Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been reported in the MSM. I posted two links myself. Plus, most reporters, liberal or conservative, don't know enough about the science behind this stuff to be able to ask a coherent question, let alone comprehend the answer.
Wasn't always like that though. Maybe all those layoffs.
I have noticed that in financial news...they read a script and know what questions but cannot probe deeper via ad hoc questions.
This has been reported in the MSM. I posted two links myself. Plus, most reporters, liberal or conservative, don't know enough about the science behind this stuff to be able to ask a coherent question, let alone comprehend the answer.
Of course it's been reported, that's where I first heard about it. But the immense co-incidence of this administration doing it's hardest to push through a bloated healthcare bill that will nuke our debt and the sudden acquiescence of the ACS hasn't been adequately explored.
Of course it's been reported, that's where I first heard about it. But the immense co-incidence of this administration doing it's hardest to push through a bloated healthcare bill that will nuke our debt and the sudden acquiescence of the ACS hasn't been adequately explored.
Twenty years of discussion is "sudden"? What do you consider lengthly? In regards to breast cancer, the recommendations are continually changing.
Twenty years of discussion is "sudden"? What do you consider lengthly? In regards to breast cancer, the recommendations are continually changing.
So lets get this straight...you are okay with denying or discouraging access to that information needed to make informed decisions on the diagnosis and treatment for prostate or breast cancer? Because that's whats going to happen.
I reread this and Rush was actually support the position of physicians and the American Cancer Society. My apologies to Rush! Screening tests are important and to somehow limit the number of screening test and readjusting requirements to save money is assinine.
So lets get this straight...you are okay with denying or discouraging access to that information needed to make informed decisions on the diagnosis and treatment for prostate or breast cancer? Because that's whats going to happen.
When did I say that? Anyone can access the information. There's a lot of good basic information on the web. You don't have to depend on Rushie Baby.
The current debate regarding early detection and aggressive treatment of prostate cancer is fueled by the absence of controlled studies defining the risks and benefits of prostate cancer screening, and by the lack of adequately powered trials demonstrating the benefit of curative treatment for early-stage prostate cancer.
<snip>
These arguments, however, are reminiscent of earlier arguments in favor of lung cancer screening with chest x-ray examination and sputum cytology, a practice ultimately proven ineffective in clinical trials.
I'm a physician. And yes, these screening tests are indeed controversial. But what many don't understand is that actual practice of medicine and screening RECOMMENDATIONS are entirely different. Talk to physicians in actual practice and they are more aggressive with these types of screening tests because they save lives.
Just the other day, a friend and Urologist excised a large prostate tumor in a 43 yo patient. This patient was thin and had no history of prostate cancer. He saw the urologist because he was complaining of problems urinating. His prostate didn't feel enlarged on physical exam. The urologist ordered a PSA and it was nearly triple what the normal value should have been. Now according to recommendations, PSA are recommended to be drawn starting at the age of 50.
There is much benefit to screening for early prostate cancer. Prostate cancer can metastasize to the bone, liver and the GI tract. Detecting it early is vital to survival.
Five billion $ of stimulus money is going into cancer research. How much do you think will be steered the American Cancer Society's way for jumping on the Obama healthcare bandwagon? This is a disgrace.
I'm a physician. And yes, these screening tests are indeed controversial. But what many don't understand is that actual practice of medicine and screening RECOMMENDATIONS are entirely different. Talk to physicians in actual practice and they are more aggressive with these types of screening tests because they save lives.
Just the other day, a friend and Urologist excised a large prostate tumor in a 43 yo patient. This patient was thin and had no history of prostate cancer. He saw the urologist because he was complaining of problems urinating. His prostate didn't feel enlarged on physical exam. The urologist ordered a PSA and it was nearly triple what the normal value should have been. Now according to recommendations, PSA are recommended to be drawn starting at the age of 50.
I hear what you're saying. You have to use clinical judgement. But I do feel there need to be some guidlines as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
