Satanic Mamografer: How stupid can people get?

A debate has broken out regarding an article from the Voice of Council (quite a surprise, honestly). Now Radoslav Dejanovic is launching a counter-attack against them:

I have a hunch that Radoslav is coming at the Voice of Council from the angle of: "you people are backwards and anti-modern medicine."

But where does the truth actually lie? We can find various statistics on Wikipedia or other sites, but the numbers vary wildly. Let’s try to run some math based on a sample of 100,000 women.

The probabilities:
False negatives—cancer that a mammogram misses: 25%-40%; let’s settle on 30% as a middle ground.
False positives—the scan flags something that isn't actually cancer: 75%.
Radiation: A 1 Rad exposure increases breast cancer risk by 1%—this is the critical data point.(http://www.naturalnews.com/010886_ca...mmography.html)
Radiation dose per mammogram: It used to be 5-10 Rads a long time ago; today it's about 1 Rad.

The Breakdown:
Out of 100,000 women, 350 will develop breast cancer.
20,000 women never get screened—70 of them will have cancer.
80,000 women undergo a mammogram every two years over a 20-year period—280 of them will develop cancer from natural causes.

Benefits of screening:
The first mammogram catches 60% of cases. The chance of missing an existing cancer over four years (two screenings) is 16%.
Let's assume that of those 280 women who eventually develop cancer, the mammogram catches early-stage cancer in 80% of them—that's 224 lives saved.

The Downsides:
Across 800,000 total mammograms (80,000 women x 10 scans), we would see 8,000 cases of cancer induced by the procedure itself. So, in order to catch cancer early for 224 women, are we essentially causing cancer in 8,000 others?

Fine, perhaps the statistics are flawed. But even if the radiation risk were ten times lower, we still end up with 800 cases of induced cancer just to achieve those 224 early diagnoses.
Even if the ratio were improved enough to cause only 80 or 8 cases of cancer, the trade-off remains unacceptable.

The crux of the matter is the actual risk posed by radiation, and I highly doubt we have reliable data on this. Why? Because modern medicine lacks long-term patient tracking. No one keeps meticulous statistics on the cumulative radiation dose an individual receives through diagnostic imaging, which means there is no way to isolate cancer cases caused specifically by medical radiation versus those that occur naturally.

If anything is truly "Satanic," it's X-rays. We should probably retire them in favor of MRIs, thermography, and similar tech. However, I don't agree with Radoslav's logic that "modern" automatically equals "better." Back in the day, when X-rays were first invented, they actually used them to check if children's clothes fit properly. That was cutting-edge technology back then...
http://www.museumofquackery.com/devices/shoexray.htm

Look, I’m going to lay this out for you so clearly it’ll blow your mind. 😠
Women are already skipping their screenings as it is, and now they’re adding this nonsense to the mix while cancer rates continue to climb.
The best part is that if you catch it early, the survival rate is over 90%. It’s cheaper to treat, which leaves more money available for things like expensive drugs for rare tumors—the kind you can't easily prevent because we don't even fully understand why they happen in the first place.

Instead of the New York Times nitpicking about topics they clearly don't understand and sabotaging vital health programs, they should be focusing on hospice care. They could actually write about how we are one of the few developed nations in Europe without a proper system for terminal patients. With all the money they’ve poured into those bloated, useless vanity projects, they could have built a facility like that in every major US city and actually started practicing what they preach.
Since they seem so opposed to timely medical treatment, fine—let them take responsibility for the dying. They can just take that empty Forest Hills complex and repurpose it for that kind of work.

God, they are absolutely brainless! 🙂

^^
👍👍👍

Angela Wright said:Women aren't even showing up for their screenings as it is, and now we have this on top of everything else while cancer rates just keep climbing.

Angela, what exactly is your basis for claiming that mammography actually does anything positive to lower breast cancer rates?

If memory serves, there were massive public health campaigns specifically designed to push women toward mammograms. Maybe this "expansion" of cases is just a byproduct of increased screening frequency?

Angela Wright said:Screw them! 🙂

Let's keep the profanity out of this, please. Honestly, I feel more inclined to curse you for refusing to present a single actual argument instead of just spitting venom at the source of the idea (The Council Voice).

It’s frankly exhausting when people switch off their brains and blindly swallow the first dogma they encounter. You seem to have fully accepted that a mammogram is the sole diagnostic tool for early detection—which it isn't. Or that it's a "good" procedure—whereas I’d argue thermography is superior. Or that the downsides of mammography—things like ionizing radiation, tissue compression that could potentially disturb a malignant tumor, unnecessary biopsies, or the risk of turning in-situ carcinoma into something much more aggressive through physical disruption—are just negligible.
In my view, the industry poured money into these machines and now they're just looking for a way to recoup their investment. It’s pathetic that the government and the medical establishment don't seem interested in protecting the public, but rather in buying whatever junk equipment the industry pushes on them (commissions, perhaps?).

Alexander Lewis said:Angela, what exactly are you basing this theory on—that mammograms actually do anything positive to lower breast cancer rates?

As I recall, there were massive public awareness campaigns pushing women toward mammography. Perhaps this supposed "expansion" is just a byproduct of more people getting screened?

I read the piece over at The Council Voice, but I also took the liberty of tracking down the actual study the journalist was citing. It turns out it isn't even an official stance from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, despite how the reporter framed it.

The article itself explicitly states: Disclaimer : Recommendations made by The USPSTF are independent of the U.S. government. They should not be construed as an official position of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

First off, any journalist publishing this really ought to have been much clearer about that distinction.

