Yeah, well, this isn't a new debate. The old standard was for women to get annual screenings after 40. Then some bean counter did a study and found exactly what you just said. There's a risk of cancer from the x-ray exposure that comes with the mammogram itself. When you calculate out the risk from new cancers induced by the screenings and weigh that against the number of cancers you'd detect early with the mammograms, they argued that the statistics showed more harm than good until the age of 50.
Normally, this would be an academic discussion in some medical conference that's about as entertaining as watching paint dry unless you're an oncologist. But, it made news and women screamed bloody murder because "news" people never deal in numbers. They sell fear. And so, the American Cancer Society followed the science and changed their recommendations.
And now, we've got a different body, the USPSTF (US Preventative Services Task Force) swinging back in the opposite direction. This happens all the time, especially when you've got different groups giving the recommendations. We did this over the past 5 or so years with baby aspirins to prevent first occurrences of heart attacks and strokes too. The American Heart Association said one thing. USPSTF said another. Now, they're closer to the same page. We've had debates like this with colonoscopies to screen for colon cancer when the gastroenterologists and the oncologists disagree. That's how medicine works. Real science is never actually settled.
Link to the USPSTF's draft recommendations. Public comment period is open. These aren't even official yet, so let's not lose our minds like the Left does.
You left out the part about parties with a vested interest lobbying these bodies for certain standards to be set that benefit their business. When they fail with one body they move on to the next one until they get the 'finding' they want.
Yeah, well, this isn't a new debate. The old standard was for women to get annual screenings after 40. Then some bean counter did a study and found exactly what you just said. There's a risk of cancer from the x-ray exposure that comes with the mammogram itself. When you calculate out the risk from new cancers induced by the screenings and weigh that against the number of cancers you'd detect early with the mammograms, they argued that the statistics showed more harm than good until the age of 50.
Normally, this would be an academic discussion in some medical conference that's about as entertaining as watching paint dry unless you're an oncologist. But, it made news and women screamed bloody murder because "news" people never deal in numbers. They sell fear. And so, the American Cancer Society followed the science and changed their recommendations.
And now, we've got a different body, the USPSTF (US Preventative Services Task Force) swinging back in the opposite direction. This happens all the time, especially when you've got different groups giving the recommendations. We did this over the past 5 or so years with baby aspirins to prevent first occurrences of heart attacks and strokes too. The American Heart Association said one thing. USPSTF said another. Now, they're closer to the same page. We've had debates like this with colonoscopies to screen for colon cancer when the gastroenterologists and the oncologists disagree. That's how medicine works. Real science is never actually settled.
Link to the USPSTF's draft recommendations. Public comment period is open. These aren't even official yet, so let's not lose our minds like the Left does.
You left out the part about parties with a vested interest lobbying these bodies for certain standards to be set that benefit their business. When they fail with one body they move on to the next one until they get the 'finding' they want.