Neither article changed my mind either. I am also an avowed mammogram skeptic. I would go further and admit that I am a "preventive medicine" skeptic, but that is another entirely different topic. The marginal benefits claimed for regular mammograms have always seemed to be more than countered by the life disrupting effects of false posi…
Neither article changed my mind either. I am also an avowed mammogram skeptic. I would go further and admit that I am a "preventive medicine" skeptic, but that is another entirely different topic. The marginal benefits claimed for regular mammograms have always seemed to be more than countered by the life disrupting effects of false positive findings. Unfortunately it is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantitate these negative side effects.. The wording in the conclusion to the abstract gives the game away by stating: "Annual mammographic screening was ASSOCIATED WITH lower rates of late stage cancer and BETTER OS across clinical and demographic subgroups (emphasis added)". This is advocacy, not science.
Neither article changed my mind either. I am also an avowed mammogram skeptic. I would go further and admit that I am a "preventive medicine" skeptic, but that is another entirely different topic. The marginal benefits claimed for regular mammograms have always seemed to be more than countered by the life disrupting effects of false positive findings. Unfortunately it is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantitate these negative side effects.. The wording in the conclusion to the abstract gives the game away by stating: "Annual mammographic screening was ASSOCIATED WITH lower rates of late stage cancer and BETTER OS across clinical and demographic subgroups (emphasis added)". This is advocacy, not science.