Something like this is much needed and like others have said, it has ZERO to do with Obama. I was having a similar discussion the this pas weekend in fact.
Let's just say I have a huge problem with the exploitation of breast cancer by various org's and companies in this country. but that's another discussion all together.
We do need to get better. I know most people think we've made great strides in Cancer treatments, but in reality, outside of childhood cancers, we haven't really done much at all. We're not that good. But numbers can be cooked and stats manipulated and most Americans are educated about Cancer by org's such as the American Cancer Society, an org that makes more when they convince you to give more. My aunt was a regional director for them, she has stories and she's not proud. It was the main reason she left. But again, another discussion.
To make it simple we detect a lot more cancer mostly because we're looking. Makes sense. And we're treating a lot more cancer because we find it. And our 5 year survivals are up, great news right?
Not really, our impact on advanced cancers and death and overall death is barely noticeable. Studies done here, thru autopsy of women that lived normal lives and died "naturally" show that about 20% of women that have never had an abnormal mammogram or any symptoms of breast cancer, or died from anything related to cancer, did in fact have DCIS something that is commonly referred to as cancer and has been for quite some time. The word cancer illicits a much different physical and emotional response than some more "benign terms that are much more fitting but often not used.
and in the Netherlands i believe, they conducted a similar study. Mammograms are much less used there than here, and they found that almost 40%, yes 40% of women that lived complete lives and died of something other than cancer, did in fact have breast cancer that never needed to be treated. It never affected their lives in anyway.
would that 40% be similar here in the US if we didn't screen and treat so aggressively here? and would it make a difference? I mean, what's the point of screening for and treating something so aggressively that isn't going to do anything anyway? and are these the types of cancer we are "curing" here in the US?
I mean do you really "cure" someone from something that was never going to affect them anyway?
The treatment isn't exactly fun, and is very, very costly. Just screening is very costly. There are a lot of questions and we do need more answers, not more money thrown at org's that promote nothing but antiquated and minimally effective screenings as their "answer" to cancer.
There are a lot of researchers that have noted our screening is great for catching things that aren't going to harm us, and not so good at differentiating between those and the harmful ones and the harmful ones are often times missed on screening because they go from undetectable to full blown in weeks and if your screen was 6 months ago? what's the point?
Which brings me back to earlier and the cancer orgs that bring in billions upon billions and most of that goes towards overhead and salaries and not to the reseachers to figure this stuff out. Almost none of it goes towards "prevention", but a lions share goes towards screening and detection. I know these things cost money and it has to be raised somehow, but we raise enough and not much goes where it should IMO. The NFL for example would be better off launching a campaign like their kids 60 everyday for adult women. They'd do more to prevent breast cancer than by promoting it like they do.
anyway, back on track. We need to get better at differentiating and diagnosing cancer. We don't need more "awareness" about breast cancer, which to me exists purely to exploit breast cancer and separate you from your money to put in someone else's pocket. Our current screens, other than Pap smears are very, very costly and yield little in the way of tangible results. They also cause their share of problems. It's not PC to say, but it's true.
I guess I'm not really on track, i'm more or less ranting because I just watched a day of football yesterday and got sick of all the exploitation of Breast cancer for monetary gain. I realize what I've said doesn't have a lot to do with the article other than, yes we need to get better at differentiating and not everybody is a candidate for invasive treatments because of some abnormal cells. and this does NOT belong on the Political front at all, though I'm sure Boner's and the Pelosi's of the world would be only too happy to make it political.
