iOS app Android app
Clicking Follow Back will add user to your friends list and may allow access to your Social News timeline..

HuffPost Social News

Badges:
Your Badges and the Badge Module will be removed from your profile

MedStudent001's Comments

View Comments:   Sort:
next
1 - 25
Measles Outbreak In Europe, Especially France

Measles Outbreak In Europe, Especially France

DakkonA on Apr 22, 2011 at 21:47:44

“I love the irony of your ID given his/her comment.”
huffingtonpost entry

White House Gives In On Bush Tax Cuts

Commented Nov 11, 2010 at 15:42:57 in Politics

“so... exactly how are we going to take a chip at the ol' trillion dollar deficit?”

BBackSoon on Nov 11, 2010 at 15:50:58

“By cutting anything that actually helps regular people.”

garretmason on Nov 11, 2010 at 15:50:37

“get rid of completely misguided and mismanaged social programs and wateful spending”

oregonrain on Nov 11, 2010 at 15:44:54

“well, how about a cut in defense spending? That's a great start. Cut the fat at the pentagon. I'm dreaming , I know.”
19 Romantic Spots Around The World (PHOTOS)

19 Romantic Spots Around The World (PHOTOS)

Commented Nov 4, 2010 at 16:22:09 in Travel

“you clearly haven't been to my home.”
huffingtonpost entry

Father And Son Send iPhone Into Space And Record Incredible Video (VIDEO)

Commented Oct 19, 2010 at 11:36:10 in Technology

“totally spectacular”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 7, 2010 at 02:00:23 in Healthy Living

“Again, you didn't read my comment closely. One cannot get become a doctor without learning the signs/symptoms of disease. I don't believe your anecdotal claim/sample size of one. If this were true s/he would not pass the medical board exams and furthermore the school would not be accredited. For god's sake this like claiming a law schools don't teach tort law. Ask for clarification.”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 6, 2010 at 18:10:53 in Healthy Living

“Quindy, your budding neurosurgeon was kidding, sarcastic, or there was some kind of misunderstanding. One spends the greater part of medical school and residency training learning the signs/symptoms of disease and the relavent differential diagnosis. If a medical school truly existed that just happened to forget to teach clinical medicine, believe me, none of its graduates would pass the medical board exams.

Struggling to practice medicine in resource limited settings like Haiti is a challenge for any doctor trained in the developed world, whether they're American, Canadian, British, Swedish, Japanese etc. Lots of diseases and medical problems present in similar ways and thus imaging and blood tests are often necessary to narrow down the differential. I've worked in Central/South America and Africa. Believe me, it's tough (but very rewarding!)

And shortening anatomy doesn't mean omitting it. It doesn't mean in the end that there is any difference years down the road between someone who spent 3 vs. 12 months on a pure anatomy course. Repetition is built into medical school curricula. Anatomy is reviewed when each subsequent organ system is studied, again in the wards (in particular surgery), again for board exams etc. etc. etc. Modern curricula integrate subjects so we learn the material in a more applied and relevant way, as opposed to learning basic subjects in isolation, completely removed from their clinical applications.”

quindy on Oct 6, 2010 at 20:04:54

“No, she was not kidding, it was a serious discussion. My next question for her was "Do they teach anatomy?" She said they do, and that there is big emphasis on anatomy. I assume that she studied in the US, because she is American, but I don't know details. I can only tell you that it was pretty shocking to hear something like that.”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 6, 2010 at 17:57:41 in Healthy Living

“I don't think you read my comment very closely”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 16:14:27 in Healthy Living

“Regarding pharmaceutical influence on medical schools brought up by commenters. Yes, it's a real problem. I happen to go to a medical school that is "pharm free" (has an "A" per AMSA's score card) - no drug reps, free lunches, gifts etc. So really I'm not qualified to comment on how influential these folks are. But for those interested take a look at the following reports organized by the American Medical Student Association. I imagine though the drug companies have far more influence on practicing doctors than medical students. We're too undifferentiated at this point. Most don't know if they're going to be pediatricians or cardiothoracic surgeons yet. It's when the companies start giving doctors extravagant "gifts" for prescribing their meds that there are serious ethical violations of practice.

