The Cochrane folks have determined that mammography is no longer indicated as cancer screening for women of any age! Here's the brochure: http://www.cochrane.dk/screening/mammography-leaflet.pdf. You can get them in any language at: http://www.cochrane.dk/.

It occurs to me, as I weed through my email inbox, that modern attempts to mold public opinion are largely efforts to incite us to outrage. The most recent one to cross my viewscreen was an email claiming that the TSA's purpose is to humiliate people. This claim was based, in this story at least, on the fact that they required that a breast feeding mother pump her milk before boarding the plane. The story made multiple references to her breasts, as if the TSA was actually doing something to them. I sincerely doubt that the TSA thought she had filled her breasts with explosives, but if she somehow had, having the liquid out where it could be inspected would eliminate that question. But more practically speaking, it takes a long time to pump breast milk, and there aren't many toilets on an airplane. It seems logical to me to pump while you're on the ground and avoid spending 10+ minutes in the restroom on an airplane. It's not a safe or pleasant place to hang out anyway. And others might need the restroom. So all this commentary is really just to say that there is more to every story. Before you allow someone to manipulate your emotions toward bloodthirst, look at the other side(s) of the question. Outrage in many cases is simply a lack of understanding. And little as I like the TSA's methods, their goal is not humiliation of the public, it is safe air travel.

The drug is also known as Bevacizumab. It's not approved but Medicare is still paying for it. It's the #1 selling cancer drug on the planet, made by Genetech, Inc that is owned by Roche. Why was it removed from FDA approval? Because there's no proof that it extends life at all, and has potentially life-threatening side effects. The side effects possible include severe hypertension, hemorrhage, heart attack and failure, and gastrointestinal perforations. Avastin is considered a last ditch option for metastatic breast cancer patients.

Why was it approved in the first place? Your guess is as good as mine. Money, probably. The cost for a year's treatment is $100,000, and it is covered by medicare. How's that for a bailout? That bailout of course is for the pharmaceutical companies. Genetech, and a bunch of patients, are lobbying hard to keep the drug as an option. Genetech says it does work, when combined with traditional chemo, and so is appealing the FDA decision. I wonder how much cashola the FDA will get back during the appeals process. The FDA approval happened while studies were in progress to prove its efficacy--but those studies turned out to prove no such thing.

SOURCES
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/fda-says-avastin-should-no-longer-be-used-for-breast-cancer-citing-no-proof-it-extends-life/2011/11/18/gIQAHJmHYN_story.html?wpisrc=al_national
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/171447/20110629/avastin-breast-cancer-genentech-fda-drug-roche.htm

Mercola breaks it down quite well in this article.
Here's the latest (Aug 2011) study.

Excellent article here by Dr Schor, on Aspirin/Cox inhibitors for breast cancer prevention or prevention of recurrence:
http://www.naturalmedicinejournal.com/article_content.asp?edition=1§ion=2&article=271&utm_source=Natural+Medicine+Journal+List&utm_campaign=6379125056-December_2011_Issue11_28_2011&utm_medium=email
Pearl: Over-expression of COX-2 occurs in about 40% of invasive breast cancer cases and is more common in large tumors, positive lymph nodes, ductal histology, and tumors that are high histological grade or hormone receptor–negative. Thus it makes even more sense to attempt to affect COX activity in women whose cancers fit these criteria.

August 1, 2011 — Health care reform requires new insurance plans to fully cover women's preventive care, which now will include free birth control, yearly wellness visits, breastfeeding counseling and equipment, and screening for gestational diabetes, domestic abuse, HPV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and HIV.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius today announced the expanded definition of women's preventive care. The ruling closely follows the advice of an Institute of Medicine expert panel, released July 20.

"Today, as part of the Affordable Care Act, we are announcing historic new guidelines that will help women get the care they need to stay healthy," Sebelius said at a news teleconference. "Today we are accepting the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine, so no woman in America needs to choose between paying a grocery bill and paying for the key care that can save her life."

SOURCE
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/747359?src=mpnews&spon=16

Comment:
Much as I have been against the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare") because it seems wrong to force me to pay anybody for a service that I may or may not want, the details that trickle out are good. Sure, the bill hands a great big paycheck to the insurance companies. But it also requires that they cover certain basics, like birth control and STD testing and treatment, completely. It also encourages breast feeding with education and tools. There are lots of smart requirements built in, that make the insurance companies actually DO SOMETHING positive for all that money they're getting. Obama isn't able to get positive headlines or marquees, but the fine print that comes from his administration is good. It's too bad that the vehicle for his work is such a leaky ship.

I just found him because I searched for images under the word "interbeing". I am finding that I quite enjoy his work.

( 3 moreCollapse )

Ever since a few brave scientists started speaking out about their findings---that mammograms weren't actually savings lives, that they aren't the best way to screen for breast pathology---the numbers of women who are going in for regular breast squishing and irradiation has been on the decrease. And the folks who were in that biz are not happy about it. Their pockets aren't so full anymore.

Nuclear plants in Japan are melting down, and radioactive clouds are headed our way across the Pacific. We have time to prepare...but what should we do? I am full of ideas, but mind you, this is not medical advice! Just the random rantings of some stranger on the internet! With that said, maybe it is a good time to increase your antioxidant intake, and keep it high for the forseeable future. Also, because much radioactivity is carried from such events in the form of radioactive iodine, maybe it's time to fill all your iodine receptors with healthy non-radioactive iodine. That way you reduce the amount of radioactivity your body takes in. The thyroid is the #1 place that iodine is used, and guess where is #2? The breast! Yes. And especially in teenage girls, the risk of cancer if iodine levels are low is radically increased--even when no noxious clouds are headed our way. Studies after the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki showed that the people who survived best and had least symptoms of radioactivity poisoning were the ones with the highest iodine intakes. It even helps to take iodine after the exposure, but it's better to get it in preventatively.

Here's one explanation in the news:
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/954256--explainer-how-iodine-pills-protect-against-radiation
( more on exactly what I'm doing---and on what NOT to do!!!!Collapse )