Comments on: Early Detection Saves Lives…Just not too early?

By: louie_nintendo

louie_nintendo — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 11:07:10 +0000

I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?
And you et an account on Twitter?

By: Kim Solis

Kim Solis — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:48:11 +0000

[url=http://ln0s8ghmic7n3xou.com/]ts43qxemw2u69xho[/url]
[link=http://dp4cf9qp1fgcai3o.com/]9icpl80n91hahtp6[/link]
fb4ku23aowzf8×2p
http://gm7knxjf6e6ec4pd.com/

By: 42nd

42nd — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:47:38 +0000

Dear Author healthgavel.com !
You are definitely right

By: zlygfmuoq

zlygfmuoq — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 01:22:55 +0000

ZUZkyr ieoighodhzxn, [url=http://vxhjskujxqde.com/]vxhjskujxqde[/url], [link=http://qtyczeqwwfbq.com/]qtyczeqwwfbq[/link], http://xpobsveroezf.com/

By: John Q Public

John Q Public — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:06:25 +0000

Dr Joe is somewhat correct. The first issue raised is precisely the reason that we should not allow our government to control our health care access. Our elected officials who were charged to protecting our nations interest have failed miserably in carrying out their charged duties. They are on a wild spending spree that is going to bankrupt this nation. In the first 11 months of our junior presidents office, we have spent more money into programs that have zero accountability and have not contributed to the US economy as a whole. The fact of the matter is that when the government acts as both your judge and jury you are often the loser. The government want to pay for your healthcare and also controls the access. This is a recipe for disaster and as the old saying goes….an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Stress and worry take a lot longer to kill than a tumor. The joy of a negative end result is worth the stress …isn’t it?

Is Dr Joe then saying not knowing what killed you should make you feel better? Is it fair to compare two very different populations?

By: Master Shake

Master Shake — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:45:10 +0000

I can accept that perhaps a large percentage of women will not need breast cancer screening until they are a little older. I can also accept the harm a false positive causes and the costs that are ensued through unneccesary tests and procedures. However, women with a hisory of breast cancer in their family should not wait until 50 to start getting annual mamograms. Furthermore, I certainly would hate to see women neglect what could be symptoms of breast cancer by telling themselves that, “Hey, I’m not 50 yet. It probably isn’t breast cancer”. Many people lose sisters, mothers, aunts and so on every year to this insidious disease. The last thing this country needs is an “uneducation” session on breast cancer. Keeping it on the tips of our tongues and preventative screening starting at 40 has made major headway over the years.

By: BernieR

BernieR — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:59:17 +0000

Hello, Thank you! I would now go on this blog every day! BernieR

By: SC

SC — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:56:34 +0000

More people need to hear what you have to say. Keep up the good work Erin.

By: Erin (HealthGavel)

Erin (HealthGavel) — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:58:19 +0000

Hi Dr. Joe. I think those are excellent issues you have pointed out. Funding for preventive services can be very tricky, whether public or private, as there are so many circumstances to weigh and there isn’t an infinite amount of money, which of course leads to difficult choices. I think both unnecessary screenings as well as the cited increased incidence of false positives in this age group, both deserve thoughtful consideration in the media and when we try to think logically about how these guidelines are formed. I am concerned though, about the ambiguity in the message that this sends to women regarding breast cancer, and that this could lead to more women not getting screening or talking to their doctors at about what they should do.

By: Dr Joe

Dr Joe — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:44:52 +0000

Two separate issues can get confused here. One is government payments and cost cutting in general. Preventative health is often first to face the chop because the payback is tears in the future.

The second is screening. This has achieved saintly status for its ability to “save lives”.What does not get much media time are the people who have had unnecessary additional tests unnecessary treatments and additional stress due to either a false positive result or the finding of something that may have resolved itself.
The mantra “if just one life is saved” sounds good but screening is not as simple as that.

In Australia the recommendations for mammograms have been 2 yearly starting at age 50 for many years.Outcomes in Australia are not different to the USA