I see the grief thief’s now jumped onto the article about charlottes mam having cancer. God I can’t stand him.
He's also not qualified in the slightest to be talking about Mammogram screening. There is a reason it isn't a routine screening until 50. For starters the numbers of women involved...you cannot be exposing millions of young women to radiation over their lifetime for the small number that will actually be caught by mammogram (xrays aren't without their own risks - of cancer - hence reserved for certain circumstances and until the numbers involved mean the benefit outweighs the risk). Secondly, it is a tiny number that would be caught in a younger age group by mammogram, the majority of younger women risk having them missed if relying on a screening test to say yes or no to cancer as breast tissue is different in younger women. It is more dense so doesn't show all cancer up as well (obviously 50 isn't a set in stone age for that but it is what large scale studies have shown for benefit v risk and cost effectiveness, etc.). That is why younger women don't have routine mammograms without a known genetic risk. They are advised to examine themselves so that if something is abnormal they can have an ultrasound (and potential biopsy at the ultrasound if concerning).
It would have taken him 2 minutes to read as to why the age is as it is and understand that younger mammograms risks missed cancers and actually causing cancers to identify a tiny number of cases that are visible in younger women. Can you imagine having an xray every few years and being told it is clear because the dense tissue doesn't show it so actually not worrying about it (or checking yourself) until it's too late to treat, all during years when the risk of breast cancer is there but lower (think it was about 11% of all cases are in women under 45), yet increasing the risk of radiation related cancer due to the longer life span of such tests when the test risks missing the cancer anyway?
I could get behind lowering the smear test age in England (although with the HPV vaccine it may be becoming less necessary), but this one actually has a risk of false negatives and the risks of causing harm itself.
Stick to churning out plastic clothes Adam!
do ITS think their customers are that stupid that they don’t see the same tat being brought out again and again but just being modelled by different girls?
