Media stopped reporting about the changes
Anyone else notice about how the major media seems to have dropped the new mammography guidelines from the radar?
I am very concerned about this because it is as if it is now not a big deal. How can we keep the pressure on the media to keep reporting this? They also seem to have stopped reporting about the health care bill also, these are both concerning since they are one in the same since the bill gives the USPSTF more power than it has ever had.
Any suggestions?
Comments
-
Hi Colette!
It's because BO and his fellow thugs control the Main Stream Media. NO DOUBT!
Watch this, in its entirety and you will be horrified, but you will understand it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNRI_6T8&feature=player_embedded#
-
Oh geez. Thanks for today's laugh.
-
I second that respin.
-
respin, pray, tell, what is so funny about the link that Laura put up? You should read other countries newspapers to see this is exactly what the rest of the world is saying about the US. Didn't start with BO either...started way back in the 80's if not before then.
Ask yourself who is the Federal Reserve? It is a PRIVATE bank (as "Federal" as Fed Ex) that is controlled via private stock holders. Our government asks for money from the Reserve which then gives them money with interest on the money borrowed. The IRS is the enforcer of the Reserve to get us to pay taxes. If you don't believe me that it is a PRIVATE bank (not trying to yell, but capitalizing it for emphasis) look the Federal Reserve up in the phone book...you wont find it in the Government Blue pages. The Federal Reserve is Unconstitutional because this job was suppose to fall directly on Congress...that was what part of their job was suppose to be. Not giving the power to the Federal Reserve.
-
Colette - You are right on! Thanks fellow patriot! Unfortunately, those who are oblivious to the reality at hand, are incorrigable. They will learn only when it's too late. Instead, spend your time and energy on those who are intelligent enough to understand the situation and those who are intelligent enough to respond.
respin and covert - You will not be laughing when all he** breaks loose. I pity you and your cronies. Get involved now, educate yourselves to the reality, and you will be wishing you had gotten involved sooner. I laugh at your ignorance. You obviously have not done your homework. You obsiously do not understand the situation at hand, and you are in for a rude awakening. Those who have educated themselves regarding the ultimate consequences, are those who will be prepared for the demise. Sad but true... you two are living under a rock. Surface...and you will see the truth. Hide and you will be shaking your heads and asking "Why did I let this happen".
-
I wasn't aware I had cronies! Where are they? respin are you my crony?
I'll take my chances. I prefer my education to yours.
-
Colette this is what I found funny:
BO and his fellow thugs control the Main Stream Media
And thanks to Laura, I know now that I'm not intelligent enough to understand that BO WILL TAKE DOWN THE WORLD! MUHAHAHAHA~
I'm sure she's going to enlighten me though. Laura, what exactly would you like me to get involved in? I'm always believe that people who resort to personal insults always have the best answers.
Seriously.
Covertanjou, I guess I am your crony. Btw, I think you guys *should* be our example in extending health care to all. Kudos to our neighbors in the north.
-
OK, this is very weird.
I was a journalist for over 10 years, and, believe me, the government has very little to do with what finally gets published.
It's about what the owner and other powers that be think is important. And they believe that the public has no attention span at all (well, it doesn't) and they make sure that the interests of the other businesses owned by the company aren't affected.
And mammography has has its 3 days of fame.
So don't expect to hear from it again for some while.
-
LauraGTO.
Thank you, for posting this. It is so right.
-
Actually the story really had legs, for a public policy/health story.
What works to keep a topic in the public eye is fresh information or at the least a news "peg".
New research, or a march, or a celebrity under 50 getting dx'ed will all help put the story in the spotlight.
If you live in a smaller market with a weekly or monthly newspaper, call them up and share your story if you are under fifty.
Or write a blog.
Or hold an event in your town square. Seriously dress up everyone with bc under fifty in pink or black or skeleton suits and stand in the center of town. You will get coverage,especially from tv with the good pictures.
Write an editorial.
Twitter.
