02-05-2012, 05:19 PM
h'man there are many clinics and hospitals that have been sold machines that are not needed in their area for the numbers of patients. The places with machines have administrators who want to recover the expenses related to having them, they push for more exams to pay off the purchase. Regulation has been opposed by big business, and that includes the Komen Foundation, on grounds they are limiting access to the diagnostic machines. Results are many areas with 2-3 times as many machines as needed.
As a recent example, look at the outcry they raised when the NIH(?) recommended that screening mammograms start at 50 instead of 40 for women who otherwise had no risk factors. There was no change in the recommendation for those with risk factors such as a detected lump or familial breast cancer. So many will go for medically unnecessary mammograms and the extra radiation involved.
And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated. As it is, most of their research has gone to treatment, apparently very little to research into dietary and environmental causes of breast cancer. Hence very little spent towards prevention.
As a P.S., having gone through cancer treatment recently I have seen just how distorted the climate around cancer treatment is these days. You would think from the number of support groups and other material related to breast cancer that most cancers were breast cancer. I found that aspect of Komen and related single issue advocacy groups to be the most troubling. The reality is a woman is more likely to die of heart disease than breast cancer. Yes it is a serious disease, but the reaction is going all out of proportion to the medical reality.
As a recent example, look at the outcry they raised when the NIH(?) recommended that screening mammograms start at 50 instead of 40 for women who otherwise had no risk factors. There was no change in the recommendation for those with risk factors such as a detected lump or familial breast cancer. So many will go for medically unnecessary mammograms and the extra radiation involved.
And if you think Komen is only interested in the best cancer prevention, detection and treatment, there have been some allegations made that board members are invested in some of the technology and drugs either funded for research or recommended for treatment. That includes Nancy Brinker. That line of investigation may turn out to be very interesting if substantiated. As it is, most of their research has gone to treatment, apparently very little to research into dietary and environmental causes of breast cancer. Hence very little spent towards prevention.
As a P.S., having gone through cancer treatment recently I have seen just how distorted the climate around cancer treatment is these days. You would think from the number of support groups and other material related to breast cancer that most cancers were breast cancer. I found that aspect of Komen and related single issue advocacy groups to be the most troubling. The reality is a woman is more likely to die of heart disease than breast cancer. Yes it is a serious disease, but the reaction is going all out of proportion to the medical reality.