou. I will have a lazy day and go get myself a bonbon, or maybe even an ice cream - if I am going to survive, i need to learn to enjoy life a bit more!

thenewme

Hi Leia,

You said, "...People on this board seem to need "studies" to validate their choices. I, do not. Because there are no "studies" of how eating healthy food, improves, your life. "

I don't know where you've been looking but there are, in fact, thousands of very scientific, factual, evidence-based studies on positive health effects from nutritious eating and other healthy lifestyle choices. 

Despite your claims, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, anywhere, who denies that there are any health benefits to eating healthy food.  Perhaps you meant to say there are no scientific studies proving  the benefits of the Budwig or FOCC diet?

chasinghope

Ronald's opinions and attitude is incredibly ignorant, if not arrogant, there I'll say it.  I wonder if he wants to hold on to his girlfriend's breast for selfish reasons. Seriously, what boyfriend whose worth anything would take the chance with his girlfriend's life. What girlfriend would listen to her boyfriend. He sounds like an egotistic nitwit who wants to act like he's helping her out and helping us out. If he had prostate cancer I highly doubt he'd be listening to any woman, man, doctor, nurse, telling him don't worry about it, it might be the cancer that just goes away on its own.

Ronald's whole post wreaks of bull crap.....and I know that I have wasted my time even addressing it.

Leia

To, thenewme,

I'm not sure what you're saying. But for my part, the "Eating Healthy Food" protocol that I mentioned IS the Budwig FOCC. That from the books of Dr. Budwig that I've read that are scientifically, validated.

But then, I don't even need Budwig's scientific proof. The proof, for me, is how I feel. And it was after six months of the FOCC that I thought to, myself, "I feel so MUCH better eating this food!" And the fact that it does prevent, cancer, is just an added bonus. 

I will NEVER go back. The FOCC has made that much of a difference, for me. In just the quality, of my life. Night and day.

Yet, I agree with you too, MarieKelly. Our cancers were so small (MarieKelly's, smaller than mine) All of this "Treatment" is just nonsense. And I'm a smoker, too. And you've said you've made nofood changes, and STILL no recurrence.

As I've said, I'm on the FOCC for Life. You, MarieKelly, are not, and we're both fine. No Cancer. After numerous years. 

So what does this say about these "Cancer Treatments?"  For low grade cancers, like MarieKelly and I had, it says they're just bullshit. 

But then someone mentioned, surgery, and I am all for that. If a cancer is discovered. But then, nothing more.

 The problem now, we have this screening that discovers the tiniest cancers, the Stage 0 non-cancers, and then treats the hell out of them.  

That can not, continue.

And with the USofA going bankrupt, before our eyes, it won't. Continue.  

Shrek4

This whole "eat healthy and you won't get cancer or keep it from re-ocurring" is pure crap. I ate healthy all my life (organic, farm-fresh, 3-4% meat the rest fresh fruit and veggies) - mind you, I was not born and raised in the USA - I have no BRCA gene and no family history. I still got BC.

DancerMel28

I think it is very dangerous to not have surgery and to at least consider further treatment beyond that.  I was 28 when diagnosed - surgery proved it was an agressive fast growing cancer that would've killed me if I had not found the lump and had a doctor that referred me for tests to check it out.  I know of many friends (young and old) who have always eaten right and lived healthy lifestyles who have been diagnosed also - eating healthy does not guarantee that you won't get cancer.

orchidgal

Just to chime in here, I, too, have been living a healthy, holistic lifestyle since I was about sisxteen, including meatbolic detox, fasting, organic diet. I am a nutritional consultant, and organic healing foods expert. My website is mwardoline.com, company name Organic Gourmet if you want to look me up. I have been diagnosed with DCIS & LCIS Stage 0, plus ADH, and a small bit of tubular carcinoma which appears generously throughout each breast. Am planning on a bi-lateral mastectomy, but no other treatment. My mom died of bc, yet we test neg. for the BRCA gene. My path looks great, nothing invasive or suspicious. But still, some have asked me if I ask "why me?" after living such a healthy life. Did I mention regular exerice all my adult life? both aerobic & anerobic? I'm really fit, 55 and now having surgery. I've spent thousands on the best supplements and healers, and been impeccable about my habits, but not obsessive. I believe that stress and environmental toxins play a large part in this as well as plain old physiology. I have dense, small breasts, and have always, that is, before menopause, been a high estrogen, high testosterone woman. This runs in my fmaily, too. I read recentlty that no one knows why some get it and some do not. I'm a public and private advocate and educator of healthy living and eating, and agree with DancerMel28 that it does not guarantee that you won't get it. But do take good care of yourself anyway!

Shappy

"Findings may alter care in early breast cancer" 

Looks like you aren't alone in your thinking on this thread--the point being is that it sounds like in many cases we are over treating. . . check out this article. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/08/health/08canc.html 

dreaming

It just shows that Ronald needs to get a job, too much free time in his hands, it is better to be "over "than  'under ". 84% of B.C. are people that are not "high risk ". Kudos to  the people that want to use all the weapons that we have to LIVE.

You make a big disservice to them.

georgie_girl

My mommy's youngest sister passed away because she did not believe in "regular screenings" (in fact, no screenings at all) and when she was so sick she HAD to go to hospital and got diagnosed with the C, also believed it would probably just "go away"...when she finally decided to begin treatment, it was too late.  We buried her about a year later.

To aunt Hilda, resting your grave : Thanks for helping me see I need to take responsibility for my own health - no matter what people say, I am unique, my body is unique - we are ALL unique.  What worked for one, may not work for the masses and vice versa...

And if I get a little "over-obsessed" with my boobies, well, they belong to me, after all...I'm not getting obsessed with everyone else's..