Baumblog EST 1968 - A blog for the Baumbachs who originated in Syracuse, NY

You have probably seen this on TV or in the papers--the United States Preventative Services Task Force has issued recommendations that say something to the effect that women under 50 do not need early-detection breast cancer screening--that it provides little to no value and causes much harm / cost due to the high false positive rate. Not surprisingly, there has been a lot of passionate defense of the current recommendations (that women between the ages of 40 and 50 get this test once a year).

Now, I'm no medical doctor, but one of my favorite bloggers is. Yep, he's a skeptic too, big surprise there, but he's also a cancer specialist. That is to say, that's his day job, so he knows a wee bit more than yours truly and probably more than anyone else reading this blog. So, without further adieu...check out his article on this study and what it really means, sans all of the passionate (but ill-informed) arguments you've probably seen to date.

GJ said about 2 hours later

And not surprisingly, it's caused quite a lively debate over there. If there's one thing we skeptics do well, it's argue. :)
Kristen said 1 day later

Good article. Very interesting to think of the tumors that we now find that never would have surfaced to be life threatening. Without mammography these women wouldn't be the wiser. Now they wage a physical and psychological war against the cancer enemy...all for what might have never mattered. What we really need then, is #1 a more accurate screening method with fewer false positives and #2 a way to figure out which tumors are or will become life threatening.

I have to admit though, that I do not want to be the first person to be diagnosed with breast cancer at 49, with a tumor that could have had a much better chance of being fought if it had been found the year prior, but of course I wouldn't have a mammogram that insurance wouldn't cover.....