http://www.pharmfree.org/
http://www.amsascorecard.org/

rikster on Oct 5, 2010 at 18:46:46

“yes..serious ethical violations..but it still goes on...”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 16:09:13 in Healthy Living

“... Regarding embryology and radiology mixed with gross anatomy, I think this makes sense. What better way to understand the relationship of the small and large bowel than to know their embryological origins? The same is true for any structure really, the heart, brain etc. And radiology is modern anatomy. While learning abdominal anatomy, it makes sense to think about what the structure might look like on an x-ray.

Overall, I learned so much more medicine in the hospital than in the classroom. Our school shortens the classroom component to extent the clinical experience and I can't emphasize enough how good of an idea this is. You can read all you want about cancer biology but until you interact with your first cancer patient and understand what they go through, you've barely scratched the surface. I found myself significantly more motivated to go back to the books and really wrap my head around the basic science of a particular disease after actually caring for patients with the disease. In this regard, by all means, shorten gross anatomy, and all classroom learning for integrated, hands on clinical learning. And by still having to do well on boards it's not like the basic stuff is forgotten. In the end we all need to take the same exams.

Continued...”

quindy on Oct 6, 2010 at 11:02:32

“Eight weeks of anatomy combined with embryology and radiology is not enough to gain any significant knowledge. I know that you are eager to work with patients, but before you do that you should have sufficient knowledge of human body and its functioning.”
What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

What's Wrong With Medical Education Today?

Commented Oct 5, 2010 at 16:01:47 in Healthy Living

“Dr. Sederer,

I'll be graduating from medical school this year. Our gross anatomy course was a little over 3 months. I thought this was plenty. While learned a great deal of anatomy during my gross course, I got got significantly more out of my surgery rotation. In the operating room, I if I wasn't sure if a vessel was an artery or vein, I could palpate a pulse. The lungs breathe, the heart beats, and the bowel peristalses. I can easily conjure up what the inside of the left ventricle looks like after seeing heart surgery. Sure, I remember cadaver specimens as well, but cadavers are so full of fixatives and thus everything more or less has the same color and texture. I found it really difficult to learn structures this way. The anatomy texts help, and dissecting helps as well, but I really think the best way to learn anatomy is in the OR. Also, parts of gross anatomy were pretty disturbing. Getting to the spinal cord or the facial sinuses is not easily accomplished... in this regard I felt like part of the point was desensitization. Which, sure, is important to some extent. A trauma surgeon has to have pretty thick skin. But I can't help but think this desensitization contributes to emotional insensitivity as well.

Continued...”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 13:09:58 in Healthy Living

“Iodine deficiency is major global public health problem in developing countries where people don't get enough iodine in their diet. Iodine deficiency primarily causes thyroid problems (goiters). We get iodized salt in our diet. Iodine deficiency is NOT a major problem in the US.

I cross referenced your links. The breastcancerchoices articles cites NHANES 2000 data [http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/iodine.htm]. Two problems with this. 1) is that their sample size was lower than in previous years, acknowledged by the authors and 2) there has since been more up to date data on the subject. The FDA published a study in 2008 that demonstrated that iodine levels are sufficient in the US: http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v18/n6/abs/7500648a.html

The claim that there is a relationship between iodine deficiency and breast cancer relies on a single abstract (NOT a published study): http://www.aacrmeetingabstracts.org/cgi/content/abstract/2005/1/504-a
Why wasn't it published? The final cohort of women with breast cancer who were studied contained a whopping 20 patients. With a sample size that small, statistical significance can be achieved by natural variation alone. It only takes a few outliers to skew the data. A true correlation between iodine deficiency and breast cancer has NOT been demonstrated in a single large population study.”

