Recently, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issued a groundbreaking draft revision of its screening mammography guideline for women at average risk of developing breast cancer. The new guideline advises women to undergo screening mammography every other year starting at age 40, ten years earlier than it previously recommended – a major modification.
This will be a two-part blog post. If you find this post of
interest, I encourage you to return next week when I will share some ‘inside
baseball’ on mammography and medical
guidelines.
The USPSTF issues an array of preventive health advisories
which it revises periodically. I have
always admired the task force’s measured and conservative recommendations,
which reside within the boundaries of medical data and evidence. The task force is comprised of experts who
strive for objectivity, even though none of us are entirely immune to external
influences. They are a sober voice of
reason in the medical community.
Normal (left) image vs cancerous lesion (right) mammography image.
Independent advisory groups, like the USPSTF, have more
credibility than organizations that have an interest in the outcome. For example, if a gastroenterology
professional society issues a recommendation that supports greater colonoscopy
use, there is at least an appearance of a conflict of interest as
gastroenterologists like me would benefit.
This is true even if the recommendation is truly in the public’s
interest. The USPSTF relies on in-house and recruited independent experts which
should insulate them from conflicts.
Beyond medicine, this is why independent investigators are often brought
in by businesses, academic institutions and law enforcement departments to give
the public greater confidence that the findings are completely on the level.
The USPSTF believes that their proposed mammography revision
will save lives and I have no doubt that it will. USPSTF points out that mammography has risks
and adverse consequences, but believes that these are outweighed by the
anticipated medical benefits. More on this next week. Over the
ensuing decades, data will be analyzed by experts across various disciplines to
verify if the benefits truly exceed the risks and consequences. If mammography falls short, then the USPSTF
will be expected to scale back its guideline in a future revision, as the task force has done with prior mammography guidelines.
Is the promise of mammography being oversold? Next week, I’ll present some potential downsides of
mammography since patients are entitled to hear the whole story.
Contrary to the official narrative (which is based on medical business-fabricated pro-mammogram "scientific" data), there is marginal, if any, reliable evidence that mammography, both conventional and digital (3D), reduces mortality from breast cancer in a significant way in any age bracket but a lot of solid evidence shows the procedure does provide more serious harm than serious benefit (read the books: 'Mammography Screening: Truth, Lies and Controversy' by Peter Gotzsche [https://www.amazon.com/Mammography-Screening-Truth-Lies-Controversy/dp/1846195853] and 'The Mammogram Myth' by Rolf Hefti - see author's synopsis at https://www.rolf-hefti.com/mammograms.html ).
ReplyDeleteIF........ women (and men) at large were to examine the mammogram data above and beyond the information of the mammogram business cartel (eg American Cancer Society, National Cancer Institute, Komen), they'd also find that it is almost exclusively the big profiteers of the test, ie. the "experts," (eg radiologists, oncologists, medical trade associations, breast cancer "charities" etc) who promote the mass use of the test and that most pro-mammogram "research" is conducted by people with massive vested interests tied to the mammogram industry.
Most women are fooled by the misleading medical mantra that early detection by mammography saves lives simply because the public has been fed ("educated" or rather brainwashed) with a very one-sided biased pro-mammogram set of information circulated by the big business of mainstream medicine and their allied corrupt pawns in the governments. The above mentioned two independent investigative works show that early detection does not mean that there is less breast cancer mortality.