I’ll admit: I’m as mad as hell
March 6th, 2009
|
| Share |
Science is supposed to be objective, and not influenced by emotion. However, how scientific knowledge is put to use and whether or not acurate scientific facts are being conveyed is another issue and it’s one that I admittedly have some strong beliefs on. Some have critisized myself or others in the emperical skepticism movement for anger or disgust over certain claims and messages out there.
I’ll admit it, I’m more than willing to say that certain things just outrage me. In fact, I’m glad to admit that there are certain things I just can’t see without feeling a deep sense of disgust, condemnation and a desire to oppose the message and shame the presenter. Objective observations and interpertation are the cornorstone of scientific knowledge, but whether or not we value that knowledge and how we use it is something else.
So excuse me, but I just about want to punch a hole in the wall when I see something like this, beauty from “Natural News:”
We’ve discussed mammograms here before on a few occasions. It seems that mammography is becoming the latest preventative medical procedure to rip on and associate with some kind of horrible disease, taking its place alongside vaccination. It may turn out to be the perfect issue to lie about, because it has it all: first, its associated with cancer and even better “radiation” – two things which people are afraid of, it’s a procedure which is becoming more and more common (as more data has become available, doctors are medical organizations are increasingly advocating frequent mammography) and best of all, it’s a procedure almost exclusively for women, so they can throw in the gender issue and talk about how the rich white guys are exploiting women by irradiating their breasts for profit. What could be better?
The fact of the matter is that mammography remains the most proven and effective known way of finding breast cancer early, when treatment is almost always successful and often can be done without major disfiguring surgery. While other imaging methods exist, such as MRI’s and ultrasound, mammography remains the standard as other methods have few advantages and tend to be much more expensive and less avaliable. A mammogram is a simple procedure that’s inexpensive and very avaliable. Aside from the fact that it’s described as rather uncomfortable and “like sticking your boob in a copying machine,” there’s not much to it. There’s no doubt that it saves lives and the radiation dose is small and has never been proven to have any associated danger.
So seriously: If you’re a demographic for which mammograms are recomended, get them. The same is true for colonoscopies, prostate exams and the other unpleasent but lifesaving procedures that your doctor might recomend. They’re not recomending it because they enjoy squeezine your naughtly bits, they’re recomending it because it could save your life.
This entry was posted on Friday, March 6th, 2009 at 5:53 pm and is filed under Bad Science, Conspiracy Theories, Culture, Obfuscation, Politics, Quackery, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions
March 6th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
There is another screening method called Thermography which is being promoted by a lot of these anti-mammography groups. It makes me wonder if they might have a stake in it, because it seems to be going past the point of good medicine and to the point of getting to be part of the whole alternative thing.
Thermography is basically just examining the breast (or other areas of the body) with a thermal camera, not unlike the type used to find insulation gaps and heat leaks in homes.
It is not complete junk because there is good evidence that tumors can be spotted by irregular blood flow and thus distribution of body heat, but the consensus has been that it should be considered a secondary detection method, possibly to augment traditional radiology but definitely not to replace it.
Some of the groups promoting it as a replacement for mammography have stated that it has the ability to pick up on tumors very early in growth and detects more than 95%, which may be true, but they don’t say that medical tomography is notorious for false positives. A tumor will often produce a variation in body heat, as will many other things. It may find anomalies, but it is so inconclusive that it really is limited as a diagnostic procedure. It is also questionable as to whether it can be effective against deep tumors or tumors under the nipple area, where the blood vessel structure is not uniform to begin with.
It does have the advantage of being non-contact and painless so that might be attractive to some. The current thinking that makes sense to me is that it might be worth using for risk evaluation. If there appears to be an anomaly, then the area can be looked at in more detail by some of the advanced radiography methods.
