Hi everyone,
I have a favor to ask. If you have read either one of my books, would you go to Amazon.com and write a short review? I'm trying to find ways to increase sales of the books. Your help will be very appreciated. Or any other ideas you may have. :)
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Breast Cancer Screening
Hi folks,
This morning I'm getting on my soapbox a little. :)
BREAST CANCER SCREENING: THE LATEST BOOGYMAN
If you believe what you hear and read in the media, every woman in America is up in arms over the new recommended guidelines for having a mammogram.
For years now, the recommendation has been that women should get a yearly mammogram, beginning at age 40, along with doing monthly breast self exams. That has now changed to having a mammogram every two years, beginning at age 50, providing there is no family history of breast cancer. The validity of self exams is also being questioned.
We are being told that many women have written to say they were diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40’s, cancer that would not have been detected were it not for the yearly mammogram.
What we don’t hear are stories similar to a woman I know. She was faithful about her yearly mammograms and monthly self exams. When she noticed a small lump a few months after her last mammogram, she made an appointment with her doctor, and had a double mastectomy a short time later.
What is also not being stressed is that these are recommended guidelines, not a written-in-stone edict preventing women from getting yearly mammograms.
It has also been suggested that these new guidelines have been encouraged by the insurance industry so they can avoid paying for so many mammograms. Given the insurance industries track record, especially in paying for preventative care, this accusation is understandable. Probably not true, but understandable.
What is not being stressed by the media is that these guidelines are based on statistics. Statistics that take into account the many false positives of mammograms that resulted in further needless tests and procedures. Once again the media is presenting a worst case scenario, rather than rationally presenting all sides.
Medicine is not an exact science. Our bodies don’t operate like a piece of machinery. There are many factors that contribute to disease, many that are poorly understood, or not understood at all. What works for one person may not work for everyone.
We seem to be too willing to accept every worst case scenario as fact, and turn over our decision making to someone else. We need to start demanding more rational reporting from the media, along with doing some investigating on our own, then base our decisions on that and on our own ‘gut level’ feeling, rather than accepting any recommendation as gospel.
This morning I'm getting on my soapbox a little. :)
BREAST CANCER SCREENING: THE LATEST BOOGYMAN
If you believe what you hear and read in the media, every woman in America is up in arms over the new recommended guidelines for having a mammogram.
For years now, the recommendation has been that women should get a yearly mammogram, beginning at age 40, along with doing monthly breast self exams. That has now changed to having a mammogram every two years, beginning at age 50, providing there is no family history of breast cancer. The validity of self exams is also being questioned.
We are being told that many women have written to say they were diagnosed with breast cancer in their 40’s, cancer that would not have been detected were it not for the yearly mammogram.
What we don’t hear are stories similar to a woman I know. She was faithful about her yearly mammograms and monthly self exams. When she noticed a small lump a few months after her last mammogram, she made an appointment with her doctor, and had a double mastectomy a short time later.
What is also not being stressed is that these are recommended guidelines, not a written-in-stone edict preventing women from getting yearly mammograms.
It has also been suggested that these new guidelines have been encouraged by the insurance industry so they can avoid paying for so many mammograms. Given the insurance industries track record, especially in paying for preventative care, this accusation is understandable. Probably not true, but understandable.
What is not being stressed by the media is that these guidelines are based on statistics. Statistics that take into account the many false positives of mammograms that resulted in further needless tests and procedures. Once again the media is presenting a worst case scenario, rather than rationally presenting all sides.
Medicine is not an exact science. Our bodies don’t operate like a piece of machinery. There are many factors that contribute to disease, many that are poorly understood, or not understood at all. What works for one person may not work for everyone.
We seem to be too willing to accept every worst case scenario as fact, and turn over our decision making to someone else. We need to start demanding more rational reporting from the media, along with doing some investigating on our own, then base our decisions on that and on our own ‘gut level’ feeling, rather than accepting any recommendation as gospel.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Worth passing on
I've got something a little different in this writing. I read an article by Dr Robert Heaney of Creighton University. He has been involved in researching vitamin D levels. His findings indicate the current RDA's (recommended daily allowance) for vitamin D are too low. Since these levels were set 13 years ago, much more has been learned about vitamin D.
Vitamin D is well known for it's ability to help the body absorb calcium from food. It's now been found to play a key role in the body's immune system. Low vitamin D levels have been implicated in disorders as varied as premature birth, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis and many infectious diseases. Dr Heaney stressed that low levels of vitamin D do not cause these things, but merely interfere with the body's natural defense system.
The recommended dose now for pregnant and lactating women is 2,000 IUs a day. Many scientists who are studying vitamin D indicated they are taking 3,000 IUs of vitamin D a day.
Dr Heaney's suggestion is that we could easily add 1,000 to 2,000 IUs of vitamin D to our daily routine.
Use of sunscreen and the increased amount of time many of us spend indoors are factors in low vitamin D levels. While baking in the sun for hours is probably not a good idea, perhaps we've taken our caution about sun exposure a little too far.
Vitamin D is well known for it's ability to help the body absorb calcium from food. It's now been found to play a key role in the body's immune system. Low vitamin D levels have been implicated in disorders as varied as premature birth, high blood pressure, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, multiple sclerosis and many infectious diseases. Dr Heaney stressed that low levels of vitamin D do not cause these things, but merely interfere with the body's natural defense system.
The recommended dose now for pregnant and lactating women is 2,000 IUs a day. Many scientists who are studying vitamin D indicated they are taking 3,000 IUs of vitamin D a day.
Dr Heaney's suggestion is that we could easily add 1,000 to 2,000 IUs of vitamin D to our daily routine.
Use of sunscreen and the increased amount of time many of us spend indoors are factors in low vitamin D levels. While baking in the sun for hours is probably not a good idea, perhaps we've taken our caution about sun exposure a little too far.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
