Here is an excerpt from an interesting NY Times article. Read it all, it has a great punchline!
He was a member of a panel that examined medical complaints by veterans of the Persian Gulf War, another that looked into allegations that food additives make children hyperactive and one that evaluated the safety of the nation's blood supply in the early days of the AIDS epidemic.
But Gordis, an epidemiologist at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, said nothing had prepared him for the venomous reaction his panel got when it said in a report that it had no reason to recommend routine mammograms for women under 50. The reaction, he and others said, says more about the politics and psychology of breast cancer than it does about the science behind the committee's decision.
The panel was asked whether routine mammograms could prolong the lives of women in their 40s. There is abundant evidence that when women who are 50 or older have mammograms every one to two years, they reduce their chances of dying from breast cancer by about 30 percent. But whether women under 50 would benefit from similar screening has been uncertain.
After spending six weeks reading more than 100 scientific reports and then hearing 32 presentations in a two-day meeting, the group decided that there was not enough evidence that women in their 40s would benefit to advise them to have the X-ray test as part of routine health screening. The panel said women should weigh the risks and benefits of the test and decide for themselves whether they want it.
Barely had the words come out of Gordis' mouth Thursday morning when the audience began muttering and people began rushing to the microphones to rebuke the group, whose members sat looking stricken under the barrage. Prominent radiologists castigated the committee, with some accusing it of bias and others say the panel was condemning American women to death. One of the radiologists, Dr. Daniel B. Kopans of Harvard Medical School, said the committee's report was ``fraudulent'' and should not be released to the public until it was ``corrected.''
Dr. Richard D. Klausner, who, as director of the National Cancer Institute, had asked that the panel be convened, rushed to the hallway to use a public telephone after Gordis read the statement. In an interview there, he said he was ``shocked'' by the conclusions, adding that he disliked their negative tone. He said an advisory board to the cancer institute would review the decision this month.
Some breast cancer patients who are convinced that their lives were saved by mammograms said they felt betrayed by a report that questions the usefulness of these X-rays of the breast in younger women.
People who were not at the meeting also have chimed in. Dr. Bernadine Healy, dean of the College of Medicine at Ohio State University and a former director of the National Institutes of Health, said that although she had not read the report, she was shocked by the panel's conclusion. ``I am very disturbed that a group of so-called experts challenged the notion of early detection,'' she declared. ``What they are saying is that ignorance is bliss.''
Before the week was over, Gordis said, he had been summoned by Sen. Arlen Specter
of Pennsylvania to testify before Congress on the panel's report.
The punchline? This article is from 1997.
Thank you for confirming my deja vu. With the 21st century revisit of the report, I recalled a similar report. Having lost a mentor and family member to breast cancer, I've faithfully followed the recommendations without questioning the science. They have so successfully gotten that message out, it's hard for women to adjust that mindset and regimen.
ReplyDelete