Instead of worrying about media conspiracies, do the work to keep a story in the spotlight. Unfortunately the non-profit sector does not always have all the pr resources it should. But you can have a very significant role in this. One advantage, the story applies to a very "significant demographic".
I have worked in news for 10 years, my husband 25. While I have experienced political pressure from a station manager or news director,(all three times they were very conservative) usually the motive is profit. If a media outlet thinks they can make money with a story, they usually do it. I admit, the national security beat can get a little odd, but I would follow the money.
-
You are right, cookiegal.
I was thinking on a national basis - where 3 days is pretty impressive.
For local news and fundraising, there is a lot more that can be done.
But the President probably has very little to do with it. Michelle isn't even old enough for the old screening guidelines, yet. And since his mom died of ovarian cancer, I can't imagine that he's anti-screening.
Sue
-
respin...you do realize that there are major wait times for people in Canada getting health care, right? And people are being told flat out "No." for needed procedures. As far as "BO and his fellow thugs" I don't agree with that because BO doesn't control anything...the very people who control Bush control BO. You can tell that by how much is getting done in the White House. We are still overseas with more money going out. .
ICanDoThis...I agree with you that the government may not have a lot of say about what is printed and what is not...but the people who control Obama certainly do..and considering that Murdock (I think that is how you spell his name) owns how many news organizations, I don't think it is far reached to say that the MSM is told what to print and what not to print and stay away from.
Cookiegal...That is a good point and some good ideas in keeping this in the lime light. It is so important that we as women who have fought this beast stop the government from passing this BS bill which will kill many in the process!
-
I can do this- I pretty much agree with you, but would also note a couple of things. Journalism is quite different right now. There is a big split in the media and only one true watchdog outlet. It's not how it was years ago. You are right, the owners dictate what is important..and many of these owners have political agendas. If they can kill a story that hurts something they are trying to get, they will do their best to do that..and vice versa. The president has tried a bit to keep the media focused upon what he wants them focused upon..some outlest go along with that, others do not....our journalists are in a sense the foundation of this country...a free press is at our core. I personally think it has been tainted to a scary point...not the indidual journalists, but the large companies behind them. It's a real shame.
-
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-11-29-screening30_ST_N.htm
With cancer screenings, 'more is not always better'
-
How can you claim the Federal Reserve Banks are privately held? Are you mixing up the Federal Reserve banks with private banks that have reserve in their name?
Brief history
The twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks were established by the United States Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system. These banks were the idea of Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of Treasury, who started a movement advocating the creation of a central bank. Following this movement the First Bank of the United States was established in 1791. The First Bank of the United States was headquartered in Philadelphia, but had branches in other major cities. The Bank performed the basic banking functions of accepting deposits, issuing bank notes, making loans and purchasing securities. These twelve regional banks are organized much like private corporations-possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." [1]
The Federal Reserve System was created by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which "established a new central bank designed to add both flexibility and strength to the nation's financial system. The legislation provided for a system that included a number of regional Federal Reserve Banks and a seven-member governing board. All national banks were required to join the system and other banks could join. The Federal Reserve Banks opened for business in November 1914. Congress created Federal Reserve notes to provide the nation with an elastic supply of currency. The notes were to be issued to Federal Reserve Banks for subsequent transmittal to banking institutions in accordance with the needs of the public.
[The Federal Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Federal Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Federal Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the system. The stock may not be sold or traded or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, limited to 6 percent per year. [1]
The dividends paid to member banks are considered partial compensation for the lack of interest paid on member banks' required reserves held at the Federal Reserve. By law, banks in the United States must maintain fractional reserves, most of which are kept on account at the Federal Reserve. The Federal Reserve does not pay interest on these funds. (The Federal Reserve now has authority to pay interest on these funds granted by Congress in the EESA of 2008.)
-
ADK...No, I am talking about the Federal Reserve, and yes, they are a private bank. Don't believe me look them up in the phone book...you wont find them in the Government Blue pages.
