Was the American Cancer Society lying then or are they lying now?
Posted on Oct 29, 2009 under cancer news and reports |For decades, the American Cancer Society has rammed the importance of breast and prostate cancer screening down our throats. They gave us fantastic statistics about the success rate of treating early detection. Now they come out and say that they have overstated the effectiveness of screening and even say that it causes risks of over-treating some cancers while ignoring others.
If they were lying for decades, then they are guilty of one of the biggest frauds in history and should be held accountable.
If they are lying now, the only reason is in the world for them to come out with this at this point and time is because the Obama administration asked them to. Can you imagine how much costs would drop by not covering breast and prostate cancer screenings?
So, was it decades of fraud, or is it a deadly manipulation by the Obama administration?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/health/21cancer.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=american%20cancer%20society&st=cse
Chewy and PJ…the facts are there. from 1980 to 2000 the percentage of death from breast cancer has gone down 20% due to early detection. In prostate it is almost 25%. So now they come out and say that it is POTENTIALLY CAUSING RISK? ARE YOU SERIOUS???? YOU ARE BUYING THIS CRAP???
Eman….considering the timing, what Obama and his Czars have said, and the obvious lunacy of this…to not see it you are short of marbles.
Woodles…your analysis is thorough, and the most naive of them. Take a look at Obama’s "Give her a pill" comment. Take a look at his Czars and their PAST REMARKS about determinations of treatment based on cost-benefit. Take a look at the original legislation…before they took out the part which led to Palin calling it "Death Panels"….funny they claimed there were no such provisions, but within a week of her "Death Panel" statement, they said that they were taking those provisions out that she was referring to. They took out what was not there? Or if they were not what they appeared to be, why take them out.
I guarantee that you have not read any of the legislation. I HAVE. I have read, and traced HR3200, and it was a nightmare. From there they have to cut costs. The current Senate bill leaves between 14 and 25 million uninsured…and when you leave off the illegals there are only 30 million uninsured to begin with. And you trust maniacs who keep being caught lying?????
October 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
They weren’t lying. They amended their position as new information came to light. There’s nothing more nefarious to this than the normal fallibility of human thought. No one is perfect.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
They weren’t lying. At the time all evidence showed that early detection could save lives. And that is true.
Now, decades after this policy has been in place, evidence shows small lumps don’t always mean cancer, but get biopsied for the patient’s peace of mind.
It wasn’t fraud then, and it isn’t fraud now. New information warrants changing old policies.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
I think you said it, it’s a way to not cover certain procedures. The government is not going to pay for someone to get yearly screenings for cancer….no way in hell.
So they start to play devils advocate and say "yeah, it’s good…but". Just a prelude to what will come with government health care.
Rationed health care. Hip hip hooray!
October 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
You’d have to be a few marbles short to come to such a simplistic conclusion…
October 29th, 2009 at 9:17 am
Huh? How did Obama get connected to this? another conspiracy? now he’s hoping to kill off the citizens? Come on. What the report was basically saying is that the reports had been presented in such a way that people’s expectations were unreal, not that screening didn’t help. Furthermore, those unreal expectations were coupled with apparently unknown risks. Please do not make more of it than it was, an analysis of their practices and an intention to shift some based on the conclusions. That sounds like good policy to me.