New Study: Breast Cancer Screening Is Useless
David Berreby is the author of "Us and Them: The Science of Identity." He has written about human behavior and other science topics for The New Yorker, The New York Times Magazine, Slate, Smithsonian, The New Republic, Nature, Discover, Vogue and many other publications. He has been a Visiting Scholar at the University of Paris, a Science Writing Fellow at the Marine Biological Laboratory, a resident at Yaddo, and in 2006 was awarded the Erving Goffman Award for Outstanding Scholarship for the first edition of "Us and Them." David can be found on Twitter at @davidberreby and reached by email at david [at] davidberreby [dot] com.
Is it time to accept that plenty of cancer-screening in the developed world is motivated by psychological needs, rather than fact? Screening addresses our fears of statistically unlikely horrors, which scare us much more than the car accidents and cheeseburgers that are more likely to kill us. And it gives us a feeling of control. But the impact of screening on cancer death rates is another matter. More evidence of this was published yesterday in the British Journal of Medicine, in a study of the relationship of mammograms and death rates in Denmark (found via the invaluable Health News Review blog).
Copenhagen's rates of death by breast cancer fell 25 percent between 1991 and 2005, when mammography screening was introduced for all women aged 50 to 69. By analyzing data on deaths nationwide, the study's authors were able to compare that rate with other parts of Denmark, where screening wasn't offered. Results: Between 1997 and 2006, breast cancer deaths in those mammogrammed Copenhagen women declined by 1 percent per year. However, in parts of Denmark with no screening programs, breast cancer deaths in the same period declined by 2 percent per year. Conclusion: Copenhagen's program had no effect whatsoever on breast cancer death rates. Those probably declined, the authors say, because of decreases in risk factors like smoking and improvements in treatment.
Then too, earlier this month Richard J. Ablin denounced widespread testing for Prostate Specific Antigen, an enzyme made in the prostate. Since 1994, millions of men have taken the screen in the belief that elevated P.S.A. levels could diagnose prostate cancer. These screens, Ablin wrote, were a "hugely expensive public health disaster," and he certainly had the authority to speak out: He discovered P.S.A. As a diagnostic tool, he argues, the test is "hardly more effective than a coin toss."
Entrepreneur and author Andrew Horn shares his rules for becoming an assured conversationalist.
- To avoid basing action on external validation, you need to find your "authentic voice" and use it.
- Finding your voice requires asking the right questions of yourself.
- There are 3-5 questions that you would generally want to ask people you are talking to.
Sarco assisted suicide pods come in three different styles, and allow you to die quickly and painlessly. They're even quite beautiful to look at.
Death: it happens to everyone (except, apparently, Keanu Reeves). But while the impoverished and lower-class people of the world die in the same ol' ways—cancer, heart disease, and so forth—the upper classes can choose hip and cool new ways to die. Now, there's an assisted-suicide pod so chic and so stylin' that peeps (young people still say peeps, right?) are calling it the "Tesla" of death... it's called... the Sarco!
Swiss researchers identify new dangers of modern cocaine.
- Cocaine cut with anti-worming adulterant levamisole may cause brain damage.
- Levamisole can thin out the prefrontal cortex and affect cognitive skills.
- Government health programs should encourage testing of cocaine for purity.
SMARTER FASTER trademarks owned by The Big Think, Inc. All rights reserved.