And as far as what goes on inside the Federal Reserve...Good luck finding the information, because they have NEVER been audited..ever. There is currently a bill in the house which would require this to occur, but it has a lot of pork involved in it and from what I understand because of all the pork, is very questionable if it will pass and take place. If you know more on if they have ever been audited, please post it, because I have never seen any proof that they have. (and no, I am not trying to be snotty by my comment, because I truly never have never seen it)
-
I give up.................
-
ADK..I asked a sincere question...one which I would like an answer to. I wasn't trying to be rude asking for proof that the Federal Reserve has ever been audited, because I have looked and I haven't seen it. If it has never been audited in almost a hundred years (Since it began in 1913)...then there is no accounability and who knows how it is running.
-
Fear-mongering media rhetoric
The rampant fear-mongering rhetoric that has framed much of the media's response to the recommendations seems to have focused primarily on individual women and doctors who are outraged.
The USPSTF is an independent group of physicians and academic experts, not a government agency that makes policy. Even H.H.S. Secretary Sebelius said the Task Force has presented some new evidence for consideration but (H.H.S.) policies remain unchanged.
And the Task Force recommendations state quite clearly that the decision about mammography screening before age 50 should be an individual one and take into account patient context, including the patient's values regarding specific benefits and harms.
Remember the non-nuanced advice women got for decades about menopausal hormone replacement therapy?
Groups like the National Women's Health Network first raised doubts about the value of mammography screening in women under 50 back in 1993. Cynthia Pearson, long-time executive director of the National Women's Health Network, wrote on their website:We're glad that the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] has done what they're supposed to do. They've told the truth about what studies have found, and now women have a better chance of getting an honest assessment about the value of a heavily promoted technology. Information is always a good thing and we're glad more women now have access to good information.
But, I'm not at all happy today. Not even to be proven right about things that I took a lot of criticism for saying. Rather, I'm outraged. We've known for 16 years that mammography screening doesn't work well for women before menopause, and not at all for women under 40. And at the same time, we've known that a significant number of breast cancer cases occur in women under 50. So once we knew mammography wasn't good enough, the next step was obvious - we need to find something better.
-
Laynel...their "reports" have never been audited. Their website does not show any proof that they have been audited, because the audit would have to come from an independent source such as the GAO or a special council like the one that investigated Rove.
And if they were "government" just because they have .gov at the end then why does the "Independent" group of the USPSTF have .gov on their website? If they were government, don't you think that they would be in the Government Blue pages?
gpawelski...Who are paying the "individual physicians?" You and I both know that these people are not giving their time without being paid. There is not ONE Oncologist or Breast Surgeon on the panel and the fact that they are using data that had been gathered about the OLD mammogram machines is also very telling. Their recommendations did not include the digital mammograms of today which are much more sensitive and also emit less radiation compared to the previous machines.
1993 was before the digital mammograms were created...and they were correct about the old mammograms. That article is over 15 years old and a lot has changed since then.
The USPSTF has done nothing except give legal authority in this bill to give insurances (which the government is trying to become part of) a way out of paying for cancer treatment. If a lump is not pro-sued (their statement about not doing SBE) and mammograms are not given, then women will not be diagnosed with breast cancer...no diagnosis, then no treatment will have to be paid for. THAT is the outrage that I have with all of it.
-
Actually, Colette, I am quite sure that the physicians on the USPSTF are giving much of their time without being paid. They probably receive a per diem on days when they actually travel to Bethesda (or thereabouts) for a meeting, and they may receive an honorarium for hours that they spend in an official conference call. Based on my familiarity with similar service by academic physicians for NIH grant review panels, FDA expert panels, advisory panels, etc. -- this is at most $300 per day of actually being present at a meeting, and for most individuals does not exceed $3,000 per year.
-
Amen, Layne - it was beginning to hurt
-
Layne .. saw your name on the "active" list and just popped in to say "hey!" That's Southern for "hello!" Ha!
Love you friend!