Maureen Halnon Wheeler on Oct 2, 2010 at 17:37:00

“Funny that you think it is not a problem. I do not eat processed foods and I only use sea salt which is not iodized. I have very low iodine and everyone I personally know who has been tested has low iodine. I guess if I were eating the SAD (standard American Diet) I might not be low in iodine, but I would have a multitude of other health problems. This is something worth getting checked.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 12:13:46 in Healthy Living

“Wow. Would you please post some of your references when making claims like this? I just did a pretty comprehensive literature search, and the phrase "oncogene AC" does not yield a single peer reviewed study.”

Flora Buffard on Oct 1, 2010 at 14:03:39

“After reviewing all available literature in the world on the subject, noted researchers Drs. Wright and Mueller of the University of British Columbia recommended the withdrawal of public funding for mammography screening, because the "benefit achieved is marginal, and the harm caused is substantial." (Lancet, 1 Jul 1995)

In women between the ages of 35 and 50, each rad of exposure increased the risk of breast cancer by one percent, according to Dr. Frank Rauscher, then-director of the NCI .

One critic of exclusive reliance on screening mammography is Cornelia J. Baines, MD., of the University of Toronto. She is deputy director of the prestigious Canadian National Breast Screening Study, and the author of 70 PubMed-listed journal articles. She has also written an important paper that is frank in its discussion of this issue. In this paper, aptly titled “Mammography screening – Are women really giving informed consent?” Dr. Baines says: “Many women remain unaware of the extent to which efforts to achieve breast cancer control through mammography screening may be doing harm as well as good. An unacknowledged harm is that for up to 11 years after the initiation of breast cancer screening in women aged 40-49 years, screened women face a higher death rate from breast cancer than unscreened control women, although that is contrary to what one would expect” (Baines 2003)”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 10:11:27 in Healthy Living

“Ataxia-telangiectasia is a rare hereditary syndrome characterized by defective DNA repair. We have ways of repairing damage that occurs to DNA, but people with ataxia-telangiectasia have can't repair DNA damage as well. They develop "cerebellar ataxia" (a balance problem), abnormal eye movements and other neurologic symptoms and telangectasias (abnormal blood vessels) that form on the eyes. Patients also have immune deficiencies. 10-20 percent of patients will develop cancer. Of these cancers, 85% are lymphomas/leukemias, but a predisposition to other cancers may exist.

Now, here is where it gets complicated. We all have 2 copies of every gene - one from mom, one from dad. People with the ataxia-telangiectasia above have 2 bad genes. But, about 2% of caucasians have 1 bad gene. If you have 1 bad gene, you don't get any of the symptoms above, but you DO have an increased risk of cancers, and it is thought that women with 1 bad gene have a TWOFOLD increase in the risk of breast cancer. It's hard to study, because until very recently, a reliable method for detecting the mutation didn't exist.

If a patient does have 1 bad gene of ataxia-telangectasia, it would be treated like having a family history of cancer. This is a reason to consider starting screening before age 50, but every patient is different and the risks/benefits of screening always need to be assessed. The 2 fold increase is probably not high enough to jump right to prophylactic surgery.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Oct 1, 2010 at 09:32:11 in Healthy Living

“Population-based surveillance of cancer began in 1975.

"1975 and 1980: constant.
1980 and 1987, incidence increased by 4.0% per year
1987 and 1994, constant
1994 and 1999, increased by 1.6% per year
1999 and 2006, decreased by 2.0% per year

The rapid increase between 1980 and 1987 is due largely to greater use of mammography screening and increased detection of breast cancers too small to be felt.

The slight increase in overall breast cancer incidence during the later half of the 1990s may reflect increases in the prevalence of mammography screening, rising rates of obesity, and menopausal hormone use.

The recent decline in breast cancer incidence is likely due to decreased use of menopausal hormones following the publication of the results of the Women’s Health Initiative trial in 2002, as well as a decrease in mammography screening (thus, detecting fewer cancers earlier).