Thermography in the medical field has always been something of a double edged sword and very prone toward dubious claims. A big issue with thermography is that it is perfectly tailored to working with the placebo effect for a false positive. That was discovered early on. The technique has been used to evaluate inflammation by looking at blood supply and local tissue temperatures. However, if you tell someone you’re looking for inflammation on a given body part, the blood vessels will frequently dialate from the very suggestion. That could be a real issue if you have a patient who believes that they have a tumor or are likely to have one.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Safe T Rad said:
I suspect that this is one of the reasons too, but again it’s the sort of yellow journalism that trafficking in angst for it’s own sake. IMHO it is a form of terrorism, which is to say that it is inciting fear for its own sake. Frankly, it should be treated as such.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
When I search for breast thermography on google, there do not seem to be any pages that come up except for those which talk about how great it is in every way and how it’s better than mamography at finding tumors and also the radiation issues. There is not a single page I found that actually has a good comparison of the two or talks about the limitations of the technology or anything.
If the method does have merit, then it’s a shame that it would be hijacked by fundamentalists who will inflate it because that destroys the credibility. I agree that it might be useful as a secondary method or something, because sometimes two or more imaging techniques can provide complimentary data. If that’s the case then it’s a shame it isn’t more balanced in evaluation.
What Safe T Rad says, makes sense to me. I can see how thermal imaging would be too prone to false positives to stand on its own.
Early detection is always important so it’s sickening that the bad science idiots would be obscufucting this.
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Found this, from quackwatch
They also have it listed under “dubious diagnostic tests”
Quote Comment
March 6th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Gordon said:
Well that puts a nail in it. More hocus-pocus.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 12:43 am
Yes, this seems the perfect example of something to turn into a political conspiracy issue. Just play the gender card and say that the big companies are exploiting women and irraditing them to give them cancer for profit. Sure it makes no sense, but do any of these conspiracies?
Preventative medicine like diagnostic tests and vaccines are what save lives and save money for the burdened medical system. This is bull****. They need to be encouraged.
Nice site BTW
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 1:36 am
Hey those thermal camera’s are great for finding cancer in those Ghost’s on TV. I think heard those Ghost hunter guys are branching out into breast exams.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Those thermal cameras are not entirely without merit for medical purposes. I agree with Safe T Rad that they probably are too falt prone and don’t look deep enough to make them a serious alternative to other imaging but I know they use them for other things like evaluating circulation in diabetics or others who have poor peripheral circulation. It sounds like it’s being oversold on this. I would not be surprised at all if the bastards making accusations about radiation were looking to sell them or looking to sell some herbal remedy or something
This comment on the “natural news website just about made me want to smack someone
Yeah, right, because cancer is an invention of modern society. Right… all those modern foods and toxins… No need to even check to see if you have it, because if you don’t eat at Micky D’s you won’t get it.
Christ almighty. It just sucks that this kind of thing only kills a stupid bitch like that after she is old enough to have likely passed on her idiot genes. Thus it does our species no good.
The only reason you don’t hear of many people dying of cancer hundreds of years ago (although some did) is:
A) Something else usually got them first, with no modern medical procedures, you’d be more likely to die from something that today you’d easily survive.
B) If someone did die of cancer, they probably didn’t know. Unless it was a very obvious tumor they just knew the person got sick and died, probably from bad spirits or magic or something.
This stupid hag thinks that nature is the way to optimal health because I’m sure she has never actually had to live off the land and feed and take care of herself from what nature has to offer. I dare her to get dropped in the woods for a week without a knife or a canteen or anything and we’ll see how good nature is to her. There’s a reason why all the ancient human remains they’ve found are full of healed broken bones, arthritis and injuries. Nature is a really dangerous and harsh place to live.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 4:40 am
Engineering Edgar said:
Want to bet it’s because you can set yourself up with one of these for a few grand, and not have to bother with pesky things like a license, and being a radiologist? Any naturopathic quack can now offer breast cancer screening in-clinic with a fancy looking apparatus and produce images only he can interpret. Possibly even right through the clothing, no need to strip in front of a technician.