Secondly, let's not forget that it was precisely those advocacy campaigns led by women's health groups and federal agencies that helped drive early detection rates up in the first place.

Sure, maybe there are side effects or concerns with mammography. But honestly, the far greater danger lies in skipping the screening altogether and letting a tumor just sit there and grow unchecked...

I have to say, that article from The Council Voice really got under my skin.
Honestly, it feels like it’s not even the first time they've published something without actually fact-checking it first. Plus, I’m just naturally sensitive when it comes to women's health issues, and I know firsthand that a huge number of women don't really jump at the chance to go for free screenings.
Usually, women start heading in for mammograms once they hit their 40s, if I remember correctly—maybe even a bit older than 40.
I honestly feel like the real struggle here in the States is that a certain group of women over 40 is going to have issues getting to those appointments regardless, but this kind of coverage might actually make it worse for more people, maybe due to how they were raised, their social circles, a lack of information, or just their general attitude toward their own bodies.
I don't know enough about thermography to really weigh in on that, so I won't bother writing much about it. As for mammograms, I do know we have those mobile screening units that travel around to help women in rural or underserved areas get checked out.
And look, I get that things like chemotherapy and radiation aren't exactly "good" for the body while it's trying to fight off cancer, but until a better, more accessible option shows up, hospitals are still going to stick with what they have.

Alexander Lewis said:Angela, what exactly is the basis for your claim that mammograms actually do anything positive to lower breast cancer rates?

If memory serves, there were massive public awareness campaigns pushing women toward screenings. Maybe this supposed "increase" in cases is just a byproduct of running way more tests?

It’s possible, sure, because we're catching masses of cases early—even if the turnout rate is abysmal, maybe around 30-40%.

Please, watch the language. Honestly, I feel like cursing you right back since you aren't presenting a single actual argument; you're just spitting venom at the source of the idea (The Council Voice).

It sickens me when people just switch off their brains and swallow the first dogma dropped in their laps. You've clearly bought into the myth that a mammogram is the only diagnostic tool for early detection (it isn't), or that it's even a *good* diagnostic tool (I personally believe thermography is superior), or that the downsides—like ionizing radiation, compressing tissue that might already harbor a malignancy, unnecessary biopsies, or even rupturing a carcinoma in situ which leads to rapid spreading—are just negligible.
My take? Big Pharma and medical device manufacturers poured money into mammography machines and now they're just looking to recoup their investment. It's pathetic how the government and the medical establishment don't actually care about the public; they just buy whatever junk equipment the industry pushes on them. Commissions, anyone?

Look, this is a free country and I am a free individual, which means unlike you, I actually have the education to back up my views, and if I feel like swearing, I damn well will. I actively study this issue, and I keep running into people like you who see shadow conspiracies behind every corner.
Well, unfortunately, the only "shadowy figure" here is cancer. As things stand, one in three people is going to deal with it. We live in a country with finite resources and limited options, and a mammogram, alongside ultrasound, is the only effective method we have that has actually saved lives for many. If you want hard data, go contact organizations like Europe or All for him. They'll happily hand over the statistics to you.

And since you're supposedly so logical and articulate, instead of just shitting on people in internet forums, why don't you start a public health movement to procure better equipment and rally people toward prevention?
As for me, just click on my signature and look at my work and all those "arguments" you're so eager to dismiss here.😳

Here’s the actual article from The Council Voice. Honestly, you guys really ought to give this a read.

Mammograms vs. Aesthetic Well-being

Beyond just being controversial, the way women are pressured into giving consent for this kind of "screening" makes their personal autonomy feel incredibly shaky. To me, mammography feels like a form of "diagnostic violence" (I. Illich)—it essentially turns our everyday existence into this endless, pathological hunt for disease. When you live under the shadow of constant mammograms, life starts to feel like nothing more than a calculation of risks, weighed down by unnecessary anxiety and fear, which just strips away all the beauty and joy from living.

Given this shift toward a more critical view within the medical community, I suppose we might see a massive exodus of women opting out of mammography departments altogether.

What "mass exodus"? There aren't even enough women participating to call it that. Honestly, this is just nonsense—I can't call it anything else.

I mean, who actually goes to get checked out? Seriously. They’re always the first ones to start whining when it comes to their own health—especially if it involves anything down there—and then they act surprised! Honestly, I can't help but laugh at how ridiculous those excuses are. 😂

The Council's mouthpiece, which basically acts as the pride of the American Mayo Clinic, just keeps fueling this pattern of religious bullying against American society and everyone living in it.

I mean, obviously, when a totally clueless publication grabs this fake sense of superiority they've built up here in the States and tries to meddle in things that have zero business being their concern, it’s no wonder any sane person would find it absolutely revolting.

It would be just as ridiculous if the Journal of the American Cancer Society suddenly decided they had the authority to weigh in on the existence of Jesus.

Anyway, this will probably be my last word on the matter here... Ivanicapeca, I am right there with you, and I totally get why you're reacting this way because, speaking as someone in the healthcare field, I run into these exact kinds of issues all the time... and honestly, from my side too, a massive "to hell with them" for being so self-absorbed, malicious, and just plain dim-witted! This whole trend of the church constantly pushing its nonsense is truly the absolute bottom of the barrel for our society today.

Screw them!... If Beard were to descend from above right this second... he'd send that entire bunch of malicious people hiding behind the cross straight to a BBQ hosted by Horned!