Respectful Insolence

The mammography wars heat up again

Unfortunately, it’s grant application crunch time again over the weekend. That means something’s got to give, and what happened to be the thing to give was this blog. Fortunately, all is not lost, as a “good friend” of mine has commented on a recent New England Journal of Medicine study from Thursday about mammography. It may not be as “insolent” as the commentary that Orac lays down, but it’s pretty darned good.

I’m fully expecting that the “alternative” medicine crowd will soon jump all over this study as “proof” that mammography is useless. It’s nothing of the sort, and, more importantly, it is not validation of thermography or any of the other woo that naturopaths, chiropractors, and various other purveyors of pseudoscientific medical nostrums claim to be superior to mammographic screening.

Also, several of you have sent me a particularly disturbing post about a woman undergoing “alternative medicine” treatment for breast cancer over at that repository of all things quackery, The Huffington Post. It was so disturbing that I almost gave in to my temptation to throw up my hands at the frustration of grant writing and dig in. Fortunately, I resisted the temptation last night, but I don’t plan on resisting much longer.

Comments

  1. #1 Dangerous Bacon
    September 27, 2010

    Also, several of you have sent me a particularly disturbing post about a woman undergoing over at that repository of all things quackery, The Huffington Post.”

    C’mon, you can’t leave us hanging. Undergoing what?

  2. #2 jay.sweet
    September 27, 2010

    Orac, I usually follow your edict not to point out obvious typos, but this one is too frustrating!

  3. #3 Helena Constantine
    September 27, 2010

    What happened to the Neurologica blog?

    Sorry to go off topic, but I’m not registered at SMB

  4. #4 jay.sweet
    September 27, 2010

    Hahaha, so speaking of a certain blogger’s classic typos… I had not looked at the author’s name on the SBM blog and was just reading it with the presumption it was an author unknown to me…. until I encountered a typo that had a very distinctive flavor to me (the repetition of a modifying clause, in this case “taking into account”), so much so that I thought I must be reading a piece by a certain author… And so I was!

    Yes, it is true: That “certain author” has a typo style that is distinctive enough to be recognizable. Woah.

  5. #5 Chris
    September 27, 2010

    Helena, Dr. Novella said the other day on SMB that they were having server issues and are working on it. It is frustrating, especially since once in a while I can get on.

  6. #6 Helena Constantine
    September 27, 2010

    Chris,

    Thanks.

  7. #7 Orac
    September 27, 2010

    Steve Novella informed me that he’s moving NeuroLogica over to another server due to issues with the previous server. What scares me is that he also says that, after he moves NeuroLogica to the new server, he plans on moving Science-Based Medicine to the new server as well…

  8. #8 Beatis
    September 27, 2010

    You mean this woman, Hollie Quinn?
    http://anaximperator.wordpress.com/2010/09/26/the-curious-case-of-hollie-quinn-and-her-miraculous-cancer-cure/

    Hollie Quinn did not decline conventional therapy, for she had lumpectomy and lymph node dissection. She declined adjuvant treatments only.

  9. #9 titmouse
    September 27, 2010

    tl;dr

    Whilst skimming the latest Psychiatric News this morning, I nearly fell out of my chair at this:

    “[Orac], MD PhD, a surgical oncologist, criticized Berwick’s view of patient-centered care on his health blog over its seeming advocacy for ‘patient-led’ care, in which patients must receive any treatments they request regardless of the benefit or cost….”

    On line version here.

    The APA are reading you, Orac!

  10. #10 Elaine Schattner, M.D.
    September 28, 2010

    Orac,
    I agree with you that some HuffPo medical coverage is bogus. But “conventional” journalists get it wrong, too: the recent mammography paper was misinterpreted, and inappropriately validated, on the front page of the New York Times. I worry, now, that other health care journalists – many with good intentions and writing for smaller audiences – are on a mission to disseminate the “fact” that breast cancer screening by mammography is ineffective, which it is not.

    For those who might be interested, I have a piece today on HuffPo, and on my Medical Lessons blog a few days ago, regarding the current controversy in which I outline the flaws in last week’s NEJM paper.

  11. #11 Hair loss Advisor
    September 28, 2010

    Today, medical experts say that mammography is useful in certain situations, but has proven ineffective as a screening tool for early detection of breast cancer. Worse yet, the radiation from a mammogram presents a serious health risk. These facts are published by respected medical professionals in reputable medical journals

  12. #12 Scott
    September 28, 2010

    *sniff, sniff*

    Is that a bot I smell?

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.