Repeated exposures to unnecessary medical radiation is extremely anxiety-inducing because it can cause double-strand breaks in tumor suppressor DNA and in metastasis-suppressor DNA and there is absolutely no genetics evaluation for individual women to see if their DNA is susceptible to this radiation damage. The new guidelines of chronological age cuttoff, rather than genomic age cutoff, is statistical without application to the genome vulnerability of individual patients. Which absence of scientific protocol is echoed in drug prescription: no reliable tests for prediction of drug response, monitoring of drug response, intercepting adverse drug response. The same with medical radiation. -The medical profession needs to start policing itself. Let's not overlook to mention another reason that a false negative is not necessarily owed to a suddenly-developed cancerous lesion inbetween mammograms, but rather that the mammogram has extremely low validity in that it fails to image all cancers. It misses very small cancers, and it misses tumors in dense breast tissue. I have had a false positive resulting in biopsy, and a friend had a false negative. There is no excuse for the medical establishment to push this low-validity, low-reliability, test onto women and especially no excuse for subjecting them to repeat exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation. Especially when far safer and more reliable screening tests are available, e.g., breast MRI and ultrasound with elastography. It's just outrageous to repeatedly expose women to medical radiation just for a test with such low validity.
Dr Welch, as a medical student I cannot emphasize enough how important I find these videos. Thank you very much!
Repeated exposures to unnecessary medical radiation is extremely anxiety-inducing because it can cause double-strand breaks in tumor suppressor DNA and in metastasis-suppressor DNA and there is absolutely no genetics evaluation for individual women to see if their DNA is susceptible to this radiation damage. The new guidelines of chronological age cuttoff, rather than genomic age cutoff, is statistical without application to the genome vulnerability of individual patients. Which absence of scientific protocol is echoed in drug prescription: no reliable tests for prediction of drug response, monitoring of drug response, intercepting adverse drug response. The same with medical radiation. -The medical profession needs to start policing itself. Let's not overlook to mention another reason that a false negative is not necessarily owed to a suddenly-developed cancerous lesion inbetween mammograms, but rather that the mammogram has extremely low validity in that it fails to image all cancers. It misses very small cancers, and it misses tumors in dense breast tissue. I have had a false positive resulting in biopsy, and a friend had a false negative. There is no excuse for the medical establishment to push this low-validity, low-reliability, test onto women and especially no excuse for subjecting them to repeat exposures to low-dose ionizing radiation. Especially when far safer and more reliable screening tests are available, e.g., breast MRI and ultrasound with elastography. It's just outrageous to repeatedly expose women to medical radiation just for a test with such low validity.
This was fabulous.
Terrible