The decrease in breast cancer incidence rates due to the lower prevalence of mammography use gives the appearance of a decline in the rate of disease, but in fact reflects underdiagnosis
or delayed diagnosis and not a true decrease in disease occurrence.

A sharp decrease in breast cancer incidence rates in the US occurred between 2002 and 2003, particularly among women aged 50-69 years in whom menopausal hormone use is most common. This decrease is likely a result of the rapid drop in hormone use that began in 2002."

http://www.cancer.org/Research/CancerFactsFigures/BreastCancerFactsFigures/breast-cancer-facts--figures-2009-2010

numbers wonk on Oct 1, 2010 at 20:25:36

“I've seen data from the Netherlands and Germany that suggest their high rates of reported cancer are due to very thorough screening.

What I find most peculiar is that the leading European countries perform 80-85% lumpectomy / 15-20% radical mastectomy, whereas in US it's 45%/55%. Long term survival is nearly identical at 80-85%, although there are differences by age of patient.

I'm not the biostatistician or oncologist, just the business guy, but I find it statistically quite odd that US oncology surgeons would over-promote a morbid procedure such as radical mastectomy. This suggests other factors than medical necessity are involved in the decision.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 22:02:46 in Healthy Living

“Yes yes you are absolutely correct. Sorry I had a explained this below: "Research does show harm in screening women under 40 with mammograms, hence why it's not recommended. The only women under 40 who get screened are those with hereditary forms of breast cancer (like BRCA mutations), and the method of choice is MRI."

In summary, screening mammograms for women under 40 is not recommended, but there IS survival benefit for those who get regular screening after 40.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 21:39:17 in Healthy Living

“"But, by the male population, breast cancer can affect only people affected with excessive grow of the breast tissues (Gynecomastia)."

This is not entirely true. Gynecomastia is not required for male breast cancer. It's a risk factor. It's caused by excess circulating estrogens, which is the true underlying problem. Other risk factors include family history, BRCA mutations, testicular pathology (that leads to an excess of estrogens relative androgens). And sometimes, there is no risk factor identified.

"Effective prevention for male population is to prevent or get rid of excessive fat mass located in breast tissues"
No evidence for this. One can correct the underlying hormonal imbalance if there is one.

" and for women is to be “bra free”."
Again, not true. Before you continue to spread false alarming information, please refute the points raised the NY times discussion I posted:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16qna.html?_r=1&ref=science

LukeTunyich on Oct 3, 2010 at 18:37:24

“You are repeating the theories created by the breast cancer industry and breast cancer professionals. They are just a words that sound scientific but without real meaning.

The only reliable knowledge about breast cancer is; wearing the bra cause breast cancer incidence by 12500%.

P. S. There is impossible to get cancer without excessive fat mass (Gynecomastia) in the male breast. If you think different than there is no point to continue discussion about male breast cancer.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 20:21:02 in Healthy Living

“Ok. Did you read the article I posted? What do you think of the following points:

There is no scientifically credible evidence of this, he said, and the proposed mechanism — that bras prevent elimination of toxins by blocking lymph flow — is not in line with scientific concepts of how breast cancer develops.

Internet traffic on the issue is mostly inspired by one study with several scientific flaws, Dr. Gansler said. The study, never published in a peer-reviewed journal, did not adjust for known breast cancer risk factors that might be associated with bra-wearing behavior, like weight and age. Also, study participants knew the hypothesis before taking the survey.

He and colleagues compared National Cancer Institute data on breast cancer risk for women treated for melanoma who had several underarm lymph nodes removed and those who did not. The surgery, which is known to block lymph drainage from breast tissue, did not detectably increase breast cancer rates, the study found, meaning that it is extremely unlikely that wearing a bra, which affects lymph flow minimally if at all, would do so.”