Bren
-
laynel..No, I am not confused. The Federal Reserve has never been audited by our government. Don't believe me? Google "Federal Reserve Audit" I just did and it showed a bill that has been blocked via our Senate to prevent them from being so.
As far as what the USPSTF can do, I am living proof of what Doctors under the government will do and read the recommendations. See, I happen to be a Veteran of the Army and I had my paps done by them to keep them all in one place. When I was 35 I asked to have a mammogram because my Mom had breast cancer at a young age. The GYN then replied I didn't need it until I was 40...I asked even with my Mom's history of breast cancer? She replied YES. Well, I am now 37 with a 10 cm tumor removed and I am still fighting. Started out as IDC and then after chemo was DCIS. The same films of the mammogram said first 1.7 cm and under, and then after the 4th reading by an experienced radiologist they read it as 9.5+ cm...all based on the same films...5 months before I had my bilateral mastectomy.
Rest assured that if this bill goes through, you will read many more stories like mine. You can either stand up and say NO, THIS WONT HAPPEN TO MY DAUGHTERS AND GRANDDAUGHTERS! Or you can be the nice little sheep and refuse to do any other kind of research that proves what I say to be the truth.
-
Colette - You poor dear! I am SO SORRY THAT YOU ARE TERRIBLY CONFUSED! lol Are you comfortable that way? Good gawd!
Your story is sad and scary. But you're right...the best and brightest will not be reading films. The best and brightest will simply not choose a medical profession. It's refreshing to see that you're fighting not just for yourself, but for the generations after us.
Have you ever visited the Young Womans Coalition discussion board? They're all under 40 dx'd with bc - their stories are horrifying. Did you see this?:
-----------------------------------------------
As for those who keep banging their heads...KEEP doing it. Perhaps you'll knock some sense into yourselves! lol lol lol
-
One more thing...atleast the American Cancer Society is sticking to their beliefs:
"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.
"The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not," Brawley wrote.
That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.
-
Speaking of confusion . . . Colette, I know you won't believe me and will keep posting the same thing over and over again on every thread, but this idea that there's a bill in Congress to somehow give the USPSTF's mammogram screening guidelines the force of law is a pure fantasy. (And please don't tell me it's on "p. 17." I've read p. 17. In fact, I've read the entire bill.*)
Linda
*OK, I sort of skimmed parts of it.
-
I agree it does not mention the mammogram screening directly. It does however authorize using USPSTF as standards to help direct the care. Yes I read the bill voted on by the house. Of course, we'll see how it actually comes out now......
-
No, Flash, it doesn't authorize using USPSTF as standards to help direct the care. It does establish new requirements for insurance companies to fully cover (no deductible, no co-pay) recommended preventive services - including those with an A or B recommendation from the USPSTF. It would also include recommended vaccinations. Right now there is NO requirement that insurance companies cover ANY preventive care, and many don't. (I learned over the holiday weekend that my brother and sister-in-law, who have two toddlers, have to pay for all their vaccinations out of pocket: not a covered benefit. And they have GOOD insurance!)
This is in the regulatory reform section of the bill, not the separate section that establishes the basic benefit package to be sold through the exchange. That section does not mention the USPSTF.
And none of this has to do with "directing care," which remains the purview of health care providers.
Linda
-
Yes Lewig, It does authorize the direction of care.
lweig, you've read the entire bill?
What else is in it? (because I start seeing cross eyed after 20 pages. )
Categories
- All Categories
- 679 Advocacy and Fund-Raising
- 289 Advocacy
- 68 I've Donated to Breastcancer.org in honor of....
