![[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]](http://www.kitconet.com/images/sp_en_6.gif)
money and health will NEVER mix
what if jolie never had the surgery, that it is all a big commercial for docs to enrich themselves
---------
Women being CONNED into unnecessary double mastectomies by doctors who misrepresent genetic testing, warns Stanford researchers
29 April 2017 GMT
Half the women getting bilateral mastectomies in America do not need one - their doctor misread their genetic test data, a bombshell new study claims.
The rate of women getting preventative mastectomies has sky-rocketed since Angelina Jolie's 2013 op-ed about genetic testing for cancer risk.
The actress revealed she chose to have both breasts removed, since a test showed she carried the faulty BRCA1 gene which increases one's risk of breast cancer by 87 percent.
In the four years since, millions of American women have followed suit - rushing to get tested, and - in many cases - proceeding to get their breasts removed.
....................
Millions of women have rushed to get testing of their own, and many have had their breasts removed as a result. But new research from Stanford University School of Medicine has shown that many of these women went under the knife for one simple reason — and it wasn’t cancer. In fact, it is supposedly because their doctors had “misunderstood” their genetic testing panels. Indeed, the scientists say that approximately half of all women who had their breasts removed didn’t need to have the surgery at all.
As the study from Stanford University explains, a surprising number of women undergoing bilateral mastectomies — or the removal of both breasts — don’t actually have the genetic mutations linked to an increased risk of cancer. According to the researchers, the increased accessibility and affordability of genetic testing has come with consequences: Genetic testing results have become more confusing than ever. Why? Because now, gene panels can test for a host of different genetic mutations or variations, and those results can be hard to understand if you don’t have a trained genetic counselor to assist with interpreting the data.
To conduct their research, the team looked at a survey of 2,000 women — and found that 50 percent of patients had genetic “variants of uncertain significance” or VUS. Most often, these mutations are not harmful.
Allison Kurian, MD, associate professor of medicine and of health research and policy at Stanford says that their data “suggest a limited understanding among physicians and patients of the meaning of genetic testing results.” Experts seem to agree, and note that the research underscores a need for genetic counselors to help both doctors and patients to understand the results from genetic testing. This would be plausible, if not for the fact that many doctors have admitted to treating patients with VUS the same as they would a patient with a cancer-causing gene. So is it really a misunderstanding, or is it taking advantage of your patients?...............
http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-04-2...searchers.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ncer-gene.html
A Researcher’s Claim: 90% of Medical Research Is Wrong
By Maia Szalavitz @maiaszOct. 20, 2010
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/2...arch-is-wrong/
===================
When you are sick, it is not always easy to find the right path forward. When your regular health care provider recommends surgery or a major treatment, it might be a good idea to get a second opinion after the Mayo Clinic reported that your doctor is wrong 88 percent of the time.
http://www.bigpharmanews.com/2017-04...diagnosis.html
Reply With Quote