LukeTunyich on Oct 3, 2010 at 18:16:44

“Quote: MedStudent001 @ 08:21 PM on 9/30/2010
“There is no scientifically credible evidence of this, he said, and the proposed mechanism — that bras prevent elimination of toxins by blocking lymph flow"

Sydney Ross Singer and Soma Grismaijer theory about underlining mechanism of breast cancer is the weakest point in their work and is not so important. Their epidemiological work is important.

No one should ignore the biostatistics evidence - Wearing the bra cause breast cancer incidence by 12500%.

Quote: MedStudent001 @ 08:21 PM on 9/30/2010
“— is not in line with scientific concepts of how breast cancer develops.”

Please tell me; what is the scientific concept “of how body fat develops?”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 20:15:18 in Healthy Living

“"Mammograms do far more harm than good, and can cause cancer."

Not true.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361593/?tool=pubmed

"chemo is not effective for breast cancer"
Also not true.
http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v101/n1s/fig_tab/6605268f2.html#figure-title

iw on Sep 30, 2010 at 23:36:06

“for MedStudent001 and TeeSC above (with apologies for my previous typos, as well as unintended offense taken. I am a healer, and have been on the support team for a number of people who have had cancer. Believe me, I'm not callous about it.) :

About chemo not being effective for breast cancer:
https://www.newsmaxstore.com/newsletters/blaylock/knockout2a.cfm?s=al&promo_code=AB80-1 about the book Suzanne Somers wrote, interviewing doctors who are curing cancer. If you didn’t know, she herself had cancer and cured herself.

excerpt from site:
"Only three types of cancer respond to chemo: testicular cancer, some lymphomas, and childhood leukemias. As Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez points out in KNOCKOUT, chemotherapy is worthless for the major cancer killers, such as metastatic disease of the breast, lung, pancreas, and prostate."

more:
http://www.naturalnews.com/023286_cancer_cancers_health.html

http://www.tbyil.com/breast-cancer-deception.htm

http://www.naturalnews.com/024536_cancer_women_brst.html

Further, chemo drugs are dangerous to those healthcare workers and pharmacists who handle them:
"Pharmacists give themselves cancer from dispensing toxic chemotherapy chemicals"
http://www.naturalnews.com/029191_secondhand_chemotherapy_cancer.html

I tried to find the article stating 75% of doctors would refuse chemo for themselves, but couldn't.”

mrsL on Sep 30, 2010 at 21:57:13

“Well your first article MedStudent001 says:

"In conclusion, our estimates suggest that a decade of annual mammographic screening before age 40 years would result in a net increase in breast cancer deaths,"

So it seems that at least in women under 40 the other poster might have a point.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 19:50:30 in Healthy Living

LukeTunyich on Sep 30, 2010 at 20:16:05

“A civilised debate will reveal who is spreading misinformation and who trying to hide the truth about the cause for breast cancer.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 17:53:18 in Healthy Living

“Gotcha! Sorry for misreading your last sentence. And yes mammograms aren't 100% sensitive, especially in younger women with denser breasts. The denser the breast tissue, the harder it is to spot those microcalcifications because it all blends together. Here's what it actually looks like: http://breastcancer.about.com/od/mammograms/p/calcifications.htm

These days both mammograms and ultrasound and sometimes even MRI are gotten if there is a strong suspicion or something to work up. At any rate I'm glad your cousin's cancer was detected - I hope she is well and cancer free today.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 17:46:12 in Healthy Living

“Please don't spread misinformation.

"research has established that the radiation from mammograms doubles the risk of developing breast cancer in some young women."

Source? Research does show harm in screening women under 40 with mammograms, hence why it's not recommended. The only women under 40 who get screened are those with hereditary forms of breast cancer (like BRCA mutations), and the method of choice is MRI.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2361593/?tool=pubmed

"having regular mammograms and conducting breast self exam does not lead to a significantly higher survival rate for women who do develop breast cancer."

Again source? Breast cancer mortality in 1990 began declining an average of 2.1 percent annually; the 2003 age-adjusted mortality rate was 25.2 per 100,000, the lowest level since 1969 when national statistics began [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8901855].