Engineering Edgar said:
It was known to the distant past. That’s how it got its name: it was believed that it was cause by astrological influences influences mediated by The Crab.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 4:52 am
DV82XL said:
Very true – it’s always been around. Cancer seems to be something that people love to blame on cell phones or nuclear energy or some chemical that they’re afraid of. I think it is just partially the fact that people can’t accept that cancer happens and often for no reason. It often strikes the old but it can strike the young. Otherwise healthy young children can get aggressive cancer. I could get cancer, you could, anyone could. It could be a rogue oxygen freeradical that triggers it or it could be a gene that’s been dormant most of ones life.
There’s something very unsettling about such a debilitating condition that happens for no reason often by just random chance. It’s not like you can avoid it by one thing or another. People try despirately by taking copious amounts of vitamines or avoiding some substance like the plague. Lifestyle changes may be able to reduce the odds of getting cancer, but only by a little bit… it never goes down to zero.
I do agree with Edgar though that cancer was probably not as noticed in the past because so many were cut down by something else. Today you might live to develop it when in years past you’d have died of TB or typhoid or starvation long before ever getting it.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am
lol @ the sig line on the cartoon. “CONCEPT – Mike Adams”
Such a deep and profound thought, so nuanced and fraught with meaning, Mike just couldn’t let it pass without getting his propers.
Quote Comment
March 7th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
As a thermographer who use to work in the cancer field, thermography is a great way to detect early problems on the surface but should be used in conjunction with mammograms and not by themselves.
http://www.infraredthermalimaging.net
Quote Comment
March 9th, 2009 at 11:48 am
I think the reason why mammography is becoming a boogeyman like vaccines is because in addition to the “oppression of group x” meme (women and children, respectively), it’s uncomfortable and so most folks on some level are seeking an excuse to at least put it off, if not reject it altogether. I mean, who really wants somebody sticking a needle in their kid’s leg? Heck, how many adults actually *enjoy* getting a vaccine? (Other than the flu shot, which has to be one of the least painful I’ve ever had. Sometimes I have to ask if they’ve even done it yet, it’s such a teeny needle.) And mammography involves going topless in front of a stranger (awkward even if it’s a woman, more so if it’s a man) and then getting one’s breast manhandled around and then squashed in a machine. Certainly not the worst thing to happen to a person (especially once one gets old enough for routine colonoscopy — yippee!) but not really fun either. I think most women would be happy if someone came out with a less awkward way of screening for breast cancer. That doesn’t mean that one should go all paranoid-conspiracy about it, but I think that’s a common thread that runs through a lot of these “evil gummit doctor pharma” conspiracy theories.
Quote Comment
March 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Calli Arcale said:
There is a more than a grain of truth in what you say. I know it stresses my lady out to go for this exam, and I try to be supportive by promising a great lunch in a good restaurant after to take the edge off. My brother-in-law has told me that he has had to put his foot down rather firmly in this matter when he found out my sister had skipped it two years in a row. So it is understandable.
I did some work recently for one of the leading manufacturers of electronic targets for mammography and there is stuff coming down the pipe, including advanced imaging software that will help make the procedure less painful, so there is an awareness in the field that there are improvements needed. How long it will take before some of it gets into the field is anyone’s guess however.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2009 at 10:50 am
Safe T Rad said:
This is one of the big problems with people promoting diagnostic techniques like this to the public. 95% sensitivity sounds great to a layperson, particularly a middle aged woman who is (very rightly) terrified of the idea of developing breast cancer. However, what a lot of people do not realize is that 95% sensitivity is a meaningless number without knowing the specificity (the ability to detect true negatives), and since most people don’t realize that specificity is even a word, it is not a question that is asked. I could develop a diagnostic device right now with a guaranteed 100% sensitivity to any disease you want. It would be a little black box with a screen and a button. You press the button and the screen displays the words “Results Positive”. It’s that simple.
What the people marketing these tests fail to mention is that the only way to verify a positive result with certainty (even mammography) is through a biopsy. So if you’ve got women going for a test with a high sensitivity and a low specificity, what you’re effectively doing is increasing the number of unnecessary biopsies being taken.
