If a certain group/organization commissions a study, you can likely expect the results to reflect the agenda of that organization. One way or another, that group is going to get the result it wants. If a group funded by George Soros funds a study, you can reasonably be suspicious of the results.
So, what about when a study is backed by the government, and the government (read White House) is pushing for government run health care?
Annual mammograms for most women in their 40s have more drawbacks than benefits, said a panel of U.S. doctors that recommended women wait until age 50 to start getting breast cancer screening tests every two years.
The change in guidelines released by the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force, a government-backed physician group, said women in their 40s are more likely to get false-positive tests that can lead to unnecessary biopsies and anxiety. The recommendations, which also said that self-examinations were unnecessary, don’t apply to women who carry a high risk for breast cancer. Those women should talk to their doctors about when to get screening, the panel said.
The new guidelines, published yesterday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, pit the task force against the American Cancer Society, which insisted doctors should still advise women to undergo routine annual screening starting at age 40. About 64 percent of women ages 40 to 49 had an X-ray of their breasts during the past two years, the panel’s report said.
Isn’t that convenient? While Obamacare has yet to be passed, a government-backed group publishes a study with results that run contrary to other organizations long held standard… and it just so happens that the government-back group says that less testing is necessary. Could this be a preemptive justification for reduced medical care under a government-run health care system? Sure sounds like it to me.
Since this study came out, I’ve heard a number of stories that included women diagnosed with breast cancer in their forties, who feel lucky to be alive because the cancer was caught early. So, is it really unneccesary, as this study says, for women to wait until the age of fifty to start having mammagrams every two years, not one, or is it just a reason to deny insurance coverage for mammograms for women under fifty?
Let’s consider the statistics.
According to the National Cancer Institute,
From 2002-2006, the median age at diagnosis for cancer of the breast was 61 years of age. Approximately 0.0% were diagnosed under age 20; 1.9% between 20 and 34; 10.5% between 35 and 44; 22.5% between 45 and 54; 23.7% between 55 and 64; 19.6% between 65 and 74; 16.2% between 75 and 84; and 5.5% 85+ years of age.
Obviously, younger women aren’t at risk, but 13% were diagnosed between the ages of 20-44. I can only guess how many of the 22.5 percent of the 45-54 age range were under fifty, but let’s say that it is less than half, or 10 percent of all diagnosed. So, we are looking at nearly a quarter of all diagnoses of breast cancer are of women under fifty.
Yet, this government-backed study says mammograms for women under fifty are not neccessary?
Tell that to nearly one of every four women with breast cancer who were diagnosed under the age of fifty.
Blogs For Victory 