- Test
- 322 Walks, Runs and Fundraising Events for Breastcancer.org
- 5.6K Community Connections
- 282 Middle Age 40-60(ish) Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 53 Australians and New Zealanders Affected by Breast Cancer
- 208 Black Women or Men With Breast Cancer
- 684 Canadians Affected by Breast Cancer
- 1.5K Caring for Someone with Breast cancer
- 455 Caring for Someone with Stage IV or Mets
- 260 High Risk of Recurrence or Second Breast Cancer
- 22 International, Non-English Speakers With Breast Cancer
- 16 Latinas/Hispanics With Breast Cancer
- 189 LGBTQA+ With Breast Cancer
- 152 May Their Memory Live On
- 85 Member Matchup & Virtual Support Meetups
- 375 Members by Location
- 291 Older Than 60 Years Old With Breast Cancer
- 177 Singles With Breast Cancer
- 869 Young With Breast Cancer
- 50.4K Connecting With Others Who Have a Similar Diagnosis
- 204 Breast Cancer with Another Diagnosis or Comorbidity
- 4K DCIS (Ductal Carcinoma In Situ)
- 79 DCIS plus HER2-positive Microinvasion
- 529 Genetic Testing
- 2.2K HER2+ (Positive) Breast Cancer
- 1.5K IBC (Inflammatory Breast Cancer)
- 3.4K IDC (Invasive Ductal Carcinoma)
- 1.5K ILC (Invasive Lobular Carcinoma)
- 999 Just Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastasis
- 652 LCIS (Lobular Carcinoma In Situ)
- 193 Less Common Types of Breast Cancer
- 252 Male Breast Cancer
- 86 Mixed Type Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Not Diagnosed With a Recurrence or Metastases but Concerned
- 189 Palliative Therapy/Hospice Care
- 488 Second or Third Breast Cancer
- 1.2K Stage I Breast Cancer
- 313 Stage II Breast Cancer
- 3.8K Stage III Breast Cancer
- 2.5K Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
- 13.1K Day-to-Day Matters
- 132 All things COVID-19 or coronavirus
- 87 BCO Free-Cycle: Give or Trade Items Related to Breast Cancer
- 5.9K Clinical Trials, Research News, Podcasts, and Study Results
- 86 Coping with Holidays, Special Days and Anniversaries
- 828 Employment, Insurance, and Other Financial Issues
- 101 Family and Family Planning Matters
- Family Issues for Those Who Have Breast Cancer
- 26 Furry friends
- 1.8K Humor and Games
- 1.6K Mental Health: Because Cancer Doesn't Just Affect Your Breasts
- 706 Recipe Swap for Healthy Living
- 704 Recommend Your Resources
- 171 Sex & Relationship Matters
- 9 The Political Corner
- 874 Working on Your Fitness
- 4.5K Moving On & Finding Inspiration After Breast Cancer
- 394 Bonded by Breast Cancer
- 3.1K Life After Breast Cancer
- 806 Prayers and Spiritual Support
- 285 Who or What Inspires You?
- 28.7K Not Diagnosed But Concerned
- 1K Benign Breast Conditions
- 2.3K High Risk for Breast Cancer
- 18K Not Diagnosed But Worried
- 7.4K Waiting for Test Results
- 603 Site News and Announcements
- 560 Comments, Suggestions, Feature Requests
- 39 Mod Announcements, Breastcancer.org News, Blog Entries, Podcasts
- 4 Survey, Interview and Participant Requests: Need your Help!
- 61.9K Tests, Treatments & Side Effects
- 586 Alternative Medicine
- 255 Bone Health and Bone Loss
- 11.4K Breast Reconstruction
- 7.9K Chemotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 2.7K Complementary and Holistic Medicine and Treatment
- 775 Diagnosed and Waiting for Test Results
- 7.8K Hormonal Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 50 Immunotherapy - Before, During, and After
- 7.4K Just Diagnosed
- 1.4K Living Without Reconstruction After a Mastectomy
- 5.2K Lymphedema
- 3.6K Managing Side Effects of Breast Cancer and Its Treatment
- 591 Pain
- 3.9K Radiation Therapy - Before, During, and After
- 8.4K Surgery - Before, During, and After
- 109 Welcome to Breastcancer.org
- 98 Acknowledging and honoring our Community
- 11 Info & Resources for New Patients & Members From the Team