Quote Comment
March 10th, 2009 at 11:17 am
MedPhys Wannabe said:
The Rev Thomas Bayes’ theorem strikes again.
Quote Comment
March 17th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
It is absolutely moral to prevent a statistical number of women from dying ?
There is a cancer industry. There is highly ” corporate ” science at the highest levels of everything.
Have a nice eternity.
Quote Comment
March 17th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
Tailypoe said:
I’m not sure I’d say there is a “cancer industry” there is a drug industry and a medical industry but I don’t know that one can really seperate them into cancer-related interests and non-cancer related interests. In any case, I don’t see how cancer benefits anyone. The drug companies make some money on cancer treatment related products, but really it’s not that lucrative compared to where most of the profits come from: satins, antidepressants, various non-critical drugs that like acid blockers, erectile dysfunction drugs, allergy reducers, sleep aids etc.
It’s in the interest of drug companies to have people live long lives, being a reliable customer and using lots of drugs for non-acute conditions. If you live 90 years and spend 30 of those years taking a cholesterol drug. a high blood pressure drug along with arthritis drugs and the ED drug then you’re much more of a gold mine than someone who spends a few months on chemo and dies.
Yes, there are corporate interests who would like to skew and influence science, but there are also universities, government-funded institutions, charitable organizations etc who fund research. We have peer review, repeatability, publishing of statistics, review and audits to help pick out most of the bad science.
Tailypoe said:
I think you might feel differently if your mother, aunt or wife were the one whose life were being saved or who was even getting off with minor surgury when had there not been early detection, she may have only survived after disfiguring surgury and months of treatment.
In any case, I can’t answer that question because it’s not an empirical, falsifiable question. But I know my own moral view on it…
Quote Comment
March 21st, 2009 at 9:43 am
Just like vaccines, cancer screening is about prevention and that helps everyone through keeping our health care system from having to be burdened by the complex late stage treatment which is often not successful anyway. It saves lives too. These idiots sound like they’re really just lacking of morality or honesty in all forms.
Quote Comment
May 16th, 2009 at 2:34 am
There is no shame in admitting to being mad as hell about this. Anger can be a bad thing when it controls us or makes us do rash things, but it has a purpose too. Anger is something that makes us feel the need to change something and stops us from ignoring things that are unjust. One should be angry about this because it is reprehensible.
Cancer screening is something that saves lives and prevents pain and suffering and it also can save money and time in the hospital system. On every level it is good and helpful and it is something that most groups involved in cancer or medicine advocate very strongly in favor.
What these people are doing is either lying or talking about something they don’t really understand. It can cost lives and it is attacking something that is a tool of mercy and help. That is something everyone should be angry about. Anger can lead to violence or it can lead to a demand for change for the better.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
Mammograms are very dangerous and no one should ever have one at any age. Not only is the ionizing radation harmful but the compressions as well. Mammograms should be banned from the U.S. and around the world.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2010 at 5:13 pm
Linda said:
First of all you don’t know what you are talking about. and secondly you would condemn thousands of women to death from breast cancer by denying access to this diagnostic tool. You are free to avoid this procedure, if you have concerns, that is your call. You have no right to call for the elimination of this test for everyone else based on nothing more than your own ignorance.
No woman is forced to have a mammogram.
Quote Comment
January 30th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Linda said:
Wait.. compressing/squeezing the breast is dangerous and can cause cancer? Oh crap… I think I might be responsible for a few cases of breast cancer. Uh…. does it at least reduce the risk of you make a “honk honk” sound? Or does it make it worse? If it makes it worse that might explain why it’s usually met with a dirty look.
Quote Comment
September 22nd, 2010 at 11:49 pm
You really ensure it is seem very easy with your display but I find this topic being really something I think I’d never understand. It seems also complicated and very broad for me personally. I am impatient for your next article, I will test to get the hang of it!
Quote Comment