by Judy on November 19, 2009
The recent recommendations from the 16-member U.S. Preventive Services Task Force have set off a firestorm of protest.
Listening to the nightly news, I had the impression that a left-wing, Obama-appointed-to-support-health-care-reform task force from the dark side has conspired to murder women for the sole purpose of saving medical dollars.
But the media, and the doctors screaming the loudest, and the politicians with their own agendas don’t tell all of the truth, and what we don’t know about mammograms can maim us.
So, let’s step back from the emotion, and take a logical look at the allegations.
First, this U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was created in 1984 when Ronald Reagan was president. It is an INDEPENDENT panel of private-sector experts in prevention and primary care that conducts “rigorous, impartial assessments of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of a broad range of clinical preventive services, including screening, counseling, and preventive medications. Its recommendations are considered the ‘gold standard’ for clinical preventive services.”
In other words, these are doctors and scientists whose income doesn’t depend on any particular decision they make. (I taught my students always to follow the money trail.)
And, they’re not the only group counseling fewer mammograms. A number of women’s health organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, the National Women’s Health Network, and Breast Cancer Action for years have warned that regular mammograms do not necessarily decrease a woman’s risk of death.
And, the recommendations are in line with the World Health Organization guidelines. Remember, our country spends more on health care with worse results than any of the countries in line with WHO.
Second, as I wrote in an earlier post, mammograms for women under 50 are as likely to CAUSE as to prevent a cancer death from the continued exposure to x-ray radiation. In addition, pre-menopausal women have greater breast density that makes false positives upwards of 50%. When these false positives lead to biopsy (which, in itself, can release an spread a cancer that may otherwise have remained contained), disfiguring surgery, radiation and chemotherapy treatments (that cause their own serious and deadly problems), not to mention the unimaginable stress of all of the above, women are much better off without mammograms.
Third, it’s far more expensive for women to undergo biopsy, surgery, reconstruction, and counseling than it is to provide mammograms, so the idea that reducing the number of mammograms is a cost-saving measure is illogical.
When a glitch in my medical insurance coverage sent me to a new doctor, she diagnosed a shadow on a mammogram as possible cancer and recommended immediate biopsy. (She also recommended a “preventive hysterectomy because of family history of vaginal cancer.) I was skeptical. Two weeks later, I was back with my original doctor who said it was a blocked duct and required no invasive diagnostic. (And that I certainly didn’t need a hysterectomy.)
Thirty years later, I’m still fine, whole, and thankful.
Blessings,
Judy
P.S. I do intend to continue self-exams. Statistically, they may also lead to false positives, but my wellness philosophy is all about knowing my own body.
by Judy on October 23, 2009
Of all of the factors that affect our health, food is central. Simply, we are what we eat.
But when I began to research soy in order to bring you the truth about whether it’s healthy or not, I found argument, controversy, and distracting rhetoric as indigestible as the bean itself. I learned as an avid student and as a teacher that whatever point one wants to make, one can find the data one needs to support that point. And the research on soy is no exception.
I write this blog, however, to share with you how you can journey to optimal health through healthy choices. And when it comes to food, my philosophy is simple: if it worked for people all over the world for thousands of years (and it still works in countries where food is pretty much the same as it’s been for thousands of years), it still works.
So here’s the deal, I’m not going to add to the conversation, er, soy food fight. Instead, I’m just going to let you know a few of the important things I’ve learned about this ancient bean.
First, soybeans were grown in China for a thousand years as a way to replenish the soil. Then, still thousands of years ago, with the discovery of fermenting techniques, the Chinese created fermented soy products – soy sauce, tempeh, miso, and natto – as condiments. (Fermented foods are essential to a healthy gut; part of the reason we have so many digestive issues today is the absence of fermented foods.) Much later, they discovered that boiling and mashing the beans, and adding either calcium- or magnesium sulfate (plaster of Paris or Epsom salts), they had tofu, still used as only a small part of their diet. (When tofu – processed soybeans – became a significant source of protein around 700 AD, the Asian population suffered health consequences. Asians who adopt a diet with mostly other protein sources grow taller.)
Today, soybean production is huge in the United States. Products with some form of soy line supermarket shelves. And, the controversy begins.
First, 90% of the soybeans grown in the U.S. are genetically modified. Whatever the research about safe or not, GM foods to not meet my criteria.
Second, in order to create all of the soy products – other than the four fermented products and tofu – the beans go through the pretty heavy-duty processing that includes an alkaline wash to remove fiber, an acid wash in aluminum tanks (which leaches aluminum into the…mush), another neutralizing alkaline wash, and high-temperature spray to dry the slurry into protein isolate.
Then, this soy protein isolate is used to make all kinds of products – including baby formula.
Yuck. No way these foods meet my criteria for relatively natural foods. Or foods at all.
‘Nuf said.
Blessings,
Judy
P.S. Interesting side note about the many sites I visited, however. The sites that had a financial interest in soy cited/interpreted research that supports soy as a healthy food in all of its manifestations. The sites that promoted a vegan lifestyle – and soy is an important replacement for meat and dairy protein – also seemed more willing to present both history and current research that supported their life-style choice. The sites, however, that are dedicated to informing people about health issues, including healthy eating, and had no financial or philosophical stake, presented history and research that concludes that soy in any form other than fermented is dangerous.
