Cancer Letter says lawmakers ignore concerns about early breast CA screening


Paul Goldberg reports (subscription or day pass required for full content) :

"In recent weeks, several prominent scientists and public health experts attempted to explain to Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) that their bill to introduce breast cancer screening in junior high school could do more harm than good.

These experts included the chief physician of the American Cancer Society, an NIH cancer prevention expert, and a prominent breast cancer epidemiologist, who attempted to acquaint these lawmakers and their staff members with the fundamentals of epidemiology.

Now it seems all that education failed to stick. ...

"There are two sides to this story, and what is presented is that this is something wonderful for women, no downsides," said Leslie Bernstein, a breast cancer epidemiologist and director for cancer etiology and dean for faculty development at City of Hope. "What is missing is presentation of evidence that it will also produce some harm. We don't have evidence to support doing breast self-examination, nor do we have an evidence basis that changing risk factors at a young age will alter young women's risk of breast cancer."

Bernstein was one of the scientists who attempted to present Epidemiology 101 to members of Klobuchar's and Wasserman Schultz's staff. Barnett Kramer, director of the NIH Office of Disease Prevention, similarly made a teaching stopover in the offices of the two legislators.

"I gave them fundamentals of issues concerning screening and talked about the specific principles as they relate to breast self-examination and the available evidence from randomized trials," Kramer said in an interview. "No screening test can have benefits unless it's linked to a subsequent intervention, and all therapies can have harms. In breast cancer, harms have to be explicitly understood." NIH has taken no position on the legislation.

Goldberg also reports that the American Cancer Society does not support the legislation - and why. "Unfortunately the bill as introduced is a public health bill that does not recognize public health as a legitimate scientific discipline," ACS president Dr. Otis Brawley wrote to ACS volunteers.


I can't believe how ridiculous this legislation is.
You need a button on your page to forward the information, and link to our facebook pages.

There are many reasons why supporting this bill makes sense and will save lives. Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE) is a national organization for individuals and families affected by hereditary cancer. FORCE, members of our scientific advisory board, and other experts in the health care community submitted a letter in support of the bill. There are many highly-regarded medical experts who feel that passing this legislation is a good investment in prevention and will save lives. You can view the letter of support here:

Warm regards,
Sue Friedman,
Executive Director
Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Gary Schwitzer published on June 19, 2009 3:15 PM.

Another glimpse - this time from Oklahoma - of fawning news of medical technology was the previous entry in this blog.

Prevention myths and pigs at the trough is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Wikio - Top of the Blogs - Health

Add to Technorati Favorites