It is likely that some of the decline in mortality is due to screening, although adjuvant therapy also may contribute and likely accounts for the approximately 20 percent mortality decline among women in their 30s [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16251534]. Using 7 different statistical models, estimates of the proportion of total reduction in overall US breast cancer mortality attributable to mammogram screening ranged from 28 to 65 percent, with adjuvant treatment accounting for the rest [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16618951]. These results suggest that breast cancer mortality in the US has dropped about ten percent because of screening.”

nancynancy on Sep 30, 2010 at 22:15:57

“Diagnostic mammograms given to high risk women in their twenties doubles the risk of contracting breast cancer. That has been established.

Some agressive forms of breast cancer will kill regardless of how early they're found . Other types will never pose a problem. to the women who have them. For both of these types of cancers, mammograms are useless..

The drop in the breast cancer death rate due to mammograms is largely a statistical artifact. Mammograms find many breast cancers that never would have posed a problem to the women who had them. Mammograms also find agressively lethal breast cancers earlier than they other wise would have been found. This makes it it appear as if a patient "survived" longer, when in fact her date of death has not changed -- she merely spent more time as a breast cancer patient . Thus the "cure rate" looks like it's gone up when in fact, no one has benefitted except those with financial ties to the breast cancer industry.

And MedStudent, I'd like to suggest you work on your bedside manner before you see any real patients.”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 17:12:10 in Healthy Living

“Very true! But also keep in mind that those tables are for all ages. If you click on "All Females By Age Group" it becomes clear that while heart disease is the leading cause of death for women aged 75 or higher, cancer is the leading cause of death for those aged 35 - 74. And breast cancer is the most common cancer in women.”

pjlim on Sep 30, 2010 at 18:22:08

“Got to love the med students. I am the proud parent of one. White Coat ceremony this weekend!”

LynneSpreen on Sep 30, 2010 at 17:35:21

“I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
www.AnyShinyThing.com, A Blog for Smart Women of a Certain Age”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 16:52:08 in Healthy Living

“You are correct that ultrasound has no radiation, hence why ultrasound is the imaging modality of choice for the unborn child of a pregnant women. However, it is incorrect to say that ultrasound is "more effective." Ultrasound is fantastic at imaging solid tumors. It's also great for distinguishing between a solid mass and a fluid filled mass (a "cyst," which is not cancer). However, not all breast cancers present as solid masses. Most early cancers are detected by the presence of what are called microcalcifications, or small calcium deposits, in the breast tissue. These are often missed by ultrasound. If a mass is seen on a mammogram, it's size/presence will often be confirmed by ultrasound. Also, if a patient feels a lump herself, it's likely that ultrasound will also be able to see it. But the reason why mammograms are the screening test of choice is because of their ability to detect microcalcifications - suspicious signs of early cancer, in both breasts.”

love5pets on Sep 30, 2010 at 19:55:05

“And early detection translates into an excellent prognosis.

The newer, digitalized mammogram units pick up dust specs and emit negligible radiation. They are also more comfortable as less compression is necessary.

A couple of Tylenols beforehand makes the whole processs uneventful - discomfort-wise.

Ladies, please get your annual mammograms - they save lives.”

robin360 on Sep 30, 2010 at 17:42:24

“Thanks for educating me. I never miss my mammo. And, I didn't say "I know", I said, "I think" :) With re: to my cousin's diagnosis; the mammogram missed it. She had an ultrasound because of a recommendation of a friend and a strong family history. Not trying to panic anyone, just sayin...”
Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Prevent Breast Cancer One Woman at a Time (PHOTOS)

Commented Sep 30, 2010 at 16:45:57 in Healthy Living

“Yes this is exactly right. Prognosis/survival are directly related to the stage of presentation, i.e., the more advanced the cancer at presentation, the lower the chance of survival. This is why early detection is so important!”
next
1 - 25